Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

page: 7
249
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


I'm sure the system locks down during an emergency. It makes sense that it would, either due to an internal mechanism or due to clogging from server requests.

However, every airline keeps long, long, looongs logs of every flight plan. Also, NYC -> LAX is a fairly well-traveled flight plan, so I would think any flight that seemed out of the ordinary, either due to the number, plane designation, or crew, would have raised a few eyebrows. My mother worked for Aeroflot flying Moscow -> London as a flight attendant, and she would have known if any crew name seemed out of place. I would imagine the American Airlines crew are the same, so it would beg the question: who killed the crew if they weren't on the flight?




posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Sorry, had no intention on derailing the thread. Was just trying to make a point about how little attention people give to evidence. As you could tell, I don't post very often on ATS...mostly a lurker.


+7 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Ever been on an aircraft crash site?

I've been on several, helped clear debris from a few. No commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. I'm not sure what did, but I know for sure it wasn't a 757.

Why, you ask?

Any other Civil Air Patrol veterans here? Based on my USAF and CAP experience, these are my personal reasons for disbelief:

1. Because jet engines are damn near indestructible: you can dent, bend, or break them, but they don't disappear or get ground to dust no matter what they hit.

2. Bodies break and scatter in a crash: arms here, heads there, torsos elswhere. It ain't pretty, but bodies can take an incredible pounding and still be identifiable as human remains. Where are they?

3. If you examine the film carefully, you will note that the purported aircraft enters the frame slightly nosedown, either at grasstop level or below, so where is the dent in the ground and the bounce? An aircraft impacting the ground at even a slight angle makes a big dent and leaves a trailing scar with debris from the fragile outer skin and luggage compartments. It also makes a significant bounce. Where is the trail and baggage?

4. The hole is simply too small for what supposedly hit it. If you make the argument the wings sheared off on impact, where are they? If you try to say that the forward wing parts collapsed but the rear wing components were strong enough to withstand the impact by folding inwards and sucking the wings in behind it, I'm afraid you lack sufficient understanding of physics, aircraft metallurgy, realworld aircraft crash dynamics to be having this discission in the first place.

Besides the physical parameters, there's the odd coincidence that a lot of people investigating criminal activity by the Bush/Cheney government coincidentally got killed that day, and their records disappeared, with the subsequent death of those investigations.

Treason for personal gain, pure and simple.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Here's my problem with the videos i've watched:

I see an amateur in a basement (his moms, perhaps?) giving me what he thinks is professional advice about a sketchy video released from a second rate security camera at the pentagon

Then there are pictures that show one facade of the pentagon, but there is a lot of obscurity in one angle, then magically we can see everything after the wall finally gives in and falls down.

So you have uncertain events that lead to a certain conclusion. We know the effect, but use unprofessional tactics to analyze distorted evidence to try and figure out the cause.

You cannot speculate without proper information what those uncertain events are. There is zero proof to prove that it was not an airplane.

Does it "LOOK" like an airplane? Well, certainly, the ground footage from the security cameras does look a little hazy, but i've seen footage a lot worse that jumps all over the place. A lot of security systems use motion detection before they begin recording, and it's unpredictable at best.

The helicopter footage (this is the first time i've ever seen it) does look to me like an airplane hit the pentagon.

I'm not saying that i buy into the "official story" 100%. But i find it laughable at the least, and treasonous at best, to make ridiculously bold claims based on evidence that can't be described with any other word than insufficient.



and in the end, i'll use the "Truthers" best argument against them:

IF the government of the United States has unlimited power and is controlled by "The man" and has set motions inp lace many decades ago to unhinge the world economy and take control in what we call the NWO through the most intricate, well thought out conspiratorial plan ever conceived with the human brain....


....then why can some shaggy haired dork claiming to be an expert, look at NBC news footage and tell us that this was an inside job? (that is not aimed at the OP - it is aimed at the "experts" in the videos from the original post)



Its just fantasy pipe dreams by a bunch of people who live in a fantasy world.




1. Because jet engines are damn near indestructible: you can dent, bend, or break them, but they don't disappear or get ground to dust no matter what they hit.


And you can tell from 3 photographs and some NBC news footage the the air planes engines vaporized? ....



[edit on 6-2-2010 by Snarf]

[edit on 6-2-2010 by Snarf]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


American Airlines has more than 70,000 employees. It's not uncommon to be flying with different people every month, or even every flight. The cross country flights are more desireable and likely had more senior employees so they may have known.

On the other hand, if that flight never got scheduled as flt 77 that day - it wouldn't be uncommon at all. If you're serious about looking into this, contact some of the ground crew in Dulles, who worked at that time, they would be the likely ones to know something.

[p.s. sorry that guy is bringing up your background and language, etc... totally out of line and I reported his post.]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


That's fine. I'm not arguing whether or not a plane hit. I'm asking one simple question: if no plane hit the Pentagon, where is flight 77 and all it's crew/passengers?



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
[edit on 7/2/2010 by CAELENIUM]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
When it comes down to it can any of you truthers honestly say how a thin aluminum skinned commercial airliner traveling at 500 MPH into a concrete reinforced structure would react?

You simply can't, just because the damage doesn't fit what you THINK it should look like doesn't make it wrong for the circumstances.

How many of you are FAA or NTSB crash investigators? You guys are just stating you OPINIONS based on photos.

You can have opinions but don't act like they are facts.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


I can tell from all the photos I've examined related to this, not just those presented here, that there is insufficient debris and the proper debris pattern that one would expect from a 757 crash.

