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 There should be Pentagon Video ?

page: 18
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

Because the aircraft went into a building. It's not going into a mountain, no matter how hard it hits. Most of the wreckage at the Pentagon was recovered inside the building.




posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iwinder
Now take a look at the pentagon Lawn in the photos we have to work with and you can count the pieces of wreckage on your fingers and toes.


But if you looked at the pictures inside the Pentagon, where most of the wreckage finished up, you will see the wreckage.... so a plane hits a building and you expect most of the wreckage to bounce of the building and finish up outside....

Someone has watched too many cartoons and believe what they see is real!



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

Because the aircraft went into a building. It's not going into a mountain, no matter how hard it hits. Most of the wreckage at the Pentagon was recovered inside the building.


Almost all of the aircraft entered through that small hole? From what I have read the Pentagon has very thick stone walls that are supposed to be bomb proof. Kind of makes me think of a mountain as in they both have some similar composites.

The crash site at the Pentagon should have looked like the video I posted above, the front lawn should have been just covered in debris in my humble opinion. It should have looked like the church front steps after a confetti happy wedding.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

Probably 75% of the wreckage comes from the fuselage, which was shredding as it went through the walls.

The walls at the Pentagon were kevlar lined reinforced concrete. But unless they were feet thick there was no way they were stopping a 757 at high speed. The empty weight of one is 127,000 pounds.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

Probably 75% of the wreckage comes from the fuselage, which was shredding as it went through the walls.

The walls at the Pentagon were kevlar lined reinforced concrete. But unless they were feet thick there was no way they were stopping a 757 at high speed. The empty weight of one is 127,000 pounds.


Well I for one did not see 25% of the wreckage on the front lawn, so where did it go if your estimate is close to what should be?
Stopping the engines might be a problem, but where is the engine punch outs? Nary a one and all but a couple of windows were intact after the fact.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

It's not a hard fast number. Everything inboard of the engines will stay with the fuselage. Outboard of them, some of that portion won't be found, especially out near the tips.

The engines are actually rather small. If they punched through you wouldn't have seen it as the smoke and foam would have covered it until the wall collapsed.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

It's not a hard fast number. Everything inboard of the engines will stay with the fuselage. Outboard of them, some of that portion won't be found, especially out near the tips.

The engines are actually rather small. If they punched through you wouldn't have seen it as the smoke and foam would have covered it until the wall collapsed.

How convenient that we could not see the punch out from the engines due to smoke and foam, if there was any punch outs.
We sure got a front seat show to guys and gals walking around on a pristine lawn picking up pieces of a supposed air liner. Funny thing is that those photos show a crime, they are in the process of eliminating evidence of a crime scene. Then days later they replace the lawn area and I mean replace it.

Does anyone here have an idea why it was so urgent to pick up pieces of the supposed Airliner just after the supposed incident? I mean they are all military correct? What was the rush? Perhaps they were worried about random scrap metal collectors showing up and removing the evidence.
There is no way in hell that was two wings severed from the inboard engines on that property. Not a chance at all, it should have been a million pieces showing in the photographs. Small and tiny maybe but they are not showing on that lawn and they should being aluminum and the grass being pristine.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

Wings are so thin that if you step in the wrong place you can put your foot through them. Slam them into a wall at 500 mph and you're not going to find every single piece of them. I went to a crash site of an FB-111 in New Hampshire that hit flat and much slower than this one did, and they never found a lot of that aircraft.

As for the engines at the Pentagon, obviously they got into the building, because that's where they were found.
edit on 3/27/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iwinder
Then days later they replace the lawn area and I mean replace it.


Still wrong, please show some evidence they replaced it "days later"....


and the grass being pristine.


As the grass was not hit by the plane why shouldn't it be pristine hundreds of metres away from the crash site?



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce



As the grass was not hit by the plane why shouldn't it be pristine hundreds of metres away from the crash site?


So I gather that the collectors were picking up wreckage "hundreds of meters" from the crash site then?
Why the rush to break all FAA laws? And criminal laws as well. Hmmmmm.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

It wouldn't be the first time. I've been to several crash sites where people were grabbing small parts outside the police tape.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iwinder
Why the rush to break all FAA laws? And criminal laws as well.


Please detail exactly what "laws" were broken, and exactly when they picked the bits up
edit on 27-3-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

It wouldn't be the first time. I've been to several crash sites where people were grabbing small parts outside the police tape.


Maybe so and they were military personnel as well? We are talking about the pentagon and trained military people breaking the Laws of the FAA and the Government correct.

Nobody was going to pick up a tooth pic unless an order was given to do so, I can only guess where that came from. This all occurred before the FAA investigators even arrived on site.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

Military doesn't mean they know FAA regulations. Unless they're pilots or have crash investigation experience the first thought isn't going to be FAA rules.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

Military doesn't mean they know FAA regulations. Unless they're pilots or have crash investigation experience the first thought isn't going to be FAA rules.

Correct you are the first thought was to clean up that pristine lawn just like I would do if our house happened to have a gas leak and explode. Your damn right I would be running around picking up bricks after the above disaster, what will the Neighbours think of us?

Priorities are just so important.
Regards, Iwinder
edit on 27-3-2015 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

It's called FOD clearance and evidence conservation. They weren't involved in search and rescue, and helicopters were coming in. Some of that debris was small enough that the rotor wash could throw it into the air where it could damage the rotors or get pulled into an engine. That would damage both the helicopter and evidence.

FAA/NTSB rules are to leave the evidence intact EXCEPT when you need access to get survivors out. Then you document where it was the best you can, and take steps to preserve it.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

It's called FOD clearance and evidence conservation. They weren't involved in search and rescue, and helicopters were coming in. Some of that debris was small enough that the rotor wash could throw it into the air where it could damage the rotors or get pulled into an engine. That would damage both the helicopter and evidence.

FAA/NTSB rules are to leave the evidence intact EXCEPT when you need access to get survivors out. Then you document where it was the best you can, and take steps to preserve it.


My point exactly, why were those people not inside trying to remove rubble and find survivors? Yet they are worried about helicopters that are a long time getting there. There was lots of open road out front with very little traffic or street lights :-)
They could have landed elsewhere but no we have to land right out front (if the did infact do so) all the while the staff are picking up bits of metal and not concerned at all about possible trapped people.
I won't in insult you with a video or a dozen but just watch a few car crashes on UTube and the first thing no matter what is everyone rushes to the injured trying to help if they can.

I guess the military is a different breed eh?

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

So you think that untrained people, with no equipment should go charging into a burning building that had enough damage that it could collapse?

Car crash videos and burning damaged building videos are apples and oranges. Send untrained people with no oxygen or masks and they're going to be overcome by smoke and now you have more victims.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

So you think that untrained people, with no equipment should go charging into a burning building that had enough damage that it could collapse?

Car crash videos and burning damaged building videos are apples and oranges. Send untrained people with no oxygen or masks and they're going to be overcome by smoke and now you have more victims.


They work in the Pentagon and they are "untrained" God help us all.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

Yes, because everyone in the military is a fully certified firefighter that doesn't need equipment to run into a burning building. Way to twist what I said.

You expect me to believe that if the building you worked in was on fire, you would be able to run back in and perform zero visibility search and rescue in conditions that you can barely breathe in?

Get real.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join