Pages: (2) 1 [2]  ( Go to first unread post )

 Apologies If This Photo Is Well Known
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 3 2006, 10:00 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



Cary,

Please read this page for full review of this photo (start at the bottom of the linked page and continue on). The five poles you refer to are not even in this photo. Try Google Earth and triangulate the photo yourself. You need to know where it was taken from and the implications of the lens. After you read the post and understand it, please let me know if you need further analysis.

P.S. If you do request that and it satisfactorily answers your objections - will you agree to a retraction?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...ic=15307&st=180

Russell

This post has been edited by Russell Pickering on Oct 3 2006, 10:10 AM
Top
paranoia
Posted: Oct 3 2006, 10:21 AM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 32
Member No.: 5,692
Joined: 19-September 06



the building in the background of this pic:

user posted image


is the Catholic University:

user posted image

user posted image



located here:

user posted image


cheers.gif
Top
dequincey
Posted: Oct 3 2006, 10:51 AM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 80
Member No.: 3,568
Joined: 28-July 06



Paranoia, I could not hope for a better response to my questions. Thank you very much. I no longer doubt the authenticity of these pictures. Thanks to Hetware for the big picture, but it's just a blow up of a smaller file.
I'm not concerened about the light poles, but I want to point to a couple of other strange things when I get time.
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 3 2006, 10:57 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



Cary,

Always start with the photographer. Here is a bit about his authentic position with the AP.

"State Photo Center editor Tom Horan, who lives a couple of miles from the Pentagon, photographed the crash and dropped his images at the Alexandria home of colleagues Paul Alers and Carolyn Cornish. With the Potomac bridges closed to motor vehicles, Horan made his way to the office on a bicycle."

http://www.ap.org/log/index.html

Please note 3 other photos by him.

user posted image

This first one clearly shows the collapse area.

user posted image

Note the progression of smoke.

user posted image

Note the further progression of the smoke.

To confirm these are from him please look at this site and hit "Next" twice.

http://webcache.news-record.com/legacy/att...tos/photo3.html

These photos were taken during the fireground evacuation between 10:15 and 10:38. Thus the progression of smoke as the fires were not being mitigated by suppression efforts.

The full documentation of the evacuation is here. It explains why the MWAA apparatus are not in the Horan photos.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/116.html

Let me know if you need to see the triangulation and a satellite image of the exact poles that are in his photos and I'm sure you'll agree that they were NOT in the flight path. Telephoto foreshortening is very deceptive.

I have a few more of his photos too. They're not all faked are they?

Russell









Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 3 2006, 11:37 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



This photo (enlarged by me) appears to have also been taken from the Riverhouse. It is taken by Rich Lipski of the Washington Post. It confirms the perspective of Horan. It was taken after the evacuation. Notice the different position of MWAA 331 and 345 from the beginning.

user posted image

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo.../pentagon/5.htm
Top
George Hayduke
Posted: Oct 3 2006, 01:35 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Debate
Posts: 234
Member No.: 4,607
Joined: 2-September 06



Lamp post #5 is standing in these AP photos as is others. These photos mesh well with the information contained in this essay, which asserts that the Pentagon was bombed before something struck it.

user posted image
user posted image
(The light poles are clearly mapped in this image and in the AP photo they are standing. Figure it out.)

Plane huggers can continue to grasp at illusions, but with so much to reconcile. Note three times.

9:32 --when the clocks in the Pentagon fell from the walls and stopped due to what Pentagon eyewitnesses refer to as bombs that smelled like cordite; not the part of the building bombed housed the headquarters of the military investigation into the $2.6 trillion Rumsfeld announced was missing or lost, stolen rather, from DoD on Sept. 10, 2001.

9:43 --The time the Pentagon originally reported that it was hit

9:37 --The new and improved time the Pentagon says it was hit, changed because it conflicted so radically with what FAA was reporting happened on that day. Though this time is closer to 9:32 it still isn't 9:32, the time at which clocks in the Pentagon stopped when the fell from the walls in the bombing.

