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.

 

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

page: 46
100
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   

It is your speculation that they show the crash. They probably didn’t.
Again, I repeat from my post #1387188: "According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack but the film was confiscated within minutes of the crash" (source National Geographic News) "The FBI on September 11th confiscated a nearby hotel's security camera videotape, which also captured the attack." (source CNN transcript)

... without any corroborating witnesses or evidence.
Well yeah! Unfortunately they would not release the footage, they deliberately took away the evidence and not to be mentionned by them again. The corroborating evidence has been taken away, confiscated, so there goes your "corroborating evidence", unfortunately we can't see it! How unfortunate!

I would expect that they wanted to get those footages before they wound up in the media’s hands in case there was any other evidence that could be obtained from them.
Exactrly my point! The evidences were taken away before any of the media (and the public) would get a chance to see it

your desktop webcam is only, what, a year old?
3Com HomeConnect Webcam ~ Still Image Capture Resolution: 640x480 ~ Video Capture Resolution: 640x480 or 1280x960 (software enhanced) ~ Digital Video Capture frame rate: 60 frames per second maximum ~ On the market since 2000 but I bought it 2 years ago for around $100 (not sure) however, it has been discontinued for some time now! ~ Number of colors: 16.8 millioin ~ It is capable of taking high resolution JPEGs every half second (thought that would not be the most compressible output) Together with two 120 hard drives for less than $100 each and you got a set up that can capture 640x480 resolution 30 fps video for well over 4 months, all for less than a $300 upgrade to any computer How much do you think the pentagon would spend on their camera equipments? More than my home webcam set up maybe? More than what cops use in their cars maybe? More than what the average QuickyMart uses maybe? Amazing, isn't it! I got a webcam and two hard drives that can outperform by far that dumb cheap pentagon survealance camera! But than and again, the pentagon does not dispose of nearly as much funds and technology as I do .... me being a high roller construction worker and all!

The camera resolution wa perfectly adequate for the job the camera was put there for: Monitoring the parking lot gate.
At 10-15 feet away, the camera would have a field of vision of less than 20 feet wide A small car or a rollerblader or a motorcycle travelling at only 13 mph (20 foot/second) could drive by without getting caught on any of the frames of that camera if the frame rate was indeed 1 fps Geez! Even a fast runner could run by and avoid ever getting caught on any of the frames! That is to say that at only 1 fps, that camera would be completely inneficient at doing the job you think it was intended to do! However, the idea that a place like the Pentagon would use sub standard security equipment is simply ridiculous, especially when you consider my $300 desktop set up would be far more efficient that what the footage proposes the pentagon uses

Have you ever watched “Real Police Videos?”
I sure have and those too exceed the specs of that altered pentagon footage!

The cameras in connivance stores and police cars are even worse. We are lucky it was in color.
Really! Why don't you take a look at this one taken in 2003 in color with a frame rate of at least 20 fps or perhaps this one from Germany back in 1999 with a frame rate of at least 20 fps including frame count, full color, time stamps, speed and direction! The truth is, you can get a shitload of security cam and survealance footage on the net and so far, all those I have found far exceed the specs of that one single 1 fps pentagon footage, even the corner store camera footages! Even those elevator camera footages boost a frame rate around 25 fps About most of the clips I have found are in color, every single one of them have better frame rate than the pentagon footage and every single one of them have at least the same resolution as the pentagon footage But don't believe me and do submit footage of your own!

What difference does it make if you could see the original time stamp or not?
On such a camera as the ones the pentagon would use, there would be a time stamp indicating the frame count If the time stamps hadn't been hidden, we could see if there was any missing frames (frames that would show the actual smaller aircraft) but those times stamps and frame counts were deliberately hidden

We know when the plane hit. The time stamp on the video was probably off anyway and had to be recalibrated after the fact.
The idea that the time stamp was off and needed to be recalibrated is your assumption and your extrapolation You really are working hard to excuse the ways of those who take away half of your money every year and send your sons to kill and die for thier corporate greed and their imperialist goals Don't mind me, keep buying into the box cutter terrorists and WMD fantasies ... make sure not to forget anything on your tax report either, that would upset your masters ... duh!

