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: 26
14
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Beats me. I'm no camera expert, and I've never been to the Pentagon.

The important issue is that the Pentagon has not made any footage available to the public or to experts in the field. Seems to me that if their story is so damn tight, the photo and video record would corroborate it.




posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
**ATTENTION**

This thread is for discussing "Still Think the World is Waking up to the Conspiracy?", not about other members, banned or otherwise.

Staff has this thread under close scrutiny. Failure to abide by the Terms & Conditions will result in a post ban of your account, as well as a possible full banning, as listed in these guidelines:

New Rules for 911 Forum

Do not reply to this post.

~Tenth
ATS Super Mod



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And what's the point of releasing video that shows nothing? What is there to analyze?



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander. Yes, every Pentagon video that shows anything, were released almost ten years ago, they have been analyzed many times.



edit on 1-12-2014 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander. Not sure why a second post showed up....



edit on 1-12-2014 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

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.


I'd say that the purpose of showing so many photos of so many different pieces of plane at the Pentagon shows that Tedgoat is either woefully misinformed and is uninterested in any truth OR is flat out lying and is aware of these photos.

Either way, it makes him, as Skeptic Overlord has pointed out about 9/11 truthers, an activist.



So where is the rest?



That is enough evidence to positively prove that there a lot of wreckage photos at the Pentagon, and goes to show how unreliable truther claims are.

Beating a dead horse is not necessary.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot



That is enough evidence to positively prove that there a lot of wreckage photos at the Pentagon, and goes to show how unreliable truther claims are

Its certainly more material than you would find in the case of a missile.
But facts are spongible to a conspiracy believer.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

Of a 757, not handy. I might be able to find one but it'll take a couple days.

This one is from an A320 to give an idea of what it looks like though.

www.premium-aerotec.com...




Would you happen to have a link handy that shows the actual "Keel Beam" of the said aircraft? It would be a nice addition to this thread. Regards, Iwinder


Any luck on finding us a link with stats and a picture of this Keelbeam?
It's been a few days and I am most curious about this fact.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

Sorry, got side tracked by RL, and forgot I was looking for it. With them being built so long ago information on it is hard to find.
edit on 12/1/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

Sorry, got side tracked by RL.


No problem and I mean that, I really am interested in this part of the aircraft for obvious reasons.
Hopefully you can provide something for the posters to peruse.....as I said earlier in this thread I cannot for the life of me find any links that show the actual Keelbeam or anything about its composition and weight?

Regards, Iwinder
edit on 1-12-2014 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

I'm going to reach out to some folks and try to get info on it. I'll see if I can get an answer from Boeing about it.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Many thanks Zap!
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

Here is one from a 747

And from an A350

No luck with a 757 yet

Up to Zaphod



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
So what is all this about then?


"ABLE DANGER" Terror Drills on 9/11



On the morning of September 11 2001, the US Defense Agencies had been running pre-planned simulations of terrorist attacks involving crashing planes into the WTC and Pentagon.

The Bush administration described the event as "a bizarre coincidence". The matter was not mentioned by the media. True to form for false-flag terror attacks, it seems that these Military Drills were used as cover for the attack.

Webster Tarpley lays out a very convincing case that military drills were used as cover and pretext for the attacks of 9/11. Using drills, our own military resources were directed, in supposed practice attacks, which were 'flipped live' by moles working within the government.

Using such drills, most of the fighter air cover of the US was redirected to Alaska and Canada. Other drills were used to inject dozens of false 'blips' onto FAA radar screens.

Still other drills, ones using 'live fly' hijacked aircraft, were apparently 'flipped live' and the planes crashed into the towers under remote control.

The 'hijackers' are mere patsies, DOD controlled "red team" actors. The supposed 'hijackers' are essentially actors trained by the military and CIA to play the part of the "red team" in simulated terrorist drills.

The now famous "Able Danger" program was most likely one half, the red half, of a hijack drill the other half being "Able Warrior."


