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.

 

What I believe happened...in photos

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Originally posted by jthomas



That doesn't work:

Global Hawk: Length: 44 ft 5 in (13.54 m), Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Boeing 757-200: Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m), Height 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)

The object's subtended angle from the camera is consistent with the length of a Boeing 757, NOT a Global Hawk, so right off the bat a Global Hawk is eliminated from consideration.



Ah I see you are using scaling and respective sizes of aircraft with no apparent calculation method on which to cross reference the relative size differences, let me help you with that.........


I'm sorry you missed my post above in which I state clearly:


"You cannot ignore that the specifications of the security camera are known, the size of the Pentagon is known, the sizes of Boeing 757-200s and Global Hawks are known, and the distance to the "object" from the camera are known. From taking the subtended angle of the "object", one can immediately determine the length of the object in the distance. That angle tells us that the length of the object is consistent with the length of a Boeing 757, not a Global Hawk.

"This is not a matter of drawing outlines. It is factual evidence that anyone can demonstrate to themselves. Give it a try; you can do it too."


Firstly.... Something to use as a basis to calculate measurements, which can then reliably be used as an accurate tool to cross reference, or project a certain size in comparison to an objects documented dimensions which of course can then be used as a solid foundation for size comparisons.


Actually, it is far more accurate to use the specifications of the camera, 757-200, Global Hawk, Pentagon, known sizes, and distances, wouldn't you agree?




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Mr.Thomas...

where on page one do you highlight your "120 ft diameter" impact hole??

Ive looked at the picture you submitted but cannot repeat cannot see it...

care to indicate your "opinion" on this,diagrammatically, since clearly there aint no 120ft hole....so why would you say there was....

...other than to target those gullible people mentioned by your "associate"..??



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Ignorant conspirator uh? The only ignorant aspects I see are the many OS defenders who are trying to hold onto every thread of their decaying story.

Airliners vs Global Hawks:

First the camera angles prove nothing except that a GH fits when using dimensional graphing. The airliner fairy tale does not fit due to the known dimensions are way off. Including the fact that the cam footage is widely considered to have tampered with as the last seconds of the frame is obviosuly altered. Deny that and its proof one is either working for a Psy Op unit or they are totally stupid!

There have been many attempts by some to sway off the Global Hawk defense but what none of them who do the swaying has been able to do, is to prove beyond a doubt that an airliner hit the building...No one has proven this beyond a dount.

Why does the outline of a Global Hawk fit the dimensions in the footage IF it was really an airliner?

ANSWER - Simply because it wasn't an airliner.

Otherwise the airliner outline would have fit instead of the Global Hawk. Thats something these new "sciene" types can't explain because it debunks their so called proven methods of calculations. If the calculations used to prove it was an airliner also allow for the outline of the Global Hawk then there is an obviously flaw with it.

Also, the columns in the Pentagon were blown outward as seen in the photos:



The left of the photo is the outer walls facing the famous "spools" of wire.

If an airliner crashed into the building there would have been explosion(s) outward & upward and against the floor however this wasn't the case. We would also see more fuel burn damage than what is shown.

[edit on 4/16/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
Mr.Thomas...

where on page one do you highlight your "120 ft diameter" impact hole??


Right here:



Here's more:

911review.com...



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


I would ask jthomas and the rest of the "doubting Thomas's" to defend the ultimate conspiracy: that 19 hijackers caused all of this alone (or w/help from Al Qaeda). If you constantly nitpick and chastise any possible theories of what may have happened, you solve nothing...saving ignorant minds, please, save your own mind as it needs attention.

Please convince me of the official story that you so much believe...maybe start a thread on it. I would like to counter your theory and insult your intelligence.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by mikelee
 


I would ask jthomas and the rest of the "doubting Thomas's" to defend the ultimate conspiracy: that 19 hijackers caused all of this alone (or w/help from Al Qaeda). If you constantly nitpick and chastise any possible theories of what may have happened, you solve nothing...saving ignorant minds, please, save your own mind as it needs attention.

Please convince me of the official story that you so much believe...maybe start a thread on it. I would like to counter your theory and insult your intelligence.


It's not our obligation to convince you. It's not our obligation to defend anything. Why do you think so?

