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.

 

Ingersoll Pentagon/Cab photos - please help?

page: 11
19
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 




NIST doesn’t have to refute anything to fake named, faceless people on the internet.


Your derogatory generalisation and support for lack of answers is concerning.



If you were on trial what evidence would you want your lawyers to allow in evidence?


I don't understand your point. It is up to the courts to decide what is and is not admissible as evidence, not mine, the defendants or the prosecutions.




posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 





Your derogatory generalisation and support for lack of answers is concerning.


The answers are already out there. You chose to ignore them in favor of some grand conspiracy. Or you feel there must be something more to it. Sometimes a rose is just a rose.




I don't understand your point. It is up to the courts to decide what is and is not admissible as evidence, not mine, the defendants or the prosecutions.


I agree that it’s up to the courts to decide.
Just show me one piece of evidence of this ‘conspiracy’ that is admissible in court.
Just show me one expert who has looked at the evidence first hand that claims ‘conspiracy’.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


Please correct me if I am wrong.

None of these A&E ever examined the evidence first hand. They may have looked at the plans but that's not the same thing. Besides are any of them even crash experts?

Would you want anyone testifying against you if they had never seen the evidence?



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by kwakakev
 


Please correct me if I am wrong.

None of these A&E ever examined the evidence first hand. They may have looked at the plans but that's not the same thing. Besides are any of them even crash experts?

Would you want anyone testifying against you if they had never seen the evidence?



You cite in the post before you made this one that the answers were given and one simply had to look for them.

Then you go on to make this post and say that none of these A&E had access to the evidence.

The A&E's who gave the answers that you support did not have access to the evidence either.

Please live up to your own standard. Thank you.


edit on 19-7-2011 by jprophet420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


You are wrong, there are many sources they have used in compiling their case. Video, academic, witnesses, expert and physical evidence.



Would you want anyone testifying against you if they had never seen the evidence?


Considering your speedy reply you have not even had time to see the evidence and asses the quality of their sources, it is a real killer to the communication process. I can tell you where to look, but I cannot tell you what to think, that is on you. I know the implications are not easy to accept when you do consider that is was an inside job. Unfortunately that is where the evidence points.

As for your question, that is how we went to Iraq...

Should we deny evidence just because it is politically hot or unpopular?



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


What is your take on Lt Col O'Brien who says in this interview that he saw AA 77 immediately prior to impact with the Pentagon ?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 




You are wrong, there are many sources they have used in compiling their case. Video, academic, witnesses, expert and physical evidence.


But none of them are experts in crash analysis. Don't you think that's important?

You can design a building but not have a clue about what damage a plane will cause.
You can engineer the steel but not have a clue as to the force of a plane stipping the insulation.

You can show me all the Youtube pundants you want but they are not experts in the details of what happened that day.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev

The inception of this plan started a long time ago. The Council of Foreign Relations appears to have started the seed back in the 1980's with the conclusion that if America is to be involved in a large scale war then it needs another Pearl Harbour style of attack to gain the public support. Continuing support of this belief can be found with PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses www.newamericancentury.org... p51 which states " Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor".

If you want just one motive to focus on then 'to start a war' is the common denominator. With America based on democratic principles it is very difficult to raise the public will for war without some assault on its sovereignty


So even allowing for the fact that they would have to be oddly prescient and very confident of winning the election, your theory provides no actual concrete evidence. My view is that the hawkish elements within the neoconservative movement were handed a huge gift with 9/11 and went on to utilise it to the full; it's much more plausible than your notion that they planned it, and it explains your evidence just as well.

You only have the vague supposition that it "seemed convenient" for them. So what? Stuff seems convenient to its beneficiaries all the time. Earlier on I was talking to someone about the introduction of grey squirrels into the UK, which for them was a huge success. But I don't think the grey squirrel invented transatlantic trade.

Incidentally, you seem to remain just as uncertain about motive. "Start a war"? Why? I suspect that your answer will be, "Well, we can't be certain, but probably a combination of money, and, um, oil and power obviously. And culture." I mean with this detective work the TM will take a long time to uncover any actual "Truth".

Unless of course it isn't actually there...