I find all these reports damning to the Official Version of Events. There's too many inconsistencies and hear say in the Official story. Too many impossibilities in what THEY say actually happened.

I'm not an Activist. I am relying on my ability to think!



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Deveron

Wait, you believe that everything you just posted is true? What source exactly did you get that from? I have seen this story about "drills" twisted and changed so many times. It's not credible, to put it kindly. Please show me any legitimate evidence that there were drills of this specific nature on 9/11..



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: kayej1188
a reply to: Deveron

Wait, you believe that everything you just posted is true? What source exactly did you get that from? I have seen this story about "drills" twisted and changed so many times. It's not credible, to put it kindly. Please show me any legitimate evidence that there were drills of this specific nature on 9/11..


There seems to be a trend regarding some apparent attacks.

'Before' Terror attacks!

I'm from Scotland so after the London Bombings in 2005 people began to look into the Official Story. It was found that a Drill of the exact same scenario was going on at the exact same time. The guy in charge of the drill was on the BBC news talking about his drill when the first bomb was detonated. And the scenario was even detailed just over a year before on a Political program called Panorama!

9/11 it seems was no different. Able Danger was a drill and investigation that went on before, during and after 9/11. There were other ongoing Wargames at the same time as the apparent hijackings.

The Lost Terror Drill



Norad Had Drills Of Jets As Weapons

There were loads of strangely coincidental Drills going on at the same time as 9/11. Same as on 7/7 with the London Bombings.

Coincidental? Don't think so!

Even the Pentagon looks as if it was preplanned with models of a plane crash being conducted before that actual attack!




edit on 2-12-2014 by Deveron because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Deveron

The Alert aircraft don't participate in exercises, ever. Their only mission is to sit on alert. Non Alert aircraft sit unarmed and take at least a couple hours to go from a standing start to armed and airborne.

Of course the Pentagon practiced for a crash at it. The approach for National goes practically right over the building. Takeoff and landing are the most common times for crashes. The difference was that they practiced for a low speed crash of a plane on final approach, not one being slammed into the building at high speed.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Deveron

The Alert aircraft don't participate in exercises, ever. Their only mission is to sit on alert. Non Alert aircraft sit unarmed and take at least a couple hours to go from a standing start to armed and airborne.

Of course the Pentagon practiced for a crash at it. The approach for National goes practically right over the building. Takeoff and landing are the most common times for crashes. The difference was that they practiced for a low speed crash of a plane on final approach, not one being slammed into the building at high speed.


Well define High Speed. The FEMA report said the plane that hit the Pentagon was doing around 532 mph. Firstly I'd love to know if they had a Speed Camera set up there because there is no way to tell what speed the 'apparent' plane was travelling at.

Also given the very low altitude, how can it fly at top speed? The VMO as I understand it, means because of the wind resistance at low altitude the plane would have been going (if lucky) no more than 250 mph.

It doesn't add up. I have read through most of the comments on this thread and like others that have commented, I can honestly say the Official Story does not compute!

If I delve deep enough maybe it will. Or Not!!



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deveron
Also given the very low altitude, how can it fly at top speed? The VMO as I understand it, means because of the wind resistance at low altitude the plane would have been going (if lucky) no more than 250 mph.


No, the VMO is a number that the aircraft should not exceed, it is not a hard limit. Aircraft can fly faster than the VMO


To exceed Vmo/Mmo is not catastrophic. Boeing notes higher speeds can be authorized. To quote the Boeing Flight Ops review: "At speed in excess of Vmo/Mmo ... normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured."



It doesn't add up.


Actually, it does add up, just you do not like the answer so try and twist it into a conspiracy!



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Yes I know what the VMO is. And yes you can go slightly beyond it. But it is not recommended and not by much at low altitude. The VMO for a 767 is 360 knots which is 414 mph. What FEMA said the plane was doing was 532 mph which is 462 knots well over the recommended max VMO. And at that altitude impossible!

Basically the FEMA statistic is rubbish!

I'm not twisting anything into a conspiracy. I'm merely quoting the facts!




top topics



 
14
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join