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.

 

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

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 



Okay, while you read that I'm off to beddy bye. Have fun, but please, enough of the pretty pictures.


Can't remember the last time I posted a picture




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by 911files

Yeah, pretty much. Most of my conversations have been with the DoD and Navy office by phone and with one very elusive FBI attorney. The letter I linked is the best I can get from them in writing on the subject. On the phone, the implication is much stronger from the DoD and Navy folks. But what can ya do

Navy Annex FOIA

(And no, unlike some shaddy characters on the internet I don't record my calls without the other person's knowledge and consent)


Is that one you appealed?


Yep. It comes down to this. They are required to do a 'reasonable search'. They did a reasonable search. Now if someone happened to put a different 'title' on it, it would not show up in the search. So it is like you said. Without any direct evidence of its existence (other than an 'implication') ... Scott Bingham spent a lot of money on his case and finally gave up. Judicial Watch the same thing. They released 95% of what I asked for (between them and the FAA) so I cut my loses before I wasted too much money. Still owe the FAA a couple hundred bucks as it is.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by 911files

Yeah, pretty much. Most of my conversations have been with the DoD and Navy office by phone and with one very elusive FBI attorney. The letter I linked is the best I can get from them in writing on the subject. On the phone, the implication is much stronger from the DoD and Navy folks. But what can ya do

Navy Annex FOIA

(And no, unlike some shaddy characters on the internet I don't record my calls without the other person's knowledge and consent)


Is that one you appealed?


Yep. It comes down to this. They are required to do a 'reasonable search'. They did a reasonable search. Now if someone happened to put a different 'title' on it, it would not show up in the search. So it is like you said. Without any direct evidence of its existence (other than an 'implication') ... Scott Bingham spent a lot of money on his case and finally gave up. Judicial Watch the same thing. They released 95% of what I asked for (between them and the FAA) so I cut my loses before I wasted too much money. Still owe the FAA a couple hundred bucks as it is.


So, it could be as simple as a filing issue IF THERE ARE ANY. McGuire indicated all in the possession of the FBI did not show anything significant at all. In fact, of the IIRC 89 the FBI originally had only some of them were from the Pentagon area. The remainder were either from NYC or elsewhere....



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


Great - please do the world a favor and create a thread with all this stuff! Saying you have proof and keeping it to yourself doesn't help anyone, and honestly hurts your credibility a little. If you have what you consider proof I'd love to see it.

ETA: I haven't read the last two pages yet, so if it's there give me a bit...
edit on 18-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: added a line



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by 911files
 


Great - please do the world a favor and create a thread with all this stuff! Saying you have proof and keeping it to yourself doesn't help anyone, and honestly hurts your credibility a little. If you have what you consider proof I'd love to see it.


No sir, it hurts yours because it has been shared for years now and you have not taken the time to even 'goggleinvestigate' for it. Maybe tomorrow I'll post ya a linky to make your life easier. If you talk to Reheat real nice he might post some linky's to some of it for ya.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by 911files

Yeah, pretty much. Most of my conversations have been with the DoD and Navy office by phone and with one very elusive FBI attorney. The letter I linked is the best I can get from them in writing on the subject. On the phone, the implication is much stronger from the DoD and Navy folks. But what can ya do

Navy Annex FOIA

(And no, unlike some shaddy characters on the internet I don't record my calls without the other person's knowledge and consent)


Is that one you appealed?


Yep. It comes down to this. They are required to do a 'reasonable search'. They did a reasonable search. Now if someone happened to put a different 'title' on it, it would not show up in the search. So it is like you said. Without any direct evidence of its existence (other than an 'implication') ... Scott Bingham spent a lot of money on his case and finally gave up. Judicial Watch the same thing. They released 95% of what I asked for (between them and the FAA) so I cut my loses before I wasted too much money. Still owe the FAA a couple hundred bucks as it is.


So, it could be as simple as a filing issue IF THERE ARE ANY. McGuire indicated all in the possession of the FBI did not show anything significant at all. In fact, of the IIRC 89 the FBI originally had only some of them were from the Pentagon area. The remainder were either from NYC or elsewhere....


Yeah and I guess you are one of those that believe the video tapes from the OK bombing all started recording just minutes after the explosion (from multiple locations too). I guess that SS log that talks about seeing the truck pull up in front of the building on the camera footage were just typos


You have more faith than I do my friend.
edit on 18-3-2011 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
You have more faith than I do my friend.


It's not faith at all. If they all say "no hab" there is little else one can LEGALLY do except rant and rave on the Internet and accuse them of lying. There's more than enough of that already without adding to it....
edit on 18-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Hmm, we should always read the fine print..



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Darn, I got all kinds of data (~50 gigs worth). Happy to share whatever your little heart desires of it.


yet you can't answer why the wall remained unscathed where the airplane's vertical stabilizer would have hit...




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by sonnny1
I have some questions. Why hasnt ALL the available footage of this terrorist act,been given to the public,to make their OWN judgment of what happened? What reason is there to keep this footage secret? This is coming from someone that would really like to see for himself,what happened,before the plane or whatever hit it? This makes a true skeptic,question the Official story.