The Pentagon was bombed. Then it was hit by something much much smaller than F77.

Read the essay. Look at the AP photos. Connect the dots.

This post has been edited by George Hayduke on Oct 3 2006, 01:37 PM
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 3 2006, 07:50 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



Here is a triangulation of the photos. If you look at the left edge of the photos you generally see the heliport. The right edge varies. If you draw the line you can see the lamp poles in question would not show in these photos. Those are other poles in the photos.

If you look at the graphic below and correspond the trees in the cloverleaf to the trees in the photos you can see a confirmation. The tree labeled "Lone Tree" shows in the photos that have been taken from a wider point of view to double confirm the location.

This was taken after impact. If bombs went off in the building before hand these photos are not evidence for it. The original time published of 9:43 was the original AP press release and it was in error. It went out to everybody.

The FDR data and subsequent reports indicate the impact occured at 9:37:44-45.

I am still waiting for falling clocks to be tested. I have read the essay a couple of times. Questions - what is the mechanism for the watch to have stopped? Was the face damaged? Did the battery fall out even though it was strapped to a wrist? Is there a photo of the watch to document damage severe enough to the face to stop the hands?

The A3 theory has been dealt with in detail. Barbara even emailed for the details of that. How did they have an explosion large enough to knock a clock off the wall outside at the heliport and the inside of the Pentagon and hide it until the A3 came by? If people were outside wondering what the explosion was how come nobody saw an A3?

user posted image

Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 3 2006, 08:09 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Oct 3 2006, 07:37 AM)


user posted image


First floor doesnt show where the wings went in...


Top
George Hayduke
Posted: Oct 3 2006, 09:26 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Debate
Posts: 234
Member No.: 4,607
Joined: 2-September 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Oct 3 2006, 07:50 PM)
I am still waiting for falling clocks to be tested. I have read the essay a couple of times. Questions - what is the mechanism for the watch to have stopped? Was the face damaged? Did the battery fall out even though it was strapped to a wrist? Is there a photo of the watch to document damage severe enough to the face to stop the hands?

The A3 theory has been dealt with in detail. Barbara even emailed for the details of that. How did they have an explosion large enough to knock a clock off the wall outside at the heliport and the inside of the Pentagon and hide it until the A3 came by? If people were outside wondering what the explosion was how come nobody saw an A3?

If the image you've posted depicting the location from which the photos were shot in relation to the Pentagon is accurate then we can conclude that the photos do not depict streetlamp #5 standing.

As for your experiment involving clocks tumbling from walls and being set back five minutes, good luck!

Re: "How did they have an explosion large enough to knock a clock off the wall outside at the heliport and the inside of the Pentagon and hide it until the A3 came by?"

This is presuming that a substantial amount of time elapsed between the initial bombing and the impact. If it is within seconds then obviously nothing would necessitate hiding. If ten minutes or more elapse then you might have problems if you can't control the media. But, as I've pointed out and as Barbara mentions in her essay, the original early AP reports from the Pentagon that day have a truck bomb exploding outside of it.

If the bombing preceded the impact and the bombs detonated inside the building, destroying the work stations, computers and rooms used by military auditors investigating the $2.6 trillion that Rumsfeld admitted the day before that DoD had lost, then the destruction of the bombs might merit instant phone calls to the local media who in turn call the Pentagon and write initial reports, that underbar of streaming text, while dispatching personnel who arrive later after the impact and when all the damage will then be said to be from F77.

Then you have the "eyewitnesses." I've clipped something from some other thread and posted it in a thread in the "Debate" room. Most seem like plants, actors and puppets, mouthpieces for the establishment reciting lines that will guarantee them treats from the hands of their masters.

Re: "If people were outside wondering what the explosion was how come nobody saw an A3?"

