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: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
This hypothetical scenario is about the quality of different types of evidence. While the Pentagon surveillance does not clearly identify what type of object was flying, it does clearly show that it is too small to be Boeing 757.


There is absolutely no way, shape, or form that you can make such a statement. The video you're referencing is blurry at a distance so you cannot make out any discernable features, and not to mention, the plane was behind the pylon in the foreground at the time so you can't even see the entire blurry image that would have been the plane. Plus, as shown from the type of flames we see in the video the explosion was a fuel fed explosion, not a detonation, and it would take a large object to carry that much fuel.

Here's an animation showing the impact. Unlike your damned fool conspiracy websites, it uses corroborating photographic evidence to back it up.

Animation of flight 77 striking the Pentagon



Plane crashes are messy things so why is there wreckage in one photo but not the other? Another really strange thing is wreckage that can go around corners as with the next photo. If you check the location of this wreckage with the impact site, there is not a direct line of sight. I would not call this zero evidence.


Excuse me?!? It was you..yes, YOU...who posted that photo of agents picking up and collecting aircraft wreckage, and the video I linked to showed even more people picking up and collecting aircraft wreckage. You should already know the answer to your own question- One photo showed the area immediately after the impact when the wreckage was still there, and the other photo was taken after the wreckage was collected. The fire burned for three days, you know.

Did that conspiracy website you got these photos from give you a time/date stamp for these photos showing when they were taken? These photos are public domain so they would almost certainly know...but I can guarantee that they're not telling you that.



I read and seen enough to know what happens to those who ask the hard questions of authority, but I am not going to live in fear. The events of WTC 7 is proof beyond reasonable doubt that there is a great sickness in the system and only by confronting it will we have any chance of overcoming it.


We're not talking about WTC 7. We're talking about what happened at the Pentagon. If you wish to believe there's something suspicious with the collapse of the WTC 7, that's one thing, but that doesn't automagically mean the conspiracy is spilling over outlandishly into convoluted schemes involving faked planes, planted evidence, staged photographs, falsified phone calls, and ten thousand secret gov't agents planted everywhere. That embellishment is coming entirely from you.
edit on 12-7-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
ATS members, Moderators, casual readers to the thread. Let's recap a little here and see what's happened thus far.

The thread was created to establish the facts about GoodOlDave's claim. He claimed that a light pole was photographed lying on top of the taxi. He failed to prove this and admitted that he made an error.

After continuing to post here, GoodOlDave made the claim that certain images used in the Moussaoui trial showed remains of passengers. I asked GoodOlDave to prove this claim and you can read his answer below.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by tezzajw
However, would you please prove to me that those were remains of passengers?

Becuase according to YOUR OWN CONSPIRACY WEB SITES the section that the plane hit was being renovated so it was largely empty of occupants.


Firstly, why does GoodOlDave insist that the conspiracy websites are mine? This sweeping generalisation is illogical. He has already been shown that a single counterexample is enough to expose and nullify his extremely poor logic. GoodOlDave, I am not the administrator of any conspiracy website.

Secondly, the answer that GoodOlDave provided does not prove that those images were remains of passengers.

Clearly, GoodOlDave has failed to substantiate his claim that those images were passenger remains. No matter how much he tries to bluff and bluster, GoodOlDave has shown a pattern of getting his facts wrong.

GoodOlDave please provide proof that the images were passenger remains or retract your claim.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Well lets use conspiracy logic:

I say they are photos of passengers.

Prove they are not.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Well lets use conspiracy logic:
I say they are photos of passengers.
Prove they are not.

ATS member, Moderators, casual readers to the thread, see what we have just witnessed here. Such abuse of logic, by hooper, is beyond laughable.

hooper, if you claim for a fact, that the images show the remains of passengers, like GoodOlDave does, then you should be able to prove your claim.

Your failure to do so will make you look as illogical as GoodOlDave is currently presenting himself.

If you're just here to stir the pot, then that's ok. Bumping this thread to the top of the forum is important, as it shows how some members create 'facts' that are completely false.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


So then I take it that you cannot, in fact, prove that they are not photos of the deceased passengers? Well noted. Then they are photos of passengers until proven otherwise. Anything else?