It should be clear to you that if you do not accept the lines of evidence from multiple independent sources that converge on the conclusions of the investigations, then the burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders to demonstrate the validity of your claims.

We'll respond to them. We'll ask you questions about your claims, what evidence you have for them, either agree or not, and show you why..



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

Why does the outline of a Global Hawk fit the dimensions in the footage IF it was really an airliner?

ANSWER - Simply because it wasn't an airliner.


Wrong. Already addressed. No matter how one wishes the outline to fit, the scale is off completely. I've already reveiwed that.

Also, none of the other evidence is consistent with a Global Hawk. It is all consistent with a Boeing 757.

One cannot choose to ignore ALL of the evidence.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by benoni
Mr.Thomas...

where on page one do you highlight your "120 ft diameter" impact hole??


Right here:



Here's more:

911review.com...


Ummmm ,I dont see 120 ft hole....a lot of black smoke covering a hole thats maybe 60 ft or less in dia. I know there is a better picture of the hole somewhere pre collaspe of the building surounding the inmpact zone...anyone have it ?

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Reevster]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


"mike"...we've been over and over this before:


Why does the outline of a Global Hawk fit the dimensions in the footage IF it was really an airliner?


Because it DOESN'T.

You do NOT have a still, clear image there.

This is very easy to understand, when you consider the science of photography. Let's ponder for a bit.

What do you suppose the exposure rate was, of the camera that was photographing the parking lot entry gate? Better, WHAT was its purpose?

It was designed, and focused, to capture, for replay if needed, the action AT the entry gate. Not the action occuring hundreds of feet in the distance.

Secondly, back to exposure rate. How long do you think the shutter is open, on each frame? I hope you understand why this is important to know. Can you see why, yet?

I'll ask, then: How to you photograph fast-moving objects, when you wish to have them appear as sharp as possible in the image frame? you use the fastest shutter speed possible, with the aperture setting, and the ambient light available. Basic photography.

IF the shutter speed is too slow, and the object is too fast (say, about 480 knots, or say, ~750 fps, or thereabout) you get a blur, right?

In my (admittedly old, but that's why I love it) Minolta SLR, the fastest selectable shutter speed is 1/1000 sec.

I suppose that would produce a respectable image of the jetliner, IF one were able to time his shutter release precisely....but, I doubt very much the few-frames-per-minute camera in use at the Pentagon was using that shutter speed. 1/60th is the normal 'minimum' that is recommended for hand-held use...anything longer, and a tripod is suggested.

1/100 to 1/200 is probably the upper limit, for that security camera, but I doubt it takes pictures at that speed. But, for grins, just think how much your airplane moves through the frame, at the ~750 fps velocity, even in 1/200th of a second. (And, I'm giving the camera a benefit of the doubt there).

What is in that one frame is a blurred image, and with a large dose of a form of pareidolia, it seems. Only, in this case, instead of seeing the face of Jesus, or Mary, or some such, people think they see a Global Hawk outline.

That is about it, and looks to be the situation, here.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster

Ummmm ,I dont see 120 ft hole....a lot of black smoke covering a hole thats maybe 60 ft or less in dia. I know there is a better picture of the hole somewhere pre collaspe of the building surounding the inmpact zone...anyone have it ?

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Reevster]


Scroll down in the second link I gave you a see a photo with the dimensions.

ETA:


The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon
was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20).The
projected width, perpendicular to the path of the aircraft, was
approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft
wingspan of the aircraft (figure 6.1). An examination of the area
encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the
face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the
building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the
right wing. The size and position of the actual opening in the
facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18)
indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing
and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually
entered the building.

fire.nist.gov... Page 35



[edit on 16-4-2010 by jthomas]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


The NIST report is in dispute...why bother even citing it to prove a purported fact when its flawed?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


I'm guessing you can provide us information regarding GlobalHawk debris found at the site, correct? After all, if you are claiming it was a GH, there would be SOME debris from it.

It's rather odd that there is airliner debris at the site, but nothing from a GH.

Hmmmm, why is that now?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Mikelee, you're not the only one that holds this theory. I don't know if you've ever heard of Eric Hufschmid, but he wrote a controversial book about 9/11 called "Painful Questions". He also made a supplemental video called "Painful Deceptions". Here is a youtube video of part one of "Painful Deceptions" where he goes into detail about his theory as to what hit the Pentagon.

www.youtube.com...

