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.

 

Pentagon bodies from Flight 77

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Yup, that's the picture. Now I don't know alot about planes and all, but if that is a wheel in the foreground of the pic, should it not be larger than a 5 gallon bucket? Not arguing, just asking, because I have no idea. Just seems to me if the plane was that large it'd have bigger tires and wheels. I'd really ike to know.




As you can see, a 757 wheel with tyre comes to about waist height. The assembly in the picture is clearly very similar if not identical.




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

Originally posted by bl2k10
can a truther please show a list of the confirmed videos that show a plane hitting the pentagon and those cameras exact locations? And also who transferred and how were the bodies transferred if they were supposedly dumped? How were those passengers killed? Where were they killed? Alot of talking and no proof.

Why would you expect Truthers to have videos of a plane hitting the Pentagon?
Many of us Truthers believe no Boeing hit the Pentagon because no video or photo has ever been released that shows a Boeing hitting the Pentagon.

The Gov't much later released a few very odd frames from a security video purporting to show the plane, but there is no recognisable plane in them.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I would love to see what they have there. The government is usually about 5 years ahead of the mainstream as far as this type of technology. They had biometrics and retinal scans working long before you could buy them on ebay.

SO, can you tell us the field of view, in most installations?


there would be several cameras with crossing views to eliminate blind spots. All doors would be covered, and all vulnerable areas on the lawn would be covered. (gates, walkways, and driveways) Data storage is a non issue these days and for a big budget, probably wasn't an issue then. 1 camera 30 frames per second for a 24 hour period uses about 400mb of storage with standard resolution. In 2001 average hard drives were 20gb for home PCs and 200gb drives were available to the general public. In a high security situation, the data would be backed up to external media to save for a period of time in case anything needed to be reviewed. Today, I can set up a 4 camera DVR with a terrabyte of storage and good resolution on a house and have 100% coverage of 1 side, lawn and street, 24 hours a day 7 days a week for about 1400 bucks.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Thanks for posting that. I guess it's just me but if that tire is waist high, that bucket looks kinda big to me.....again thanks, I'm gonna have to look into the pic more.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
there would be several cameras with crossing views to eliminate blind spots. All doors would be covered, and all vulnerable areas on the lawn would be covered. (gates, walkways, and driveways) Data storage is a non issue these days and for a big budget, probably wasn't an issue then. 1 camera 30 frames per second for a 24 hour period uses about 400mb of storage with standard resolution. In 2001 average hard drives were 20gb for home PCs and 200gb drives were available to the general public.

The Pentagon's security wasn't installed in 2001 so it's a little premature to start detailing storage possibilities. Until about 2006 I didn't start seeing hard drive recorders used commonly. I'm familiar with Dedicated Micros gear rather than anything else, but I know of plenty of places today using multiplexed SVHS.

Besides, the Pentagon used physical security, so it's not hugely hard to believe they had less camera coverage than you might want. There were definitely dome cameras on the roof, but they would not be pointing outwards and so would be lucky to get a single frame, other than that nobody has identified any other camera that has not been released (as far as I know).

It's a difficult topic to debate cause there's very little evidence for either side, but the fact of the matter is that the released video does show a large object approaching the pentagon, followed by a large fuel explosion, it's consistent with the eyewitness reports and no evidence has ever emerged that would indicate video footage is being witheld.

edit: Actually I just looked at your storage estimates. I don't know what sort of encoding you're using but one day's worth of footage in MPEG2 is certainly not 400 meg. It's actually more like 15 gig depending on bitrate. I've seen one DVD containing two hours, and one DVD containing 24 hours, but you wouldn't be able to get much from 400 meg without modern encoding.


edit on 16-9-2010 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Good, you beat me to it. (Darn, I hate laptop touchpad pointers!! Grrrr....)

Here is a still image, with a man for size comparison:




On walkarounds, I never took a tape measure along....but, from experience, I can look at that photo with the "red bucket" in the background, and the size perspective for the hubs looks just right. (Keeping in mind the distortion factor, depending on the type/focal length of the lens used for that phot, and how objedcts in background might seem smaller then really are...)

