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.

 

U.S. Government admits nose cone of Flight 77 SURVIVED Pentagon crash!

page: 7
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


yup that is the infamous video I was talking about. If anybody believes that one, then i must be living in hell. First it was too blurry and small to be a "boeing 757". If they moved that fast then how come on the news channels the other boeings were not blurry?




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
This is infuriating!

But I'm not sure which is more infuriating: The fact that the government is so deep into obsfucation, or that people actually believe them. I stopped believing ANYTHING the government said about twenty years ago.

You know, there are still people out there that think two guys are making all the crop circles.

As long as there are sheeple, the government has cart blanch permission to lie through their teeth. This is right up there with weather balloons and flares, but is in a class all its own.

Thanks for posting this.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
If they moved that fast then how come on the news channels the other boeings were not blurry?
I already answered that question but you ignored my answer. Frame rate.

What was the frame rate on the news broadcasts?
What is the frame rate on the video I posted?

You can actually time the frame rate on the video I posted when the car drives by. See how many images of the MOVING car appear in how many seconds.

For the news footage you'll have to do a little research to find the frame rate but I'm sure you know how to use google.

Compare the two frame rates. There's your answer.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 





Most airliner crashes occur at low speed(take offs and landings) with a much lower angle of incidence to the ground. High-speed, nearly perpendicular crashes are rare, but they happen. Some examples would be Valujet 592 and my favorite example, the Canberra bomber crash in the UK.

The aircraft was described as flying "low and fast" when suddenly it entered a steep dive, with no apparent attempt to pull out, striking the ground at an angle of approx. 80 degrees at an estimated speed of 400-450kts. WD991 instantly completely disintegrated, scattering wreckage for some 600 yards beyond the main impact crater and sending a column of black smoke into the sky. Fortunately the impact was in open farmland and the only nearby building - a bungalow on Valentine Lane - was peppered with debris, shattering all the windows facing the impact and tearing several holes in the roof. Fortunately no one was at home at the time.


Seen same thing myself - Lear 35A struck ground at angle 80 deg with
airspeed of around 350 mph.

Biggest thing found was 2 x 3 ft piece of rudder and landing gear light
some 75 yards down street after had hit parked car. (try explaining
that to your insurance company!)

As for for 4 people on board - mostly random scraps with only few recognizable as human.....

Most conspiracy types think aircraft crash look like a Looney Tune cartoon with Wiley Coyote sitting in his bent Acem airplane.....



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Yup, that's the one. I knew which thread he was talking about but his only purpose in mentioning it was to attempt to discount my credibility. weedwhacker is somewhat of an expert at derailing threads from the true course of exploration.

Thanks for posting it




Resorting to ad homs now?? :shk:

That usually happens, when an OP is in trouble (or has a personal axe to grind...).

My 'only purpose' in mentioning it was to point out that it's the SAME "government" website that you got the idea for THIS thread from.

HOW, exactly, is that "de-railing"??

And, how does it speak to your 'credibility' at all?

BTW...regarding any thread "de-railing"....that was started by others, if you'd bother to review the history of the discussions. Inasmuch as I participated, a bit, once it started, th en in that respect I'm just as guilty. It is difficult, though, to read the obvious baloney being written, and remain silent.

Your point in making this thread, which you've reiterated, was the discomfort you felt with the 'government" website linking to outside sources. OTHER people chimed in, later, with the same old, same old "attack the 'OS' " nonsense as always. Using the same incorrect 'arguments' from the same incorrect 'OTHER" conspiracy websites out there.

SO....the attacks on ME personally were out of line. (and this includes you, that 'other' poster) as well.....



