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.

 

IT'S OFFICIAL: Even conspiracy web sites acknowledge it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon

page: 17
20
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

If this, "The photo was obviously staged because [fill in the blank]" bit is the children's game you want to play, by all means, whatever floats your boat, but the rest of us need to rely on the facts, and the facts show that even your fellow truthers like Dr. Legge wants to present the evidence showing it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon...and you STILL don't want to believe it. You keep seeing "secret conspiracies" in everything you see like a Rorschach test.

I don't know what your intention was, but all you managed to do is provide me with yet another example for why what I'm saying is correct.


Dave, Dave. Did I hit a nerve Dave? Don't have a coronary ok Dave. Dave, why are you trying to diss my Staged Pentagon Photography Angle? ... Dave?...


As I noted above Dave, many have had their "Spidey senses" tingled, so to speak, by various aspects of 9/11.

Many engineers and architects, for instance, based on their knowledge, experience and training question aspects of the WTC collapse and do so based on these things. Some pilots and some military people, concerning the behavior of the planes and the NORAD angle, the same. Take Weed, for example. He's always in here talking about his aviation experience etc. So, just like that.

I have 'experience' too Dave. Like Weed, like engineers, like pilots... only in the field of photography.

And when I look at those post 'crash' Pentagon photos - they look STAGED to me.

Of course you will say that's just my opinion, and that's fine. But really it's more than that because it is based on experience, knowledge and training in taking photographs and making them, or, like setting up and designing scenarios containing people and items to be shot. Much like for a corporate brochure or a large wedding.

Product 'placement' stuff, you know.

Dave, I have over twenty years of photography experience, knowledge and training. Not professionally but 'extensively' nonetheless. And I am very very good at it. I like it, taking pictures to me is like breathing, effortless, natural. I wouldn't think of leaving my house without my camera, I'd leave my wallet or cell phone behind first.

So when I say that a photograph looks 'staged' I say so based on experience, knowledge and training that I have laboriously acquired over the course of some two decades. (It's in no way 'child's play'.)

Suffice to say, I very am confident with the accuracy of my assessment of 'the evidence', and when I say, that when I see something in those photographs that to my trained and experienced photographic eye looks 'staged', then it's STAGED Dave.

You can diss and dismiss that notion and assessment all you want. Hell don't even believe it yourself, I don't care.

You will not convince me otherwise. I've seen 'the evidence' and that's what 'the evidence' indicates to ME.

And to that end I want to tell everyone else reading this that I have the background and experience I speak of and if called to testify I stand fully behind my assertion that the post 'crash' Pentagon photographs were staged.

But no one knows me so I don't want anyone here to just take my (experienced, knowledgable) word for it BUT INVESTIGATE IT YOURSELF.

You may have, over the course of 9 1/2 years of this utter back and forth nonsense that is 9/11 scrutiny not even yourself considered this possibility seriously. Maybe you just need one guy, one guy to come along and say, "They're staged I know what I'm talking about, have another look at that angle..." There. I said it. Look or don't look, believe or don't believe, those photos are 'staged' and I would stake my life on it without even blinking or raising a sweat. That's how utterly confident I am of it.

Now, exactly what does this all mean though, to you and Dr Strangelove in what you wrote above there?

I will tell you.

I use my brain and not any damn fool conspiracy websites for my posts. You may not even believe this but I never even heard of Dr Legge before you mentioned him in this very thread. It's cool if you want to, in your ignorance, group me in with God knows who ('your fellow truthers') but it is wrong for you to do so.

Above you say:

'Dr. Legge wants to present the evidence showing it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon...and you STILL don't want to believe it.'

Which shows me that you may have misunderstood the gist of my Staged Pentagon Photography Angle somewhat, or even Completely.

So let me just clear it all up for you right now ok?

I believe the Pentagon pics, the people on the lawn, the shots from afar etc. etc., were all STAGED. But like what does that mean for you and Dr Legge? It means Dave, that you and Dr Legge don't have a leg to stand on!

Why? It's simple. Check it.

1. If a plane DIDN'T crash into the Pentagon then the photos would have to be staged.

And

2. If a plane DID crash into the Pentagon then why are the photos staged?

Because

3. The photos ARE STAGED.

So, you're now going on about flight data recordings and Dr Legge having the 'flight 77 hit the Pentagon smoking gun' thing going on, and others are debating whether the cameras caught it or do they have the video at all? Or the hole is not big enough or the plane parts are not big enough etc etc. You know the drill. But FORGET IT.

Dave I don't care you see, if no plane struck the Pentagon. I don't care if flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Dave I don't care if 757 757s struck the Pentagon. You mentioned an El Salvadorian gardner who saw the whole thing etc., Dave I don't care if Osama bin Laden was at the Citgo that very day buying Doritos and counted out 100 passenger jets impacting the Pentagon in quick succession tabulated on his pocket abacus... now why is that? Why don't I care if there was no plane, 1 plane or 911 planes at the Pentagon that day? WHY DAVE?!

