It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

page: 41
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 01:25 AM

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Xenogears

You can't believe that random fires, planes crashing into the sides of skyscrapers are guaranteed to result in collapse into the foundations with no possibility of the collapse causing massive damage to the surroundings.

ummm, there was massive damage to the surrounding buildings, you are unaware of that?

Depends what you call massive. As far as I know no other building collapsed. An uncontrolled skyscraper collapse could potentially result in large sections toppling part sideways and causing chaos

Read the report that firerescue linked. I read it years ago when it came out. You can tell me if no other buildings were 'massively damaged'. If you have an open mind, you may alter your opinion.

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 04:21 AM
As mentioned many times before in this thread, the OS (official story of 9/11) has so many holes in it, you could fill a 757-200 with them and fly again into the now fully renovated and reinforced Pentagon's West wall.

Click for source-link here. Title : "Blink comparator shows plane at Pentagon" :


I would like to move away from the fuselage blink issue for a moment, mainly because it is of such poor quality. I do not believe this is a direct, no loss copy of the original.

We have something that is much easier to see with the naked eye, that just doesn't make sense technically.
Perhaps someone with video analysis skills can explain it for us.
There were two parking gate camera videos released to Judicial Watch :



#1 has a clear view of the lawn and #2 has the (LT : camera in the #1 parkingboot) box obstruction in the foreground.

In the #2 video, at the 0:25 mark, you see the smoke trail on the right. The fireball erupts one second after the smoke is seen. A full eight seconds later, @ 0:34 we see a flash that covers the whole screen.

In the #1 video, at the 1:26 mark you see the smoke trail on the right. Just one second later we see a flash that covers most of the screen. (some blue sky is still visible) The fireball and the flash are simultaneous.

Why is there an eight second difference for each camera to capture the flash?
Posted by kawika on Tue, 04/19/2016 - 8:48am.

The only sane explanation I can come up with is that both these surveillance cameras had a flashlight added to make also pictures from persons in passing cars in the dark hours, which flashlight somehow later got triggered by "something" and flashed in the #2 camera boot box 8 secs later than in the #1 box. However, in that case the flash must have been reflected from "something" shiny very near to that flashlight in the same camera boot box, which "something" very near, we clearly do not see. Only the unobstructed small boot box with camera #1 at a few meters further south.
And logic tells us, that it would be VERY illogical for a camera flash to totally overexpose its camera's viewing field, especially in daylight circumstances.
What use would such a flash have then.?
The photo would be fully overexposed, just as in these two video moments cases.

Thus, can we conclude that this flash-time anomaly indicates foul play and doctoring of one or both DoD videos.?
And thus, that some footage has been deleted in #2.?
Or camera #1 did not register the 8 secs later flash for some, yet unknown, reason.?
Was there an overexposure safety build in in those surveillance cameras.? Which did not function in one of them.?

By the way, someone repeatedly posted in this thread that we only see a red flames explosion cloud at impact.
That's not true, see the videos, there was a distinct white hot explosion effect when the impact explosion first unfolded.
See the above #1 video title page screenshot with it in it. It however also has 2 small and one big light reflections on the inside of its protective glass or plastic cover, which seem to be the inner camera lenses reflections of that white hot first explosion.

Instigating the notion in my mind, that there was explosive material other than jet fuel involved, either in the plane its nose region, or behind or in front of the West wall impact point. Because that poster is right, red hot explosion flames indicate a solely jet fuel explosion, but such a white hot flash indicates however high speed explosives.

We also have the Ingersoll photo taken a few (3 ?) minutes later from the west side of Route 27, that shows a sudden, HUGE, WHITE hot explosion spitting out of the impact hole in the West wall.
OS trusters never touch that one, since what could have triggered such an immense explosion, 3 minutes after impact?
Were structural compounds cut, to instigate the 30 minutes later collapse of the Wedge I part, to cover up the remains of a NoC flying plane that ended up far shorter in the E-Ring portion of the Pentagon.?

