Animation Video for Pentagon Proof, best ever made - and why it's wrong.

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Here are two specific questions that were previously ignored. Why?

The OP states that a descent is not shown in the animation, therefore that makes it invalid. Why is that? What is it about a descent or not that makes what the animation shows invalid?

In another post you show a photograph labeled as where an engine hit and label it as no damage. However, that IS NOT where the animation illustrates where an engine hit at all. Why are you doing that?




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by JohnGeeTee
 


This has become a question for Psychology because the question isn't whether there's no evidence, it's about peoples denial of the Original Story and their fear of changing a worldview to include a corrupt government.


I remember having a conversation with a devout Catholic ( of which religion I am a lapsed member as they say) where I put across my argument as to why established religions where a fallacy, a man made fable. Not so much man made in god's image but god made in man's image. This devout Catholic listened very carefully and agreed with everything I said and her final words where "yes I know all that but it's what i want to believe."



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


the rest of the picture is shown several times in this thread - I posted that because it's the exact site where the airplane hit, according to the video.

You never know, with some of the "scientific" logic OSers use, maybe when the plane initially crashed, the tail tucked under like a scared dog - that's why it didn't leave a mark.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrowaBarton

Originally posted by hdutton
O K. Let's all agree that four (4) planes were highjacked on the morning of Sept. 9, 2001.


Sorry can't agree with that



As long as we keep arguing about this, the longer those responsible go unpunished.

I would hope you will atleast agree with me about that.

The events of that day can not be changed so we should put our energies into finding those responsible and bringing them to justice.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
O K. Let's all agree that four (4) planes were highjacked on the morning of Sept. 9, 2001.


now why we would we agree on that??

the Flight Data Recorder info from AA 77 showed it never even stopped at Gate D 26 at IAD... where it allegedly departed from. (this according the the FDR data received by the FOIA request in the OP)

The idea none of the planes were actually hijacked and full of people was one of the last pieces I recognized... the obvious question before that was what happened to all the people? Turns out there were never any of the four commercial flights that day. BEFORE people attack this, answer why there's no airplane at the Pentagon...

ETA: "of the four"
edit on 18-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: clarified confusing statement



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I'll take a look at the site again (I've seen it before but been awhile), but recognize that the EXACT location shown as the crash site in the video shows unbroken wall with intact unbroken windows precisely where the tail hit... it just doesn't add up.
It's probably safe to say I've posted more Pentagon pictures than anyone on ATS
I'm always happy to see more, but an airplane does not magically appear on the other side of a wall... it's that easy.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


I was talking about the date. Other than that I try to keep my opinions on this ever so hot button topic to myself.

9/11 not 9/9

However I do agree with the rest of your above post in regards to finding who's responsible 100%.
edit on 18/3/11 by TrowaBarton because: Spelling as per.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TrowaBarton
 


That's O K. I can blame some of my slips on old age.

The rest I will lay on just plain dumb.

When you get my age the days go by faster and faster. 24 hours at a time.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


I implore you to look at the photos on this site:

911research.wtc7.net...

You can clearly see the hole in a few of the photos, and they even have imagery of the plane on the inside of the building as well as bodies of the passengers.


I've seen all those before and have most of them saved on my computer. Any picture that clearly shows the wall is valid - the pictures I put in the OP were the bext I could find that clearly show the wall in the same location as the video.

I would love to see some entirely clear pictures but if any are out there I haven't seen them. I'd like to see some of the hotel and CCTV videos that were confiscated by our goverment but they won't release them. I'd like to see Pentagon security footage that shows an airplane or whatever explosion/missile combination was used, but they won't release them.

You presented an awesome animation that I hadn't seen before. I looked at, saw obvious errors, and posted proof that the airplane did not crash where they say it did. Are you, Varemia, willing to have the same open mind and question your beliefs on this?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnGeeTee
 


This is a very good explanation of how OS'ers think.

They truly have no ability to actually acknowledge the obvious ridiculous inconsistencies that are present all around in this conspiracy.

And all because they have been taught since birth how to think, and how to see.

The mind is an interesting thing, it will make you believe something that is not true do to programming.

Since i was about 12 I started to suspect the "Official Story" on literally everything...with many good reasons, it started in Church, where i was being told one thing and shown another...

9/11 completely woke me up, as i could see QUITE CLEARLY that people were just believing anything told to them because of the work done to "Prepare" them for such stories, Christians were the easiest to fool, cause they WANT to believe that Satan is working through Islam to destroy the children of god....CASE CLOSED for them,,,, LOL.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Thanks for the thread OP.

As usual the debunkers show their true colours with their Ad Hominem attacks.

They always feel the need to resort to name calling when their belief systems are challenged. Or pick out one detail then claiming that it proves the entire issue void. Typical low-hand efforts and so transparent.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat
 


The "Crash site"



there comes a point when a person should reassess. What would be mandatory for an airplane to have actually crashed into the Pentagon and blow through numerous internal walls?

1) an airplane
2) a hole in the Pentagon
3) enough kinetic energy to allow the debris to crash through each successive wall.
4) wreckage - since this is a crime scene we would need to have enough wreckage and serial numbers to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

agreed?

If ANY of those four are absent then we don't have a conclusion that an airplane crashed here.

