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: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
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.


This shows no such thing. What it does show, is that I have the intellectual honesty to correct my factual errors when they're brought to my attention...as well showing that you are being deathly afraid to answer a simple question and now you're trying to change the subject with another question. How about answering the question I've asked FIVE TIME now before asking any more questions? This is a topic YOU are pushing after all, not me-

The conspiracy theorists are insisting that the photo of the Taxi damage was staged/faked while insisting that the photo of the Pentagon damage is real, even though both photos were taken by the same person: James Ingersoll. Why are the conspiracy theorists using a dishonest double standard in pushing out their claims like this?

I had the intellectual honesty to come here and address your posts. How about you likewise having the intellectual honesty and address mine?




posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info
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.


Yes, and in fact it was someone right here on this thread that said the taxi cab damage was caused by someone using a giant hammer. These conspriacy theorists insist that the events couldn't possibly have happened in the way they've been documented and then turn around and give speculation that's 1000 times more convoluted and improbable than what they're arguing against.

I really can't blame the conspiracy theorists themselves for this mindset. This is the result of these damned fool conspiracy websites they're getting all this drivel from, and now that they're forced to think and rationalize answers for themselves they're starting to short circuit. I know this because I was in the exact same situation they were- after watching Loose Change and seeing their photo of those people carrying that mysterious blue tarp covered thing out of the Pentagon I wondered what was going on...until I found out Loose Change was lying through their teeth and it was really a triage tent being brought into the Pentagon. Those liars even had the unrepentent gall to deliberately crop the photo so as to snip off the people in the background, becuase it showed right away which direction the people carrying the triage tent were heading.

These conspiracy people certainly aren't stupid. They just don't realize they're being conned by these conspiracy web sites. One guy here was actually boasting how proud he was that he's giving them his money. Sheesh.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


To help get this thread back on track, there a couple of good threads around about this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
s1.zetaboards.com...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

To get to the point, the answers is in the damage sustained to the poles. Lets start at the bottom:



In this image of one pole base, you can see how the separation is in a fairly straight line and there are scorch marks on the outside that indicate heat has been used. The base of these poles are designed to rip apart and do not leave a clean straight cut when presented with a lot of force as with this example:



An oxy cutter is one way that accurately describes the damage to the poles base, but may have been a similar high temperature method. With the base of these poles convincingly proving a staged event, lets continue to the top damage.



The first big question is how could the poles break near the top and bottom? This is like trying to snap a stick in two places at once. If the pole was hit by a plane then the pole would either break at the base or where the plane hit, not both. In trying to understand what could cause this type of damage, a set of hydraulic sheers that are used in recovering people from car crashes does fit.

Another important question is when did these poles come down. Apart from the pole resting on the road, it is possible that the other poles could have been collapsed hours before the event and would have gone fairly much unnoticed by motorist due to their location.
edit on 13-7-2011 by kwakakev because: fixed link



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev

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.


But the problem with that train of thought is that after a few days of ridiculous speculation you'll soon gain a reputation for making up excuses which has no basis in reality. If someone has such a fanatic mindset that there isn't a single thing that anyone can offer that will convince them they're wrong, no force on Earth will ever be able to change their minds becuase they're not out to discuss the facts- they're simply here to hear themselves talk. They will, however, be seen as having no credibility whatsoever to anyone else, so in the end, what's the point?

You do realise there are conspiracy theorists here (I.E. Bonez) who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demilitions AND yet still think the "no Pentagon plane" claims are nonsense, right?



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.


So let me get this straight. Answering all your questions about the lightpole wasn't enough. Photos of aircraft wreckage weren't enough. Photos of human remains weren't enough. Eyewitness accounts of the plane impact weren't enough. Even a computer animation explaining all the details of the attack that you wanted to know wasn't enough. Are you genuinely demanding to know the precise length of time it took for the people to collect all the outside aircraft wreckage now? I mean, really?

This isn't research. This is grasping at straws in desperation.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   


Yes, and in fact it was someone right here on this thread that said the taxi cab damage was caused by someone using a giant hammer.