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


I believe the government is working toward a one world government, that there are underground bunkers, planned interment camps and all that which is obvious. However, If this is true, which I doubt, the nose cone by virtue of its' shape, is by far the strongest part of the structure. As for the buildings, Did you guys not see that each was hit by an enormous jumbo jet, both of which carried tons of jet fuel. The wings spanned virtually the entire building. Using some simple and time tested calculations, most of the steel beams on each floor were removed, others, for floor after floor exposed to extreme heat, while bearing several times their normal load, because most beams were taken out. Actually, as the event unfolded, I wondered what was keeping the building up for so long. Within a few minutes of impact, I fully expected the buildings to colapse and so did most educated people. Honestly, the conspiracy here was limited to the terrorists. No regime would pull such a stunt unless they were prepared to install martial law in collusion with several foreign powers. Not everything is a conspiracy. But the Bilderberg group is currently discussing the new world order, so worry about that.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Resorting to ad homs now?? :shk:

That usually happens, when an OP is in trouble (or has a personal axe to grind...).

...

SO....the attacks on ME personally were out of line. (and this includes you, that 'other' poster) as well.....




Your point in making this thread, which you've reiterated, was the discomfort you felt with the 'government" website linking to outside sources. OTHER people chimed in, later, with the same old, same old "attack the 'OS' " nonsense as always. Using the same incorrect 'arguments' from the same incorrect 'OTHER" conspiracy websites out there.


I was pointing out my opinion of a behavior, not a personal attack on you. There is a difference.

As far as your comment "Your point in making this thread, which you've reiterated, was the discomfort you felt with the 'government" website linking to outside sources."

Simply wrong - my point, as I reiterated in my posts is the government SOURCE, not a link to an outside source. They used an outbound email as their source.

I'm always amazed at how you much time I spend addressing some of the off-subject points and personal attacks brought up by a few people on any 9/11 thread. It's my choice but when I get constantly get misquoted and the source gets misquoted time and time again there's not all that much choice to ignore it.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by sandwiches
 

Those tapes will never be seen, and when or should I say if they release any video you can bet your life on it that its been tampered with or edited to show only what they would want us to see... its sad that the truth has become so easily masked by simple lies, or is the greater tragedy that we have become so indoctranated by lies that we dont really trust anything to be the truth any more



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by sticky
Can you U2U me this video when it is finally released. I'd like to see a plane hit the Pentagon myself. Thanks in advance
I don't see how a picture or a video showing a plane would make any difference. It wouldn't, people would just claim that's faked like the plane parts at the scene and the DNA evidence at the scene.


Case in point:

Originally posted by Th33lood3n1gMa
reply to post by sandwiches
 

Those tapes will never be seen, and when or should I say if they release any video you can bet your life on it that its been tampered with or edited to show only what they would want us to see... its sad that the truth has become so easily masked by simple lies, or is the greater tragedy that we have become so indoctranated by lies that we dont really trust anything to be the truth any more


See what I mean? So why even bother releasing any pictures or video, it's already been deemed fake before anyone has even seen it. I think that's called "Confirmation bias".


Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Simply wrong - my point, as I reiterated in my posts is the government SOURCE, not a link to an outside source. They used an outbound email as their source.


I think your point is valid about the source being dubious but we also have to put that in context:

1. The source was openly stated, not hidden, so you can assign whatever credibility to the source you feel is appropriate. If you feel it's zero then by all means assign zero credibility to it.

2. It's on a sort of "foreign relations" type of website and is not intended to represent an official investigation, like an NTSB investigation. If the NTSB had cited such a dubious source then I'd wonder about that.

So those are the two issues that would elevate that source to a level of importance in my mind, if there were any attempt to conceal the uncertain nature of the source, and if such a source was being used for an official investigation to draw critical conclusions.

Since neither of those applies, it really doesn't seem like that big a deal to me, but I admit you have a point. It's just more like a molehill point instead of a mountain point.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Good points!

I personally feel it is a "mountain" level problem because:

1) It's on a U.S. Government website, which should command some decent level of respect and integrity worldwide.

2) ANYONE who has ever written a single college level paper with citations/sources knows, without doubt, that a personal email IS NOT a credible source, period.

3) Because we should assume anyone writing a government level website should have at least some college education (I would hope) we can, in my opinion, assume there ISN'T an actual source that there was a nose cone found.