The above picture and associated video show WITHOUT DOUBT that no airplane entered the Pentagon in that spot. An approximately 12-foot wide airplane fuselage traveling at 300+ MPH would at very least crack the cement.

reheat, I'm not sure why you can look at that picture of the crash location and still think an airplane crashed there, or why if the blast proof windows kept the airplane OUTSIDE the explosion happened INSIDE, or why you choose to keep that side of the argument... that's up to you and not really my problem.



So I should ignore the large wide hole below the windows, because the windows on the second floor werent damaged, and therefore, no plane hit that wall?
But what about the large hole? Why is it on the first floor and in the right location of the impact?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
i can't believe these hijackers managed to steer a 180ft plane and hit the pentagon that low and parallel to the ground that they didn't even leave a skid mark on the grass.

there should also be no chain link fence what so ever if the wing hit it. at that speed, the force and mass would have obliterated it, yanking the posts, grass and support.

debris, luggage, seats and carts should all be visible. all the video's don't show a raging inferno that would have left nothing behind.

even little private jets that crash into the ground leave some visible evidence it was a plane.

some specs for the boeing 757: length 178 ft, wingspan 124 feet, weight 127,000 pounds, fuel capacity 11, 500 gallons.

that's all the debris a plane this big left? it's hard to believe. that's why nobody believes it.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So I should ignore the large wide hole below the windows, because the windows on the second floor werent damaged, and therefore, no plane hit that wall?
But what about the large hole? Why is it on the first floor and in the right location of the impact?


No, DON'T ignore it!! just recognize that it's too small for an airplane to fit... Did this imaginary airplane you guys believe in have a tail? Apparently not.

We can see two holes in the first floor, a few feet away we see intact unbroken windows. Somehow people think an ENTIRE airplane could have fit through those little holes?? The wings folded in... I guess one wing went through each little hole and nicely waited until they got INSIDE before the leaked their fuel and blew up. How about the tail? did it somehow double over, shrink... how do you explain that we're looking at a hole that doesn't even have a mark on the wall where the tail WOULD HAVE hit??

your story doesn't fly...


edit on 18-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: changed a word



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Here are additional photos and an analysis of the Pentagon and all of the issues that have been attempted in this thread. This is only for those sincerely interested in another TRUTHER PERSPECTIVE

Yes, that is correct it's written by an rather well known TRUTHER, but there is a different conclusion using some of the same photos.

911research.wtc7.net...
edit on 18-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
How about the tail? did it somehow double over, shrink... how do you explain that we're looking at a hole that doesn't even have a mark on the wall where the tail WOULD HAVE hit??


Oh, the tail again. Yes, there is significant damage where the tail hit, you're just ignoring it or trying to shift it to another location on the facade..

The tail or more appropriately, the vertical stabilizer and horizontal stabilizer, is largely made of composites. It would not be expected to survive intact in an impact of this nature and the ensuing fire.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


But why are you leaving out the entire picture? Seems to me you are intentionally leaving out the rest of the picture. From the entire picture of the site, I have no problem with understanding how the plane crashed into it.

The hole of impact was about 96ft wide. Visible damage width was about 141ft. Wingspan of 757 = 160.

Your picture is a just a tiny part of the main hole. The maine hole was the right size.

edit on 3/18/2011 by GenRadek because: picture



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
How about the tail? did it somehow double over, shrink... how do you explain that we're looking at a hole that doesn't even have a mark on the wall where the tail WOULD HAVE hit??


Oh, the tail again. Yes, there is significant damage where the tail hit, you're just ignoring it or trying to shift it to another location on the facade..

The tail or more appropriately, the vertical stabilizer and horizontal stabilizer, is largely made of composites. It would not be expected to survive intact in an impact of this nature and the ensuing fire.


There is NOT significant damage - the following two pictures, one broad, one close-up show PRECISELY where the tail would have hit, based on the 911 CS video in the OP. The video shows the airplane position basically to the inch because it shows damaged concrete where the left engine hit, an ripped fencing where the right engine hit. It shows the location marked in these two photos. You say the vertical stabilizer wouldn't have survived ... I don't have the expertise to argue that, BUT I do know without a doubt that a vertical stabilizer crashing into a building would AT LEAST crack the cement.... but that's not the case.





You say:


there is significant damage where the tail hit, you're just ignoring it or trying to shift it to another location on the facade..

I've shown there is no damage, you can look at the pictures yourself, and I've shown the exact location.
There is no damage.

Your turn, reheat... WHY is there no damage in the spot the tail allegedly hit?


edit on 18-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: changed picture size



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
just been thinking about the differences in the initial damage to the buildings at WTC and the pentagon. i am not going to claim to be an expert, and to be honest i dont even know the differences in the planes supposedly used but it seems to me the pentagon got off lightly compared to the twin towers.... dont know if anybody has any pics comparing the two sites?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
No plane hit the pentagon... I cannot believe after all these years people are still trying to convince us of it.

1, look at all plane crashes...Nothing at the pentagon even resembles a plane crash. Windows still whole, cable spool right in front of the HOLE NOT TOUCHED.

a missile hit the pentagon....... the gon is reinforced 10x's more then an actually ship carrying oil! The plane would not have made it threw all those rings but a missile would.

Defense dept. came up with this video? lmaoooo I stopped reading this post after that. If the Devil wrote a book on how NOT EVIL he is..........o yea.. I would definitely believe that one.................*cough*
edit on 18-3-2011 by tracehd1 because: error





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join