Was it normal practice to have very heavy high explosive ordnance stocked in Pentagon office space.? That then exploded minutes after impact.? I really doubt that, knowing all meticulous safety precautions in play at military headquarters. Top brass doesn't like to be blown to smithereens by sloppy lower ranked personnel.

edit on 26/2/17 by LaBTop because: Removed a double [/url]

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 07:14 AM
Pentagon photos at the website of :

The photo (by the way, not taken, as I mistakenly wrote above, by Ingersoll) of a fireball shortly after attack :

Photo Showing Burning Tree, Right of Pentagon Crash Center

This reproduction of a photograph by Daryl Donley shows a large fireball centered about fifteen feet to the right of the middle of the damaged part of the Pentagon's facade.
The photograph does not capture the moment of impact, since there is dark smoke rising from the ground far to either side of the fireball.
The fireball appears to be the result of the combustion of a small tree in front of the facade.

That's illogical. That tree they talk about stood exactly in front of the jet motor impact point and was completely obliterated at impact, it was totally gone already in the first photos.
And, ever seen a tree burst into hot WHITE flames? Impossible, see the exact same impact region here, note the same position of the cable spools :

Pentagon Fires
Photo of Fires Before Fire Suppression

This image shows the central region of damage to the Pentagon prior to the commencement of fire suppression efforts.
This is an edited version of a photograph taken by Daryl Donley.

You clearly see the massive, broken leftover tree stump standing behind the most to the right cable spool.
Years ago the photographer, Daryl Donley, gave a very different explanation. He said he took that photo at the moment that a white hot fireball spat explosively out of the impact holes. His interview is in one of my 2005 to 2008 posts.

There's also a video of a news reporter at the Pentagon, along Route 27, many minutes after the impact, where you hear a loud explosion at the Pentagon and the reporter ducked and said "What was that?"

I'll also clear up a misconception that was wide spread in the first years, namely the wrong notion that what you see dangling down there from the first floor in that last photo, were thought to be columns.
No chance, they were steel re-barred floor-cover concrete beams that were laid in front of the first floor its huge concrete floor slab and hung down there, broken but still hanging at their re-bars.

But the OS trusters quickly jumped to the conclusion that those "displaced columns" in that photo showed conclusively that the plane came from a 42 degrees attack flight path compared to the West wall, which is pure nonsense, those beams indicate to the contrary, a nearly perpendicular impact by plane parts.
At a 42 degrees impact motion, all those floor slab cover beams its concrete would have been stripped off their re-bars as sandy particles.

Now it got just broken, and then it bowed downwards by its leftover weight, hanging on its re-bars.
First floor columns 13 to 17 were totally absent in that above first photo, because that's where the right wing (attached to the bottom of the circular fuselage) obliterated all those columns, just as the left wing did at the left side of the fuselage. See also this one :

and take a good look at the impact damage of the massive right jet engine on that double-bricked second floor wall.
Just go to the right of the last cable spool and then go up to that second floor wall with that huge dunk in it.
What should alert you, is the position of that concrete re-barred column to that massive dunk its right side.
It is bend to the RIGHT (arguing against a 42 degree flight path) at its bottom.
Again indicating a flight path with an enormous force impacting perpendicular to that West wall, and not at a 42 degree impact angle. In that case its bottom part would have been bend to the LEFT.

Jet engines are hung up in such a way, fastened with a few fat break-away bolts to the wing, so that during a huge and fatal impact, these bolts will break and the engine will dump down away from the wing and then miss the fuel laden wing tanks, which is the biggest fear for pilots and passengers, that these tanks go up in flames beside a hull full of passengers.

In this case, the left-over forward momentum of that broken-away jet engine let it tumble up towards that extra thick double brick wall between those two columns at the second floor.
Europeans and Americans, in the USA the first floor is at ground level, in Europe its the floor above the ground level that's called the first floor. It has been a source of much misunderstanding in the past.

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 09:31 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

Far to many assumptions get made we can NEVER know the EXACT angle of impact or the height above groung at impact, also too many assumptions made about ground effect look at this video the first aircraft especially.

That should be impossible under claims made.