There is no more footage of an aircraft at or near the Pentagon.

See how simple that was...


it's posts like this that make me want an ATS "negative star" option.

The authorities confiscated video and CCTV tapes almost immediately after 9/11... are you saying they destroyed them because they show there was no plane? I agree, yet we can't be sure they no longer exist.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


Despite your exceptional arrogance, as though everything you say is truth, and you've already answered all the questions, spoken with all the attorneys... great. I don't know who you are or what work is yours... maybe I have read it but since you haven't disclosed WHICH work is yours, it's a little off to imply I haven't tried.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Looking at the flight animation sequence and the photos used in the same animation there are very certainly discrepancies between the position of objects and their angle after they have been struck. Surely if this is to be considered as "forensic" evidence then there should be no anomalies that are blatantly obvious to anyone who has eyesight and can tell the direction an object has fallen from the photographs used in the animation. If the said objects are considered to have rolled and bounced about then at least their final resting place should be the same in both photo and animation, the street light that ended up on the embankment is the most obvious one but there are several others as well. Sorry but to me this is an evidential fail and in a jury I would have sufficient doubt to discredit this as evidence on the above grounds.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   


Wrong. There were seats, debris, luggage and carts ... all visible. They were inside the building. I have personally interviewed members of the Memphis Urban Rescue Team that helped in the recovery efforts. Yes, they found bodies (body parts mainly). The plane did leave some "visible evidence it was a plane" ... the hole.


A hole? Ok, let's do some comparisons, shall we?

www.youtube.com... This is what happens when a plane going 500 MPH hits a concrete wall.

i226.photobucket.com... This is what happens when a plane going 500+ MPH hits a concrete wall on 9/11.


Now, there are some differences. An F4 Phantom is not a 747 Passenger Jet. *However*, an F4 Phantom is designed to go 500+ MPH, no matter what turn or dive. A 747 is designed to go 500+ MPH also, but NOT in turns or dives. It is strictly for cruising speed at a set altitude. "Flight 77" was reported to have done a 270-360 degree turn over the Pentagon, while diving, and slammed into it full force. This is very hard to do in a 747, especially with the glaring fact that the supposed hijacker was a terrible pilot that "barely passed flight school".

The concrete wall the F4 Phantom hit is designed for nuclear plants. If a plane going 500 MPH cannot penetrate it, how in the world can a 747 going the same speed punch through, not one, but THREE rings of the Pentagon? A section which, by the way, was upgraded and received reinforced concrete before 9/11. This was the ONLY section of the building to be reinforced, too. And, by "coincidence", it housed the DoD's budgets, which the Bush Administration reported on September 10th; $1 to $2 TRILLION missing. If a building that is designed to survive missile strikes from world powers can be penetrated by what's basically a coke can, how the hell do they expect to survive attacks from the Russians or Chinese? Hell, they won't need the military apparently. They can just fly some remote-controlled jet liners into our military "fortress" and kill the entire chain of command!

Furthermore, how did "Flight 77" make it past Washington DC's air defenses? And the Pentagon's? There's an AFB nearby, with fighters on standby, and they have missile air-defense systems. If a 747 piloted by mad muslims with boxcutters can get past our best defenses (including NORAD) and hit the capital, how do you expect us to defend from foreign airforces if they decide to attack us LOL

There are over 70+ cameras with a view of the section that got hit, yet they were all confiscated by the FBI (there are eye witnesses to this, too). And the only pictures released show a white blob, for one frame. Right, I'm totally convinced. Just like how a plane can go through a steel and concrete building at 700 feet, with no damage to it on impact, melt into it and come out intact on the other side. Totally believable.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Therefor we can finally call this an inside job in both senses. Ill1uminati again!



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


So we're supposed to believe a plane brought down a skyscraper but this plane can barely damage a brick wall? Pictures of the twin towers after they were hit show massive holes that extend outwards the length of the wings, why is there only a relativaly small hole in the pentagon? No wing holes extending out? Windows still intact where the wings should have hit, relatively low damage compared to the towers?

Look you make a good case for the plane theory, but still I'm left with questions. Maybe there was a plane but it wasn't a 757 maybe something smaller? That could help explain both sides of theory and bring them together. I dont know I have always believed there never was a plane at the pentagon but now I have doubts both ways, I'll have to look into it with more detail.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skogg


Wrong. There were seats, debris, luggage and carts ... all visible. They were inside the building. I have personally interviewed members of the Memphis Urban Rescue Team that helped in the recovery efforts. Yes, they found bodies (body parts mainly). The plane did leave some "visible evidence it was a plane" ... the hole.


A hole? Ok, let's do some comparisons, shall we?

www.youtube.com... This is what happens when a plane going 500 MPH hits a concrete wall.

i226.photobucket.com... This is what happens when a plane going 500+ MPH hits a concrete wall on 9/11.


Now, there are some differences. An F4 Phantom is not a 747 Passenger Jet. *However*, an F4 Phantom is designed to go 500+ MPH, no matter what turn or dive. A 747 is designed to go 500+ MPH also, but NOT in turns or dives. It is strictly for cruising speed at a set altitude. "Flight 77" was reported to have done a 270-360 degree turn over the Pentagon, while diving, and slammed into it full force. This is very hard to do in a 747, especially with the glaring fact that the supposed hijacker was a terrible pilot that "barely passed flight school".

