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.

 

Still Think the World is Waking up to the Conspiracy?

page: 25
14
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tedgoat

there were no plane parts outside of the Pentagon!











I have more if you want?




posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Tedgoat

there were no plane parts outside of the Pentagon!






I have more if you want?


Oh look, there is a 757 wheel....
www.aerospaceweb.org...

and a 757 engine
www.aerospaceweb.org...
edit on 30-11-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Nov 30 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: Quote Crash Course



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Good try Boys and Girls! A lot of these pictures are false! Some have even been faked. Some debris that they actually did take pictures of were placed after the impact!

Physical Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony That A Missile Hit The Pentagon – NOT a Boeing 757

1. Analysis of the physical damage to the Pentagon and lack of debris. You can’t fit a 125 foot wide Boeing 757 into a hole 16 feet wide. The theory that the plane vaporized is idiotic. And, what happened to the wings that allegedly sheared off?
2. The official story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon by making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour is absurd. A Boeing 757 could not possibly perform that maneuver according to experts.
3. AA Flight 77 was lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. and then allegedly reappeared 36 minutes later at 9:32 am. According to Danielle O’Brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport, the plane that showed up on the radar was not Flight 77: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.”
4. No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon. The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building. Only a military aircraft with a special IFF transponder (identifying it as a friend) would have been allowed to approach the Pentagon.
5. CNN reporter on the scene shortly after the impact saying that there was no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
6. Aerial footage showing no debris (confirming the report by the CNN reporter), plus more analysis showing the size of a Boeing 757 compared to the size of the hole in the Pentagon. Recall also that the initial hole was only 16 feet wide and the CNN reporter said that the Pentagon structure did not collapse until about 45 minutes after impact.
7. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and 9/11 Commission Member Timothy Roemer both saying that a MISSILE was used on the Pentagon.
8. Analysis of the Pentagon video footage of the alleged Boeing 757 (it certainly doesn’t look like a Boeing 757) hitting the Pentagon that concludes it was faked.
9. A leaked video showing a missile hitting the Pentagon. DOT
Expert testimony that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicated that a “depleted uranium warhead may have been used”
10. Two witnesses who were at the Pentagon who said there was no debris or jet fuel, and another witness who “was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.”


KEY POINT. Many people reported seeing a low-flying plane heading towards the Pentagon. Thanks to a series of videotaped interviews with multiple witnesses by the Citizens Investigation Team, we find out that: (a) a plane did approach the Pentagon, but it was smaller than a Boeing 757, and it approached from a different angle than reported by the 9/11 commission; (b) the plane did not actually hit the Pentagon, but instead flew past the Pentagon at under 200 feet – immediately after the missile hit; (c) the downed flag poles at the Pentagon were staged, which was admitted by the taxi driver whose taxi was supposedly hit by one of the falling poles.
Connecting the dots, a very clear picture emerges: (a) American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) disappeared from radar and never re-appeared; (b) instead, a smaller military craft appeared on radar 36 minutes later that was capable of performing a difficult manoeuvre and could approach the Pentagon without being shot down; (c) a low-flying military craft approached the Pentagon but merely flew past the Pentagon immediately after the Pentagon was struck by a missile.

That's why there are thousands of experts and witnesses who all say the same thing! INSIDE JOB!!



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The mythical Boeing was very much at ground level. The engine cowls were within 3 feet of the ground. The maneuver required that the Boeing was in ground effect, if you know what that is.


edit on 30-11-2014 by Salander because: correction



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Perhaps a bad assumption on my part, but I assume you are sufficiently informed that you've viewed public pictures of the Pentagon and its damaged areas many times in the last 13 years.

I have. There are out-facing cameras probably every 50 feet or more, plainly visible in all those pictures. I'm sorry I can't provide you a link, but really, those pictures are everywhere, and the cameras are quite visible.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

How many times are you going to show the same pieces of scrap? You could have made that post a heck of a lot shorter if had shown each piece ONCE.

So where is the rest?



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Your lumping "conspiracy people" into a single character or personality. Nice!!




Yeah, well it's pretty easy when there's little to no original thinking. You are all sheep that do nothing more involved than memorize a talking point.

There is zero research. Zero inquisitiveness.

The same points have been repeated for years without zero progress, zero changed results.

Einstein called this insanity.


Are you serious? There has never been a better demonstration in the history of mankind of the groupthink dynamic than those who still embrace the official narrative regarding 911 all these years later.

So much has been learned in the ensuing 13 years that a person must be morbidly incurious and/or grossly uninformed to still believe the official story.

Wow!



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Tedgoat

"1. Analysis of the physical damage to the Pentagon and lack of debris. You can’t fit a 125 foot wide Boeing 757 into a hole 16 feet wide. The theory that the plane vaporized is idiotic. And, what happened to the wings that allegedly sheared off? "

Well again you ignore that the impact area was over 90 feet and that the wings did not "shear" off. Nor did the plane "vaporize" .