Like I asked, how many crash sites have you personally been on? Your opinion doesn't hold much weight if you've never picked over one. Sorry, but I'll trust my real-world experience with such things over anyone's political opinions who lack genuine crash site experience.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Well, I defer to your knowledge of American Airlines, as I've never worked for them. You obviously are more knowledgable on that front. And I may try contacting them, just out of curiosity's sake.

No need to apologize for the other poster! It's not your fault at all, obviously.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Excellent work on this! The more that we dig, the more people that will have to step back and look!

Ideas are one thing. Hard evidence like this is another!



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Snarf
 


Like I asked, how many crash sites have you personally been on? Your opinion doesn't hold much weight if you've never picked over one. Sorry, but I'll trust my real-world experience with such things over anyone's political opinions who lack genuine crash site experience.


I trust your claim to expertise about as much as the next random stranger. Forgive my skepticism. I just live by a standard that says not to trust anyone who makes a claim that they know everything


By Felonious


Ideas are one thing. Hard evidence like this is another!


Hard Evidence? You call shaky video footage with choppy frame rates & piss poor angles in photographs hard evidence?

Im not saying that there isn't something here.

But you are looking at this

and telling me that its proof that a woman lives in the sky holding a small child in her hands



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
[edit on 7/2/2010 by CAELENIUM]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
that we saw an airplane crash into the Pentagon.


Why didnt you post the pictures of a 757 undercarriage found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of a 757 wheels found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of a 757 engines found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of 757 damage caused to the outside of the Pentagon before it collapsed?

Why didnt you post the evidence of where the body parts from Flight 77 were found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of 757 wreckage on the lawn outside the Pentagon?

All these pictures have been posted here many times before, but of course you ignore them as they destroy your silly theory that a 757 did not crash into the Pentagon!


Why don't you post them? I've never seen them. Also, posting pictures of debris means nothing if one is entertaining a theory that it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon. As if there was no plane that hit the pentagon, then the debris was planted. Obviously people died that day so I'm not sure this thread is disputing that. Don't you find it funny though that people killed inside the pentagon where identified by their body parts when an entire jetliner supposedly evaporated into a 15 foot hole?



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


So your answer is "none".

You don't have to accept my expertise on anything, but by the same token, your opinions are merely that, unsubstantiated opinions.

But my observations are in accord with known physics, while yours are grounded in fantasy. Tell me, have you bothered to educate yourself on crashes by looking at genuine ones and noting the patterns, the debris trails and what components survive? Of course you haven't, because that would collapse you fantasy.

I don't care what you think of my experience, I spent four years in Civil Air Patrol and seven in the Air Force: I know what I know, and I know no 757 hit the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 



Why don't you post them? I've never seen them. Also, posting pictures of debris means nothing if one is entertaining a theory that it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon. As if there was no plane that hit the pentagon, then the debris was planted. Obviously people died that day so I'm not sure this thread is disputing that. Don't you find it funny though that people killed inside the pentagon where identified by their body parts when an entire jetliner supposedly evaporated into a 15 foot hole?


Translation: If there is proof of an airplane hitting the pentagon, then it is doctored and false, because i have set it in my head that this was an inside job, and no amount of evidence in the world can convince me other wise.

Despite the fact that it took no evidence at all to convince me that it was.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAELENIUM
DOSTUPA and his friends are the Jewish crowd who are guilty of 911.


*sigh* Again, not Jewish. Tartar and Slav.


Kazakstan is a "rogue state" if there ever was one. DOSTUPA comes from Kazakstan and is certainly some one to complain about.


I'm not "from" Kazahkstan. I go there occasionally on public health relief efforts. You know, being a responsible global citizen?


Stalinists like DOSTUPA are the most evil criminals in the world.


I'm not a Stalinist. I fancy myself more of a reformed Trotskyist, but that's neither here nor there.



Certainly I suspect DOSTUPA is in this chat because he personally knows the truth about 911 from the inside. His intention was to intimidate [terrorize] me into remaining silent.


She, and no, I don't know. That's why I'm asking questions. And quite honestly, I don't care if you talk, so long as it's not disgusting, racist rhetoric.


We should investigate what DOSTUPA is doing when he visits the USA six months at a stretch.


Be my guest. I'm sure the US State Department would love an excuse to yank my visa. Of course, if you waste their time, they're likely to be a bit angry at you for filing erroneous charges.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905
When it comes down to it can any of you truthers honestly say how a thin aluminum skinned commercial airliner traveling at 500 MPH into a concrete reinforced structure would react?

You simply can't, just because the damage doesn't fit what you THINK it should look like doesn't make it wrong for the circumstances.

How many of you are FAA or NTSB crash investigators? You guys are just stating you OPINIONS based on photos.

You can have opinions but don't act like they are facts.


Do you really think airplanes disappear when they hit buildings?

If someone says a 200,000 pound airplane dissolved into a 12 foot hole...

ya know what... nevermind. You've obviously made up your mind and won't change no matter what is shown.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905
When it comes down to it can any of you truthers honestly say how a thin aluminum skinned commercial airliner traveling at 500 MPH into a concrete reinforced structure would react?

You simply can't, just because the damage doesn't fit what you THINK it should look like doesn't make it wrong for the circumstances.

How many of you are FAA or NTSB crash investigators? You guys are just stating you OPINIONS based on photos.

You can have opinions but don't act like they are facts.


Actually you can look at see how a plane reacts when it crashes either on ground or into a structure. The airline industry with the govt. did tests and you may be able to find some of those videos if you google or look on youtube for remote controlled airplanes being test crashed. NASA did a bunch at their research site that I will post.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Well done Thermo.

Only an IDIOT at this point would believe a plane hit the Pentagon. There are no grounds for national security as a valid reason not to show us video of the crash.

We have seen the planes hit the towers thousands of a times and not once at the Pentagon? Please.





new topics
top topics
 
249
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join