BECAUSE THE PHOTOS ARE STAGED REGARDLESS!!!

Get it? You may not but I'm trying my best to be clear about it.

It DOESN'T REALLY MATTER NOW one way or the other. I haven't 'solved' it, NO, I went one better, I made it IRRELEVANT.

It doesn't matter. The photos were staged and unless you can convince me that the 100 or so 'photographic actors' (was trying to think of a clever name for them, like Photographic Cronies or "Photocronies" etc. lol), unless Dave, you can convince me that those 100 or so "photocronies" are working for Al Qaeda then I guess we got a major problem on our hands then don't we?

Cheers




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Tallone
 


A website like this cannot act as a peer review. Sorry.

I know that peer review is a favourite term the TM likes to wheel out, along with other little academic-style jingles, because it gives a patina of serious scholarship. In this case I'm sorry, but no.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Tallone
 


A website like this cannot act as a peer review. Sorry.

I know that peer review is a favourite term the TM likes to wheel out, along with other little academic-style jingles, because it gives a patina of serious scholarship. In this case I'm sorry, but no.


It can if the peers are other conspiracy minded people on this site.

But then you will end up going in a Mobius strip of fallacious logic on the same topic year after year. Oh my. It seems that’s what is going on hear.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned

Dave, Dave. Did I hit a nerve Dave? Don't have a coronary ok Dave. Dave, why are you trying to diss my Staged Pentagon Photography Angle? ... Dave?...


LOL not really. I've encountered hordes of "the photos were all staged" people long before coming across you and I daresay I'll continue to be encountering them long after we part ways. I am attempting to show you how you sound to me regardless of how you THINK you're sounding to me, namely, that you're grasping at completely ridiculous straws to justify your belief in your conspiracy stories. For one thing, you're doing exactly the same thing that con artist Dylan Avery does in "proving" missile pods were on the planes that hit the WTC- he uses the worst quality images he can find that kinda-sorta shows what he wants to see while ignoring the 500 other photos of much better quality that shows no such thing. You're hoping that I haven't seen photos like THIS, that has such detail that you can even read, "FBI Laboratory" on the guy's jacket:

Up close photo of people cleaning up the wreckage in front of the Pentagon

...or this one of a fire truck that was used to put out the fires, You can see right away what the heat of the fires did to the truck, and you can't claim someone pulled a damaged fire truck out of their pocket and planted it when noone was looking:

Damaged truck by the Pentagon helipad

Let's cut to the chase. The photos you're "so sure" were staged didn't come from some secret laboratory or from some mysterious guy that ran in during the 9/11 commission, plunked down an envelope full of photos, and then ran away. They were taken by real, live people. Namely Michael Garcia, Ssgt. Brian Boisvert, and Cpl. Jason Ingersoll. Here's a collection of their photos on the Smithsonian Institution site, along with a photo of the people who actually took the photos-

Pentagon photographs

If you somehow think that the photos were staged, then you're necessarily accusing these people of staging the photographs. It's oen thing to dismiss physical evidence but it's another thing entirely to accuse innocent people of conspiring to murder 3000 people because you think it's funny.


Many engineers and architects, for instance, based on their knowledge, experience and training question aspects of the WTC collapse and do so based on these things. Some pilots and some military people, concerning the behavior of the planes and the NORAD angle, the same. Take Weed, for example. He's always in here talking about his aviation experience etc. So, just like that.


A disingenuous nonsequitor. We're not talking about what happened at the WTC. We're talking about what happened at the Pentagon. The events at the WTC being suspicious and a plane genuinely striking the Pentagon contradict each other only in your own mind. This is the entire point Dr. Legge is trying to make with his report.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Tallone
 


A website like this cannot act as a peer review. Sorry.

I know that peer review is a favourite term the TM likes to wheel out, along with other little academic-style jingles, because it gives a patina of serious scholarship. In this case I'm sorry, but no.


Look, at the risk of annoying other ATSers who might see this as slightly off topic.

If you are part of a community you can behave how ever you like so long as the rest allow it. That would then be a privilege you are allowed. Kind of like being allowed to drive on the left hand side of the road when everyone else is driving on the right. You won't get the rest doing it because the whole point of having some road rules enabling anyone to do anything on the road (substitute threads here) would be rendered pointless.

So while you want to believe ATS is not (a kind of) peer review, it in fact is, in reality. As the evidence I pointed to clearly determines it to be.

BTW more to the point of the thread topic, Dr Legge's article simply does not hold up to a peer review in the real sense of facing a committee of peers (his own). That is why it is not published in a peer reviewed journal, and for that matter why it really does not stand up against the arguments made on this thread by several posters, including me.

By resorting to declaring ATS is not a peer review as set out in their preamble you sign up to as a member, you reveal the intent of your postings. Reader be aware.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   


But then you will end up going in a Mobius strip of fallacious logic on the same topic year after year. Oh my. It seems that’s what is going on hear.


