The evidence at the pentagon has been planetd

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 


Is there a point to those photos? I mean they are different photos or video captures taken from different angles and different elevations, at different times and with different euipment and they therefore look, different. That would appear to be direct evidence of, well, reality. Are you suggesting that reality itself is somehow being compromised in order to achieve the conspiracy?




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





at different times


I see, I guess the 30 ft signpost was on his lunchbreak in some of them.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


I was just complaining on another thread that my NWO check did not come in the mail today. Any of you guys know what is up with that? I need my cash


NWO? I actually work for the Rockefeller-Jesuit-JBS axis, we have direct deposit, so I don't have to worry about that.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by hooper
 





at different times


I see, I guess the 30 ft signpost was on his lunchbreak in some of them.



You're kidding, right? Thats your big conspiracy? You're not going to see the same exact thing in photos taken from different angles. I don't really know how to explain this, its something you kind of learn right after you open your eyes the first time.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 


but mike, what about the first reporter team with video......
not enough debris to fill a suitcase.....same at shanksville



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Seems like you are the only one that feels that way.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by hooper
 


Seems like you are the only one that feels that way.


No he is not. As he said, different angles + different elevations = different positions for the intermediate objects (poles, signs, etc). That would be the conclusion reached by 99% of "normal" observers of the photographs you posted. The remaining 1%, can't really speak for them.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


Really, there are at least 5 people on this page agreeing with me and it is clear that you guys can be considered as a single entity.

In any case your percentiles are nowhere near reality.

Don't you feel silly doing this? Anyone can see that those pics are completely off, the difference in angles is not big enough to remove entire huge objects from those views.

It is blatantly obvious. You are blatantly obvious.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
The pictures are good examples of the effect of using a telephoto lens with a small(ish) aperture opening to photograph distant objects. We call it a 'depth of field' effect where the objects that are far apart are all in focus and tend to be 'flattened out' when compared to the normal perspective you'd see if there in person. IE an object that's actually halfway between the background and the camera will appear to be much closer to that background than it really is and a relatively small lateral movement could take it completely out of the field of view with no apparent change to the more distant objects in the background - that's what the pictures demonstrate. Just pictures taken from different locations, with different cameras, lenses and settings at different times.

The pictures do not support the claim of tampering (moving structures) but simply illustrate a basic principle of photography, nothing more.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 





The pictures are good examples of the effect of using a telephoto lens with a small(ish) aperture opening to photograph distant objects.


You realize these are screenshots taken from news footage? These are not shot with a telelens, which is obvious, do you see any close ups? The point these were supposedly shot from is not that far from the Pentagon.

And even if they were shot with a telelens, they are all from virtually the same angle, and the signpost is standing near the Pentagon. The 3 pics I was comparing all show the grass field and the little fencing from virtually the same angle.

There is just no doubt about this.

Anyone that is trying to talk people into believing that a banana is not crooked is not to be trusted.

Also, you have very convenient timing to show up in this thread with that little story.
edit on 21-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by Pilgrum
 





The pictures are good examples of the effect of using a telephoto lens with a small(ish) aperture opening to photograph distant objects.


You realize these are screenshots taken from news footage? These are not shot with a telelens, which is obvious, do you see any close ups?


You have heard of "zoom", correct? Telephoto and zoom are both means of changing the focal length of a camera.

Closeups are relative, right? it depends on the distance between the camera and the object depicted.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKillerReally, there are at least 5 people on this page agreeing with me and it is clear that you guys can be considered as a single entity..


5 people out of 7 billion people on the planet. Not a very good percentage you got going there.
edit on 21-7-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 





That would be the conclusion reached by 99% of "normal" observers of the photographs you posted. The remaining 1%, can't really speak for them.


At the time that I replied to that post, of all the people that read the discussion on that page 5 starred me and your buddy had none. I don't care about stars but it was a valid remark to his comment.

Seems that the qoute above is not representing the only clear and direct evidence at that time, but what else is new.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 






You have heard of "zoom", correct? Telephoto and zoom are both means of changing the focal length of a camera.