The concrete wall the F4 Phantom hit is designed for nuclear plants. If a plane going 500 MPH cannot penetrate it, how in the world can a 747 going the same speed punch through, not one, but THREE rings of the Pentagon? A section which, by the way, was upgraded and received reinforced concrete before 9/11. This was the ONLY section of the building to be reinforced, too. And, by "coincidence", it housed the DoD's budgets, which the Bush Administration reported on September 10th; $1 to $2 TRILLION missing. If a building that is designed to survive missile strikes from world powers can be penetrated by what's basically a coke can, how the hell do they expect to survive attacks from the Russians or Chinese? Hell, they won't need the military apparently. They can just fly some remote-controlled jet liners into our military "fortress" and kill the entire chain of command!

Furthermore, how did "Flight 77" make it past Washington DC's air defenses? And the Pentagon's? There's an AFB nearby, with fighters on standby, and they have missile air-defense systems. If a 747 piloted by mad muslims with boxcutters can get past our best defenses (including NORAD) and hit the capital, how do you expect us to defend from foreign airforces if they decide to attack us LOL

There are over 70+ cameras with a view of the section that got hit, yet they were all confiscated by the FBI (there are eye witnesses to this, too). And the only pictures released show a white blob, for one frame. Right, I'm totally convinced. Just like how a plane can go through a steel and concrete building at 700 feet, with no damage to it on impact, melt into it and come out intact on the other side. Totally believable.


There are so many erroneous items in this post that I'm not even going to attempt to correct all of them. Suffice it to say it should be in a garbage bin never to see the light of day. What total unadulterated garbage. This is a good example of many that subscribe to the "truth". What's really disgusting is that many here know what's written here is WRONG, yet no one will correct it. I suppose those that do know it's total hogwash expect someone like me to correct it.....



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by crompton
Looking at the flight animation sequence and the photos used in the same animation there are very certainly discrepancies between the position of objects and their angle after they have been struck. Surely if this is to be considered as "forensic" evidence then there should be no anomalies that are blatantly obvious to anyone who has eyesight and can tell the direction an object has fallen from the photographs used in the animation. If the said objects are considered to have rolled and bounced about then at least their final resting place should be the same in both photo and animation, the street light that ended up on the embankment is the most obvious one but there are several others as well. Sorry but to me this is an evidential fail and in a jury I would have sufficient doubt to discredit this as evidence on the above grounds.


You obviously have no experience with aircraft crash investigation and little understanding of crash dynamics. Apparently, you bought the earlier comments regarding "to the inch" accuracy in this animation. It is perhaps more aptly described as "to the feet" guess. It is not and was never intended to be forensic. Integrated Consultants is NOT a law enforcement agency. It is an attempt to "dumb down" the crash dynamics for the general public, that's all. Furthermore, to use "photos from a telephoto lens taken from hundreds of yards away" for forensics is absurd.

This type of stuff would never be used in a Court Room as forensic evidence. For general understanding, yes, but was never intended to be examined in the manner treated here to reach stupid conclusions.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by 911files
 


Despite your exceptional arrogance, as though everything you say is truth, and you've already answered all the questions, spoken with all the attorneys... great. I don't know who you are or what work is yours... maybe I have read it but since you haven't disclosed WHICH work is yours, it's a little off to imply I haven't tried.


No, it isn't. 911 Files is correct. You are discredited as anything other than a typical truther trying to promote a distorted and perverted agenda. You don't need to know which are his and which are not. If you were as qualified as you think you are you would know what to accept and what to reject based on knowledge of the subject matter as opposed to who authored them. There are many very highly qualified folks who have done exhaustive research on the Pentagon issues and the fact that you can't distinguish between them tells the entire story



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


That's a bit unfair. Thermo asked to see his work, and he basically replied that it was freely available on the internet, and that he should know about it. A bit like me telling you my photography is available on the internet, and then getting annoyed with you for not having seen it. This has little to do with being discerning about sources.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Reheat
 


That's a bit unfair. Thermo asked to see his work, and he basically replied that it was freely available on the internet, and that he should know about it. A bit like me telling you my photography is available on the internet, and then getting annoyed with you for not having seen it. This has little to do with being discerning about sources.


Well, I don't agree. 911Files' work has been freely available on the Internet since roughly 2008, perhaps some of it longer. Excerpts and links have been posted on NUMEROUS sites even Conspiracy sites such as 911Blogger, pfffft, and others. His material has been referred to and quoted all over the Web.

He did take down his Web site about a year ago due to hacking and disgust with some of the TM. Then his stuff was on a server in Europe and some of it is still there (I don't know the address and don't care to look it up). He still has copies of everything on his personal hard drive. Also, copies or originals of all of his material has been donated to the Arlington, VA Public Library. Most (if not all) of the tapes and transcripts he obtained are also available at NARA where anyone can download them.

Most of his work is under the moniker of 911Files, but he also go by BCR in some locations. His identity is no secret.....



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join