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: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by jthomas
 


Boy, your 100% wrong there.


No, I am correct.


Any proof isn't on my shoulders because I'm a private citizen, ..."


Sorry, any claim you make is your responsibility to support.


The C ring hole per the NIST Report


You mean the "American Society of Civil Engineer's PENTAGON BUILDING PERFORMANCE REPORT", I trust.


The C-ring exit hole is significant because it is not consistent with building damage from a Boeing 757 impact.


That is a claim, not a fact. Do you understand the difference?


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

That is a claim, not a fact.


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.


Those are all completely unsupported claims, not facts. Do you understand the difference?

If you don't understand the difference between claims and factual evidence, you won't have any objective way to know the difference.

The burden of proof remains on those making the claims to support them. Until, and unless, they do, we have no reason to accept them.

Again, they have to factually refute ALL of the lines of evidence that converge on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:26 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?

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


I wasn't comparing your theory with any other theory on ATS. I was pointing out that your global hawk theory is not supported by a single witness who was present at the Pentagon that day. That would give me pause for thought.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
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.


You may doubt all you want, but the burden of proof remains on you to factually demonstrate your claims. No one has presented any valid claims or doubts after 9 years of trying.


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.


I never said there was a "plane" in the video. I did say, quite correctly, that the OBJECT in the video is consistent with the size of a Boeing 757 and NOT with a Global Hawk.


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


Your claim is invalid. I keep reminding everyone that no one needs a video to know from every other bit of evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

The security cam video claim is a red herring.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Oh OK. But neither does the airliner theory either as some witnesses claim they saw a "missile" or nothing at all.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Oh OK. But neither does the airliner theory either as some witnesses claim they saw a "missile" or nothing at all.


Many witnesses said they saw an airliner. Can you please let me know which witnesses said they saw a missile ?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I'm starting to sense "a wolf in sheep's clothing" on this thread...



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   




“Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.”
Don Rumsfeld speech about 911 and Pentagon attack. DoD archives

[edit on 4/16/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by djlaeon
I'm starting to sense "a wolf in sheep's clothing" on this thread...

Me
too



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I don't need to cite any witnesses. Just Don Rumsfeld's admission that a missile struck the Pentagon. Why bother with civilians when the man in charge knows what happened?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


You keep repeating yourself over & over by just using different words and sentenance structures. Your questions were answered as I just spent 48 minutes going over your posts to ensure I didn't fail to do so. I believe you are in here for reasons other than to dicuss conspiracy theorys, my opinion only however.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I don't need to cite any witnesses. Just Don Rumsfeld's admission that a missile struck the Pentagon. Why bother with civilians when the man in charge knows what happened?



Apparently, you are one Truther who believes anything Rumsfield says.

We can see that your claims about "missiles" are invalid.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by jthomas
 


You keep repeating yourself over & over by just using different words and sentenance structures. Your questions were answered as I just spent 48 minutes going over your posts to ensure I didn't fail to do so. I believe you are in here for reasons other than to dicuss conspiracy theorys, my opinion only however.


Actually, I have shown why your claims don't hold up. The "missile theory" is as dead as it was when it was brought up 8 years ago.

Why are you interested in bringing it up again?


[edit on 16-4-2010 by jthomas]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


And you wish to defend the OS however when we use the words of a died-in-the-wool OSer such as Rumsfeld, you OS followers can't accept that. But you accept the fairy tale known as the 911 Report.

Must be a slow day at the Anti Conspiracy Task Force!



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by jthomas
 


And you wish to defend the OS however when we use the words of a died-in-the-wool OSer such as Rumsfeld, you OS followers can't accept that. But you accept the fairy tale known as the 911 Report.


As you know, I don't have to defend the massive independent evidence that converges on the conclusions that you, for some reason, don't accept but cannot refute.

After almost 9 whole years.

The burden of proof, as always remains on your shoulders.



[edit on 16-4-2010 by jthomas]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by djlaeon
 





I'm speculating here, but my suspicions are getting higher that the current argument going on between mikelee and jthomas is probably one in the same person. This would explain the immediate responses between the two. It's one thing to talk to yourself, or to even have an argument with yourself, but it's quite another to dilute a thread on a serious subject with this type of noise.


Thats not only insulting but an incredulous accusation that will be reported as is it not true at all.

[edit on 4/16/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by djlaeon
Okay, this thread started out interesting, but now it has become inundated with banter back and forth about who's right or wrong. The original point that mikelee was trying to make has now become lost in the weeds of a obscurity. If the true intent was to blur the boundaries of objective reasoning, then I can say with a high degree of confidence that this has been accomplished.


I challenged mikelle about his claims and beliefs This is normal and logical and it is designed to have an intelligent conversation. It is not about who's "right or wrong." It's about factual evidence and how one arrives at valid conclusions. After all, the very same discussions about the very same claims have been going on for almost 9 years. Claims like the Global Hawk attack claim have been hashed over and over, repeatedly debunked, and retired only to surface again shortly thereafter. What point do you see in that?


I'm speculating here, but my suspicions are getting higher that the current argument going on between mikelee and jthomas is probably one in the same person.


That's an interesting take and I'm sure mikelee will take that as an insult.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Insulting only because it isn't the truth...thats all.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


No, "mikelee"...this is not a valid argument, from you. I am surprised you resorted to it:


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




You (A) have completely ignored the factors of the velocity of the airplane, and the shutter speed of the camera...it COULD NOT capture a still, perfectly clear image of the jet as it moved through the narrow field of view of that camera, at ~750 to 800 fps.

And, (B), because of the lens distortions, due to the type of lens focal length used by that camera, the image you (or somneone else) doctored up there, wiht the DHL B-757 'shopped' in, is incorrect in terms of scale.

Anyone can see how the perspective of what IS KNOWN, the building itself, in the frames prior to impact are distorted, in the distance, due to the lens characteristics.

The 'image' of any airplane, IF it had been captured on the video, would be equally distorted in size, comparably.

THAT image also shows the 'shopped' airplane about to impact closer to the camera's POV than the actual location on the Building's facade, AND it doesn't represent the angle of the airplane, relative to the Building's wall.

Not sure the source of that manipulated image, but I feel it is laughable, at best, in this discussion. Amateurish, even.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I believe it fits perfectly or at the very least, more realistically than the "shopped" government footage we have all seen where the frames are missing.



Spelling error

[edit on 4/17/2010 by mikelee]




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join