Yeah...I HERE ya!




If you somehow think that the photos were staged, then you're necessarily accusing these people of staging the photographs. It's oen thing to dismiss physical evidence but it's another thing entirely to accuse innocent people of conspiring to murder 3000 people because you think it's funny.


Conspiring to murder 3000 people with a camera? Yeah, that is pretty funny.



We're not talking about what happened at the WTC. We're talking about what happened at the Pentagon.


Is that why the first sentence in this thread, which you started, mentions the WTC?



From 911blogger.com...as you recall, Dr. Legge is one of the people who co-authored the "Thermitidc material found in the WTC dust" report...



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The case of Dr Frank Legge's article at the top of this thread is strange. Clearly a man with a Phd in Chemistry is not a charlatan as I have been calling him. But the latest article of his which is the subject of this thread is not in keeping with the others. Anyone doubting this need only compare the content with that of the earlier articles investigating the collapse of the buildings in NY. Dr Legge co-authored. The man is an expert in the area of chemistry and the content of the papers he co-authors on the buildings collapse are appropriate to such expertise.

If you read through his paper on the Pentagon hit you a going to have trouble finding where his expertise would apply to the contents. Given the subject it just makes a lot more sense to defer to the opinion of pilots and engineers who are the real experts on the subject of flight vectors, acceleration, airline crashes, and flight recorders. A physicist would be appropriate to an investigation of most of that.

So while I am thinking 'shill' does indeed apply to him at this point, I do retract the inappropriate labelling of him as a charlatan.

So while the man has an area of expertise and clearly not as I posted a charlatan, the most recent turn by the good Dr surely raises doubts about his direction, at this point.

Why on earth would he wish to apply himself to the content of that paper? Why did he not apply himself instead to an investigation of data appropriate to his expertise. For example why did he not investigate the explosion which is recorded and which does carry information about the types of material combusting. For that matter, why not apply his expertise to any of the chemistry related data available? Although yes, given there isn't likely to be a lot of available data after the meticulous clean up, the video of the explosion seems his best starting point. I mean it is either principally combusting fuel or explosives. He appears resolute in the article to convey the impression it is most certainly not the latter.
edit on 11-2-2011 by Tallone because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by NWOwned

Dave, Dave. Did I hit a nerve Dave? Don't have a coronary ok Dave. Dave, why are you trying to diss my Staged Pentagon Photography Angle? ... Dave?...


LOL not really. I've encountered hordes of "the photos were all staged" people long before coming across you and I daresay I'll continue to be encountering them long after we part ways. I am attempting to show you how you sound to me regardless of how you THINK you're sounding to me, namely, that you're grasping at completely ridiculous straws to justify your belief in your conspiracy stories. For one thing, you're doing exactly the same thing that con artist Dylan Avery does in "proving" missile pods were on the planes that hit the WTC- he uses the worst quality images he can find that kinda-sorta shows what he wants to see while ignoring the 500 other photos of much better quality that shows no such thing. You're hoping that I haven't seen photos like THIS, that has such detail that you can even read, "FBI Laboratory" on the guy's jacket:

Up close photo of people cleaning up the wreckage in front of the Pentagon

...or this one of a fire truck that was used to put out the fires, You can see right away what the heat of the fires did to the truck, and you can't claim someone pulled a damaged fire truck out of their pocket and planted it when noone was looking:

Damaged truck by the Pentagon helipad

Let's cut to the chase. The photos you're "so sure" were staged didn't come from some secret laboratory or from some mysterious guy that ran in during the 9/11 commission, plunked down an envelope full of photos, and then ran away. They were taken by real, live people. Namely Michael Garcia, Ssgt. Brian Boisvert, and Cpl. Jason Ingersoll. Here's a collection of their photos on the Smithsonian Institution site, along with a photo of the people who actually took the photos-

Pentagon photographs

If you somehow think that the photos were staged, then you're necessarily accusing these people of staging the photographs. It's oen thing to dismiss physical evidence but it's another thing entirely to accuse innocent people of conspiring to murder 3000 people because you think it's funny.


Many engineers and architects, for instance, based on their knowledge, experience and training question aspects of the WTC collapse and do so based on these things. Some pilots and some military people, concerning the behavior of the planes and the NORAD angle, the same. Take Weed, for example. He's always in here talking about his aviation experience etc. So, just like that.


A disingenuous nonsequitor. We're not talking about what happened at the WTC. We're talking about what happened at the Pentagon. The events at the WTC being suspicious and a plane genuinely striking the Pentagon contradict each other only in your own mind. This is the entire point Dr. Legge is trying to make with his report.


Ok, I'll start at the top and re-emphasize what I was saying...

First you seem to me to have it backwards a bit, that's what it seems like to me. Like you lump me in with the Conspiracy 'the photos were all staged' People and you do so straight away. Even after I cautioned you about such arbitrary grouping in my last post etc. I don't know any of them, really, and that's important, lest you think I got my ideas of this possibility from Them, which I did not, you see?