You mean how come the media hasn't latched onto and blown up testimony from folks who claim to have seen an A3? We've got eyewitnesses seeing private jets, seeing helicopters, seeing winged missiles, and seeing Boeings. Maybe we should presume that some of the different accounts attest to certain "eyewitnesses" not having their orders straight, in other words, not yet certain what they are to say they saw to please the folks they want to please. The rest might not know what the hell they saw if something small came in at 300+ mph (much less the official 500 mph) and crashed into the Pentagon while a boeing passenger plane does a loud, conspicuous low altitude flyover at the exact same time. The kept media shuns these folks and latches onto the plants. The eyewitnesses who did say anything other than F77 go home and turn on the boob tube and get their daily programming, the same talking heads saying over and over and over "flight 77 hit the Pentagon." Many, who were still probably confused and trying to sort out in their minds what they actually did see, resign, throwing in the towel like they have been programmed to do thru hours of daily television consumption spanning years.

Re: "Questions - what is the mechanism for the watch to have stopped? Was the face damaged? Did the battery fall out even though it was strapped to a wrist? Is there a photo of the watch to document damage severe enough to the face to stop the hands?"

I've brought up the behavior of detonation waves repeatedly here and received few answers. Most of the public haven't been around too many bombings and really don't know how certain bombs behave. Take it up with an expert. I can tell you that the smell of cordite is indicative of weapons grade explosives and so you should probably take your questions to someone who can tell you what bombs, not jet fuel, do when they detonate.

This post has been edited by George Hayduke on Oct 3 2006, 09:30 PM
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 3 2006, 10:00 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



It is occluded by spray. They are saturating with foam again. If there was jet fuel in the area as they say this would be protocol.
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Oct 3 2006, 10:02 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



George,

Your theories are respected.

I just wanted to accurately depict the photos.

Russell

This post has been edited by Russell Pickering on Oct 4 2006, 12:21 AM
Top
Chippy
Posted: Oct 5 2006, 01:37 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Member No.: 4,926
Joined: 10-September 06



I think it's important to compare two pictures here:


user posted image

user posted image


As you can see, the top picture doesn't even show the area where the building collapsed. It's far off to the left of the crash area; that's why you don't see very much damage!
Top
Chippy
Posted: Oct 5 2006, 01:44 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Member No.: 4,926
Joined: 10-September 06



This was just a message to the mods...I'm erasing what I said...

This post has been edited by Chippy on Oct 5 2006, 03:04 PM
Top
George Hayduke
Posted: Oct 5 2006, 02:51 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Debate
Posts: 234
Member No.: 4,607
Joined: 2-September 06



QUOTE (Chippy @ Oct 5 2006, 01:37 PM)
I think it's important to compare two pictures here:

Yeah, Chippy, good catch.

One explanation for the difference might well be the differing angles from which the photographers shot each pic, as was pointed out early on this thread.

View the image posted by Russell depicting the angle from which the AP photos were shot in relation to the damage.

Nonetheless, neither picture depicts a plane crash, in my opinion.
Top
Chippy
Posted: Oct 5 2006, 03:38 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Member No.: 4,926
Joined: 10-September 06



Does this rule out the possibility of any plane crash, such as that from a global hawk which was randomly brought up in loose change, or should we conclude that it was a missile attack?

There are some logic problems that need to be worked out. Why would the government call it a plane crash and use a missile instead? The Pentagon is not in a private area. I mean, for heavens sakes, there was a gas station close enough to the pentagon that could have recorded the plane collision. People will be looking, possibly HUNDREDS of people. The government could never possibly hope to convince people that a missile attack was actually a plane collision, especially when so many people are watching exactly what was happening. And in fact, dozens of eyewitnesses said they saw a plane collide with the pentagon.