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tezzajw
 

So then I take it that you cannot, in fact, prove that they are not photos of the deceased passengers? Well noted.
Then they are photos of passengers until proven otherwise. Anything else?

hooper your extremely poor logical skills have been noted and now are on display for all to see.

GoodOlDave has thus far failed to prove that those images are of passenger remains.

Please, this is incredible stuff, so keep on bumping the thread to the top of the list!



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tezzajw
 

So then I take it that you cannot, in fact, prove that they are not photos of the deceased passengers? Well noted.
Then they are photos of passengers until proven otherwise. Anything else?

hooper your extremely poor logical skills have been noted and now are on display for all to see.

GoodOlDave has thus far failed to prove that those images are of passenger remains.

Please, this is incredible stuff, so keep on bumping the thread to the top of the list!


So you think its illogical to claim something is true because nobody can prove its not true? There goes the entire truth movement. Keep up the good work.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So you think its illogical to claim something is true because nobody can prove its not true? There goes the entire truth movement. Keep up the good work.

hooper, if you claim that they are passenger remains, for a fact, then you need to prove it.

If your opinion is that they might be passenger remains, then that's your right, but it doesn't mean that it's true. Opinions don't need to be proven, any idiot can have an opinion. Facts need to be proven.

GoodOlDave has made a claim that those images show passenger remains. He has not yet proven this. His opinion can not be taken as fact. This thread has already shown that GoodOlDave's opinion can not be trusted, as he made a mistake with the light pole claim.

Please, continue replying. More viewers will see the holes in your logic and GoodOlDave's. This is essential reading material here.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



hooper, if you claim that they are passenger remains, for a fact, then you need to prove it.


That's why we need a new investigation!!!!

Sound familiar?

Prove they're not passengers.

You can't, ergo they are until proven otherwise. If you say they aren't then prove it. Prove your claim.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Prove they're not passengers.
You can't, ergo they are until proven otherwise. If you say they aren't then prove it. Prove your claim.

Oh, hooper, the way that you slay logic is astounding.

Please highlight where I made any claim about the remains. I don't know what the remains are.

GoodOlDave has claimed for a fact that they are remains of passengers. Until he proves this, his opinion can not be taken as fact.

It appears that you, hooper, are also claiming that the remains are of passengers. You will need to prove this claim, otherwise it is your unsubstantiated opinion that can not be taken as fact.

Please, continue to post here. Many more readers will see the logical error that you are making.
edit on 12-7-2011 by tezzajw because: gramar



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Considering that they used explosives to take down sky scrapers, it is possible they used explosives to take down light poles. The wings of the airplane should have been clipped so a plane is not a good explanation of what knocked them down. If anything the plane would have hit the light poles, causing them to fall along with the plane and there would have been damage to the lawn. Can a plane's wings take down multiple light poles while still remaining in flight?
edit on 12-7-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


Seriously, dude are you really suggesting that Lloyd England pulled a thirty foot long 250 pount lightpole out of his pocket and threw it out onto the highway? Or are you saying a bunch of secret agents ran out into a busy highway carrying a thirty foot lightpole, dumped it on the pavement, and then ran away? You're looking for answers, so how about looking for an answer for that?


Unfortunately Dave that is what many people have suggested.I don't question the peoples intelligence who make such goofy claims because I am sure most are fairly intelligent people.

But it has gotten to the point I have to wonder about their mental state.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 





If anything the plane would have hit the light poles, causing them to fall along with the plane and there would have been damage to the lawn. Can a plane's wings take down multiple light poles while still remaining in flight?


Yes

Here is a link for an auto crash.




The final results is a Lamborghini that needs a new front bumper and the local government has to repair the traffic light.


Sports cars are not exactly made like tanks. So indeed light poles come down easily and the plane can knock down several poles and continue to fly quite a distance. Despite what the conspiracy people say.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Here is another plane that hit a pole. I am hard pressed to see any damage to the wing.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Here a plane hits a building.




While the plane was manoeuvring on the tarmac, just after landing, the tip of its right wing brushed a building," Ouosso said.