No, my point is, 'I' 'Me', 'Myself' alone, looked at 'the evidence' personally, and based on my experience, knowledge and familiarity with the field of photography and of the taking and making of staged photographs (though not at sites of 'terrorist attacks' but in the corporate realm), that those pics to me (I didn't tell you what pics exactly, nor were they the pics you use as the above examples specifically), that those pics look 'staged' to me.

They just do. And because they do I tend to lean toward the conclusion that they are indeed 'staged'.

So call it what you will, to ME, based on what I know and my experience with photography, those photos look staged and I therefore tend to believe that they are.

Now what has this got to do with 9/11? Well you seem to want to separate the WTC from the Pentagon rather strangely, commenting on how one doesn't relate or apply to the other etc. When I was just using what I said in that opening paragraph to indicate that I just didn't read about the whole possibility of 'staging' off some damn fool conspiracy website, but that it was based on what I know about 9/11 and photography that I came to that conclusion after examining many of the photos taken that day at the Pentagon by who knows how many people, and that there was to ME apparent 'staging'.

My bringing up the WTC and NORAD and Weed and his 'aviation' experience was just to show that we as individuals have had our moments of "Aha" and "Hmmm" regarding different aspects of 9/11 and that we can and do and should think for ourselves and bring what we know and have learned out while examining and thinking about 9/11. That's all.

I was discussing my experience and knowledge and how it related to the viewing of 'the evidence' of Pentagon post "crash" photos. We clearly do not have any video from the Pentagon crash or it either exists or it doesn't, in any case we ain't seen it, so the next best thing then are the photos. Photos we got. So let's all examine them. Why? Because we got them to look at and since it's been like almost a decade since the Pentagon attack and no video has really been released I say we're not going to be seeing any so we have to fall back to examining what we do have as 'evidence', namely the photos shot that day etc. Those we have and we should therefore carefully examine them. I expect you would not be adverse to a thorough examination OF EVERY SINGLE post Pentagon "crash" photo and other photos shot that day. Am I right about that?

I see staging in the Pentagon photos and I see 9/11 as one big thing, I would've thought you'd see 9/11 as one big thing too all covered by the "Official Story" etc. I know that Silverstein argued over whether 2 planes meant two attacks but surely you and I can agree that 9/11, the day and "Attacks" of 9/11, were ONE EVENT, with at the very least one set of perps generally, all working together. Right? So though my use of the WTC as only referencing people having, or questions dawning on them, about the events, coupled with their experience, well that was just a simple example. Leave it to you to convolute that by saying one thing is not like the other.

I know the towers were tall and in New York Dave, and that the Pentagon is in another district and is not so tall, but are you trying to tell me that like Silverstein you think the 'incidents' of 9/11, that day, don't and can't apply to each other? For investigation purposes I mean? That they are separate? I think it's one big Event all done more or less by the same individuals. I think you think that too. But NOW because I, through my experience and assessment of the Pentagon 'evidence' photos and seeing them as 'staged', well, I think we might just differ on who those 'individuals' might in fact be. For if those pics are 'staged' I really do fail to see how Osama bin Laden was involved in that or how all those "seemingly" regular American type individuals in the photos were in cahoots with him and Al Qaeda on that day.

Btw the humor and one liners I put in my posts are for spicey effect, I like thinking up one liners in real life so it finds its way into my posts, mostly because I read them back to myself and I like to have a laugh as I do so. It doesn't mean I think 9/11 is FUNNY Dave. (Which you somehow seem to keep insinuating that I maybe do etc.) I think some of your reasoning is though, and so I'm going keep throwing the odd funny line in, I expect you will keep on reasoning, so hey, we're like even!

No Dave I may crack jokes and type witty one liners on occasion but I am deadly serious about 9/11 and who did it and I think they all (whoever they are) should pay and be brought to swift justice already.

Dave I know you been in here relentlessly slogging away and have met with the whole "the Pentagon photos were staged" contingent before. But I don't know really, what they're talking about because that's not how I personally arrived at what they were saying. (See above for how I arrived at it personally.)

I don't know if THEY are grasping at straws and making stuff up to fit their "Conspiracy Agenda" Dave, I haven't checked yet, but I'm going to, I'll get back to you on that, you can count on it. Thing is, just like I related to you that I hadn't heard about Dr Legge before you mentioned him in this thread, you may find it hard to believe but I haven't searched any "the Pentagon photos were staged" threads on ATS yet!! You'd think I'd post in threads like that! Check my postings - didn't.

You: 'I am attempting to show you how you sound to me regardless of how you THINK you're sounding to me, namely, that you're grasping at completely ridiculous straws to justify your belief in your conspiracy stories.'

This is where we differ and greatly I might add. And the 'backwards' thing comes in. You may have to clean out your ears after (or before!) reading this next bit.