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 09:59 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

It would be rather STUPID to have flashlights at night, so driver at night gets subjected to a BRIGHT flash very safe, look at traffic speed cameras in the UK they picture the car from behind, in other countries if they photograph the driver from the front they use ir flash.

Also a flash would NOT illuminate the whole seen like that, the light would have to reflect of a large surface close to and in FRONT of the camera.

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:27 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

Was it normal practice to have very heavy high explosive ordnance stocked in Pentagon office space.? That then exploded minutes after impact.? I really doubt that, knowing all meticulous safety precautions in play at military headquarters. Top brass doesn't like to be blown to smithereens by sloppy lower ranked personnel.

You familiar with a "Flashover" - that is when combustible vapor (its the vapor given off which burns) in a room
reaches ignition point and bursts into flame

A flashover is the near-simultaneous ignition of most of the directly exposed combustible material in an enclosed area. When certain organic materials are heated, they undergo thermal decomposition and release flammable gases. Flashover occurs when the majority of the exposed surfaces in a space are heated to their autoignition temperature and emit flammable gases (see also flash point). Flashover normally occurs at 500 °C (932 °F) or 590 °C (1,100 °F) for ordinary combustibles, and an incident heat flux at floor level of 20 kilowatts per square metre (2.5 hp/sq ft).

In Pentagon had thousands of gallons of jet fuel introduced into building

The jet fuel would be giving off flammable vapors looking for an ignition source

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:27 PM
Double posted
edit on 26-2-2017 by firerescue because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:36 PM
A reply to: wmd_2008

That's some very impressive flying, I enjoyed it so much, I viewed it a few times over.! Young daredevils.!

Now back from jet-fighters with a relatively small wing-span to the wider wingspan of a 757-200, which at half its span in height (14 meter), gets into ground effect.
And at nearly 900 kmh, 540 MPH, a 757-200 flying at 9 meter (light pole-clipping) to 2 meter under its belly above ground level on that lawn, seemed to have had some serious ground effect problems as can be seen from that last 5 seconds depicting, offered by US institutions, DFDR diagram. Which I do not believe is real, for the next reasons :

You realize I do not endorse that crazy high speed, based on known standard 30 to 35 degrees bank angles in an observed curved NoC flight path, thus also knowing its radius from all the positions of the 25 eyewitnesses, and filling those data in any online bank angle calculator always gives at most HALF of the official end speeds back.
Thus a much smoother flight path and for sure a possible impact at the West wall from a curved NoC flight path by a 757-200, Flight 77 on 9/11.

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:38 PM
A reply to: wmd_2008

Of course they used another type of flash than visible light.
Do you also have an opinon on the 8 seconds discrepancy between the flashes in those two DoD videos.?
Could you also refrain from using that pet-word : STUPID, in too many of your online interactions.? It doesn't make you smarter.

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:41 PM
A reply to: firerescue

WHITE HOT, that's far above 500 to 590 Celsius.
I also contemplated on that of course, but set it aside for above reason.
edit on 26/2/17 by LaBTop because: typo

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:46 PM
Two (in fact three plus a lot more of their members) of the 9/11 researchers that made that curious mistake of naming the dangling down floor slab cover beams seen in those first pictures shot by Daryl Donley as columns, were the CIT and Pilots for Truth members, see the first minutes of the following video.

The Citizen Investigation Team (CIT : Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis) made a wonderful eyeopening video of their interviews on-site in November 2006, at the CITGO gas station and Columbia Pike, near the Pentagon, with Edward Paik, Robert Turcio, Sgts Chadwick Brooks and William Lagasse, which opened my eyes in 2006 for a totally different flight path for Flight 77 in the last minute.
Namely a North of CITGO flight path instead of the officially pushed South of CITGO flight path.

Here is their 1 hour and 21 minutes 47 seconds, breathtaking video :

At first I and a few other first hour 9/11 investigators at ATS were on very friendly terms with both these guys, which over the years ended, instigated from their side, since they could not accept that we did not convert to their religious believe in a "flyover", instead of an impact.