So, foia them for it or for any other evidence.
I repeat my quote from CNN which I posted earlier but I guess you didn't see it : "The FBI on September 11th confiscated a nearby hotel's security camera videotape, which also captured the attack. So far, the Justice Department has refused to release that videotape. They claim that it might provide some intelligence to somebody else who might want to do harm to the United States. But officials (...) at the Pentagon say they don't see any national security or criminal value to that tape." (source CNN transcript) Trust me, they are not about to release that footage and the same goes for a lot of other evidences around the 9/11 events!
[edit on 18-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1]




posted on May, 18 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
About the light poles! What appears strange to me is the following picture that you submitted earlier : Here is what the alleged witnesses had to say about this pole and this cab: "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. (source Army News) "Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts." Don Fortunato, a plainclothes detective with the Arlington (Va.) Police Department Now, look closely at the following picture of the cab. Ain't it funny how the windshiled had been smashed in but litteraly everything else on that car is intact! external image Not a scratch! Also, note how the car is positionned in the next picture, suggesting it had skidded to that angle but there are no skid marks whatsoever on the asphalt ... ...weird huh! Mod Edit: Image size only. [edit on 19-5-2005 by UM_Gazz]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Every single one of those pictures are showing a cold engine start up (most likely in the morning) during a cold day The "smoke" is produced by the hot steam released by the start up as it collides with the cold ambient air
This is not a "cold engine start up". San Diego, 9/25, 1978, Boeing 727 See the white smoke



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

It looks to me as if the truck is hooked up to the inboard engine and that engine is producing the smoke.
I don't think you were looking close enough Try again It's very clear to me that the smoke is coming from something under either one of the engines The truck placed in front doesn't look like it's hooked to anything


SMR

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Intersting isnt it,that image with the cab and pole. Notice it seems that the ground is level to the Pentagon.So you cant say,even if the pole is only 20ft in height,that it was on a hill making it higher. If a plane was that low there would be a lot more than those images show. Cars would have been blown around,people that say they were walking around would have been nearly killed from the thrust. A 757 is a huge plane compared to a car or person.At a speed of 500mph and at a low altitude as the images suggest,we are looking at way more damage than what is shown. Was not a 757



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR A 757 is a huge plane compared to a car or person.At a speed of 500mph and at a low altitude as the images suggest,we are looking at way more damage than what is shown. Was not a 757
Ok...so what was it ??? What hit the Pentagon ??? If a missal then what kind... If launched from a fighter jet...then show your proof.... I've already showned it wasn't a "Global Hawk"...what was it if it wasn't a 757 ?



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark The thrust from a jet engine extends in a narrow cone bacwards. If the airplane was 50 feet overhead, in a shallow dive, I would not expect much effect from the thrust on the cars bellow.
Just look at the following pictures as a Boeing flies about 2 or 3 hundred feet over a smoke stack and how the air is disturbed way below path and even after the plane is long gone: In fact, just ask any private pilot what he thinks of trying to follow a Boeing even at a mile or two behind! The turbulent votex would take a little Cessna and turn it upside down and make it look like a post-it note in a snow storm! You know how those airshow airplane formations always fly in close groups always side by side but never anywhere need an other airplane's votex ... ask yourself why! You know how whenever you cross a full size rig in opposing traffic of a open highway and you can feel you car move slightly pushed by the formidable gust of wind? Now just try to imagine that truck at 120 tons, about 30 times the volume of that rig and travelling at ten times the speed around 500 MPH! Now try to imagine, with the next picture, a Boeing pushing back 48 tons of air (2 x 43,000 pounds per engine) as it rushes toward the building. The highway isn't more than 2 or 300 feet directly behind the engines and that would be sufficient to rock the cars back and forth and send anyone in it's track flying backward into the opposite direction