For I looked at 'the evidence' (the Pentagon photos) and 'detected' 'staging' IMO (but backed by knowledge and plenty of experience etc.) it wasn't based on 'grasping' and/or 'ridiculous straws' by any means, nor was it based on any kind of PRECONCEIVED CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Independent of all that, to ME the photos look STAGED. This is what I feel you are failing to grasp.

For you seem to think I had the 'Conspiracy Theory Idea' FIRST. (Hence your use of the words 'ridiculous' and 'grasping') But no Dave, I looked at the Photos FIRST, and came to the Conclusion that they were Staged SECOND. Second Dave.

Therefore, in my mind at least, since I'm clear on what's in there, my 'Conspiracy Theory' about 'staged' photos at the Pentagon is really no such thing at all. If anything it's a Theory based on an educated assessment after an examination of 'the evidence'. I was looking at the pictures Dave and as I said "the pictures seemed strange to me, strange, but strangely familiar..." Remember. I looked at the pics and my "Spidey Sense" went 'TINGLE!! 'TINGLE!' "Wait a minute!" style, "Something ain't RIGHT here!" kind of thing.

Now you've looked at Pentagon pics I'm sure there's a few in your post above etc. So HOW COME when YOU look at Pentagon pics Dave you don't see what I see? Well, maybe you're not so into photography... Like if I went prospecting or mining for gold in the Yukon and some old time miner took me down the shaft and handed me a pick and said "Go at it sonny!" I wouldn't even know where to look or where to dig, wouldn't know what I was doing or seeing. Where do I dig? Where is the gold old timer?" I wouldn't know. We'd both be standing in the same shaft, looking at the same walls (i.e. 'pics'), but I bet the old timer would know where to dig because he could "see" more than me because that's what he does all day and has for like YEARS etc.

So two people can look at the same thing, the same pictures and see different things. Just because YOU looked at Pentagon photos and didn't see anything, didn't see any damn fool Conspiracy, doesn't mean they don't show more than you can see and more than you could see if you didn't have the same problem you accuse me of, (but with the "Official Story" blinding you) in that your Idea, prior to looking is that they are not staged!

Not because you looked at them and determined they weren't but like above, you think they're not and then you look! But you don't see if they truly are or not that way, no, you only see your Idea that they are not - First. You believe the pictures are not staged Dave and so, really, it comes as no surprise that is exactly what you see. And is exactly how you accuse me of not seeing staging but through a Conspiracy Idea etc. (Which I didn't have!)

In that way you 'look' at the pics, but maybe you don't really 'see' them beyond your idea that of course they don't show any damn fool staging! Right? You see what I'm saying and doing right? I used what you tried to foist upon me and tossed it right back at you.


You look at the pictures and don't see staging; I look at the same pictures and do, that is I look after my eyes adjust, because I been down digging in a gold mine for 21 years... what you been doing? Though I bet it's not photography Dave.


I looked at the photos and the photos 'spoke' what they did to my well trained mind, simple as that.

I can agree with you though, those *others* may indeed be grasping at God knows what to back up and show God knows what, I concede that kind of thing is indeed rife in the 9/11 area.

But that doesn't mean that is how I arrived at my particular assertion. Is that clearer?

Now regarding that, like I said, I am convinced of 'staging' by examining 'the evidence'. It could mean many many things I'm afraid. And I am not one to flinch if it comes to mean the very very worst Dave. If it is found that those pics were staged then I would want the full weight and reach of the law to come down hard on anyone and everyone involved in the making of the photographs yes. Of course there seem to be many half-truths around, like, I think the photos are obviously (to Me) staged, but that doesn't mean that absolutely EVERYONE is or could be involved in it. Let's say the government did 9/11 "hypothetically", the Pentagon hires maybe a private security team to watch the Pentagon site over night, sure they were there on 911, but maybe knew 'nothing'. Or the debris that was hauled away, maybe the truck driver is just doing his job and is driving a truck and that's all he knows, but in a few photos he's seen in his truck pulling away, does it mean HE'S IN ON IT! Maybe, maybe not.

Those truckers at the WTC who quickly hauled away all the steel from what rightfully should have been a major crime scene... Maybe they were just doing what their bosses said to do that day when they showed up for work etc. See I'm not trying to divert your thread to the WTC or anything by mentioning it, rather I'm just thinking up examples to illustrate my points basically as I go along and type. I think and I can't see how you would not agree with me in the big picture that "9/11" was more or less a single connected event. Right? Don't get all out of joint then if I happen to talk about it all as related and make anecdotes that come to mind while describing things. It's all one thing to me in a general way etc. Done by one group of perps, so far I mean, as far as I and presumably WE, know.