Note that some of the wheel pieces are from the inside portion, where the brakes are located. (On walkarounds we look for brake wear indicators by peering down while standing over, in front of, or behind, to see inbetween the two tandem wheels. Pins stick out through small ---1/4th inch or so --- holes in the housings. As the brake pads wear, less length of pin sticks out).

I found a picture of a 757 brake unit uninstalled, for more clarity:



See, lots and lots of pieces. Many fragile in such high-force impacts.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I think (and maybe this has been said) that just because you have pictures of bodies does NOT mean that you have pictures of an air crash. You may have pictures of victims of explosion, or pictures of a Hollywood set. If these are victims who were on the flight that crashed... Who are they? Where's their family?

Or are we not to know for national security reasons?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Thanks for posting that. I guess it's just me but if that tire is waist high, that bucket looks kinda big to me.....again thanks, I'm gonna have to look into the pic more.

Perspective is pretty hard to judge. I couldn't tell you if it was a 5 gallon bucket or not, but if you look at the actual structure of the wheel assembly it's clear that they are the same. At least, they have the same arrangement of connected cylinders, central square section etc.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
If these are victims who were on the flight that crashed... Who are they? Where's their family?

Or are we not to know for national security reasons?

You don't know? Their names have been public for nearly a decade: www.911myths.com...

Published 3 days after 911, by the Boston Globe.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


" The only reason it would still be classified is if it didn't show a plane at all. "

Then again , I'm thinking that it could be that the U.S. government doesn't care to show other terrorists the details of how to approach and crash an airplane into the heart of our military command center .



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I don't believe the OS. I don't KNOW if a plane hit the pentagon or not. Granted there isn't much "public evidence" to show one did. I know im jumping into this late but...

The bodies in those pictures. 4 bodies pictured, a hundred + killed. The intact bodies most likely were people within the building. Even the burned up ones could be. The deceleration would have almost liquefied the people on board the plane. 500mph to 0 into a concrete wall will tend to do that. It also explains the lack of debris. However, it doesn't explain the lack of engines recovered, and I have yet to see any photo evidence of two Rolls Royce turbine engines recovered. Also, why was there no damage to the lawn? Why didn't the plane lose control when it struck the light poles? A light pole hitting the wing, or whatever it hit at that speed would have caused catastrophic structural failure. Yet that "plane" continued into the pentagon mere feet off the ground, causing no damage to the lawn at all? I dunno about all that.

In response to SAM sites being placed on the Pentagon. Well first off, Washington DC / Arlington is not that big of a place. A SAM site does not need to be AT the site to protect it. People on the ground could have handled MANPADS. Sites could have been set up with the MIM-72 Chaparral or the SL-AMRAAM. Any of those systems wouldn't have to be deployed near the Pentagon to have stopped that plane (if there was one). However, dropping a 757-223 in residential / commercial areas could have been just as damaging. And as far as I believe, Cheney knew it was coming and told them to do nothing. Remember the old "Does the order still stand" comments?

And in regards to the videos of the Pentagon strike being classified. Why? We are shown to this day the planes slamming into the trade centers. Those aren't classified. If your going to cause terror, civilian targets are better are they not? Its not like there is some secret to hitting a building. I think the reason those videos are classified is because they show something the general public isn't supposed to see.

Add up all the secrecy and what are you left with? Classified videos, Detained Israelies who can't be discussed because its classified, Bush refusing to testify without Cheney being there, and refuses to do it on record? WHY?







edit on 16-9-2010 by DerekJR321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Amaterasu
If these are victims who were on the flight that crashed... Who are they? Where's their family?

Or are we not to know for national security reasons?

You don't know? Their names have been public for nearly a decade: www.911myths.com...

Published 3 days after 911, by the Boston Globe.


Um... I don't need their names... I need the people in the pictures identified. Geez.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


It looks like the size of engine that would fit a missile to me ..by the way where's the other one?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Why didn't the plane lose control when it struck the light poles? A light pole hitting the wing, or whatever it hit at that speed would have caused catastrophic structural failure. Yet that "plane" continued into the pentagon mere feet off the ground, causing no damage to the lawn at all? I dunno about all that.

The total time between light pole impact and wall impact was under a second, as far as I know. Remember that this plane was screaming in at close to full throttle. It exceeded safe airframe limits at several stages it was being piloted so aggressively.


