Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The evidence at the pentagon has been planetd

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightstalker78
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 


That site is ridiculous.I seriously don't know how anyone can consider that a legitmate source.

2nd.


It's funny you would say that, since the actual images we are talking about are taken from offiical mainstream media sources.

All that site did was take the screenshots.

See anyone with eyes can consider those pics and decide if it is legitimate or not.




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Just reading the berating from people like Hooper and 911files makes me want to laugh out loud. I thought the motto on ATS was "Deny Ignorance". These guys are just argument baiting and purposely watering down the content with their tripe, it's pretty obvious at this point.

Here is something you guys might be able to relate to www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 19-7-2012 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 





There are no anomalies in any of the images you posted.


Sure buddy, whatever you say buddy.....






posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Konduit
Just reading the berating from people like Hooper and 911files makes me want to laugh out loud. I thought the motto on ATS was "Deny Ignorance". These guys are just argument baiting and purposely watering down the content with their tripe, it's pretty obvious at this point.


No sir, it is called reality, science and facts ... AKA ... the truth. Unfortunately some people like to live outside of reality and for those it is "just argument baiting and purposely watering down the content". Fact (not fiction), the position of the reference objects shown in the photographs have "moved" due to parallax, a very well known and established phenomenon in photography and physics. To suggest otherwise simply demonstrates an ignorance of photography and physics, not "fakery".

I for one am completely open to evidence tampering by government agencies. Darn, I'm the one who has suggested that the parity codes may have been changed in the AAL77 flight data recorder file. I earned a footnote in my namesake's book, The Ground Truth (page 375, footnote 290) for another example of potential tampering. But in this case (either for "fakery" or pre-staged poles), there is no evidence being presented, just subjective opinion not based on credentials or experience in the field. So yes, I am here on ATS to "deny ignorance". Sorry if you cannot support your hypothesis with evidence.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


Right.

The judge just dismissed the case on bs claims, how surprising.

She never had a chance. It takes nothing away from her testimony and her cause.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by 911files
 


Right.

The judge just dismissed the case on bs claims, how surprising.

She never had a chance. It takes nothing away from her testimony and her cause.



No, just like you, she presented NO EVIDENCE. She did it enough times that the courts got fed up with her.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by waypastvne
 





There are no anomalies in any of the images you posted.


Sure buddy, whatever you say buddy.....






posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Here are the reasons why the case was dismissed if anyone wants to see,

www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
Here are the reasons why the case was dismissed if anyone wants to see,

www.globalresearch.ca...


I link the actual court case that gives the reasons. You post a link with someone's "opinion" of what the court case says. One day you'll learn the difference between evidence (facts) and opinion.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


My link is citing the same reasons with an explanation, it's a bit easier to get the point, for when you aren't a lawyer.

Reasons like this,


“Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs have failed to allege that defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights” in regard to the complaint that Cheney blew up that particular part of the Pentagon “in order to destroy certain financial records.” Comment: While the Constitution’s Article I, section 9 does mumble something about Congress’s duty to publish receipts of all public expenditures, I agree that there is no express constitutional right not to have financial records bombed, vaporized, etc.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by Cassius666
 


It's very strange that during a time in our lives when we've got so many other current topics to discuss, you feel the need to bring up a 911 theory that has been discussed to death here, including you as one of the contributors to those many other threads on this subject.

What is your motive?


9/11 was the cause of some of the most important topics we can discuss now.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
May i interject an observation here?
The full length of the passenger plane alleged to have hit the side of the pentagon building is listed at 155 feet upwards to 178 feet depending upon the variant of the plane ........
There is a camera pisture of the object which hit the pentagon....Its show two shots with the object in view (sort of) My point is this prooves the aircraft could not have been the airliner aleged because the length of the body of the craft would have taken sufficient time for more pictures to have been taken....There should be at least one, amybe two more shots i think......
Thats my take......Cassius....



