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.

 

Is this proof of a "Direct View" Pentagon Crash Video?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I see these photos on the internet and they show these great images milliseconds after crucial mmoments, and this got me thinking....Are photos like these, really just one frame of a direct video of the most heavily fortified building in the world, and we are staring at the proof itself without even seeing it?




Really???? Is it even possible,that high tech digital quality image above, may have came from a device that may have been already looking in that direction?

I think hear laughter on the "other side of the door"... Some things become more obvious over time.


What do you think?




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MentalGiant
 





I see these photos on the internet and they show these great images milliseconds after crucial mmoments,


I doubt it was milliseconds. Too much smoke over te top of the building. Too much fire far from the orange ball.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Hmm, what does this image actually shows? Miliseconds after crash? Impossible.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Thats a secondery explosion, gas cannister or something like that i believe it was,that happened after the first impact.It causes the front of the building to collapse.
edit on 7-10-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Why cant I see what these 2 cameras on tripods directly on the roof above the crash site saw? They must have had a front row seat?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentalGiant
I see these photos on the internet and they show these great images milliseconds after crucial mmoments, and this got me thinking....Are photos like these, really just one frame of a direct video of the most heavily fortified building in the world, and we are staring at the proof itself without even seeing it?

What do you think?


You have a few errors in your post OP. No disrespect, but allow me to correct a few.

One:
That was not right after the impact.

Two:
The Pentagon never was, and still is not, the most heavily fortified building in the world. That is an erroneous assumption based on Hollywood-esque make believe. If you want "heavily fortified" try North Korea. Or Berlin 1944. Or even Area 51 for that matter. The Pentagon is just an office building. There are no top secret weapons. It is not a military base containing tanks, fighter jets, stealth bombers, or laser weapons, or anything like that. It is predominantly an office building for the DoD. The White House is better fortified than the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
That pic had to be atleast 1 to 3 mins after impact to much smoke to much debris on highway it takes awhile for # to fall after impact! And the pentagon had something even more powerfull than any top secret weapons in it, the minds of the people that made those top secret weapons and top secret intel and trust me we lost a lot of it that day!



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MentalGiant
 


Have you ever been to or seen the Pentagon in person? You can practically spit on it from the freeway. It's definitely not the most fortified building in the world. High security, sure... but fortified? No.

And as the others say, too much smoke and fire for this to be milliseconds. There are videos of the aftermath... and this is familiar.

And the second picture you posted is so doctored it's hard to look at. None of it really even makes sense.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
You know what strikes me as the most AMAZING thing about this photo. There is not one shred of anything that would lead anyone to believe that a 757 made that hole. If you had no idea at that one supposedly just struck, and all you saw was this picture....would the largest commercial airliner at the time be your first thought. Even if someone then told you that's what it was, wouldn't you immediately try to find some glimmer of a piece of the plane? I know I did. But where the hell is it? Of course there were cameras pointed directly at the crash site, but somehow they miraculously missed the plane in its entiretly. HOW CAN PEOPLE CONTINUE TO IGNORE WHAT IS SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



.....would the largest commercial airliner at the time be your first thought.


No...because a 757 is not the largest commercial airliner at the time......

Oh, and picture is from too far away to see the detail, and it doesn't show the entire scene, such as the airplane debris in the foreground, and around the area.

Of course, the majority of the actual airplane is inside the Pentagon, so can't see that either....




posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CeeRZ
reply to post by MentalGiant
 


Have you ever been to or seen the Pentagon in person? You can practically spit on it from the freeway. It's definitely not the most fortified building in the world. High security, sure... but fortified? No.

And as the others say, too much smoke and fire for this to be milliseconds. There are videos of the aftermath... and this is familiar.

And the second picture you posted is so doctored it's hard to look at. None of it really even makes sense.


