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.

 

The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

page: 60
292
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

May I suggest that you take a crash course (pun intended) on the PHYSICS of collisions. Your as bad as informer believing steel was tested for hours st it's melting point you guys are not ss bright as you think are you




posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Salander

May I suggest that you take a crash course (pun intended) on the PHYSICS of collisions. Your as bad as informer believing steel was tested for hours st it's melting point you guys are not ss bright as you think are you




but but but they have found their confirmation bias on the interwebs, how can they be wrong?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

So then why are there not holes for the engines? much tougher than a alloy nose cone, can't have one without the other, at least one engine you would think...



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: myss427
a reply to: firerescue

So then why are there not holes for the engines? much tougher than a alloy nose cone, can't have one without the other, at least one engine you would think...


In context of this thread....

It was impossible for a 150,000 plus pound jet to smash through all those walls and steel columns, so it had to be a 16,000 pound Russian missile?

Which is it. Impossible for the jet to smash through all those walls and columns, or enough of the plane survived wall after wall so the landing gear knocked out the last hole? The engines were exdposed on the wings, and would have taken a mighty knock on the first impacted wall.
edit on 29-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed the s in wall to walls



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

People seem to get hung up on the strength of the plane's nose forgetting about the mass following it. The keel beam and wing box alone makes a formidable battering ram especially when moving at 200+m/sec.

M.V^2/2 and all that amounts to an insane amount of kinetic energy which means it really wouldn't matter what the nose was made of.
edit on 29/3/2017 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: cardinalfan0596


Ps. And don't forget all the records to be a vendor to the government. Submitting forms to prove able to handle sensitive information, documented safety records, proving you are technically competent, documented quality control, documented penalties and bonuses for being late or on time, documented as an equal opportunity employer, paying federal minimum wage, and that you are not employing dishonorably discharged persons.


Yes, I currently work for a government contractor, but at one of their civilian contracts, I STILL had to undergo all the screening and background checks that would be necessary to be on one of their government contracts. The sheer tonnage of paperwork generated by any kind of government contract removes any chance of taking out all records by hitting one spot of one building.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

NIST did a report on the pentagon?

Hani was a commercial pilot, and Barack Obama was a Nobel Laureate for peace. What's your point?

Why do you suppose the airlines don't hire commercial pilots with a bad reputation among his flight instructors? FAA certificates are issued based upon minimum standards, minimum performance.

The story is not true, and the preponderance of the evidence available contradicts that story.
edit on 29-3-2017 by Salander because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And there is no evidence of cordite. No evidence of a missile.

Only evidence of a large passenger jet hitting the pentagon as outlined by eyewitnesses and backed by human remains, passenger jet wreckage, personal items, only collision damage to the pentagon, DNA testing, analyzed video footage, coroner's reports, news footage of jet wreckage on the pentagon lawn, radar data, and flight data.

The notion a jet hitting the pentagon would destroy the financial dealings of the pentagon, contract records, money transferred from the treasury, purchased inventory, and vendor financial records is childish and preposterous.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Yes, I've read Zakheim's statements, and I also watched Rummy being deposed by McKinney on 10 September 2001. What a beautiful job of stonewalling Rummy did. Having sat through a few trials with some lawyer friends, I doubt I've ever seen a better example of a witness stonewalling than Rummy's outstanding performance.

And his smirk to the cameras outside on the steps after the deposition was beyond priceless. He knew what was going to happen the next morning, they didn't.

Credit where credit is due, Rummy is a master of deception.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I'm not pretending to know the details on how the pentagon was rigged. All I know is that several of the witnesses who survived, military men, reported the odor of cordite, and AA77 did not crash there.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




Nitrocellulose is a highly flammable compound formed by nitrating cellulose through exposure to nitric acid or another powerful nitrating agent. When used as a propellant or low-order explosive, it was originally known as guncotton. Wikipedia



Mmmm, cordite uses petroleum jelly and nitrocellulose. I am sure the loads of petroleum based jet fuel mixing with paper and plastic and burning has nothing to do with the smell.


Care to quote were the eyewitness said it sounded like cordite setting off. Or quote where witnesses said it looked like a cordite accident?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Do you understand what "odor" means?