I would want it to question everything. Start at the top with the political interests promoting war, why the agents warning of an attack where ignored and silenced, the timeline of events, how the WTC buildings where wired and the plan executed, what did happen at the pentagon, who won and lost from insider trading and avoiding the fall out, how where these events covered up in the subsequent inquiry. For a new investigation to have any chance of getting to the bottom it will need to offer an amnesty to national security laws so witnesses can speak freely. This is something a UN investigation can provide if there is the global political will for it.


And when they answer all your questions by looking at you as though you're mad,what would you do then? Serious question.

By the way there is no chance whatsoever of the UN ever beginning an investigation of this kind. Even if GWB stood naked on the roof of the White House with "I did 9/11" painted on his chest and a flag with Richard Gage's face on it.




There was a big investigation going on in WTC7 on insider trading,


You see this exemplifies my problem with your analysis. It's so pathetically vague. There was a "big investigation"? You sound like you read this on some dodgy site a few years ago and can't remember the details.




but that all stopped with the attacks and is now well hidden. Look at all the trouble with the GFC, most of that is well hidden. The Federal Reserve along with many other corporations have no obligations to open their books, that is well hidden. When the accounts do finally surface, if they do then you can either prove or disprove the financial motives. Until then it is speculation with the specifics of who and how much.


Sorry, but you're not speculating about the specifics. You're speculating about everything, about whether anything actually happened at all. Surely you can see that this is intellectually lazy? "well, there was obviously a conspiracy, we're just speculating about the specifics."

No you're not. You're inventing the whole thing.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Saying this C-130 flight was routine considering events that day is suspect. The description of flight 77 flight path is also inconsistent with the FDR where a loop is performed to reduce altitude z9.invisionfree.com... . Too much about the official story is inconsistent. As for Lt Col O'Brien, he is following orders.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 




But none of them are experts in crash analysis. Don't you think that's important?


So what makes NIST so special? There is only a handful of Engineers there, with AE there are over 1,200 Architects and Engineers saying NIST is lying. Considering what is at stake there is a lot of reputation and patriotism on the line. I have seen what NIST has had to say and what AE has had to say.



You can design a building but not have a clue about what damage a plane will cause.


That is crap, you want to keep this up then find some other sucker to gasbag with. I have provided the information if you really did give a dame. With the plane strike on the Empire State Building, the WTC where purposefully built to withstand a plane strike.



You can show me all the Youtube pundants you want but they are not experts in the details of what happened that day.


I hope your self exuberance is satisfying as your nations integrity sinks in its own cesspool of depravity. If you do not value the truth you will not have it.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




By the way there is no chance whatsoever of the UN ever beginning an investigation of this kind. Even if GWB stood naked on the roof of the White House with "I did 9/11" painted on his chest and a flag with Richard Gage's face on it.


Hitler had the same egotistical mania, it took time but we all know how that one ended. It sucked to be Germany.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




By the way there is no chance whatsoever of the UN ever beginning an investigation of this kind. Even if GWB stood naked on the roof of the White House with "I did 9/11" painted on his chest and a flag with Richard Gage's face on it.


Hitler had the same egotistical mania, it took time but we all know how that one ended. It sucked to be Germany.


Hitler had the same egotism as the US? I find that quite a stretch. Nazism was based on notions of race and national identity that are not at all shared by the United States. The theoretical parallels are minimal. But then so are the practical ones: there is no large scale demonisation of minorities in the US, and there's certainly no effort to exterminate them.

You come across as an idealist, and - as I've mentioned - a rather vague one. A moment ago you suggested the UN was capable of carrying out an investigation into 9/11; now you seem, with a world weary sigh, to agree with me that it's impossible. Which? Are you able to make your mind up about anything? Or indeed supply any accurate and detailed reasoning for your flights of fancy?



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I do feel sad and sorry for you, I do not know what growing up in America has done to you but your common attitude does explain the resistance to progress on this issue. Looking at your profile you are very intimate with the events around 9/11, you very well know where the official story is accurate and where it is not. But how to reconcile the implications is where it all stops as gridlock sets in. One problem you are having is with your specialisation just on 9/11 with this forum. By not engaging on other issues like social justice, war, economy, globalisation and science you are at a mental disadvantage in comprehending the bigger picture. This is represented in your calls of vagueness as you have no frame of reference with the bigger picture.