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Just to help clarify some things; The Global Hawk is nearly all carbon fiber composite. As anyone who has messed with CF knows, it is stressed(under tension) into the epoxy to establish it's great strength as it is wound around the fuselage form. If it was a Global Hawk, the giant "birds nest" of un-stressed, un-wound CF would be an obvious giveaway of identity. The CF would not be destroyed by the fire either. In any event, neither of those wheel hubs are of the correct size for the GH, which use rather tiny wheels. As for the smoke trail from the engines....absolutely will happen after extensive damage from the light-pole strikes break away fuel lines. Jet-A (refined kerosene) spraying onto hot engine parts will smoke like a demon. I work on M1 Abrams tanks, the smoke generator onboard is nothing more than a pump that spews raw fuel onto the exhaust system, creating massive amounts of smoke using JP-8 (less refined Jet-A). The smoke trail is coming from raw fuel spewing from and onto the engine....and no, it will not necesarily burst into flames on contact....just in case you wondered. First post here! Hello everyone
Yes, I'm hard-core Conservative. No, I do not entertain conspiracy theories.


SMR

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

Originally posted by SMR A 757 is a huge plane compared to a car or person.At a speed of 500mph and at a low altitude as the images suggest,we are looking at way more damage than what is shown. Was not a 757
Ok...so what was it ??? What hit the Pentagon ??? If a missal then what kind... If launched from a fighter jet...then show your proof.... I've already showned it wasn't a "Global Hawk"...what was it if it wasn't a 757 ?
Im not exactly sure what it was,but it was definitly NOT a 757.I think we show more proof towards that then what is shown for it being a 757. Perhaps what some said,a small commuter plane with some sort of missile attatched to it. If we had the hotel,gas station,and a number of other video camera feeds,perhaps we would know.But for 'security' reasons,we have not been shown any except a shotty Pentagon cam that is cheaper than Joe's 40oz Depot on the corner



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

....and no, it will not necesarily burst into flames on contact....just in case you wondered.
OK, I give up! You got kerosene vapours thourouly mixed in with air and leading up to a big explosion ..... how do you figure this stuff would not ingnite on contact (assuming it was fuel fumes of course)?

First post here! Hello everyone
Welcome and don't forget your aluminum foil hat!

Yes, I'm hard-core Conservative. No, I do not entertain conspiracy theories.
Good boy! Just keep paying your taxes, don't dare make a mistake on your tax forms, make sure you be a good citizen and keep paying those taxes Don't worry too much how they administer that half of your paycheck you keep giving them every year. They know better than you so don't doubt them and keep going back to that paperless fraudulent Diebolt electronic voting machine When they come tell you that Canada or Iran or France has got WMDs, don't bother to ask questions, just you shut your mouth, finance they "freing" of a country that never asked your help and sacrifice the life of your sons for it Now, our constitution and our bill of rights are gone forever and have been replaced by the Patriot Act, the TIA program and the soon coming verychip Tax the poor, welfare to the rich, service cuts to the proletariat and lies abound But don't let anyone tell you that something must be going wrong in our country, they are just crazy pinko liberal faggots and conspiracy kooks any way Even Bush told you not to worry about those guys who want to blame him for the 9/11 events : "Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories, concerning the attacks of September eleventh. Malicous lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves. Away from the guilty." ~ G.W. Bush (2001) .... what's he so afraid of? [edit on 18-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Ok...so what was it ??? What hit the Pentagon ??? If a missal then what kind... If launched from a fighter jet...then show your proof.... I've already showned it wasn't a "Global Hawk"...what was it if it wasn't a 757 ?
Those are all excellent questions but it will demand time for me to answer them I will try to do so before the end of this week-end ... check back on this thread for my answers! In the mean time, here is a little picture you can use to feast your eyes on: external image I created this GIF animation and the Boeing is to scale, I can assure you of that! I am also working on a fully interactive 3D reconstitution but that is going to take me a long time, I hope you'll still be around when I get to finishing it and posting it! Mod Edit: Image size only. [edit on 19-5-2005 by UM_Gazz]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Has anyone seen Loose Change? I think they've proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the only identifiable parts are definitely not from a 757. Furthermore, the gov't claims that the entire plane, including the 12 tons of engine, much of which is made of titanium, just vaporized....yet they were able to get DNA of every passenger that was supposedly on the plane? What kind of explosion vaporizes titanium, but leaves fragile DNA samples behind?
If you haven't seen Loose Change, I recommend you do.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moe Foe Has anyone seen Loose Change? I think they've proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the only identifiable parts are definitely not from a 757.
I have seen it, it is an excellent movie I have mentioned here on ATS that the engine found was not from a 757, but it went whoosh over everyones heads LOL, and guy I have a complaint, could yous resize you photos to fit into the perimeter's of ATS ,s GUI. instead of scrolling half a mile to the right. Thanx Sauron [edit on 19/5/2005 by Sauron]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I would ask that anyone interested in this thread to please view www.abovetopsecret.com... The poster PepeLapiu1 has made a strong argument including Rumsfields Freudian slip but the thread was closed and referred here. Please also note the statement by poster ROMAD that claims he/she was there on 9-11 and claims to have a piece of the plane but never mentioned any of that in any other post since being a member of ATS. www.abovetopsecret.com... Isn't there something in the ATS rules about making false statements? Thank you.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Yeah, seems strange. One post's about how it was not a plane. Then we are pushed into propanganda thread like this. You people think about it. 900Km, geting the plane level with the pentagon and hiting the region from the floor at 0m to 15meters. This requires precise timming, and i believe only, computer could do it. When people land planes, it's the computer does the timming, so they don't miss the runaway. Lets if i was to put a wall on run away 0 to 15 meter's high and asked the pilot to hit wall with nose, without touching the ground. He would most likley miss it like 40 times or kill him self in the process. To state arab's on microsoft flightsim could do this is clearly insane. Think about the banks ---+15 ---+10 ---+5 ---0 --- -5 --- -10 --- -15 900km an hour with a slight back of -2, would cause the plane to crash into the floor. slight back of +2, would caused the allah worshipers to miss the pentagan. 900km an hour is 15 a minute 250 meters a second. So if the allah worshipers a flying at 250 meters a second thats like 3 football flields a second. Do you really think they could hit a wall. 15 meters high, in middle of the flield without touching the ground or going over it.???



