Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

page: 96
249
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Where are all of those burn marks ALL around the hole in the C Wall? Why is the top of the C wall straight along the brick joints rather than round like your wall breaching kit hole?


OMG!!! reheat, you just asked a legitimate, original question! star for you!

I'm not entirely sold on the wall-breaching kit yet but it certainly makes more sense than a pile of airplane debris that crashed through six walls, made a hole, then receded back into the Pentagon.




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Thermo, have you seen this page? Check out the melting pentagon.

septemberclues.info...


Wow I had never seen the actual collapse from that video - how crazy is that, the people don't even look up! Makes you wonder.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Hate to keep repeating it, but Code Angel and Brownstone are game changers. The 911 perps are the same folks who gave us the Banker's Bailouts...seriously, if you haven't researched those two operations, you haven't seen the half of it.

See that melting pentagon shot? How bout that, huh? Broadcast TV and they show a clearly CGI pentagon without windows. Whut up with that.

Watch September Clues baby...do it, you know you want to...


www.Septemberclues.info...



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I haven't spent much time on the Operation Code Angel but 9/11 was obviously money and power motivated, money for defense, free reign an attacking at will, creating the DHS, making certain people rich... I have no doubt and will check it out soon!

I don't buy the melting Pentagon thing, I think it's just an issue with resolution to do with distance from the scene. Every picture, every video except this one show the Pentagon as is, with all its windows etc. impossible it was some sort of mass illusion.

But, the fact that that giant wall collapsed and no one even looked up!! Something odd going on there. On the other hand, we know it fell... what could possibly be the point of manipulating that video footage. It's likely, as just random speculation, that "they" knew the wall might not fall, so it was rigged to collapse in order to hide the fact no airplane was there - it goes right along with the entire ruse that the planted explosives would cause the wall to collapse.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


All four of them didn't react though? September Clues is just one video that shows the fakery...plain as day.

That pentagon shot is more than just a video glitch...it looks like a half finished layer. Someone didn't put windows in yet and that file got tossed into the mix and broadcast accidentally, but that's just me.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 





www.rense.com...


Where are all of those burn marks ALL around the hole in the C Wall? Why is the top of the C wall straight along the brick joints rather than round like your wall breaching kit hole?


Too much damage to the interior to see scorch marks which would be expected in light of Code Angel. If you have any better photos of the interior wall...you know, reallly close shots like they have of the other damage, I'd like to examine them, please post.

The bricks popped out in a straight line because a whole row of bricks was knocked out by the blast? Notice the hole is perpendicular, not angled as would need to be there for the OS. Then there's the pesky missing landing gear, and all that re bar.
edit on 19-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)


I should have known it was too much to expect a rational answer. You are the one trying to prove something, so find your own photos.

A straight hole versus and angled one is very, very funny. That is an idiotic statement based on the photos you've displayed.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by Reheat


While you're at it why is the C ring hole noticeably larger than your wall breaching kit example? Is there a small, medium, large, X-large size of wall breaching kits. Inquiring minds want to know.


Seriously? You don't think the military has explosives they could shape to suit the size of the job? Do you use this level of critical thinking when looking for evidence of your planes? Guess so...


As expected you don't know, but you'll resort to an unproven assumption shrouded in sarcasm and incredulity to avoid an accurate answer. You have no clue what critical thinking is, so don't try to pretend that you do. The tripe you are posting is the antithesis of critical thinking....



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


This is a cop out and a rude answer at that.... of course the military has access to shape-charges

isn't it common knowledge that shape charges exist? At very least they're used in movies ALL THE TIME.

(before you come up with some smart ass denial, since we know you are NEVER wrong... my "evidence" is NOT "that they are used in movies so they must be real...")



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by Reheat


While you're at it why is the C ring hole noticeably larger than your wall breaching kit example? Is there a small, medium, large, X-large size of wall breaching kits. Inquiring minds want to know.


Seriously? You don't think the military has explosives they could shape to suit the size of the job? Do you use this level of critical thinking when looking for evidence of your planes? Guess so...


As expected you don't know, but you'll resort to an unproven assumption shrouded in sarcasm and incredulity to avoid an accurate answer. You have no clue what critical thinking is, so don't try to pretend that you do. The tripe you are posting is the antithesis of critical thinking....


You don't think explosives come in different sizes?




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I think what gives 9-11 away as set up more then anything is ..
Mr Bush reading a book to kids when he first gets the message about 9-11 ?
Bush reading to little children ??
PLEASE !!!
Only in their nightmares...



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Man, that" No Parking" sign in picture 6 was dead on! Good thing nobody parked there...



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by Reheat


While you're at it why is the C ring hole noticeably larger than your wall breaching kit example? Is there a small, medium, large, X-large size of wall breaching kits. Inquiring minds want to know.


Seriously? You don't think the military has explosives they could shape to suit the size of the job? Do you use this level of critical thinking when looking for evidence of your planes? Guess so...


As expected you don't know, but you'll resort to an unproven assumption shrouded in sarcasm and incredulity to avoid an accurate answer. You have no clue what critical thinking is, so don't try to pretend that you do. The tripe you are posting is the antithesis of critical thinking....


You don't think explosives come in different sizes?