I'm sorry I cannot quote the witnesses exactly. This information is very old--I did not just discover it yesterday. I read books and the internet, and apologies for not remembering exactly where it was. You are under no obligation to believe it.

Ruppert, Griffin, Bollyn and a host of others have written about facts suppressed by the mainstream media.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Do you understand what "odor" means?

I'm sorry I cannot quote the witnesses exactly. This information is very old--I did not just discover it yesterday. I read books and the internet, and apologies for not remembering exactly where it was. You are under no obligation to believe it.

Ruppert, Griffin, Bollyn and a host of others have written about facts suppressed by the mainstream media.



Odor Vs landing gear, jet wreckage, at lest 85 eyewitness accounts, human remains, and DNA evidence.

Ever going to prove how cordite would have made the first outer wall, rubble, and glass push into the pentagon. Not explode out into the lawn.

Here is your chance to make the setting off of cordite claim credible. Odor does not equate actual cordite, much less a cordite explosion?

Again, major components of cordite are petroleum jelly and nitrocellulose. A crashing jet and office equipment would not provide petroleum, nitrates/nitrites, and cellulose products for the "odor like"?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

You cannot even get that straight. McKinney and Rumsfeld's 'confrontation' was in May 2005 during budget hearings. ON On Sept 10,2001 Rumsfeld gave a speech about logistics and finance issues in the DoD, it was there that he made the comment about the DoD not being able to track 2.3 trillion in transactions. It was an issue known about long before 9/10/2001 and had NOTHING to do with the events of the next day



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

This is solely against those that construct truth movement websites, YouTube videos, and self proclaimed leaders of the truth movement. When people use truth in their title, but you have to fact check every claim, find quote after quote out of context, see picture after picture used out of context without its original caption, and use an un-refereed hack magazine for peer review, it's time to move on.

The most aggravating aspect of debate? When you go head to head with individuals, and find the point of contention was widely accepted as debunked and abandoned by the truth movement four or five years ago.


edit on 29-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed finger fumble



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: D8Tee

NIST did a report on the pentagon?



Sorry, it was the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers), my mistake.

Link to report must read

On September 11, 2001, a hijacked commercial airliner was intentionally crashed into the building in an act of terrorism. One hundred eighty-nine persons were killed and a portion of the building was damaged by the associated impact, deflagration, and fire.
That same day the American Society of Civil Engineers established a building performance study (BPS) team (that included one NIST researcher) to examine the damaged structure and make recommendations for the future. Team members possess expertise in structural, fire, and forensic engineering. The BPS team's analysis of the Pentagon and the damage resulting from the attack was conducted between September 2001 and April 2002





Hani was a commercial pilot, and Barack Obama was a Nobel Laureate for peace. What's your point?

Point is he was a certified commercial pilot.



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Landing gear would have hit first as the closets part to the front of the plane, hole is too big for the landing gear and too round. Same comment about the engines would apply to the landing gear. Velocity and the weight of the engines you would expect them to travel further than the lighter landing gear.



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: myss427

Witch set of landing gear first off? Nosecone or the landing gear midsection of the fuselage. Second, prove the landing gear was extended. (The engines are exsposed and would have expanded/fragmented on the outer wall. Making it increasingly harder to get through the proceeding walls.) Third, I think the landing gear was up in the fuselage. It would be protected until the exterior fuselage is stripped away.

Finally, the Russian missile referenced at the start of this thread is only 3 foot in diameter. I found a reference online that a 747's landing gear has a height of over 5 feet while sitting on the runway. (Couldn't find a reference for a 757.) That is not including the landing gear frame designed to take the abuse of landing and connects the landing gear and hydroelectric controls to the fuselage. They did find landing gear at the pentagon. Missiles don't have landing gear.




edit on 30-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording

edit on 30-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed a finger fumble



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Question how reinforced are the pentagon walls? The hole does not resemble the twin tower holes, and I seem to recall the official explanations is that the wings folded like origami and went through the hole made by the nose, which is a cartoon physics level explanation.



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Nonsense, I watched it on CSPAN. Rummy was brilliant in his stonewalling.



new topics

top topics



 
292
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join