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Yeah Um_Gazz closed the thread so more then likely it's his belief that it was a plane that hit and not a missle. The other thread was about a missle not a plane. Kinda unfair to close that thread. I think I smell bias.
Edit to add the link to the other thread in case you readers skip to the end. www.abovetopsecret.com... [edit on 19-5-2005 by Lanotom]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheTruth123 So if the allah worshipers a flying at 250 meters a second thats like 3 football flields a second. Do you really think they could hit a wall. 15 meters high, in middle of the flield without touching the ground or going over it.???
Allah Bush Boys, maybe
[edit on 19/5/2005 by Sauron]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom Yeah Um_Gazz closed the thread so more then likely it's his belief that it was a plane that hit and not a missile. The other thread was about a missile not a plane. Kinda unfair to close that thread. I think I smell bias.
Edit to add the link to the other thread in case you readers skip to the end. www.abovetopsecret.com... [edit on 19-5-2005 by Lanotom]
I posted about Rummy saying it was a missile months ago with a link to the quote and is in this thread some where I think, it is old news.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron I posted about Rummy saying it was a missile months ago with a link to the quote and is in this thread some where I think, it is old news.
I did'nt say it was fresh news. But it is news that should be parted. One group believes that it was a plane and the other group knows that it was a missle. Simple as that. Two separate stories.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR Im not exactly sure what it was,but it was definitly NOT a 757.I think we show more proof towards that then what is shown for it being a 757. Perhaps what some said,a small commuter plane with some sort of missile attatched to it.
So... 1. Where's the missing plane? 2. What do you say to those of us who saw the plane? Edit: From lanotom -

Please also note the statement by poster ROMAD that claims he/she was there on 9-11 and claims to have a piece of the plane but never mentioned any of that in any other post since being a member of ATS. Isn't there something in the ATS rules about making false statements?
I also know someone with a piece of the plane. And no, I'm not going to ask them for pics of it just to prove a plane hit the pentagon, simply because this has got to be one of the stupidiest conspiricies ever. This whole thread has done nothing but show people will believe the most silliest things. This is like seeing a bird hit a window, then someone who didn't see it try to tell me a chipmunk hit the window (with the bird still laying dead on the ground). [edit on 19-5-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]




top topics



 
100
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join