This sledgehammer comment makes more sense than a 200-300 pound light pole being struck by a 450 MPH aircraft, hurtling through the front windshield of a cab and not even leaving so much as a scratch on the hood or roof of the vehicle.

But wait...it gets better. The pole was then allegedly removed from the vehicle and still not a scratch to be found on the impacted vehicle. A baseball, a rock or yes, even a sledgehammer would cause such limited and localized damage to the vehicle, not a huge light pole.

Plain and simple, if that light pole was actually struck by a fast moving large commercial jet airliner, it would have been propelled through the air at such a rate of speed that it would have sliced the entire roof off the cab and probably kept going. If the vehicle was able to resist this tremendous amount of force and bring the light pole to rest inside the vehicle, certainly the hood, the roof and the windshield supports would have buckled like a crushed tin can.

And one more thing: since the highway was allegedly packed with traffic during the incident, in the photos, why are there no other vehicles in site on the roadway, other than an emergency vehicle? Where did the other vehicles go? Are the owners of these vanishing vehicles the same which claimed to witness the plane crashing into the Pentagon?



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
This sledgehammer comment makes more sense than a 200-300 pound light pole being struck by a 450 MPH aircraft, hurtling through the front windshield of a cab and not even leaving so much as a scratch on the hood or roof of the vehicle.


So you're genuinely saying that it makes perfect sense that some mysterious secret agent is going to run out in the middle of a highway during rush hour traffic and hit someone's windshield with a sledgehammer. Right.


But wait...it gets better. The pole was then allegedly removed from the vehicle and still not a scratch to be found on the impacted vehicle. A baseball, a rock or yes, even a sledgehammer would cause such limited and localized damage to the vehicle, not a huge light pole.


As mentioned earlier, the light pole would have hit the taxi on the passenger side, which is on the opposide side of the taxi that is shown in the photo. What evidence do you have that shows there "wasn't even a scratch" on the passenger side, or are you just making that up?



And one more thing: since the highway was allegedly packed with traffic during the incident, in the photos, why are there no other vehicles in site on the roadway, other than an emergency vehicle?


Ummm, because those motorists didn't have any damage to their vehicles so the police had them leave the area after the road was closed??? Does it really need to be explained to you people that police clear out traffic from accident sites so that emergency vehicles can get in?

Good grief, by the way you conspiracy theorists are desperately grasping at straws like this, you really have to want these secret conspiracies of your to be true, at this point.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Calling out Good Ol Dave in a thread does nothing to lead anybody closer to the truth of 911.

The light pole argument is a complete waste of time. You might as well be tweeting Charlie Sheen.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   


The conspiracy theorists are insisting that the photo of the Taxi damage was staged/faked while insisting that the photo of the Pentagon damage is real, even though both photos were taken by the same person: James Ingersoll.


I can take two photos, leave one as is and photoshop the other or better yet, Photoshop both without novices being able to detect the digital manipulation. Your question is absurd, since the myriad of possibilities prove nothing in regards to the topic.



You do realise there are conspiracy theorists here (I.E. Bonez) who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demilitions AND yet still think the "no Pentagon plane" claims are nonsense, right?


According to YOU, the posters you mention above are grossly mistaken about the WTC demo claims, so why should we believe they are not mistaken about their Pentagon plane theories?



So let me get this straight. Answering all your questions about the lightpole wasn't enough.


You have failed to explain how this massive light pole could cause such limited damage to the vehicle in question. Was this light pole elevated by some mysterious force to not damage the hood or the roof? I don't even think the damn fool conspiracy websites would buy this nonsense.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I am interested in the facts, not personal attacks and evading the question.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


The law of conservation of momentum explains this perfectly. Remember the old object in motion and object at rest saying?

The top portion of the light pole with the horizontal arm containing the actual light wants to remain at rest. The pole below this point first bends with the impact and then flattens with continual application of force by the wing. Grab a copper pipe with both hands and then put your foot in the middle and apply pressure.

At some pint the base will snap and the impact point will snap in two. It is quite conceivable that some part of the lamp or the pole would make a swiping motion across the windshield without hitting any metal part of the auto.