Call my assertion like, a 'ridiculous grasping' foundationless diversion from the 'Real Truth' or some damn fool thing if you want I'm fine with that because I think I am right about this, and I'm not looking to even win you over necessarily (the photos show what the photos show, see or don't see) or garner your approval at all and based on what I know of your posts and drift of your logic and reasoning thus far, I pretty much expect that you'll do what you can to discount whatever I say anyway. I bet that if like you and Dr Legge, I were to bring forth "It's Official! Pentagon Photos Staged!! like evidence and Thread Subject Titles like yours you would discount something about them for x y and z reasons. And so it goes...

Rather than lumping me in though with another group you seem not to like or respect the ideas of much, I'm curious why you didn't simply ask me: "What photos? Can you show me what you are talking about so I can examine if what you claim has any true merit?" Or something like that. I suspect you didn't because your Idea already is that they are not staged and so like to look again, is a waste of your precious time. I understand.

Yet you attempt to you lump me in with all the other 'the photos are staged' conspiracy people without even knowing what photos or that I saw the photos first and they said something was wrong, and not the other way around as you portray. I'd call it more like an educated assessment based on years of experience in fact and if THAT seems to indicate there is some kind of Conspiracy hidden from all but serious educated critical eyes and minds then perhaps that's exactly what it means and exactly what is going on even though EVERYONE cannot, at this time, 'see' it.

Cheers



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by NWOwned

Dave, Dave. Did I hit a nerve Dave? Don't have a coronary ok Dave. Dave, why are you trying to diss my Staged Pentagon Photography Angle? ... Dave?...


LOL not really. I've encountered hordes of "the photos were all staged" people long before coming across you and I daresay I'll continue to be encountering them long after we part ways. I am attempting to show you how you sound to me regardless of how you THINK you're sounding to me, namely, that you're grasping at completely ridiculous straws to justify your belief in your conspiracy stories. For one thing, you're doing exactly the same thing that con artist Dylan Avery does in "proving" missile pods were on the planes that hit the WTC- he uses the worst quality images he can find that kinda-sorta shows what he wants to see while ignoring the 500 other photos of much better quality that shows no such thing. You're hoping that I haven't seen photos like THIS, that has such detail that you can even read, "FBI Laboratory" on the guy's jacket:

Up close photo of people cleaning up the wreckage in front of the Pentagon

...or this one of a fire truck that was used to put out the fires, You can see right away what the heat of the fires did to the truck, and you can't claim someone pulled a damaged fire truck out of their pocket and planted it when noone was looking:

Damaged truck by the Pentagon helipad

Let's cut to the chase. The photos you're "so sure" were staged didn't come from some secret laboratory or from some mysterious guy that ran in during the 9/11 commission, plunked down an envelope full of photos, and then ran away. They were taken by real, live people. Namely Michael Garcia, Ssgt. Brian Boisvert, and Cpl. Jason Ingersoll. Here's a collection of their photos on the Smithsonian Institution site, along with a photo of the people who actually took the photos-

Pentagon photographs

If you somehow think that the photos were staged, then you're necessarily accusing these people of staging the photographs. It's oen thing to dismiss physical evidence but it's another thing entirely to accuse innocent people of conspiring to murder 3000 people because you think it's funny.


Many engineers and architects, for instance, based on their knowledge, experience and training question aspects of the WTC collapse and do so based on these things. Some pilots and some military people, concerning the behavior of the planes and the NORAD angle, the same. Take Weed, for example. He's always in here talking about his aviation experience etc. So, just like that.


A disingenuous nonsequitor. We're not talking about what happened at the WTC. We're talking about what happened at the Pentagon. The events at the WTC being suspicious and a plane genuinely striking the Pentagon contradict each other only in your own mind. This is the entire point Dr. Legge is trying to make with his report.


Ok, I'll start at the top and re-emphasize what I was saying...

First you seem to me to have it backwards a bit, that's what it seems like to me. Like you lump me in with the Conspiracy 'the photos were all staged' People and you do so straight away. Even after I cautioned you about such arbitrary grouping in my last post etc. I don't know any of them, really, and that's important, lest you think I got my ideas of this possibility from Them, which I did not, you see?

No, my point is, 'I' 'Me', 'Myself' alone, looked at 'the evidence' personally, and based on my experience, knowledge and familiarity with the field of photography and of the taking and making of staged photographs (though not at sites of 'terrorist attacks' but in the corporate realm), that those pics to me (I didn't tell you what pics exactly, nor were they the pics you use as the above examples specifically), that those pics look 'staged' to me.

They just do. And because they do I tend to lean toward the conclusion that they are indeed 'staged'.

So call it what you will, to ME, based on what I know and my experience with photography, those photos look staged and I therefore tend to believe that they are.

Now what has this got to do with 9/11? Well you seem to want to separate the WTC from the Pentagon rather strangely, commenting on how one doesn't relate or apply to the other etc. When I was just using what I said in that opening paragraph to indicate that I just didn't read about the whole possibility of 'staging' off some damn fool conspiracy website, but that it was based on what I know about 9/11 and photography that I came to that conclusion after examining many of the photos taken that day at the Pentagon by who knows how many people, and that there was to ME apparent 'staging'.