I agree it can be an issue of semantics (chosen words like "the" vs pieces) but if the government can use this kind of research for one thing, how about something else? Say the H1N1 fiasco that took so many of our rights away, but turned out to be less dangerous than the common cold - maybe they used an outbound email for that source too!!



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks Arbitrageur, yes I have seen that video.

It doesn’t show a jet flying towards and crashing into the Pentagon. It doesn’t show the impact with the wings folding back and the jet vanishing into the building.

Do you honestly think this is the best footage they have?
If not, why don’t they partially clear up the confusion and mistrust by showing their best footage?

Sure some people still won’t believe them, but many other people will.
How could they possibly discredit themselves by more firmly establishing the truth?

(Plus they could avoid dependence on anonymous emails for their PR)



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


I did agree with you it's not a good source.

Since you are speculating about the person's level of education which sounds reasonable, allow me to speculate too. Say the person responsible has a lot of things to write up for the website, and there is a timeline of expected completion dates for the projects. The person might spend hours or days going through thousands of official photos on a government server, or the person may not even have access to those while the investigation is being conducted. So they take a shortcut and go to a site where the information has been assembled for them that they can access in 5 minutes. Yes it's sloppy, but like all institutions nowadays, there aren't unlimited budgets and funds to spend as long as you want on any project...time and budgets are limited. I'm not saying that makes it right, as I'd rather see a better source myself. It's just that I understand budget pressures, time constraints, etc that the real world operates under.

The NTSB is one of the few organizations that is given enough time and resources to do a thorough enough investigation to make sure all the facts are as accurate as possible, so if the NTSB got bad information from unreliable sources, I'd agree that would be a mountain, not a molehill. However I'd add that in this case they probably did make a lot of assumptions about the crash not being an aircraft failure, so in the pentagon case they might not devote as much effort to the investigation as another crash where they were trying to pinpoint the cause of an aircraft failure. But whatever investigation they did conduct I'd still expect high standards in the investigation.


Originally posted by aethron
Do you honestly think this is the best footage they have?
If not, why don’t they partially clear up the confusion and mistrust by showing their best footage?


I honestly don't know if they have any better footage or not. If they have other security cameras with similar frame rates to the video released they may have more footage like that, I don't know.

I do know that it's not unusual to have lower frame rates for security camera recordings because the recordings take up less space that way.

I also know that as a general rule, a lot of security cameras are mounted on poles, rooftops, etc and pointed down toward entrances, parking lots, perimeters, etc. They are usually mounted at an angle to detect ground based intrusions, and not air based intrusions. Here's a list of the cameras I found with a description of what they supposedly recorded:

www.rense.com...

September 9, 2005 EXHIBIT FOUR from the count case was a DECLARATION of FBI agent Jacqueline Maquire on the discovery of 85 Pentagon tapes from 9/11.
1) Using associated written documentation BUT not viewing them, 56 videos didn't show the Pentagon building, crash site, or crash impact.
2) Viewed 29 tapes personally but sixteen videos didn't show the impact and crash site
3) The other 13 videos showed the Pentagon crash site. Twelve of these tapes showed the crash site after the impact. Agent Maquire found only a CD-ROM with the Parking Lot video copies.
4) Found one Citgo station video. A FBI video unit was asked to determine if it showed the impact but no impact was seen.
5) Found no Sheraton National Hotel video. Found a Doubletree Hotel video but no impact was seen.


So I think it's possible they may not have any better footage. It would be interesting to see the other 12 videos referenced there but apparently FBI agent Jacqueline Maquire says they are no better than the one we've already seen. I wouldn't find that surprising, would you?

Nobody seems to doubt the two objects that hit the WTC were planes, so I don't see why it's so hard to believe they hijacked 4 planes that day instead of 2. Even if it was a government conspiracy (and I'm not saying it was) it would be a whole lot easier to just use the real plane instead of trying to use something else that looked like a plane and then rush around planting aircraft parts and DNA evidence all over the scene. I think they found DNA evidence for all but one passenger on that flight, right?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by dragnet53
If they moved that fast then how come on the news channels the other boeings were not blurry?
I already answered that question but you ignored my answer. Frame rate.

