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.

 

911myths.com : WHY FAKING >73° BANK-ANGLES for a NoC FLYING PLANE.?

page: 18
29
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Well, if you can't see the picture of what I have just posted, what more is there to say other than you lack the knowledge to understand the significance of what I have just posted.

I am still waiting for you to answer the question as to what struck the Pentagon.
edit on 25-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




There is nothing in your link that refutes the facts and evidence from my sources.


Except it makes a mock of your 911myths-believer site, giggle away! Try the Bible next time?

You did well ignoring this fact, stick with it then and have some fun luring more people into that den of... ehm... misinterpretations. Why don't you start a thread when you're so eager to talk about your 'source'?
Refute my statement or don't, who on Ceres cares?



We can take a look here.

Pentagon Memorial

American 77 Flight Crew

American Flight 77 victims at a glance


You always treat crime scenes like that?
Highly selective display of cherry-picked artifacts, that's what it is. Carry on!



Why would you advertise the full capability of your security cameras on the world stage? Air disasters have been solved without the aid of video cameras and if you wanted to know what aircraft crashed at the Pentagon, just ask American Airlines. After all, American Airlines announced the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon.


Seriously? Missed the point again, nobody confiscated Pentagon security cams in the first place. Intellectual dishonesty again, do you learn this stuff in the military or is that just your personality?
911research.wtc7.net...
Did you even realize what they've done to this crap of Pentagon-tape you were talking about? Missing frames anyone?
911review.org...

Btw, is there any thread in our 9/11 topics you don't hassle with tons of disinfo? The stuff you spread was debunked years ago, ATSliens will have some fun with your horseshoe-bending (again). Promise!
You didn't really think you would get somewhere with this joke of derail, did you? Don't mind the stars, you just earned another one for glorious entertainment.

One for our readers:



Truthers, eh? You've got me!




posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=19961050]PublicOpinion you posted how the witnesses were convincing......I feel "Barbara " was telling us a story too calmly.....as if she was coached.....




posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

quote]
You always treat crime scenes like that? Highly selective display of cherry-picked artifacts, that's what it is. Carry on!


That won't fly. Now, prove me wrong.



Seriously? Missed the point again, nobody confiscated Pentagon security cams in the first place


That won't fly either.



Btw, is there any thread in our 9/11 topics you don't hassle with tons of disinfo? The stuff you spread was debunked years ago, ATSliens will have some fun with your horseshoe-bending (again). Promise!


That won't fly either, considering my own experience and knowledge that debunks false claims of conspiracy theorist. For an example, who do you think revealed the reality that conspiracy theorist had confused Delta 1989, a B-767, with United 93, a B-757? Who do you think revealed that conspiracy theorist confused scientist from a KC-135 at Cleveland Airport with passengers of United 93?

You see, conspiracy theorist are not in the habit of doing homework, so I find myself correcting them on a regular basis. This came from your reference source.



Pentagon Attack Footage

The Suppression of Video Footage of the Pentagon Attack


How many solved air disasters were supported by video footages? Videos are not required to determine how and where an aircraft crashed. Black box and radar data in conjunction with communication tapes are used to make that determination. In addition, an examinatoin of the wreckage can determine the cause of an accident, all without video footage.

On another note, we have video footage as American 11 and United 175 slammed into the WTC buildings and yet, there are conspiracy theorist claiming that no aircraft struck those buildings just as they claim that no aircraft struck the Pentagon despite the overwhelming evidence and even the release of a video depicting American 77 in the background.





edit on 25-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

As a response to your video, this video better describes how the Truth Movement has made of mockery of itself. In case you missed it, here it is again.




posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Well, if you can't see the picture of what I have just posted


I did not asked you for picture you have posted, I asked you for the mathematics that you have claimed over and over that LapTop math is wrong.

Where is it?

You can give your "opinion" that LapTop math is wrong but that does not make you right, does it?

You continue to say LapTop math is wrong, where is your math saying he is wrong?

Lets end this here, the fact is you have no math to debunk LapTop.

LapTop won this debate hands down and the OS side lost, again.

I disagree with your side of evidence, you have no credible documented evidence that proves the debris the government is holding belong to said planes period.

You can post all the photos you want, it doesn't mean what we are viewing is true.

If you are claiming a B-757 slammed into the Pentagon at 400 knots, we would not have witnessed a 16 foot hole. In fact the plane traveling at that speed would have destroyed half of the Pentagon and would have cause a significant amount of damage.