Pssssttt... Check the thread title....This entire thread is specifically about the pentagon.. ding:::ding::::

Some people just simply lack comprehension skills!



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 



Pssssttt... Check the thread title....This entire thread is specifically about the pentagon.. ding:::ding::::
Some people just simply lack comprehension skills!


You mean this?

IT'S OFFICIAL: Even conspiracy web sites acknowledge it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon


Funny thing is I don't see ALL them web sites that are acknowledging this..
I see a link to one blog where one guy is saying it..



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   


Pssssttt... Check the thread title....This entire thread is specifically about the pentagon.. ding:::ding:::: Some people just simply lack comprehension skills!


First off, I did check the thread title. What exactly has been made official here? What do conspiracy web sites have to do with some guy having delusions about a 757 crashing into the Pentagon? Therefore, the thread title is not only misleading, it is a flat out lie and an exaggeration!

Secondly, this thread is about some guy who thinks there was thermite at the WTC, believing that a 757 impacted with the Pentagon. If this senile character did not believe in the termite story at the WTC, it is highly doubtful that the OP even initiates this thread. Obviously, the entire premise of this thread is based on the contradictory nature of this guy's WTC thermite beliefs.

Now, what was that you were saying about lacking comprehension skills?
edit on 11-2-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 



I don't know how brilliant and/or unique my position is really but I'll tell you what it means and why I like it.

If somehow we find out that thermite caused the WTC collapse, ah but wait, we found that stuff maybe, in the dust, but it could also be produced by the burning office furniture and molten girders!

OR

If we find out a plane actually hit the Pentagon, ah but wait, there's no video and conflicting eye witness reports and the evidence for it one way or the other is forever "sketchy".

OR

If we ever find out whether flight 93 crashed or was it shot down? Hey, so far, no real answer...

Gee, you know, that's too bad. Time goes on, nothing changes, can't prove anything. Oh well.

You may say (I'm a Dreamer, but I'm not the only one!) I can't even prove that the photos were 'staged', I haven't even really tried to do that YET, (Going to try my best!!) but that's all water under the bridge anyhow because I KNOW that they were! And that's THE MAIN THING.


This I absolutely know. It's blatantly obvious to me. -->The Pentagon post "crash" photos were STAGED.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


Hey, I meant to ask you actually and got carried away with all my typing so didn't etc. I sure like to type, sorry all.

Can you tell me, since you were at the Pentagon that day, and claimed, I believe, (think it was you?) that it was your mini-van seen on the roadway with the doors open... Did you happen, at that time, to see any guy get out of his car and snap a few (13), pics? His name was Steve. Maybe you ran into him while you all were there, I dunno, I just thought I'd ask.

It may very well be that he took the photo of your mini-van up there on the 'roadway'... perhaps you even saw this guy or even met him? Just wondering.

Cheers



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Are you familiar with perspective? You should hone your comprehension skills my friend.. Look at an aerial view..
The poles knocked down are to the left of the picture.. The poles you see standing are to the right of where the plane flew through..

After reading some of these posts...it DOES NOT surprise me, that people are still doubting a plane hit the pentagon.. You don't even understand the proof in front of you...so how could you comprehend any incoming evidence.. Its rather pathetic.

FYI - try that "how did this happen" "why is this like this" - I saw the damn plane and don't even feel like entertaining your ignorant questions.


Perspective? Yes, Im familiar with it.
Comprehension? No need to hone my skills. I do just fine in life comprehending things.
The poles were knocked down to the left? Not with the story the OS gives us with the plane hitting the Pentagon on the angle that it supposedly did. But you tell yourself that.

Whats pathetic? The fact that you dont know the definition of the word 'know' and had to be corrected a few posts ago? Or that you and a select few others believe this fairytale? Do you think 'Alice in Wonderland' is a true story too? Or that you apparently dont know the meaning of the word 'ignorant'. But I'll get into that a little later.

Im sure you saw the plane hit. If you did, you are the ONLY one that did. You may have been there. You may have thought you saw it hit. You may have been mistaken. Eyes have been know to deceive people before.
As for my ignorant question...do yourself a favor and look up the definition of the word 'ignorant'. I would post it here, but putting your mind to work and exercising it is vital.

Ill speak in layman's terms for you. The reason you dont see the debris in the picture that is further away, is because there is none. Just like the first reporters that were on the scene reported.
How is that for 'perspective'?
All you have to do is ZOOM in on the picture, and youre not going to like what you see...or what you dont see.
No singed grass, no debris.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
Pssssttt... Check the thread title....This entire thread is specifically about the pentagon.. ding:::ding::::

Some people just simply lack comprehension skills!



Ya hey, you're right, it's about the Pentagon and about something being "Official". Something about flight 77 finally being shown to have crashed into it I think and not at all about how the photographs (because we had no video taken of the crash site at the Pentagon) on that day, were so obviously staged. Yep that's a whole other thread.