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
seems to me that the majority of threads nowadays just turn into a grudge match with people being cocky and making snide remarks and doing their very best to discredit folk they dont agree with. like someone before me stated -

DENY IGNORANCE! The type of ignorance i see displayed on this site, daily, is the type of ignorance that will eventually destroy the world.

check out this site for 9/11 pics and moon landing pics. i have no affiliation with this site, just one i came across and find interesting.

www.aulis.com...



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
or so some people explain pictures of airplane parts at the pentagon. If a plane did not hit the pentagon, how do you explain the pictures that show landing gear, matching turbine parts etc. ? Parts planted during the rennovation work? Pictures shot at a different location? Did anybody come forward with a story of fouplay to tell or is it all guesswork?


The engine found at the pentagon did not match the one that is on that model of plane,
it was much smaller. The tail section was not found at all, and it would have been huge.

The thing that makes it all quite suspicious is the same thing for OKC.

The video tape from the commercial buildings nearby were immediately seized
and the public has not been allowed to see them, its several different video tapes
from several different angles.

That is why we are only allowed to see a few frames from one camera
that have likely been modified due to the long delay before they were released.

Its obvious they have something to hide on the tapes from the OKC bombing and 911.

Done and done...



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech

The engine found at the pentagon did not match the one that is on that model of plane,


Well, the engine experts seem to disagree with you. If you don't mind, I'll take their word for it, not yours.


As discussed in the main article, all three of these pieces of debris are identical matches to or at least consistent with the components found in the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan aboard a Boeing 757. - Aerospace Web



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
May i interject an observation here?
The full length of the passenger plane alleged to have hit the side of the pentagon building is listed at 155 feet upwards to 178 feet depending upon the variant of the plane ........
There is a camera pisture of the object which hit the pentagon....Its show two shots with the object in view (sort of) My point is this prooves the aircraft could not have been the airliner aleged because the length of the body of the craft would have taken sufficient time for more pictures to have been taken....There should be at least one, amybe two more shots i think......
Thats my take......Cassius....


To make the assertion that there should have been more frames of the plane you need to know a few things.
The model number of the camera for image sensitivity.
The lens being used. Fstop / focal length
The distance between the camera and impact point.
The frame rate of images.
The model number of the recording device.
The quality of the tape of the recording device.
The frame rate used during recording.
The number of cameras being recorded on the same screen. Was 4 cameras recorded at same time/tape?

Do you know the answer to any of these?

If not then you are making assumptions based on nothing more than a hunch.
You have to keep in mind that the intended use for this camera was to get one or two images of a driver about 4 feet from the camera. You don't need HD resolution for this even today.
edit on 20-7-2012 by samkent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
Here are the reasons why the case was dismissed if anyone wants to see,

www.globalresearch.ca...

That's an opinion not fact. For all I (or we) know you could have written it under a pen name!

Please please please understand that we are tired of seeing links to a.n.other conspiracy site labelled as if it is the purveyor of truth. You need links to independant sites, boring ones, that simply post documents, facts and figures WITHOUT ANY OPINIONS.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


As pointed out before, that link contains the exact same reasons given in the court case, and they only added an explanation as to what they mean exactly.

You have a problem with this kind of transparency?



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I realize there are many aspects to talk about when it comes to the pentagon, but this was just meant to touch upon the fotografic evidence of mathing airplane parts shot at the pentagon.

Here is a composite

www.allmystery.de...

the debrie seems to match that of an airliner. You will understand that it is not too far off that the pentagon has been hit by an airliner, like the wtc 1 and 2 . If you feel there are reasons this is not the case, then evidence to the contrary must be accounted for.




You need proof that the pictures were taken at the same location not your opinion. Unless you are a photo expert. Show us the proof or the creds.


Thats more like it, is there any reason to believe the pictures were not taken at the same location, or can the location of the pictures be identified as the pentagon disaster site?
edit on 20-7-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join