I dare say that I have forgotten more about weapons and explosives that you or anyone else posting here will ever gain in a lifetime. The subject is NOT shaped charges, but a Wall Breaching Kit. That is a specific type of shaped charge designed for a specific purpose. Know anything at all about them and how they work without investagoogling? I guess that's also what caused all of those people parts and other debris found in that area near where the mass dissipated.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mickscott
I think what gives 9-11 away as set up more then anything is ..
Mr Bush reading a book to kids when he first gets the message about 9-11 ?
Bush reading to little children ??
PLEASE !!!
Only in their nightmares...


Yes, it's amazing that someone can be so dumb, but at the same time be so superbly intelligent to pull off the crime of the 21st Century for which NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE has been found in over 9 years.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Thermo, have you seen this page? Check out the melting pentagon.

septemberclues.info...


And you fell for that nonsense?

You DO know that Simon Shack ('creator' of the September Clues baloney) has been debunked six ways from Sunday, correct?

In fact, amongst some truly "serious" '9/11 Inside Job' believers and so-called 'researchers', any and ALL claims of "no planes" are considered to be put forward by a type of infiltrators....designed solely to discredit the "9/11 truth movement". (Although, really, all it takes is some critical thinking skills, and proper research to see that the "truth movement" already debunk and discredit themselves.....).


Because, if they are that deluded to believe the dreck from that website??? It uses intentionally BAD quality video, with pixelation and other video compression artifacts that anyone with half a brain can see are red herrings....

A Mr. Alan Lawson (YouTube username "alawson911") compiled one of the best video rebuttals to the original Simon Shack piece of junk film (the one that focused on the WTC, so is not really topic here. Look for his short verison on YT, as well as the full 28-minute feature on Google Video. Titles: "September Clues - Busted!").

But, although that "original" (with 'updates' ) "September Clues" has been thoroughly exposed as intentionally deceptive and false, the filth being spread by that man, and his "disciples" continues to infest the Internet, apparently.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mickscott
I think what gives 9-11 away as set up more then anything is ..
Mr Bush reading a book to kids when he first gets the message about 9-11 ?
Bush reading to little children ??
PLEASE !!!
Only in their nightmares...


I think your post illustrates perfectly the depth of research of the average truther.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Well lets discuss it rationally then.

It's a concrete wall on the inside lined with bricks on the outside. From the inside, the hole is round. The concrete was circularly cut with the charge and exploded outwards, pushing out the brick fascia.

How can the bricks be cut straight on the left wall is a pretty good question, but if I was guessing based on my humble experience with construction, and zip with explosives, I'd say the blast wave would push the concrete out in a circular way, but the vertical pipe and rebar would would direct a more linear impact against the brick on the left...but I really don't know, I'm asking...round hole in the middle, somewhat squared on the left. Hmm.

When I zoom in, it's not a straight cut...it's roughly vertical, but the bricks are snapped off, not cut straight like you'd expect to see from a saw cut. I don't know explosives but I do know a bit about concrete and masonry demolition, and when breaking up brick or block structures, they fracture along the easiest path, and that's the mortar. Bricks will break in half matching the mortar of the row above them if they're struck with a vertical impact. The limestone fascia damage appears to support the force of the explosion snapping out the bricks and forcing a wider hole for the limestone.

But again, I don't know explosives...I would think the cutting charges would blast a wider hole on the outside than the inside.

The same argument can be applied to a missile or jetsam impact though...why the straight cuts on the outside and the round hole on the inside? Where's the missile or the landing gear?

If you wanted to hide the evidence of a missile or landing gear quickly, why punch a hole that left any evidence to begin with?
edit on 19-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Wait, weren't you just going to admit to the world that you thought the concrete, bearing, shear walls of the light wells were made of lathe and plaster?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I would like to say thank you for thinking rationally, examining evidence, and testing theories. I assume this will be met with either
A) You don't know anything about explosives...
B) I know more about explosives than you do so you're wrong
or
C) Where's your proof!?
without anyone ever actually disussing the possibilities or ramifications of explosives there, but, it would be really cool if people on here could have a grown-up normal conversation and speculation about this subject - I think it holds merit and I wish you luck!

My opinion on it: it makes sense, there needed to be an exit into open air both for placing or removing of various airplane and missile parts, respectively, and also the rational idea that if the section of the Pentagon was not open to the open-air section people would expect to find actual airplane debris inside.
It looks like a shape charge to me but I say that with a caveat I haven't examined it in detail yet. Could you post a large or close-up of the damage ring, from the inside?


edit on 19-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: had italics on whole post



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
[If you wanted to hide the evidence of a missile or landing gear quickly, why punch a hole that left any evidence to begin with?


That's the most intelligent thing you've said or asked since I've seen any of your posts. I suspect you can answer it yourself, but I'll help you a bit.

Why intentionally punch what you and others think is a suspicious hole? Was it just so Investigooglers could go on and on with nonsense on a Conspiracy Web Sites about it? The same thing can be said of the light poles. Why do that if there was no aircraft or if it flew another path. Why and who trimmed that gouge in the tree to make it look like an engine did it. Who climbed up that pole to break off a climbing rung and skin the pole? Quite frankly, I can think of NO REASONS other than the James Bond, Hollywood, Orwellian crap that some have contrived.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



Why do you resort to ridicule when confronted with a rational argument? Why don't you respond in kind?






top topics



 
249
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join