YES I have been to the Pentagon. NO you cannot spit on it from the highway. I presented a real photo, and you reply with fantasy, exagerrations, and lameness. Good luck with that.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MentalGiant
 


I never said the first one wasn't a real photo. But it also doesn't change the fact it wasn't taken milliseconds after as you claim. We also don't know where the photo came from. If it was a camera placed there, or someone who took it after the fact (since it is obviously not immediately after it hit)
The second picture you posted is very very obviously doctored, so there is no way to say what the tripods on the building actually are or when they were placed there. If you actually look at it, the picture has before, during and after all combined into the same photo... with what looks like fake smoke even.
And yes, the spitting comment was an exaggeration, because no you can't actually physically spit on it from the freeway... I was just pointing out how close it is to the public. So your comment of it being the most fortified building in the world is actually the gross exaggeration as you were being serious.
So where was the fantasy, exaggeration and lameness? You obviously didn't actually take what I said into honest consideration. You only come off as being misinformed and childish when you say things like that.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by MentalGiant
I see these photos on the internet and they show these great images milliseconds after crucial mmoments, and this got me thinking....Are photos like these, really just one frame of a direct video of the most heavily fortified building in the world, and we are staring at the proof itself without even seeing it?

What do you think?


You have a few errors in your post OP. No disrespect, but allow me to correct a few.

One:
That was not right after the impact.

Two:
The Pentagon never was, and still is not, the most heavily fortified building in the world. That is an erroneous assumption based on Hollywood-esque make believe. If you want "heavily fortified" try North Korea. Or Berlin 1944. Or even Area 51 for that matter. The Pentagon is just an office building. There are no top secret weapons. It is not a military base containing tanks, fighter jets, stealth bombers, or laser weapons, or anything like that. It is predominantly an office building for the DoD. The White House is better fortified than the Pentagon.



Ok Then General, I guess you miss the point, lets see if I can get you to admit this....I am sure you will agree there were dozens of cameras on the rooftop every 50 yards or so filming 24/7. Where is that film? Why is ist hidden? A child knows the answer.....or

if there was not cameras on the roof every 50 yards or so, why does my local WALMART have more security than the Pentagon, and where is all that TAX money gone?



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
OP nice photos. The Pentagon Building was either made with special materials to keep it from turning to dust like the WTC 1, 2, and 3 or the 19 "Terrorist" were using magic planes not known to man.

I suspect magic planes. One type that can turn buildings to dust and one type that doesn't leave parts when it impacts a building or a field.

OP one thing I can say is we will never know because we have no idea of the special weapons the "Terrorist" have access too.

Peace to you



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
The OP's photo is definitely interesting.

There is a lot of fire in the middle of the picture. One poster said that the fire was from a gas canister that exploded after the plane had penetrated the building. I'm assuming that the jet fuel fire had burned out by that time, for the most part. There doesn't seem to be much sign of a jet fuel fire burning, except of course for the fire coming from the generator in front and to the right, which used a kerosene based fuel much like jet fuel and burned for quite a while producing black smoke that many people erroneously believe was coming from the "plane".

I'm a little busy at the moment, but it would be interesting to try to follow the story of this "gas cannister". I definitely remember hearing about another explosion at the Pentagon. Is this it?

It definitely cannot be the impact of the plane.

Edit: On second thought, I can see the jet fuel flames to the left and right. I guess I was too fixated on the big fire in the middle. It seems odd though, that there are no reflective highlights of this big fire on a lot of the small objects between the viewer and the fire. I would have expected something there. Is this photo photoshopped too?

On third thought, I'm convinced that this is a photoshopped image. Look at the red highlights on the smoke on the right, but the lack of them on the smoke on the left.
edit on 8-10-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


You're right... I looked at that first picture again, and it's definitely been edited too. Too bad when you get clear pictures like that and they are doctored.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 
Just so we know where you stand, are you really saying that in that picture, the 'airplane' was inside the building? Am I supposed to believe that's what YOU believe? Do you really think people are that stupid? If you're the re-enforcements, you guys are in big trouble.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by ProudBird
 
Just so we know where you stand, are you really saying that in that picture, the 'airplane' was inside the building? Am I supposed to believe that's what YOU believe? Do you really think people are that stupid? If you're the re-enforcements, you guys are in big trouble.



The airplanes ended up inside of both tower 1 and tower 2 did they not ? It's called momentum.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


American 77 was flown by the hijacker, and impacted into the Pentagon, yes.

It is clear, from the many points of evidence....tho most compelling is, of course, the FDR.

Unfortunately, the CVR was too damaged, did not survive the impact and subsequent fire. Those *recorders* are NOT "indestructible".

The fact that United 93's CVR was intact shows that the aspects of the airliner *crash* details vary.

In the design of CVRs and FDRs, NONE of them were designed to withstand the sort of *crashes* seen by intentional suicidal maniacs, who wished to cause such damage, by SUICIDALLY crashing the jet they were piloting!!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join