Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

page: 109
249
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


It's amazing this same argument can go on page after page after page... why don't they get it!!!!??

It was a cement wall with steel rebar reinforcements... how much more can there be to the subject!




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


It's like trying to house break my dog...it becomes a test of wills. If I'm serious, I know I'll need to be consistent for four months to be successful.

However, my dog is one thing...these guys are made of sterner stuff.

edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Hasn't it been explained that the hole was widened by rescue/recovery efforts? That's not the way it looked right after the crash.

So, seriously, stop repeating that, or you'll start to look like a crazy person.


That widened by rescue teams hasn't been proven as fact - it came from some guy who had an interview... that HAPPENS to be the same guy that heard the single crump-thump sound, so you OSers may wanna double check before you start calling that one out.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Are you trying to incorporate all those things into the term "Original Story"?? Not gonna happen, it's called the original story, because it's what people believed they saw on the day of 9/11, the originally understood hijack-crash scenario, nothing more - all we knew on 9/11 was that some planes had been hijacked by some guys and got crashed into buildings.
Your attempt at changing the meaning of "OS" is not gonna fly that easy.


I'm not trying to change anything. You guys keep throwing this OS around and I don't have a clue what you are talking about. AAL77 hitting the Pentagon is a historical fact and you have not presented even one iota of evidence to the contrary. All I've seen are photographs posted with your unqualified opinion about what they represent. Nothing more. Every photograph you have posted fits perfectly with my understanding of physics and engineering, but mine expertise is not structural so I claim no authority in my opinion.

Not one 'fact' has been presented in this thread by you guys, just your opinion of what is in some photographs, most of which can be explained via well known photographic perspective issues and selective 'cherry-picking'. Just unqualified opinion right after another. On the other hand, I've presented solid radar data from 4 ASR radar facilities, real-time police and air traffic controller audio, flight data recorder data, eyewitnesses and 'facts' to dispute your no-plane opinion.

So, we all have our opinion, but the 'facts' and historical evidence conclusively points to AAL77 impacting with the Pentagon.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Hasn't it been explained that the hole was widened by rescue/recovery efforts? That's not the way it looked right after the crash.

So, seriously, stop repeating that, or you'll start to look like a crazy person.


It's crazy making to talk to you guys, granted, but this is the evidence provided, and besides...in what world do they not take exact measurements and detailed photographs of a crime scene?

Talk about crazy, you who were weaned on TV would never accept such tripe on CSI would you?

edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


ya, it's a historical fact just like the Gulf of Tonkin and the JFK lone gunman.


good luck with that. If it were just an historical fact, why in the world would you sit around wasting your time trying to convince us few (233 flags last count) people why you're truth is still truth. No one's gonna buy that one.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


careful there - pictures aren't facts unless some lady in a window somewhere also saw it happen.

hmm what can I say that's on subject.... I noticed most of those windows are broken there in the AE drive breezeway.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Yankee451
 


careful there - pictures aren't facts unless some lady in a window somewhere also saw it happen.

hmm what can I say that's on subject.... I noticed most of those windows are broken there in the AE drive breezeway.


No, pictures are usually facts when they are authentic. Witnesses help explain the timeline at which the photo was taken. Do we have the data on when those hole photos were taken? If we could outline exactly when they were shot, we would be able to determine if the hole was widened or not.

(Considering that the fire appears to be completely out, I would assume that the time frame was a good amount of time after the initial impact, though I have no clue what the exact number might be)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Let me ask yet again, in what world would a crime scene like this NOT have exact measurements and detailed photographs of the scene BEFORE any cleanup was done?

If this was real, they'd want to know EXACTLY what happened! Don't you wonder why they're so nonchalant?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Yankee451
 


careful there - pictures aren't facts unless some lady in a window somewhere also saw it happen.


Not in the age of Photoshop they ain't
edit on 24-3-2011 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by 911files
 


ya, it's a historical fact just like the Gulf of Tonkin and the JFK lone gunman.


good luck with that. If it were just an historical fact, why in the world would you sit around wasting your time trying to convince us few (233 flags last count) people why you're truth is still truth. No one's gonna buy that one.


I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm posting relevant materials for those who actually want to learn something. I know that does not include you, so just skip over my posts and go your merry way.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


Wait...what?

Are you claiming the official evidence is shopped?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Varemia
 


Let me ask yet again, in what world would a crime scene like this NOT have exact measurements and detailed photographs of the scene BEFORE any cleanup was done?

If this was real, they'd want to know EXACTLY what happened! Don't you wonder why they're so nonchalant?


Well, considering that it was on fire and in danger of collapsing. They probably didn't consider measuring everything as important as looking for survivors and salvaging as much as they could.

It wasn't really considered a crime scene, but a disaster scene.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Where do you get this stuff that it was in danger of collapsing? Who knew it was in danger of collapsing?

What about after it collapsed?

What about after all the survivors were evacuated?

What about after the fires were out?

WHY WAIT THREE DAYS AND AFTER MUCH OF THE CLEANUP IS DONE TO TAKE MANY OF THE PHOTOS UNLESS YOU WANT TIME TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE!



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by 911files
 


Wait...what?

Are you claiming the official evidence is shopped?


What official evidence? You guys post it so it automatically 'official'. What is your evidence trail for the photographs you guys are posting? Who took the picture? What was the date and time? What equipment was used? Who added all the photoshopped little labels and cute little arrows?

You pull some picture off the internet and then claim it is 'official'. Get real.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 



You pull some picture off the internet and then claim it is 'official'. Get real.


And yet you posted an obvious composite as proof ??



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Ah, apologies then. I didn't know that it was three days later that it collapsed, though it would be nice to have a source before I am certain that was the case. I did a quick search and couldn't locate the information.

So do we have a date/time yet on the pictures, or am I just asking for the impossible?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



I didn't know that it was three days later that it collapsed,


We know that's not what he meant..
He meant the PICS were taken three days later...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 911files
 



You pull some picture off the internet and then claim it is 'official'. Get real.


And yet you posted an obvious composite as proof ??


Using your logic ALL of the photos in the OP that have labels, have had size changed, or are cropped are also photo shopped, period!
edit on 25-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Varemia
 



I didn't know that it was three days later that it collapsed,


We know that's not what he meant..
He meant the PICS were taken three days later...


Oh ok. Certainly not all of them? There were a number of pics taken of the pentagon on fire, so those were from the first day. I guess this must be another case of people wanting firefighters and rescue workers to be doing their best work with a camera in one hand and a measuring tape in the other.





new topics

top topics



 
249
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join