Didn't you say you saw the plane crash? I'd sure like to hear all about that!

Cheers



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


How is it possible for you to claim that if Ressurectio saw the plane impact the Pentagon he was the only one that did ? Surely you can't be unaware of all the other witnesses who have said just that :-

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


??? Well, perhaps you "conspiracy" theorists need to have another meeting, and get your agendas back in line....


....youre not going to like what you see...or what you dont see.
No singed grass, no debris.


How does that mesh with NWO's post, top of page #17?? The claim that ALL of the Pentagon exterior photos were "staged"? Which "side" are you on, anyway? Trying to sabotage your fellows??

In any case.....no, the grass wasn't "singed"? (Whatever difference that would make....how far do you think the heat of the fire would extend, anyhow?? Or, do you ALSO deny there were fires ???)

Secondly....again, with the "no debris" lies?? When does this end?? NWO claims the debris that WAS PHOTOGRAPHED was "staged" (somehow...invisible garden gnomes??) ... yet, here is the continued lying meme and mantra of "no debris".

Someone's been skipping meetings, I wonder......



edit on 12 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   


The plane was screaming in at high speed and disintegrated on impact.


Wait a second, the debunker above believes the plane disintegrated into thin air on impact. Maybe that is why there wasn't any debris.


Did someone mention something about skipping meetings?
edit on 12-2-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
And former .s of state admitted 911 was an inside job and rumsfeld admitted a plane was shot down over pensylvenia.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DIDtm
 


??? Well, perhaps you "conspiracy" theorists need to have another meeting, and get your agendas back in line....


....youre not going to like what you see...or what you dont see.
No singed grass, no debris.


How does that mesh with NWO's post, top of page #17?? The claim that ALL of the Pentagon exterior photos were "staged"? Which "side" are you on, anyway? Trying to sabotage your fellows??

In any case.....no, the grass wasn't "singed"? (Whatever difference that would make....how far do you think the heat of the fire would extend, anyhow?? Or, do you ALSO deny there were fires ???)

Secondly....again, with the "no debris" lies?? When does this end?? NWO claims the debris that WAS PHOTOGRAPHED was "staged" (somehow...invisible garden gnomes??) ... yet, here is the continued lying meme and mantra of "no debris".

Someone's been skipping meetings, I wonder......



edit on 12 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


The post "crash" photos at the Pentagon are the best evidence and (best evidence for trickery) there is, not because of what they show or don't show, i.e. 'plane' parts... but for what they are themselves, and that is 'staged'.

The staging, and not the plane or no plane is real the evidence.

No video was either captured or released of the hit, everyone thinks that's suspicious. They went out and grabbed all the video immediately, that sounds about right, for you couldn't ask for the Citgo tape at 9AM now could you? No, that would give it away. If something is up with the videos then it only makes sense that something might be doubly up with the photos.

I say there is.

A guy wearing an FBI jacket with his back to me, look, I got to go to the mall and pay my phone bill, at the mall I can buy a jacket that says pretty much anything, I can stand up and be in pictures with my back to the camera, all that ain't good enough. Maybe that FBI guy (Dave's photo) saw something no other 'agent' there at the scene saw. What's his name? Let's get a statement from him... let's interview the guy. He got closer than any of us etc. Let's ask him why stuff got carried away immediately and where it was taken and where it all is now.

But even more importantly for investigation and justice purposes, what is his NAME? How do we know he even works for the FBI? On TV the CSI people all wear 'CSI' gear, you all think they work for the Real CSI department?! It means NOTHING. Names, and a face tied to every name. Nevermind the identities of the 'hijackers' that they seemed to get wrong, give us the identities of all the 'agents' on the Pentagon lawn, think you can do that and not muck it up?!


Speaking of video, let's say I give it to them that they never got it on film... Ok. But how come there is no video of the inside cavity? Or like 4 hours of tape of someone having shot the damage up close? How come the photos show the Pentagon from across the field OR close-ups of plane parts in some rubble that you don't even recognize as even being inside the Pentagon? How come most or all of the middle range shots are missing? How come there isn't a close-up shot of one or two damaged columns, especially the inconvenient "bent out" ones, that would fill your computer monitor? The ones from afar that looked "pushed out" can we only see them from 200 feet?

How come the pictures at the Pentagon are either from 200 feet or 2 feet? Where are the 15 foot photos?

And don't even get me started on the cab and the "light" pole in the windshield not damaging the hood at all - staging. And the guy on the scene with the camera takes 13 pics from the roadway and then leaves because he's "scared".

If you were out hiking and ran into Bigfoot and had your camera don't you think if at first you were 300 feet away that you'd do whatever you could to get even closer and get the shot you know everyone else would try and get? It's the same thing with ufos lol, they're too far away! But the Pentagon is BIG, it's on the ground, it's not going anywhere... suspicious.

Cheers



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join