Why are you talking? The guy was talking about taking pictures with a telelens, I pointed out that they were screenshots from a newscam.

It doesn't matter, only magical lenses make objects that are that close to the pentagon dissapear when the angle hardly changes.

Anyone can see it.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 






You have heard of "zoom", correct? Telephoto and zoom are both means of changing the focal length of a camera.


Why are you talking? The guy was talking about taking pictures with a telelens, I pointed out that they were screenshots from a newscam.

It doesn't matter, only magical lenses make objects that are that close to the pentagon dissapear when the angle hardly changes.

Anyone can see it.


Nobody agrees with this tripe.

Let's take a moment to explore the implications of your idea. If these photos are really inconsistent with each other, what are the possibilities for the explanation?

I see two:

1. Misterious secret agents were moving trees and buildings and signposts around for no reason.

2. TV fakery. All of the video was faked, with computer animated digital models standing in for the actual buildings and trees. But for no reason, the conspirators decided to use two or more 3d models that didn't match each other instead of using one 3d model which would have delivered a consistent result.

Neither one of these makes a lick of sense.

There is, however, a third possibility:

3. You don't know anything about photography, but you're so desperate to find anomalies in the 9/11 footage that you'll believe anything that seems to confirm this,



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


The whole 911 footage pool is riddled with these kind of anamolies, especially the plane footage.

If it is consistent it starts to get suspicious. I don't have all the answers, Just my eyes.

And why the difference? You could hardly have every channel broadcast the exact same fake images. I suppose different teams were sloppy and inconsistent, something that is a reoccuring problem in 911 footage.




But for no reason, the conspirators decided to use two or more 3d models that didn't match each other instead of using one 3d model which would have delivered a consistent result.


There is nothing wrong with the 3d models themselves, it's the way they are layered over each other in the wrong positions or completely excluded.
edit on 21-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller

At the time that I replied to that post, of all the people that read the discussion on that page 5 starred me and your buddy had none. I don't care about stars but it was a valid remark to his comment..


I see, "stars" are now an indication of reality. I don't do the star thing so I must have missed the point of ATS. It is to earn "stars". Truth and reality don't matter as long as you get "stars".

Now do you see why no one outside internet forums takes this stuff seriously?



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 





I see, "stars" are now an indication of reality.


No, they are an indication of agreement with a particular viewpoint and statement.



I don't do the star thing so I must have missed the point of ATS. It is to earn "stars". Truth and reality don't matter as long as you get "stars".


Playing twister again? I specifically mentioned I don't care. Your buddies were acting like noone was agreeing with my claims. I just pointed that out without even mentioning stars.

Then another entity was throwing percentiles at me, which were clearly not consistent with the star ratio, which was the only objective statistic to go on, which is why I mentioned it.




Now do you see why no one outside internet forums takes this stuff seriously?


It is apparently serious enough for some to maintain a constant presence.
edit on 21-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
Then another entity was throwing percentiles at me, which were clearly not consistent with the star ratio, which was the only objective statistic to go on, which is why I mentioned it.


Oh I gotta add that one to my signature over at JREF. And the amazing thing is, you have no clue how ludicrous that statement is.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


You realize these are screenshots taken from news footage? These are not shot with a telelens, which is obvious, do you see any close ups? The point these were supposedly shot from is not that far from the Pentagon.


I did a little checking on a 1:10000 map of the area I have on hand (I did look very closely into all this years ago out of curiosity) and those pics were shot roughly 500m (1600') from the Pentagon so yes, they used a fair amount of zoom. The large traffic sign spanning Washington Boulevarde is about 250m from the Pentagon which is half way between the camera and the Pentagon. To get the sign to appear right in front of the impact point, the camera would need to be about 100m to the right of the CITGO looking toward the Pentagon while shooting from the immediate CITGO area could take that sign completely out of the picture (would move out of frame to the right).

Some of the pics could well have been shot from even further away like off Columbia Pike up near to the Navy Annex which is over 700m from the impact point which would place the sign in frame. Check the maps for yourself if still having doubts - it's not that hard.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join