It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

364 new photographs of the Pentagon on 9/11 - These pictures have never been available on the intern

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
No plane can make a hole that big!!! first of all it was too small a hole, now it's too big!




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Hello all, hope all is well with everybody today.

First off, we're all here to reach truth so let us not argue over irrelevant facts or... whatever.
Two, these seem to be bunch of pictures of the after shock, of everybody. Where's footage of actual craft IN the building and the location of impact? And another thing, how tall was the Pentagon? Because if a plane came crashing into it, would the roof not also collapse? Not here, it seems there's a hole with ROOF intact. Not entirely sure whether there's something to make of it or not, but i'd expect one big clear seperation from one side of the blast to the other, not a hole connected by a roof atop. Weird.... hope others have the time to find something that I cannot.

Thanks for sharing! Too bad the GOV'T will never release anything indicative of THEIR corruptive crimes in connection with this tragic event.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
So YOU provide the evidence that these photos are fakes, or false or whatever.


So you are unable to show the plane that was supposed to have crashed into the building in Holland in 1992.... how do you know it was a plane then....



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


You're funny Dereks. Tell me something; how hard are you trying to spin this topic out of the OPs intent?
The OP has provided photos of the pentagon after the crash. Neither you nor anyone else can seem to find either remnants of a plane or the markings of a plane crash. Instead you choose to obfuscate and confuse using other people's post (e.g. the Holland crash). And at the same time you choose to attack me without having read my other posts.

Honestly dude, you're not a very good debunker and I would appreciate it if you would concern yourself with these photos and trying to evaluate them.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
back on topic please, were going off topic here :/

Now i dont believe anything hit the Pentagon why you might ask?


1:The so called security footage isn't enough to hold it has evidence because since it was on 9/11 the web cam quality was meh meaning you couldn't see quite clearly and also why were there boxes on the top of the

Security cam? was it all staged? if it was it was the best staging false flag i have ever seen.

2.What about the other Security footages?

3:Reporters claim a missile or a plane of coruse we cant thank all those good actors on the ground like the reporters making up stories just to support the invasion of you know what nation back then.


4:Lack of real huge air plane debris doesn't full medias claim of a huge plane struck the Pentagon



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
Neither you nor anyone else can seem to find either remnants of a plane or the markings of a plane crash.


They have been posted many many many times before, here and many other places. Why post them once more, when it is so obvious "truthers" are not at all interested in the truth, or facts. Why would they look at them this time, when they have ignored all the other posts?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


You're right Dereks, my bad again. I thought we were talking about these photos in the OP.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Most of them appear to have been taken in the days after 9/11. Thanks for the link though.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
These photos show the same lack of physical aircraft evidence that all the other photos at the Pentagon show. They're just as useless as any other evidence supplied by the Government. 9/11 was a circus act intended for an audience of brainless idiotic morons.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
These photos show the same lack of physical aircraft evidence that all the other photos at the Pentagon show.


So where is the physical evidence of a aircraft hitting the building in Holland....



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


And it has succeeded in creating a group of people who spend their days chasing their tails searching for some great conspiracy rather than paying attention to what is going on.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Thank you for these photo's. I assume that because of this being posted in the 9/11 conspiracy forum that this thread is "under scrutiny." However, it appears the MOD's are absent on this thread as most of the posts seem directed at debunking 9/11 conspiracies because of photos that show a hole, with no sign of an airliner. Yes I know the airliner went mostly inside the building and evaporated like the official story would have us believe. If you don't want to explore the evidence please leave this forum to those that want to discuss the evidence, or lack there of.

BTW, did anyone else notice in one of the photos (what appears to be) the famous Taxi cab parked behind a fence with a bunch of government personnel around it? The vehicle looks undamaged.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


These photos show the same lack of physical aircraft evidence that all the other photos at the Pentagon show.
So where is the physical evidence of a aircraft hitting the building in Holland....


Perhaps you can start a new thread and discuss it there.
This tread is not about the plane crash in Holland it is about the 911 photos stay on topic.

BTW, where is the plane at the pentagon?



[edit on 17-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
wheres the plane? i see no plane



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Hey folks, everyone is asking, where is the plane in the Pentagon! Well did everyone forget the fact that the area in question was BURNING for a while? What happens to an airplane when it catches fire intact?

Here is a Boeing 747 Air France which caught fire on the runway in 1999.


Where did it go? It burned up! I know what you are all thinking, "Hey we can still see the tail in that picture! Where is it at the Pentagon?" Well gee, didnt it just crash into the building over 400mph? What happens to an aircraft that slams into a building at high speeds? It gets shredded. And when you burn the remains for a day or so, not much is gonna be left. Mystery solved. But alas, they DID find aircraft debris there too. Engines, landing gear, seat cushions, people. Even shreds of the aircraft.

Here is another Air France A-340 crash and fire. Notice how the entire top of the aircraft is burned away? From just a fire alone.

www.airdisaster.com...
www.airdisaster.com...

Now lets have that same aircraft hit a building, and burn for hours inside. Whats gonna happen to all that aircraft material?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I would love to see some video footage from the pentagon showing the airplane hit the pentagon, but as we all know we will never see it because there never was a plane.

And we all know the pentagon has cameras, there is no denying it.

*sigh* It still seems people are still blind about 9/11 and will remain blind, or they are disinfo agents, which seems more likely too me.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Be careful accessing those photos.
My IE prompted to add IETAG.DLL
Could be malicious. Just saying.

Can some of you please post a few of the
choice photos for us gun shy surfers.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
How come all of the street lights are still standing up? Did the plane just end up goin straight down?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
These pictures just further the bizarre anomalous discussion regarding an actual plane hitting the pentagon. I see fragments of debris, but what debris are they from?

The hole in the pentagon, also looks perfectly cut. if a plane had impacted the building, why does it look so... uniform?

it looks like the walls were pre-cut the whole way through. w/e hit the pentagon, wasn't a plane. it doesn't even look like a plane hit the wall. the lack of debris, the uniform cuts of the wall, the size of it, no outside markings where the stronger metals from the engines should of left behind. Just looks like a preset block of building was reserved to look like that!

WTH!?

S&F!



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
"So where is the physical evidence of a aircraft hitting the building in Holland...."

Yo genius, thanks for your response. Where exactly in my post did I mention anything about some building in Holland? Sorry, but I guessed I must have missed the fact that this post is about some building in Holland allegedly being hit by an aircraft.

"And it has succeeded in creating a group of people who spend their days chasing their tails searching for some great conspiracy rather than paying attention to what is going on."

Sorry, but I prefer to have people as intelligent and perceptive as you "paying attention to what is going on." That is definitely not a job for an idiot like me, who spends his days chasing his tail.

And one more thing. By you spending your days responding to idiots like me who chase their tails, what exactly does that say about you?

[edit on 18-1-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join