More importantly, why would the government choose a missile over an airplane? Many people have argued that the damage to the pentagon was extremely minimal and is too small to have been caused by a plane crash, so you can't argue that the missile attack was done to maximize casualties. Given that the damage was apparently smaller, and also accounting for the fact that hitting a building with a missile in a public place and hoping that nobody will notice it is pretty much inconceivable, I don't see any good arguments for whatever the hell is going on here. And better yet, I don't see how it ties into the grand scheme of things.
Top
George Hayduke
Posted: Oct 5 2006, 06:06 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Debate
Posts: 234
Member No.: 4,607
Joined: 2-September 06



QUOTE (Chippy @ Oct 5 2006, 03:38 PM)
1) The Pentagon is not in a private area. I mean, for heavens sakes, there was a gas station close enough to the pentagon that could have recorded the plane collision.

2) People will be looking, possibly HUNDREDS of people. The government could never possibly hope to convince people that a missile attack was actually a plane collision, especially when so many people are watching exactly what was happening. And in fact, dozens of eyewitnesses said they saw a plane collide with the pentagon.

3) More importantly, why would the government choose a missile over an airplane? Many people have argued that the damage to the pentagon was extremely minimal and is too small to have been caused by a plane crash, so you can't argue that the missile attack was done to maximize casualties. Given that the damage was apparently smaller, and also accounting for the fact that hitting a building with a missile in a public place and hoping that nobody will notice it is pretty much inconceivable, I don't see any good arguments for whatever the hell is going on here. And better yet, I don't see how it ties into the grand scheme of things.

Well, I for one am only going to conclude that a Boeing jumbo jet didn't hit the Pentagon. As for what did hit the Pentagon, I'm open to theories and suggestions. Personally, I think this essay synthesizes important information in an attempt to give us all a much clearer picture of what did and didn't happen that day. It holds that bombs went off inside the Pentagon at 9:32. Read for yourself.

Re: 1) The gas station was for Pentagon employees only, as far as my research shows. So it was private. The Pentagon is something of an enigma that needs to be addressed. Remember, we are talking about perhaps the most fortified building under the most heavily protected airspace in the most heavily protected city of the most militarized nation on the face of the planet. You are talking about automated defense systems and 3-D real-time surveillance of the campus, grounds and surrounding area and airspace spanning outwards for hundreds of miles. You are talking about artificial intelligence crunching the data registered by both systems. The attack on the Pentagon should not have ever happened period. Incompetence simply doesn't work as an excuse because you will find that most of the defense systems protecting that building were largely automated, run and maintained by AI. So here we are, tiny hole, no bodies, no luggage, no debris field, you've got Hani Hanjour, the smell of cordite, clocks stopped at 9:32 when the attack supposedly happened at 9:37, you've got Rumsfeld the day before, 9/10/01, saying that the DoD has magically lost $2.6 trillion and the rooms, work stations and computers that are used by the auditors investigating that loss getting destroyed by what Pentagon personnel said were bombs. There's more, but I'll stop.

Re: 2) You mean eyewitnesses like Gary Bauer, who went on the record saying he saw a jumbo jet crashing into the Pentagon. Convenient for him, wouldn't you think, being that he's a signatory of PNAC. There's a thread in the debate section on the eyewitnesses that is worth a read, in my opinion. After going over it I've decided that the vast majority of eyewitness accounts of what happened at the Pentagon should be tossed. The rest should be stringently scrutinized.

Re: 3) I don't know. With a missile, or a small UAV retrofitted to work like a missile, you eliminate some variables. It will mostly disappear upon detonation. It will do the mandatory destruction so the psy-op is effective. Maybe you want to test a new missile/projectile-proof wall. Maybe you want to try out a new tailor-made long range depleted uranium bunker buster projectile, which the junta has been on the record threatening to make since it took office.

Remember the point of the Pentagon was simple. It was to make you, Crispy, believe that the attacks on America that day were not simple terrorist attacks. They were acts of war. Right? War was want the junta wanted. So bingo the junta can point at a hole in the Pentagon and say see its an act of war they've attacked our military so we will now declare war on the world.