Air France officials reassured me that technically the plane could fly without any problem. But by precaution and as a security measure, we grounded it. The plane must return to France without any passengers," the minister said



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


So how can you compare a car hitting poles, a plane with an incident whilst SLOWLY maneuvering on a runway, to a plane flying through the air and hitting light poles in front of the pentagon and still have its wings intact and still have it continue its flight path toward and impact with the pentagon???????.
Your comparison between the car and the plane is border lining on ridiculous and retarded.
Stupid much???????????

edit on 13-7-2011 by meathed because: mistakes and left stuff out



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 




So...you're suggesting that the identification of the color of a T-shirt and whether an object was a commercial jet liner are on a par???? With over 100 witnesses?


My comments are on how witnesses recall events and risk to the integrity of their recollection.



That's mass hallucination, not rounding the corners on rough memories.


I strongly disagree with this statement and find it patronising, misleading and uninformed.



Then by that logic, no witness to a crime who has EVER spoken to the press before trial can be viewed as credible - right?


Wrong, the problems come in with the other witnesses and jury members see these published comments as it can influence their testimony and perception of the case. This is why it is common practice not to publicly discuss a case and not to let witnesses sit in on a court case. Sometimes exceptions are made, but general practice is to try and preserve witness integrity.




Why is there non of these parts on the grass when the first responders where on the scene?

Who says they weren't? Are you cherry picking pictures to make your case?


The photographs show they weren't. I don't understand how I am cherry picking when I am trying to understand how this evidence fits in with the rest. Denying this evidence exists is cherry picking.



by inference, that means that people had to "plant" debris while everyone else who was there to watch the smoke and flame, or help victims looked on in silence - a silence that lasts to this day. Step back and ask yourself, it that scenario in the least bit probable - or even possible for that matter?


Absolutely possible and very likely, look at how NIST has avoided and remained silent on all the information that indicates explosives where used with the WTC buildings. A lot of the people on site at the Pentagon would be subject to national security laws due to their work in the military. Bradley Manning is just one of many recent examples of what happens to people who talk.




Not the strongest, but is a strong one like the seats themselves as they are made to survive crash events. Still where are the seats?

Don't really care


This is evident with your discussion.



Do you actually subscribe to this conspiracy you've just laid out?


It is still a work in progress and just following the evidence. There are some other possibilities I am considering and it does take time to study and research to sort out the facts from the fiction.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by meathed
 




Your comparison is border lining on ridiculous and retarded.


So in your mind a Lamborghini bumper at low speed is stronger than and airplane wing at 500mph. That shows your grasp of physics is limited.

You are neglecting to take into account potential energy.
Try pushing a lead bullet through a wood 2x4 with your finger or even a hammer. At best you will flatten the bullet and dent the wood. But when you fire the bullet with a gun it will pass through with limited deformation.

The same concept applies to the wing hitting poles or even the side of a building.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




There is absolutely no way, shape, or form that you can make such a statement.


As long as I say within the T&C I can make what ever statements I like, just as you can attack these statements any way you like. It is up to the readers to decide who to believe for themselves.



You should already know the answer to your own question- One photo showed the area immediately after the impact when the wreckage was still there, and the other photo was taken after the wreckage was collected.


Then why is the roof still standing and has not collapsed yet? Are you saying all the wreckage was collected before the roof fell which was about 30-45 minutes after the event. Also in the photo that shows no wreckage why are there only the first responders and none of the other staff and support vehicles that gradually build up over time? Having a public record of all the photos with time stamps would help.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tezzajw
 



hooper, if you claim that they are passenger remains, for a fact, then you need to prove it.


That's why we need a new investigation!!!!

Sound familiar?

Prove they're not passengers.

You can't, ergo they are until proven otherwise. If you say they aren't then prove it. Prove your claim.


HA HA HA I was going to answer but I like Hooper's answer better. The whole reason this thread even exists is the result of a question Tezzajw doesn't want to answer- why do the conspiracy people have a double standard when deciding whether something is believable and when something is not, even though it's all coming from the same source. Now here's another double standard they don't want to face up to.

I second Hooper's answer- Tezzajw, prove these aren't passenger remains. Those damned fool conspiracy websites you hang around don't even want you to know human remains were even found at the Pentagon so you're going to need to think for yourself for a change and go to genuine sources of information for this. Go ahead, a quick Google search should confirm or deny it right away.




top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join