"2. The official story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon by making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour is absurd. A Boeing 757 could not possibly perform that maneuver according to experts. "

Which "experts"? Because the maneuver has been duplicated in simulators many times over.

"3. AA Flight 77 was lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. and then allegedly reappeared 36 minutes later at 9:32 am. According to Danielle O’Brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport, the plane that showed up on the radar was not Flight 77: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.”

You leave out the other sentence from Ms. O'Brien's quote ""You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." The hijackers were not concerned with safety.

"4. No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon. The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building. Only a military aircraft with a special IFF transponder (identifying it as a friend) would have been allowed to approach the Pentagon. "

The Pentagon, lies under the approach/departure of Reagan National Airport, so civilian aircraft are flying over the Pentagon every, single, DAY. And, there are no anti-aircraft missiles there...again, its in the approach/departure of a CIVILIAN AIRPORT.

"5. CNN reporter on the scene shortly after the impact saying that there was no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon."

Again, a failure to include the full quote.

transcripts.cnn.com...

From the transcript :

"
WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. "

McIntyre, was saying that what he saw, indicated that the plane hit the BUILDING, and not the ground first. Again, a "truther" leaves out pertinent details.

"6. Aerial footage showing no debris (confirming the report by the CNN reporter), plus more analysis showing the size of a Boeing 757 compared to the size of the hole in the Pentagon. Recall also that the initial hole was only 16 feet wide and the CNN reporter said that the Pentagon structure did not collapse until about 45 minutes after impact."

No, re-read the transcript, he specifically mentions seeing debris.

"7 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and 9/11 Commission Member Timothy Roemer both saying that a MISSILE was used on the Pentagon. "

That is what Flight 77 was that day. A piloted missile.

"8. Analysis of the Pentagon video footage of the alleged Boeing 757 (it certainly doesn’t look like a Boeing 757) hitting the Pentagon that concludes it was faked."

One of the better analysis of Flight 77 there is. At the 4:41 mark, a frame that shows where the left engine of Flight 77 hit a curb.

www.youtube.com...

"9. A leaked video showing a missile hitting the Pentagon. DOT
Expert testimony that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicated that a “depleted uranium warhead may have been used”

No, a fake video created to cause more arguments. And, Boeing, for many years used depleted uranium counterweights in airliners.

Then you mention the citizens investigation team....and lose whatever creditability you had left.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Just before impact yes.

Yes it was in ground effect, so what. There's nothing that says a plane can't fly in ground effect. They do it all the time. It's a simple compensation to correct for it.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Good, but this is just a poll number.

The average American is always speptical but the reality is that they aren’t going to do anything about this.

the murderers who did 911 as the ones who did Kennedy, as the war criminals who dis Iraq: Bush and Cheney, are going to get away with these crimes.
Unless somthing unforseen occurs
like the apacolypse



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tedgoat
4. No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon. The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building.


Care to back that stupid statement up with something factual? What is your source for that claim?



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Your lumping "conspiracy people" into a single character or personality. Nice!!




Yeah, well it's pretty easy when there's little to no original thinking. You are all sheep that do nothing more involved than memorize a talking point.

There is zero research. Zero inquisitiveness.

The same points have been repeated for years without zero progress, zero changed results.

Einstein called this insanity.


Are you serious? There has never been a better demonstration in the history of mankind of the groupthink dynamic than those who still embrace the official narrative regarding 911 all these years later.

So much has been learned in the ensuing 13 years that a person must be morbidly incurious and/or grossly uninformed to still believe the official story.

Wow!


Yes, I'm serious about how behind the times that truthers are.

You can see long debunked falsehoods repeated on a daily basis on ATS. [snipped] Tedgoat was proposing stupidity like a 20' entrance hole at the Pentagon. That's so stupid that only an activist would bother to type that out. Guess he didn't care that he was wrong.

That's just one example. Truthers have nothing new. You haven't for years. The only thing new around trutherdom is when someone uses a new sock to repeat the same old crap.
edit on Tue Dec 9 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

Just before impact yes.

Yes it was in ground effect, so what. There's nothing that says a plane can't fly in ground effect. They do it all the time. It's a simple compensation to correct for it.


I agree, ground effect is not the issue here. That was merely a comment based upon aerodynamic issues not very relevant to the issue we discuss, the matter of video surveillance details of the Pentagon's front lawn.

That is the problem, and that is in response to your previous claim to the effect that the cameras at the Pentagon (at least you acknowledge their existence) were not aimed up high enough to capture any aircraft.

Just before impact? You do understand, I hope, that at 480 knots or whatever number you care to use, "just before impact" is described in seconds and fractions of seconds?



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And how many video cameras are capable of that speed, and can show a perfect image of a 757? Not many. The camera at the Pentagon gates was set to something like two still frames every second or something similar. When cameras are looking at vehicles, and people walking, they don't need to be set to record a high speed object, and are going to get at best a blur, if they see anything at all.




top topics



 
14
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join