Cheney knew it was coming and told them to do nothing. Remember the old "Does the order still stand" comments?

Nobody has ever shown any evidence that this was a stand down order. It would be rather foolish of Cheney to implicate himself so explicitly when surrounded by people who had no particular loyalty to him, don't you think? In fact at the time the plane they were tracking was a predicted path for Flight 93, not AA 77.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


It wasn't a plane (757) it was a missile,,if it was a jet the FBI would have no problem letting the public see the security camera footage


edit on 16-9-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE because: (no reason given)



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

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Um... I don't need their names... I need the people in the pictures identified. Geez.

That's not going to happen, can you imagine the outcry from the families if the Pentagon did release identifiable photos of their loved ones? It would be a particularly brutal kick to the stomach of these families.

Why do you need to identify people in the pictures anyway? DNA evidence is much more reliable, or if you prefer the firefighters accounts you can purchase and read the book referred to on a previous page.


Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
It looks like the size of engine that would fit a missile to me ..by the way where's the other one?

How could a missile hit a camera pole, a bush, 5 light poles, a generator, and then somehow move 30 feet to the left to impact the centre of the hole.

A missile also doesn't explain the 50+ people who saw a large commercial jet, or the 20+ people who saw it impact, or the several people who literally ducked or dived out of the way to avoid being hit in the final seconds.

There's no evidence for a missile, sorry.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by network dude
 


" The only reason it would still be classified is if it didn't show a plane at all. "

Then again , I'm thinking that it could be that the U.S. government doesn't care to show other terrorists the details of how to approach and crash an airplane into the heart of our military command center .


Other terrorists! dont make me laugh! it wasent terrorists in the first place,,, unless yea call TPTB terrorists that is!



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


Just the bits I can answer with certainty:


Also, why was there no damage to the lawn?


That comes directly from certain websites that seem to think (and spread the disinfo) that the airplane "must" have skimmed along the ground before impact at the Pentagon, doesn't it?

He hit right at the bottom, fromt he AIR...that is, while flying. WIth a still slight downward trajectory.


Why didn't the plane lose control when it struck the light poles? A light pole hitting the wing, or whatever it hit at that speed would have caused catastrophic structural failure.


Proof?

You really think a frangible light "pole" that is designed to absorb, by shearing/breaking at the base, the impact forces from an automobile in accidents is going to,what? "Tear off" the wing? At most (if we could have seen the intact wing after striking the pole) the leading edge would have dents/some damage. The slats were retracted, and snug up against the wing. IF they are extended, then you'd see even more damage, possibly even separation from the airframe. But, that isn't the case here.

Here, a cut-through drawing showing the typical B-757 leading-edge slat and mechanism and wing structure:



Note, it is detailed in both retracted and extended positions. (Which don't occur simultaneously in real life, of course).

A wing that is designed for a Boeing 757 is much stronger than some people seem to give it credit.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


I don't know what hit the Pentagon. I'm still confused by the secrecy regarding the video tapes. The government could eliminate this entire conspiracy if they would simply show a frame of a plane hitting the building. There were 80 something cameras I believe that should have caught it on film. NONE of them caught a plane???



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by network dude
 


" The only reason it would still be classified is if it didn't show a plane at all. "

Then again , I'm thinking that it could be that the U.S. government doesn't care to show other terrorists the details of how to approach and crash an airplane into the heart of our military command center .



I thought we had and still have a missile defense system at the pentagon. So any terrorists wanting to crash planes into the pentagon, shouldn't get away with it again. But with all the people whining about the video, you would think they would just show us the damn plane and shut everyone up. There was video at the hotel across the street, there was video at the gas station across the street. Somewhere out there is a video of the "plane" and it's being suppressed. I am not a "truther" in that I will fight to the death over it being an inside job, but I have seen things that don't add up. Things that seem fishy. Like the fact that there are no pictures of this plane aside from the 8 frames we saw of a pointed nose cone and an explosion.

If it was so easy to take 4 planes and cause this much damage back in 2001, I am a bit surprised it hasn't been done again. Apparently you don't need any hi tech weapons. Just box cutters.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join