Do you know what distance between the pole mounting and the final resting place of the pieces?



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


Here is a map of the poles with the official flight path:



While I find the poles cut in two troubling, lets just say it was a plane for now. This still does not explain the damage done to the base of the poles. The base does not show the type of damage that happens if it was to rip apart as they are designed. When metal rips there is a smooth surface where the metal separates and it follows organic lines depending on the force applied.

What we see when looking at the pole bases is a straight line all around where it was cut and the surface of the metal at the separation is all rough and wavy. This is exactly what you get when cutting metal with an oxy cutter or other high heat method. There is also scorch marks on the outside of the base to further collaborate that heat was applied to cause the separation. When looking at this it is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the light poles where staged.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
I can take two photos, leave one as is and photoshop the other or better yet, Photoshop both without novices being able to detect the digital manipulation. Your question is absurd, since the myriad of possibilities prove nothing in regards to the topic.


It proves everything in regards to the topic, actually, as the "myriad of possibilities" as you put it all have one thing in common- someone is making them up off the top of their head and have zero proof to back them up. Your asking the public to accept there's some sinister plot afoot based upon said make believe only makes your own credibility suffer, not mine or anyone else's.

If you believe the photos were photoshopped, fine. Prove it. Jason Ingersoll is still alive and he should be easy enough to track down to confirm or deny any alterations of his photos.


According to YOU, the posters you mention above are grossly mistaken about the WTC demo claims, so why should we believe they are not mistaken about their Pentagon plane theories?


An excellent question, and I'm giving you a star for asking it.

The whole reason I mentioned it is that a "controlled demolitions" conspiracy does NOT, in ANY WAY, necessarily or even remotely lead to a "faked plane at the Pentagon" conspiracy, which is why not all 9/11 conspiracy proponents support it. For one thing, everyone saw for their own eyes that a plane crashed into the south tower so it's irrefutable that the conspirators...whoever they are...did in fact have two or more disposable passenger jets under their control, so it's utterly unnecessary and pointless to abandon the established model that the conspirators...whoever they are...were deliberately flinging passenger jets around. For another, unlike the controlled demolitions claims which can survive because these would have been entirely inside the structure and beyond the sight of cameras and eyewitnesses, the Pentagon attack occurred outside in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses, so rather than concentrating on fleshing out the details of your scenario, your efforts has to be concentrated on refuting the ton of evidence proving that it was a passenger jet, and the more you try to refute it, the more desperate you become and the more absurd your excuses begin to sound.

Even the scenario of a secretly remote controlled passenger jet guided by expert black ops pilots would fit all the available facts AND cater to your abject paranoia...and yet you people can't even restrain yourselves to remain even that rational. Your goal isn't to discuss the facts. Your goal is to peddle what you yourself want to believe is true regardless of the facts.



You have failed to explain how this massive light pole could cause such limited damage to the vehicle in question. Was this light pole elevated by some mysterious force to not damage the hood or the roof? I don't even think the damn fool conspiracy websites would buy this nonsense.


You have failed to show the extent of the damage the light pole caused on the passenger side of the vehicle. That's the side of the vehicle the light pole would have hit so your speculating the extent of the damage from the side of the taxi the light pole didn't hit is being spurious.
edit on 13-7-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


So are you saying that…
Someone with an oxy cutter ran out and cut 5 light poles just before they set off the explosions?
or
Was it just after the explosions?
Or
Was it 5 people with oxy cutters.
Or
Did three trucks pull up and deposit the cut poles?

How would you propose such an operation to your boss knowing that he insists on the whole thing being kept a secret?

Honest boss! No one will see us cutting the poles!

No problem boss we’ll just pull up and roll the poles off the truck and no one will be the wiser.


These are the same people who have supposedly kept the WTC secret for ten years. But they would approve planting poles with scorch marks on the base.

Don’t you see how silly these conspiracy ideas have become?



