It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


8 Photos leaked on OBL raid! Death by Water Gun? New Top Secret Chopper?

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:50 AM
reply to post by d34n0

Children lived there, thus the water gun. They were normal people, as that's exactly who is part of these organizations. The craft is the tail of a larger item, or a uav. Either way, people would not be on nor located on the item pictured. The burned parts are exactly just that, as many articles have stated they burned their garbage.

There's nothing here suspicious. Nothing to prove for or against anything. What we do know is the locals reported gunfire, and apparently a twitter user was posting about it as it happened. They did hit the place, and there was a fire fight. Ergo, the dead men were terrorists. You don't have to look abnormal to be a terrorist. That's the whole reason we're losing our rights. Because it's impossible to tell.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:12 AM

Originally posted by blupblup
So we can see 3 other guys bleeding and and dead on the floor but not Bin Laden?


yeah... okay

Please read the OP properly.

These photos were taken by a Pakistani policeman long after the raid. They were not released by the US government.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:28 AM
reply to post by d34n0

The parts of the downed chopper dont look right to me, is that the whole cockpit there? if it is then there must have been some really small people flyin it! Either that or its just something they made in the garage in a few hours to resemble a chopper.

What you are seeing there is not a complete aircraft. It is just the terminal end of the tail section. The rotor that you see is the tail rotor.
According to the official story:
When the chopper came in to land, it suffered a hard landing and went over on its side. When a helicopter goes over on its side during a hard landing, things get really messy. When the main rotor strikes the ground, the rest of the aircraft often flips end over end sideways because of the back torque created due to the engine and rotor slowing down very quickly. I suspect that the tail section broke away and landed on the outside of the wall.

Thus we can deduce the shooting down of this unknown craft

There are no indications that this helicopter was shot down. When it came in to land, it was inside the very high walls of the compound. The walls created what amounted to a 'hole' for the chopper to land in. Helicopters do not function well in small holes. The turbulence created makes flying very difficult.

That crash landing might have been caused by a phenomenon known as “settling with power,” which occurs when a helicopter descends too quickly because its rotors cannot get the lift required from the turbulent air of their own downwash. “It’s hard to settle with power in a Black Hawk, but then again, if they were using one of these [low-observable helicopters], working at max gross weight, it’s certainly plausible that they could have because they would have been flying so heavy,” the retired special operations aviator said, noting that low-observable modifications added “several hundred pounds” to the weight of the MH-60, which already weighs about 500 to 1000 pounds more than a regular UH-60 Black Hawk. Read more:

Defense Tech

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:45 AM
Besides from the shock of seeing dead bodies lying on real red blood, and that strange drone-like chopper fallen, Im amazed by daybreak rising at 5h21 in Abbottabad! So early!

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:46 AM

Originally posted by camaro68ss
Dude i think that is a water gun! wow that guy got blasted for being "Aggressive" with a water gun

To all the knuckleheads on this site with simlar thoughts....there were children on this compound. Where there's children you'll probably find water pistols. Sheeeesh...I'm glad you folks aren't real investigators.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:47 AM
I've heard from msm sources that computers, disks, dvds etc where also removed from the compound, and are being searched by the US. maybe OBL wasn't there, but the US really wanted this other stuff on computers, and used killing OBL as an excuse for the raid (which clearly did happen), or as someone else mentioned maybe he wasn't as ill as we thought back in 2001, and it's taken ten years to give him all the surgery needed for a new ID back in the US - he was CIA backed, maybe he's been deep undercover, and they retrieved an asset.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:52 AM
There were no pics with your post, Chief. Try again ?

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:01 AM
No one needs to create a new "stealth helicopter" thread, okay? let's keep all info in one place for sanity's sake. There already is one here from two days

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by EyesWideShut

I am in err, for I thought it was a full uav and I was just looking at it from a strange angle. I can see how it is in fact a tail section. However, it has to be a UAV.

I still don't understand why you feel "it has to be a UAV" when you don't have any facts that support your claim. What is your area of expertise that gives you this opinion?

The material composition and style of construction systems is that of something resistant to radar, and high altitude.

What you said in your previous statement completely contradicts what you've just stated, you said it's a tail section , but it's obviously a rotary winged craft... very simply helicopters can't fly at high altitudes because the air is too thin and the rotor can't spin fast enough to displace enough air to create lift. This is why helo's have low ceilings.

There is no camo paint, nor bother of the stresses of war. This looks to be a high tech, next-gen uav meant for high altitude.

Have you ever seen ANY of our "stealth" aircraft in camoflauge? (F117, B2, F22, JSF) It doesn't need camo because it operates at night, and the radar resistant coating is not conducive to camo and would be counterproductive. I've already explained why it wasn't meant for high altitude, can you explain how you came up with that idea?

That does not mean it was used for dropping. It could have been a spy plane.

We've already established the fact that it's a rotary winged craft and not a fixed wing, therefor it can't be a spy plane.

Perhaps it was hit and out of fear of them running, they decided to go ahead and hit right away. This would also make sense because staff photos of the operation show obama half-dressed for the occasion, as if it was unplanned and sudden.

USSOCOM plans EVERYTHING, also there is nothing in the photo that shows evidence of it being hit by anything.

And you know what, maybe it is some sort of drop ship. It is not outside the realm of possibilities that these men landed via a high altitude drop and then evacuated via some ordinary means. My mind is telling me that I remember reading something about having to take an alternative evac route.

Purely Speculatory

What we know is this. No Americans were lost. And that wreckage looks to me that someone ought to have died. The only solution to this, which matches it's look and typology, is that it was a UAV. For what purpose, no one knows.