What was the frame rate on the news broadcasts?
What is the frame rate on the video I posted?

You can actually time the frame rate on the video I posted when the car drives by. See how many images of the MOVING car appear in how many seconds.

For the news footage you'll have to do a little research to find the frame rate but I'm sure you know how to use google.

Compare the two frame rates. There's your answer.


it doesn't matter with the frame rate. You can still see the scaling is wrong. I don't know who is worse people who believe anything their government tells them or people who just believe?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
it doesn't matter with the frame rate. You can still see the scaling is wrong. I don't know who is worse people who believe anything their government tells them or people who just believe?




How is the scaling wrong? Are you familiar with this recreation of the impact(move the slider to the 1:50 position)? If yes, what specific objections do you have in regard to the scaling?

Keep in mind that the Pentagon is a ginourmous building; the wall is 1000' long and 77' high. A 757 fuselage is 12' in diameter and the height of the tail is 25'. The building will dwarf the 757, especially given the fish-eyed nature of the security camera lens.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor


So let me see if I have this right...unless there's video of an event, it can't be said to have taken place? That's a rather strange and arbitrary condition to attach to reality.


Well as you can see, some folks dont live in our reality!



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Welp, case closed guys, the nose cone proves that a plane hit it(the pentagon).
that terrorist, was the absolute greatest amateur pilot ever.
He missed freeway signs, poles and managed to ensure the nose would be recognizable. I'm guessing he drifted into the pentagon like a drift car driver.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
While I am thoroughly convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, masterminded by our wonderful government under the reign of #43, I still don't understand the no plane theory. To support this theory, one must conclude that the people aboard Flight 77 were assassinated and then made to look like they were in a plane crash and then their bodies were planted at the Pentagon along with destroyed parts of the airplane. It seems crazy to think that an operation like that would go unnoticed without one hint of suspicion. I am interested to know: What do people that support this theory believe happened to the 64 passengers and crew and how do they explain the charred corpses found at the site?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jinxx1
I am interested to know: What do people that support this theory believe happened to the 64 passengers and crew and how do they explain the charred corpses found at the site?


It's important to take a few steps back, then decide about the passengers.

There was supposedly FOUR hijack-crash situations that day.

Shanksville doesn't show typical crash wreckage

The Pentagon doesn't show significant signs of an airplane crash (See picture montage).

The 767 that hit the second tower, flt 175, had a large rectangular object mounted under its fuselage which is not a part of a 767, it was added.




Fully intact wall after crash - it stayed intact for 20 minutes before it collapsed giving us the pictures the Original Story TV show focused on.


Chips of this substance were found in at least four different samples of dust from the WTC collapses. When this substance is burned it creates small iron micro-spheres which were found in nearly all WTC dust samples. It is an explosive (some people are refering to it as thermite, thermate, or nano-thermite, but the name may be incorrect).
(From this thread)


If the mainstream media is saying 4 high-jackers stole planes that day, but if even ONE of those events doesn't add up, then the story IS FALSE. Don't jump to defenses on this - if four hijackers stole planes, but only three actually stole planes, where did the other plane come from?

There is no airport footage of these planes even though every airport has security, air traffic control, and FAA security videos, etc.

There's not significant proof that all, or any, of those planes ever originated at the airports that day.


[edit on 6-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Oh, for Pete's sake!!!


NOW, you're de-railing your OWN thread???


Every piece in your post, there, is completely without merit, and shown (explained) quite adequately. Check around, find the threads where each of those things are discussed.

(I think it's an example of a lot of very, very old information, from the many 'conspiracy' websites out there...THEY never bother to update, nor do they take anything down wihen PROVEN wrong...).

AND, of course...the OP? Again...an example (as well-meaning as it was) of very poorly written information. NOT any sort of "cover-up", despite all the hand-waving that's occured subsequently.....



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Hmm....

Scientific journals, pictures, citations, and links to threads

vs.

you're wrong, old info, blah blah blah...



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join