On my side, it took me some years to understand where their problem was based on. They introduced their fly-over theory together with Rob Balsamo, the owner of the Pilots for Truth website, their new home.
Balsamo came up with that theory and convinced them it could not have been otherwise, since when a plane flying at the officially endorsed speed of around 500 MPH (900 KMH) would make a dive toward Route 27, coming from over the roofs of the Navy Annex that was build on a high ridge above the former flood planes of the Potomac river, where the Pentagon was build on, it could not make a pull-up maneuver at that speed and fly 5 to 3 meters high over half a mile above the Pentagon lawn with the belly of that plane.

The strange thing in my eyes is, in retrospect, that all these seasoned pilots and airmen could not bring themselves to realize that they HAD to abandon that officially pushed crazy high end speed at impact and in the 30 seconds before impact, since ALL their OWN 13 interviewed NoC witnesses all indicated a totally other (half of that speed) airspeed, by simply telling them from memory, what standard bank they witnessed. They all reported the same bank by the way, by holding the toy plane Craig gave them, in that 30-35 degrees bank they saw Flight 77 fly in on 9/11 while passing NoC.

And when you fill in in any known online bank calculator that 30 to 35 degrees standard bank angle, half of the officially pushed airspeed from the OS will come rolling out, when you also fill in the known radius of a North or South of CITGO flight path.
Which means they are suddenly dealing with a much easier to handle 757-200 airframe that could EASILY be flown (manually or remotely controlled) into the Pentagon West wall, during a flight path over the lawn at a height of 10 to 3 meters above ground level in the last few seconds.
And impacting at the first floor slab of column 14.

But Pilots for Truth and CIT to this day hold on to their pet theory and put their hoofs in the sand, not willing to listen to reason or trying to compromise.

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 03:27 PM
a reply to: wmd_2008

now show us a boeing 747/757/767 do anything remotely like that.

surely you can, since it looks like you're furiously scavenging youtube videos to try and refute the obvious.

good lord, it's almost comical at this point.

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 04:57 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

Have problems with reading comprehension.....

Flashover normally occurs at 500 °C (932 °F) or 590 °C (1,100 °F) for ordinary combustibles, and an incident heat flux at floor level of 20 kilowatts per square metre (2.5 hp/sq ft).

It states that is the USUAL IGNITION TEMPERATURE at which flash over occurs

Not the resultant flames

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 05:02 PM
a reply to: facedye

edit on 2/26/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 10:15 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

boy, look at that thing go!

thanks for the reference Zaphod - how fast would you say that aircraft is going?

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 10:34 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

Interesting video, so crystal clear. If only there were video cameras that captured the plane that hit the Pentagon. *cough*

edit on 26-2-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 11:15 PM
a reply to: facedye

Absolutely irrelevant as it's a different type of aircraft, flying a different path (it didn't just pull out of a dive), and they were worried about safety as opposed to any of the pilot's on 9/11.

All this video is relevant for is showing a commeecial aircraft flying at a high rate of speed, dealing with ground effect.

edit on 2/26/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/26/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 11:36 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

Great video. Wonder what would happen to a person who happened to be standing underneath the flightpath when they were flying that low!

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 11:42 PM
a reply to: D8Tee

Not much. One of my all time favorite videos, three guys in a truck go to the far end of the runway for a B-1 launch. The pilot sees them, gets high enough to raise the landing gear, levels off and goes over them in full afterburner. They crapped their pants and dove into the truck bed as he went over. The truck rocked a little, and that was it. He wasn't going as fast, but he hit them with more engine power than the second video, and around 2/3rds of the first in terms of engine power. The B-1 in afterburner puts out around 31,000 pounds of thrust per engine.
edit on 2/26/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/26/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 12:48 AM
a reply to: Zaphod58

the speed of an aircraft about the size of a boeing 757 flying that low is irrelevant?

i beg to differ. the OS specifically states it was flying at ~530mph.

that makes it absolutely relevant with respects to the maneuvers the OS describes.

530mph just a few dozen feet or so off the ground? for a boeing 757? from a 2,200 foot "dive"?

are you saying this is completely possible for an inexperienced, nerve-stricken terrorist to pull off?

no doubts about that?

new topics

top topics

<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in