In that sense, mission accomplished.
Top
Chippy
Posted: Oct 5 2006, 06:43 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Member No.: 4,926
Joined: 10-September 06



QUOTE
The gas station was for Pentagon employees only, as far as my research shows. So it was private. The Pentagon is something of an enigma that needs to be addressed. Remember, we are talking about perhaps the most fortified building under the most heavily protected airspace in the most heavily protected city of the most militarized nation on the face of the planet. You are talking about automated defense systems and 3-D real-time surveillance of the campus, grounds and surrounding area and airspace spanning outwards for hundreds of miles. You are talking about artificial intelligence crunching the data registered by both systems. The attack on the Pentagon should not have ever happened period. Incompetence simply doesn't work as an excuse because you will find that most of the defense systems protecting that building were largely automated, run and maintained by AI. So here we are, tiny hole, no bodies, no luggage, no debris field, you've got Hani Hanjour, the smell of cordite, clocks stopped at 9:32 when the attack supposedly happened at 9:37, you've got Rumsfeld the day before, 9/10/01, saying that the DoD has magically lost $2.6 trillion and the rooms, work stations and computers that are used by the auditors investigating that loss getting destroyed by what Pentagon personnel said were bombs. There's more, but I'll stop.


Yes, but let's not get carried away with ourselves here. The stuff near the end of this comment is a totally different discussion.

I don't doubt the technological capabilities of the Pentagon, but the AI is not designed for decision-making. Fortunately, that is left to actual people. These attacks took place over a relatively short period of time. I need to do more research on the issue, but with such a hectic morning, I imagine if anything, they were focusing on the well-being of the country instead of the well-being of the Pentagon. Yes, it's the big military command center of the world, but it's also just a building, a building that can be hit by an airplane at a moment's notice. [mod edit: I have to call bs on this. If the perps had done NOTHING at all, the standard procedures would have worked and any hijacked planes would have been shot out of the sky.]

Is the Pentagon in a no-fly-zone? I don't know if it is or not; that might be important. [Come ON! Blind Freddy can see that the military don't allow planes anywhere near their complexes! You must know that, so why would you query it??? That, to my definition, is trolling. And it's why you are on permanent Moderator Review.]

As for the gas station, sure, that might be private, but come on, we've all seen airplanes fly in the sky. You see them miles away. People in public areas could have very easily seen this plane, especially one flying so incredibly low! It would be awfully noisy!

QUOTE
You mean eyewitnesses like Gary Bauer, who went on the record saying he saw a jumbo jet crashing into the Pentagon. Convenient for him, wouldn't you think, being that he's a signatory of PNAC. There's a thread in the debate section on the eyewitnesses that is worth a read, in my opinion. After going over it I've decided that the vast majority of eyewitness accounts of what happened at the Pentagon should be tossed. The rest should be stringently scrutinized.


And I suppose the fact that Gary Bauer is a signatory of PNAC discounts the 100+ other witness testimonials that say they saw an airplane? Not everybody has dirt that you can dig up so that you can discredit their story. [Ever hear the term "plant"?]


QUOTE
Remember the point of the Pentagon was simple. It was to make you, Crispy, believe that the attacks on America that day were not simple terrorist attacks. They were acts of war. Right? War was want the junta wanted. So bingo the junta can point at a hole in the Pentagon and say see its an act of war they've attacked our military so we will now declare war on the world.


I highly disagree with this. I barely remember much about the Pentagon attack; my thoughts ALWAYS go to the New York attacks on the WTC, simply because of the sheer magnitude of lost life. To me, every single attack, a plane hitting the north tower, a plane hitting the south tower, a plane hitting the pentagon, and a hijacked plane intended for the U.S. Capitol, was an act of war. The WTC attack alone was especially an act of war. 3,000 people killed ON OUR OWN SOIL by foreigners? How on earth is that alone not an act of war? [It was an act of war -- a war by your authorities on you]

This post has been edited by Daniels on Oct 6 2006, 04:23 AM
Top
« Next Oldest | The Pentagon | Next Newest »

Topic OptionsPages: (2) 1 [2] 



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1414 seconds | Archive