A lot is going on and you do need to expand your comprehension of the many interlocking issues to find a path through it. I know part of you will just call this more vague babble, but I also know part of you will know exactly what I am talking about.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 




That is crap, you want to keep this up then find some other sucker to gasbag with. I have provided the information if you really did give a dame. With the plane strike on the Empire State Building, the WTC where purposefully built to withstand a plane strike.


You cannot compare the EPS building crash to the WTC. The construction of the buildings are TOTALLY different. And the plane only weighed about 25,000lbs with an impact speed of about 200mph. Nowhere near the same impact force.

A much closer parallel would be the IRS building in Texas. Did you see the damage caused by a small slow speed plane to a building with construction closer to WTC? Look at the series of pictures on this link. Look how similar they look to WTC.

I know that WTC was designed to withstand a 707 impact but what type of impact? I doubt it was a full speed, full load, full fuel head on impact. Even if it was, a 707 is only 257,000 max take off weight not the 395,000 of the 767.

Did you see the damage caused by a small slow speed plane in Texas? Look at the series of pictures on this link. Look how similar they look to WTC.

Here



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I do feel sad and sorry for you, I do not know what growing up in America has done to you but your common attitude does explain the resistance to progress on this issue. Looking at your profile you are very intimate with the events around 9/11, you very well know where the official story is accurate and where it is not. But how to reconcile the implications is where it all stops as gridlock sets in. One problem you are having is with your specialisation just on 9/11 with this forum. By not engaging on other issues like social justice, war, economy, globalisation and science you are at a mental disadvantage in comprehending the bigger picture. This is represented in your calls of vagueness as you have no frame of reference with the bigger picture.

A lot is going on and you do need to expand your comprehension of the many interlocking issues to find a path through it. I know part of you will just call this more vague babble, but I also know part of you will know exactly what I am talking about.


Oh dear. I'm not American


I'm happy to discuss any of the issues above. I just choose not to do so on ATS.

However, were we to start talking about "social justice, war, economy, globalisation and science" I imagine the result would be the same as when you tried to have a stab at historical comparison. Embarrassing for you, amusing for me.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
As you choose to use selective evidence and not all of it we will continue to disagree. The video of Lloyd on this thread is just one example.


I'm not the one choosing to use selective evidence here. You are. You just said that EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE LIGHTPOLE LYING RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HIGHWAY all the lightpoles were laying off to the side unnoticed. You chose to omit the lightpole lying in the middle of the highway because it refuted the scenario you're trying to invent, and I'm the one telling you that you can't cherry pick individual facts to your liking so you can embellish things like this.



No, if I had all the answers there would be no need for another investigation. You are asking for answers so I am providing possible theories, a standard part of all investigations.


There is no serious investigation in at time in recorded human history where they conjured up strange theories out of nowhere and then went to the facts to see if it's feasible. Every investigation first looks at the facts to determine what scenarion best fits the facts, and when the facts emerge that shows the scenario is implausible then the scenario is discarded. They do NOT insist "all the evidence is faked" so they can continue to push out whatever they want, otherwise you might as well claim the Pentagon destruction was caused by UFOs.



The focal length of the lens is an interesting proposition. Items in the focal range will be sharp and clear while objects further away become more and more blurry. With a generic lens that has a wide focal region it is difficult to be accurate, but may help when combined with other information. As a preliminary analysis, objects in the foreground have a blur of about 3 pixels, the north path is about 4 pixels blur and the south path has about 5 pixels blur. The top edge of the pentagon wall along with the road was used to establish this approximate baseline. When looking at the plane, it has a blur of about 4 pixels, which puts it in line with the north path. This is a preliminary analysis and it will take the aggregation of a lot of points to be more accurate. The small size of the plane is one problem when using this method.


I will repeat that you cannot use pixels to analyze the footage because the original video was obviously recorded to analog tape. If you're a video authority as you claim, you will know that analog to digital conversion causes critical detail to be lost and false information to be inserted. Take a 100x100 graphic and resize ot to 3000x3000 and the same thing happens.



Even if a professional pole examiner did come online would you disregard their opinion as well.


On the contrary, I would be immensely fasctinated at his/her diagnosis of the condition of the pole that led him/her to conclude it was sabotage. For one thing, I would want to know why this examiner is the only one in the world who noticed this when these photos have been in the public domain for ten years.

Not that it matters, as we both know that noone familiar with light pole maintenance agrees with you and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" only goes so far.