Now a plane travailing at 230 knots would have done less damaged.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=19962529]skyeagle409....actually both the Shanksville and pentagon sites were visited by the first reporter crews to show us video of the scenes and both had no debris....so there ya go......Hey, this what we should expect to see in the days where we stand on the edge of time.....end times for sure. Those living in the endtimes will have no excuse for not knowing they were in the endtimes.
hey there, I'm a pilot and a trained observer and an outdoorsman......I gotta tell ya, learn to catch these discrepencies, and learn to discern the witnesses speech for the details that a child would relay......that is the measurement of their stories truth......the details right or misjudged.......there has to be details or it didn't friggin happen.!!



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


You see, conspiracy theorist are not in the habit of doing homework, so I find myself correcting them on a regular basis.


The fact is, I have seen many ATS posters correcting you many times including me.

You are not the 911 experts here on ATS.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



If you are claiming a B-757 slammed into the Pentagon at 400 knots, we would not have witnessed a 16 foot hole. In fact the plane traveling at that speed would have destroyed half of the Pentagon and would have cause a significant amount of damage.


The hole in the outer wall of the Pentagon is much larger than 16 feet. Where did you come up with 16 feet?


Now a plane travailing at 230 knots would have done less damaged.


Try doing time/distance calculations so you can understand that at no time that American 77 headed at the Pentagon at only 230 knots. The time/distance calculations proved that American 77 was flying well over 400 knots.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



The fact is, I have seen many ATS posters correcting you many times including me.


No you haven't, and as proof, you cannot post the links.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


As a response to your video, this video better describes how the Truth Movement has made of mockery of itself. In case you missed it, here it is again.


This thread is not about your "opinions" to the Truth movement.

I know, I understand you hate the Truth movement, because some of their evidence just destroys the OS.

Discredit everyone that speaks out against the OS lies.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Try doing time/distance calculations so you can understand that at no time that American 77 headed at the Pentagon at only 230 knots. The time/distance calculations proved that American 77 was flying well over 400 knots.


I like LapTop calculations because it does fit the damage, and you have failed to disprove his presentation.

I do not believe it is even possible to fly a commercial aircraft inches off the ground at 400 knots, without it slamming into the ground in the first place.

Your "opinion" doesn't make sense physically.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Oh hail....the damage at the pentagon.......my heavens.....closer to a fb-111f than a passenger liner. now then....
I'm a tellin ya's......if a liner went in at the pentagon.....witnesses would be spread across the metroplex and talking of windows seen on the plane and we would have a ground track that one could bank on, not the catscratch crap we have for witnesses reports.....not just the citgo gas station.....



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY



....actually both the Shanksville and pentagon sites were visited by the first reporter crews to show us video of the scenes and both had no debris....so there ya go.........actually both the Shanksville and pentagon sites were visited by the first reporter crews to show us video of the scenes and both had no debris....so there ya go......


I might add that over 90% of the wreckage from United 93, along with remains of passengers and crew, were recovered. Let's take a look to see if you are correct.

News Reporter Confirms Pentagon Struck by Aircraft


...I'm a pilot and a trained observer and an outdoorsman......


Then, as a pilot, why are you arguing with me on the facts?


...I gotta tell ya, learn to catch these discrepencies, and learn to discern the witnesses speech for the details that a child would relay....


If you were familiar with eyewitness accounts, you would find that eyewitness accounts are very conflicting when it comes to air disasters, which is why black box and radar data and communication tapes are used to determine the cause of an accident.


edit on 25-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


No you haven't, and as proof, you cannot post the links.


I know, there's to many of them.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY



Oh hail....the damage at the pentagon.......my heavens.....closer to a fb-111f than a passenger liner. now then....
I'm a tellin ya's......if a liner went in at the pentagon.....witnesses would be spread across the metroplex and talking of windows seen on the plane and we would have a ground track that one could bank on, not the catscratch crap we have for witnesses reports.....not just the citgo gas station.


Documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon do not support eyewitness accounts of a NoC flight path. Do you know why a FB-111F was not involved? It is all very simple, so let's take a look here and notice that these wing flaps belong to a B-757, not a FB-111F.


edit on 25-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


I might add that over 90% of the wreckage from United 93, along with remains of passengers and crew, were recovered. Let's take a look to see if you are correct.


Uh, flight 93 allegedly crashed in Shanksvile PA not the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

That was in response to his mentioning United 93.

What is this woman saying in the following video?

Video: What Struck the Pentagon
edit on 25-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409



Documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon do not support eyewitness accounts of a NoC flight path.


The fact is, there was no documented evidence from the Pentagon crash and what was witnessed does not support the OS of the Pentagon crash.
edit on 25-10-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


That was in response to his mentioning United 93.



I might add that over 90% of the wreckage from United 93, along with remains of passengers and crew, were recovered. Let's take a look to see if you are correct.

News Reporter Confirms Pentagon Struck by Aircraft


No it was not. You cannot even admit when you made a mistake, how ironic.


edit on 25-10-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
29
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join