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.

 

Trillion Dollar Conspiracy... 9/11 Mounting Evidence...

page: 33
64
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent
I have only posted in this thread. This thread was about the whole 9/11 conspiracy, so I feel comfortable posting here. I don't keep up with every 9/11 post on here, unlike some others that must.

Yes, I am virtually positive they had much clearer shots than what we were privy to see.
edit on 30-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
We have 182 pages of threads covering all angles of 911.
Not one run on thread filled with jumbled ideas.

Try joining other 911 threads for a more complete picture of the conspiracy debate.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5. No FBI inquiry stated there were 84 or 85 cameras that should have shown something. That, is a flat out lie. Truthers have run around for years claiming the FBI had 85 videos. What truthers refuse to admit or accept is that the majority of those videos were from NEW YORK and that out of all the rest, only a few showed the Pentagon.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: hellobruce
An FBI inquiry said that 84 or 85 cameras had a shot at the view of whatever hit the Pentagon.


How about you link to that FBI report? Oh, it does not exist, just more crap from you!


We already know from the superimposed picture above that it wasn't a 757.


No we do not know that.... just more truther crap. Hewre is a thread that proves it was a 757, as this has been discussed here many times before.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Here are the location of several camera start should have yielded a better picture.


Please provide proof that those camera's had video recording capability - you seem to know that they did, so show us your evidence....


Nothing but more lies.


Yes, coming from truthers!
edit on 30-12-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
With its vertical tail standing nearly as tall as the pentagon itself, and covering about 500 square feet, the tail of a 757 would have been very obvious on a camera shot, especially with the camera perpendicular to the line of travel.

Whatever flying object that was captured on the offered video from .gov was, it WAS NOT a 757. No way Jose. The object shown is much too small. If it is proof of anything at all, it is proof for those claiming a small drone of some type is what struck the pentagon.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And yet, from the measuring and calculations done, we know that the vertical stabilizer would have looked EXACTLY as it did in the parking lot camera shots. Then, there were the photos of the area where the stabilizer impacted the building......



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

More lies. The OCT (official comspiracy theory) is full of holes, and the one for the Pentagon is ironically too small for a 757 to fit. You spew out goverment propaganda as it it could be trusted. It can't.
edit on 31-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

We have already established that you and the truth are 180 degrees out of whack. For someone who claims to be new to studying 9/11 and claims to not know much about it, you seem really invested in NOT wanting to learn anything that shows you are wrong.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

That wall was designed to withstand a truck bomb almost touching it at detonation, and you think something as flimsy as an airplane wing will cut through it like butter?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jchristopher5

That wall was designed to withstand a truck bomb almost touching it at detonation, and you think something as flimsy as an airplane wing will cut through it like butter?


I certainly never said that it would cut through it like butter. But, if a 757 hit the pentagon, I would have expected the wings to break windows, and leave some semblance of evidence that wings hit that target.

I would expect the hole to match that of a 757, after all, it apparently want through a couple of walls, and poked a hole in the back exterior. What happened to the wings?

The lack of visual evidence from security cameras is also troubling. The four blurry shots we were shown, from what I perceive at least, were much smaller object than a 757. IMHO.
edit on 31-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

The wings are hollow. Other than the spars there's nothing in there that will go through concrete. Hitting at that speed the impact would leave the wings in tiny pieces.

As for the windows they were replaced with impact resistant glass when the wall was rebuilt. A bomb wouldn't shatter them.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jchristopher5

The wings are hollow. Other than the spars there's nothing in there that will go through concrete. Hitting at that speed the impact would leave the wings in tiny pieces.

As for the windows they were replaced with impact resistant glass when the wall was rebuilt. A bomb wouldn't shatter them.


The hole in the Pentagon was approximately 16' in diameter before the upper floor collapsed, agree or disagree?

If you agree, then how did a plane 44' tall, and 125' wide, not leave a larger hole?

If the answer is it disintegrated, then hOw did it go through three walls and exit out into the back courtyard? Again, in a hole much smaller than a 757 fusseliage?

How did it not leave more visible wreckage? Shouldn't huge hollow wings have left some evidence outside the building? Focus on what we have seen, not what we have been told please.
edit on 31-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

What part of "the impact damage stretched over 90 feet" do you not get? Oh, and by the way the diameter of the 757 fuselage is a shade under 14 feet.....well within the 16 feet you posted.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

44' high.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Want to show my evidence of enough material to account for wings that spanned 125' in diameter?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Sure. With the gear extended. Without the gear, under 40 feet. But tell me, are you aware of what the vertical stabilizer is made of? I will give you a hint...it is LESS sturdy than the wings.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

The fuselage itself is less than 14' in diameter. The wings, especially out beyond the engines are extremely weak comparatively. The tail is just as hollow as the wings and held on by two bolts (I've actually had to lay a tail over an another type of aircraft and walked on part of it). The only part of the plane strong enough to go through is the fuselage.

Some debris was buried in the collapse, but we haven't been shown every piece of debris found there, so we don't know how much really was found.

www.boeing.com...
edit on 12/31/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/31/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/31/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Self censorship in action. No, I cannot quantify the amount of material that survived and compare it to 112 feet worth of wing.


edit on 31-12-2014 by cardinalfan0596 because: removed snarky comment



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5



The hole in the Pentagon was approximately 16' in diameter before the upper floor collapsed, agree or disagree?

Amazing how this same stuff comes up on a 6-8 week cycle.

Look up the speck on a 757.
The diameter is 12 feet 4 inches.

When you get your information from a conspiracy leaning site it's bound to be wrong.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

And yet, from the measuring and calculations done, we know that the vertical stabilizer would have looked EXACTLY as it did in the parking lot camera shots. Then, there were the photos of the area where the stabilizer impacted the building......



Do we? And how do we know that?

The tail of the object in the video is nowhere near as tall as the building. Nowhere as tall.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join