From about 20:45 to the end of the video, he gives very compelling evidence that a Global Hawk was the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, which strongly supports your theory.


I would like to add that it is widely known that the section of the Pentagon that was hit was under renovations that were soon to be completed before the 9/11 event. The purpose of these renovations were to reinforce that part of the Pentagon's infrastructure in the likely event of such an attack as 9/11 (coincidence?). With that in mind, one theory I would like to put forth is that the "spiraling" contrail seen in the Pentagon videos is actually a missile being fired from a Global Hawk to weaken the structure immediately before impact. This would ensure that the aircraft penetrated the re-enforced structure allowing the rest of the explosive payload to cause the maximum amount of damage as possible.

Nice thread Mikelee...

[edit on 16-4-2010 by djlaeon]

[edit on 16-4-2010 by djlaeon]

[edit on 16-4-2010 by djlaeon]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Whatever you " believe happened ", to propose a theory ( i.e global hawk ) which runs counter to all the substantial body of eyewitness evidence is obviously fatally flawed :-

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by jthomas
 


The NIST report is in dispute...why bother even citing it to prove a purported fact when its flawed?


It's actually not in dispute. Nothing has ever been presented that has refuted any of the NIST investigations.

That's what you have supposed to have been doing for the last 9 years. That's what we've been waiting for the 9/11 Truth Movement to do. Nothing has happened except that you have made claims, they are shown not to be valid, and you recycle them later on and the process is repeated.

The burden of proof remains on your shoulders to support your claims factually and overwhelmingly. If you continue to avoid doing so, you will never get a "new" investigation.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 



What I believe happened...


Its my opinion as well as what I think happened.

Just as it is the opinion of some who holds the OS as gospel.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


In other words, because I have my own theory that goes against what some other think I'm wrong?

The same could be said about theorys posted in the entire website then. Totally irrational there Alfie1.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Boy, your 100% wrong there.

Any proof isn't on my shoulders because I'm a private citizen, not a labeled clique member like you folks like to call people who call you out when your OS has been proven wrong and even called a lie by John Farmer, Senior Counsel for the 911 Commission.

The C ring hole per the NIST Report


The C-ring exit hole is significant because it is not consistent with building damage from a Boeing 757 impact. The C-Ring exit hole carries a unique signature, which can only be explained by something other than a 757 impact. No explanation is offered for this hole in the Pentagon Building Performance Report
bushstole04

The only explanations offered by the “official” community, the “circle of energy” and the “shock wave theory”, have no precedent, and violate some basic common sense and physics. The proposal fits the classic shape charge damage seen from a typical shaped charge warhead. The first time I saw the C-Ring exit hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew that the only way to cut a clean hole in a reinforced brick wall (including cutting through rebar) is with a shaped charge warhead. With any type impact or wave, forces would have caused the wall to crumble or cave in, without cutting through rebar.

The impact point at the Pentagon...See any 120ft + hole at the impact point?



No you don't! And do not fall for the rhetoric of some who say it was there. The photo above is the impact point.


The lies of some are easy when they cite "massive impact point" when they fail to forget that there ARE photos of the original iompact point and it falls well short of the size that an airliner SHOULD HAVE made.




As seen below, if an airline did hit the Pentagon, it would CLEARLY be visible in the released footage from the camera.



source source here Click source for wide frame of vid



[edit on 4/16/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Alfie1
 


In other words, because I have my own theory that goes against what some other think I'm wrong?


If your "theory" is shown to be invalid, we call that theory "wrong."


The same could be said about theorys posted in the entire website then. Totally irrational there Alfie1.


Just because someone poses a "theory" does not automatically grant it equal status with other theories. If a theory is shown to be invalid and why, we discard it.

You may pose as many "theories" as you want as long as you understand that others can validate or invalidate them. How else to you think one arrives at factual conclusions? How do you think the scientific method works?



[edit on 16-4-2010 by jthomas]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Nothing in the cam footage has been proven as "factual" because there is doubt that a plane hit it at all. If there was no plane, then your rational logic using dimensions to show height, weight, distance etc is flawed. Why? Because there is no plane in the vid.

No plane = wrong calculations. Therefore your "facts" are nothing more than another theory.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join