Thus we can deduce the shooting down of this unknown craft, likely a uav, necessitated the rush and sudden event that was this operation. Once the Americans knew that they knew they were looking at them, they needed to hit fast.

You have poor deductive reasoning skills, please stop with this UAV fixation , all signs point to the opposite.

I'm beating a dead horse here, I've tried to show you the error in your thinking using facts, logic & reason... your ego is not allowing to to see the truth. You win, you can call it a zeppelin for all I care at this point, there is no convincing you.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:25 AM

Originally posted by CODEPREZ
This is unconfirmed osama pic" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


[X] I am giving you a negative cross.

That picture is NOT osaba, is from at least 2008, and is a dead insurgent.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:30 AM

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
No one needs to create a new "stealth helicopter" thread, okay? let's keep all info in one place for sanity's sake. There already is one here from two days

Lucidity, I respect your view but we also don't need 150 OBL conspiracy threads, but they happened... That other thread was a whopping 2 pages long and came to no conclusion , let this thread progress naturally... the members will decide when it's outlived it's usefullness and it will die out.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:39 AM
reply to post by EyesWideShut

I wasn't referring to THIS thread being about the potentially stealth helicopter...I was responding to someone in this thread saying we should make another thread about it. I said there already is a thread about it, so just go add to it and read about what was already discussed. And even though it came to no "conclusions" it has some back story and data that might, with additional input, come to some conclusion.

There are actually at least three or four (that I've seen) threads on the helicopter. Scattering the information in that many threads is a waste of time and not conducive to getting to the bottom of something. People miss one or more of them and wind up reposting the same information in multiple threads or forgetting to and then that just waters down the whole purpose of even discussing it.

These photos being discussed in this thread are not the first seen photos of the helicopter that crashed.
In addition, there is technical information in the thread I linked that already answers some of the questions posed here. Make sense?

edit on 5/5/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:47 AM

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by Drew99GT

Originally posted by stonhans
Is that a waterpistol?
second line

IT IS! Nice catch! star for you. Now the real question: why are terrorists harboring Bin Laden carrying water pistols???

What a crock of #.

Maybe because he had CHILDREN in the compound?

Or does your brain just forget to work sometimes?

I agree. There were children in the compound/house and thus the play water gun for Training Purposes ( Early Child Development Program) Osama style

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:55 AM
reply to post by YouDeserveToKnow

2nd line

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by d34n0

. They did hit the place, and there was a fire fight. Ergo, the dead men were terrorists. You don't have to look abnormal to be a terrorist. That's the whole reason we're losing our rights. Because it's impossible to tell.

I'm sorry that does not make sense. You are saying anyone near a firefight deserves to be shot. I want the right not to be shot. Don't you?

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by iusalterum
I have read the linked Army Times article about this being a blackhawk variant but I have yet to see any photos of this variant.

Of course you haven't seen any photos, it's obviously classified hardware.
I don't see why several people are having a hard time understanding that.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:04 AM
reply to post by EyesWideShut

To be honest, staring away on wikipedia and elsewhere reading up on typology of design. After you've studied so many designs, certain fundamental principals start to emerge as constants in the modern world. Design has principals. There are just some things that are accepted as fact when designing something, be it known to the public eye or not. What I get from the pictures is a craft meant for high altitude and stealth. From the remains, I can see it landed for some reason. Falling from where it should be would have made a crater. Some part of me tells me that it could even be that the pilot screwed up and the plan crashed, not shot down.

I don't think so. High altitude choper's exist. Again, look at the materiality. Look at the scene. That's light weight. Maybe even a polymer of some kind. You don't just find a tail part of a plan chillin' on a wall unless it's unusually light. Lighter weight, higher altitudes.

Indeed, no paint for night. That's also true. But they are at least painted black usually. Point is that it looks new and untested, but I would imagine something like that would be destroyed by the army to prevent tech leakage. As the same with the bodies. I don't know fully yet.

You don't know for sure about it. Just because you have a tail section doesn't mean it wouldn't be a plane. There are craft, such as a V-22, that blur the lines. If it's an unknown craft, we wouldn't know. Don't assume A = B just because B = A.

There is evidence it could have been hit. IE, the fact that it's a part of a craft, not the whole one.

Speculation is every thing here. So calling something wrong based of speculation is irrelevant, as we know not anything other than it looks like the back of a helicopter.

This isn't like we are arguing a known fact. We do not know anything. You can't just scream you're right and call everyone else fail and wrong. For all intensive reasons, that's your ego problem not mine. Until I see more evidence, it could very well be a Zeppelin with a helicopter tail. Simple fact is we do not know.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:04 AM
My word So many unintelligent remarks about that Helo. First it was obviously a stealth chopper judging by the design and material on that tail section and second they have already come out and said that one chopper had to set down because it was experiencing a mechanical problem and was losing lift. They then said that the SEAL team blew the chopper up before leaving. They said there were 4 choppers 2 main attack then 2 for support. It's amazing how many people make comments about something they dont understand or dont bother to look up and read. Pathetic.

PS: the UAV stuff is utter bull$#!% what picture are they looking at, have they seen a helicopter before!?
I'm no expert on helo's but one half second look and I knew exactly what part of a chopper that was from. duhh

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:05 AM
reply to post by earthdude

War has no rights, no laws, no rules. If you're in a firefight, you simply are going to die if you do something dumb. Ergo, try not to chill near the most wanted man in America. Might be hazardous to your health. No one deserves to be shot by mere presence. But people do get in the way. And in war, people just don't matter unless they are you're own.
edit on 5-5-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:05 AM
reply to post by Grand Master

Doesn't the stan mean land of ? so land of the paki = pakistan how is that remotely racist ?

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in