There are conflicts in the witness statements which is not unusual, so which ones are right? Where is the evidence to support their statements? The poles look cut, the flight data recorder says the plane could not cut the poles with it banking, all you have is some witnesses and no evidence that adds up.


What do you mean, "which one is right"? Why can't they all be right? They all saw a plane hit the Pentagon with myriad levels of clarity, and none of them subscribe to this "I saw a cruise missile painted to look like a passenger jet" claims the conspiracy people are pushing out.



I am not challenging the tail or the part of the plane hidden by the ticket machine. I am challenging how that video shows a nose of a plane extending past the ticket machine. There is no photographic evidence of any part of the plane extending past the ticket machine. Your video has misrepresented the facts, and if they done it here where else have they misrepresented information?


This is a misrepresentative statement. Of course there is no "photographic evidence of any part of the plane extending past the ticket machine". There's almost no photographic evidence of any part of the plane *at all*, except for the "now you see it and now you don't" tail rudder. This animation attempts to explain what we're seeing in the video and backs it up with other photographic evidence (I.E. lightpoles, aircraft wreckage, damaged ground features, and the like), plus it conforms to the eyewitness accounts of a plane hitting the PEntagon. Plus, it has the advantage of not having to rely on "10,000 imaginary secret agents" as a crutch to justify its existence.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




I will repeat that you cannot use pixels to analyze the footage because the original video was obviously recorded to analog tape. If you're a video authority as you claim, you will know that analog to digital conversion causes critical detail to be lost and false information to be inserted. Take a 100x100 graphic and resize ot to 3000x3000 and the same thing happens.


Analogue does lose quality every time a copy is made, the video is replayed and even just with to time due to the quality of the tape, playback and recording equipment. With good quality equipment the loss is minor, but still present. The errors in analogue to digital is no where near the scale of a 30x enlargement, there is some but it comes down to the quality of the equipment. With good quality tools the errors in AD conversion would not be perceivable to the human eye due to the very fine graduations of the 24bit RGB colour scale. With poor quality tools the results are less optimal and noticeable differences maybe present.

In learning that the Pentagon did have a NTSC video standard it does raise some very interesting questions. Firstly the frame rate is 29.97 frames a second and the horizontal fields are interlaced providing an effective scanning of 59.94 frames per second at half the horizontal frame resolution. Flight 77 was going at 462 Knots = 780 feet/second, or 13 feet for each progressive scan of the video, or 26 feet for each full frame of the video. With the length of a Boeing 757 = 178 feet, there are a lot of frames missing in the released video, where are they?

The MPEG 1 video that was released at a resolution of 352x240 has a lot missing, a real lot missing... Why?



edit on 23-7-2011 by kwakakev because: added 'AD conversion'



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
In learning that the Pentagon did have a NTSC video standard it does raise some very interesting questions. Firstly the frame rate is 29.97 frames a second and the horizontal fields are interlaced providing an effective scanning of 59.94 frames per second at half the horizontal frame resolution. Flight 77 was going at 462 Knots = 780 feet/second, or 13 feet for each progressive scan of the video, or 26 feet for each full frame of the video. With the length of a Boeing 757 = 178 feet, there are a lot of frames missing in the released video, where are they?

The MPEG 1 video that was released at a resolution of 352x240 has a lot missing, a real lot missing... Why?


The answer to this is almost certainly going to be the same answer as the rest of the objections you're going to post- I don't know and I don't care. It's already been established that every eyewitness account states that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon and it's already been established that aircraft wreckage was strewn all over the place. If you have to resort to demanding to know such outer space fringe, esoteric things like what the frame rate is on Pentagon security videos, and why they're using a given resolution, this ISN'T research. It's grasping at straws in extreme desperation out of not being able to refute the large amounts of proof that shows these conspiracy claims have no credibility.

Come on, now, are you seriously suggesting there's some secret conspiracy to take over the world going on because some specific pixel is light gray when it should be dark gray? Good luck with that.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




The answer to this is almost certainly going to be the same answer as the rest of the objections you're going to post- I don't know and I don't care.


Thanks for the honesty.



Come on, now, are you seriously suggesting there's some secret conspiracy to take over the world going on because some specific pixel is light gray when it should be dark gray? Good luck with that.


There is a lot more than a few missing pixels going on, but is it another small step through this information quagmire. As for taking over the world part, the military has been busy...



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join