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
What we see when looking at the pole bases is a straight line all around where it was cut and the surface of the metal at the separation is all rough and wavy. This is exactly what you get when cutting metal with an oxy cutter or other high heat method. There is also scorch marks on the outside of the base to further collaborate that heat was applied to cause the separation. When looking at this it is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the light poles where staged.



So how many separated light poles have you examined previously that makes you an authority on what to look for in cases of suspected sabotage? How often did you personally examine this particular pole so you could determine that these marks are scorch marks rather than dirt or grass stains? While you're at it, what is your experience with oxy cutters so that you'd know the difference between an oxy cut and a broken weld?



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


I am still investigation, but a method that involves high temperatures was used. Explosives or an oxy cutter both fit this description. It would take a closer examination to verify exactly with method and may possibly be some other technique.



How would you propose such an operation to your boss knowing that he insists on the whole thing being kept a secret?


Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are all prime suspects for the inside job, there are many others.



Don’t you see how silly these conspiracy ideas have become?


This has started a war, cost trillion of dollars and greatly affected millions of lives. No I do not see this as silly, but your attitude as coming across that way.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by kwakakev
What we see when looking at the pole bases is a straight line all around where it was cut and the surface of the metal at the separation is all rough and wavy. This is exactly what you get when cutting metal with an oxy cutter or other high heat method. There is also scorch marks on the outside of the base to further collaborate that heat was applied to cause the separation. When looking at this it is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the light poles where staged.



So how many separated light poles have you examined previously that makes you an authority on what to look for in cases of suspected sabotage? How often did you personally examine this particular pole so you could determine that these marks are scorch marks rather than dirt or grass stains? While you're at it, what is your experience with oxy cutters so that you'd know the difference between an oxy cut and a broken weld?


Way to get owned by the person you are trying to attack. If you don't have an example of what a light pole looks like when it has been cut by a high velocity aluminum wing AND an example of what it looks like when it gets cut by oxy cutters you cant possibly compare and contrast without bias.

Arguing the point is useless.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




So how many separated light poles have you examined previously that makes you an authority on what to look for in cases of suspected sabotage?


Wither I am an expert on poles or not has no relevance. Either the evidence presented stands on its own or it does not.



How often did you personally examine this particular pole so you could determine that these marks are scorch marks rather than dirt or grass stains?


Here is another view of the marks that are fully consistent with scorching from being intentionally cut





While you're at it, what is your experience with oxy cutters so that you'd know the difference between an oxy cut and a broken weld?


For a weld to break the needs to be a weld there in the first place. With the inside supports of the base cut along the same line it clearly shows this was a cut and not a weld breaking.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
The proposition that agents ran around in broad daylight in front of the Penrtagon that morning, cutting light poles, smashing and twisting them, dumping thousands of pieces of aircraft wreckage, much of it to be found later within the Pentagon, without a soul seeing them has to be up with the supposed hologram wtc planes on the silliness scale.

To home in on Lloyd's cab, if that particular episode was set up, wouldn't the obvious thing have been to lance the cab with a pole and leave it in ? The whole scenario is completely ludicrous with all the thousands of potential witnesses anyway, but leaving that aside, why would anyone fake the damage to the cab when light poles are to hand and why then take time to withdraw the pole and lay it down ?

No wonder 9/11 trutherism is in its final throes if this lunacy is supposed to be evidence.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 





Here is another view of the marks that are fully consistent with scorching from being intentionally cut


I see tear marks in the upper part. A torch doesn't tear.

And like the other gentleman said. Why not lance the car with the pole? You could just roll the car off the back of a truck and call it a day.
Except for the witnesses. Those pesky witnesses. they keep getting in the way.
A good coverup would have thought about the potential witnesses. But a conspiracy theory can gloss over things like that.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
To home in on Lloyd's cab, if that particular episode was set up, wouldn't the obvious thing have been to lance the cab with a pole and leave it in ?


Why bother lifting a heavy light pole when you could just smash the windshield?

Can you answer why large dirt mounds were erected in places blocking the impact point, and the only place you can see the impact point from the flyover was where Lloyd's cab was?

stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

No coincidences there...







 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join