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.

 

A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

page: 39
61
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 03:51 AM
link   
You get all riled up when you start to honestly realize that something really stinks at the Pentagon :

And then ask yourselves just as honestly :

Do I oppose all these Official Stories doubting posts on this board because I am on some or any kind of government or military payroll, anywhere on Earth, and can't bring myself to honestly read and view, all these offered links, confronting officially released 9/11/2001 stories, since in that case, my whole world view, carefully build around me, shatters in thousand pieces.

Ask yourself just as honestly :

Or am I just on a quest to find minor flaws in offered posts, be they long stretched out, and filled to the rim with details and helpful links, by people you find actually despicable for any kind of reasons.?

Or am I using it as some kind of Trivia game, trying to outsmart online entities which seem to be smart enough to get that strange gut feeling that you must see them as an adversary, and thus a negative influence.?
Combativeness is nothing wrong with, however, the moment you loose that strictly neutral stance, open for critique from both sides of neutral, you are on a downwards spiraling course.
And everyone of us here have met such moments, and have to admit it's tough to get back to neutral, when confronted with not so thought-out and/or uncivil remarks.

Ask yourself then :

Where does that feeling come from ; could it be implemented by carefully chosen psychological operations by your paymasters, online and offline.? Through indoctrinating TV news sources, -TV advertising, -TV series and films, -false TV and false online news, -right news - but just a bit twisted news, etcetera. There is a huge influencing operation going on, for many decades already, based on evil psychological tactics that evolve at an increasingly pace.

Then conclude that :

It is in fact a good time to change your online behavior, open up for other views on 9/11/2001, while still maintaining a firm critical mind.




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
You get all riled up when you start to honestly realize that something really stinks at the Pentagon :

And then ask yourselves just as honestly :

Do I oppose all these Official Stories doubting posts on this board because I am on some or any kind of government or military payroll, anywhere on Earth, and can't bring myself to honestly read and view, all these offered links, confronting officially released 9/11/2001 stories, since in that case, my whole world view, carefully build around me, shatters in thousand pieces.

Ask yourself just as honestly :

Or am I just on a quest to find minor flaws in offered posts, be they long stretched out, and filled to the rim with details and helpful links, by people you find actually despicable for any kind of reasons.?

Or am I using it as some kind of Trivia game, trying to outsmart online entities which seem to be smart enough to get that strange gut feeling that you must see them as an adversary, and thus a negative influence.?
Combativeness is nothing wrong with, however, the moment you loose that strictly neutral stance, open for critique from both sides of neutral, you are on a downwards spiraling course.
And everyone of us here have met such moments, and have to admit it's tough to get back to neutral, when confronted with not so thought-out and/or uncivil remarks.

Ask yourself then :

Where does that feeling come from ; could it be implemented by carefully chosen psychological operations by your paymasters, online and offline.? Through indoctrinating TV news sources, -TV advertising, -TV series and films, -false TV and false online news, -right news - but just a bit twisted news, etcetera. There is a huge influencing operation going on, for many decades already, based on evil psychological tactics that evolve at an increasingly pace.

Then conclude that :

It is in fact a good time to change your online behavior, open up for other views on 9/11/2001, while still maintaining a firm critical mind.


The main reason I started this thread was simply to describe this data in a way so others could understand information that may have been foreign to them. I saw this replay, listened to the audio tapes from the 911 datasets archive and surmised a different opinion of the pentagon attack.

I was not clear on the what occurred prior to reviewing this information because the OS doesn't provide the answer to all the questions I need to accept it. I am sure many people have accepted the OS without question, others will not accept it no matter what is presented to them. My needle is somewhere in between, probably like many.

I was able to formulate a decision from this information because it provided me with some of the unanswered questions I had. As I stated earlier in this thread, I am not trying to change any ones mind, it's not in my power or my goal. It was to articulate the information and let others digest it. Maybe their needle would move, maybe not.

All this did for me was resolve one aspect of this entire event. It allowed me to accept this one significant piece to a larger picture. This larger picture still has unanswered questions for me and I have not fully accepted it.

I guess what I'm saying is every ones needle is pegged out somewhere between 100% OS and 100% anti-OS. That needle is only going to move by what and how that person thinks.

Present the info, answer questions and provide clarification to my posts- that is my intent to the thread.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

Logic demands that if we are judging a story, a theory, a mystery to be examined, and if that story/mystery contains elements within forming the whole story, if any element of that whole story is false, then the entire story becomes false.

If one chooses to edit certain parts out of the whole story, so be it, but if the whole story is being judged, then the whole story must be true and accurate.

Sadly, many elements of the whole story regarding 911 and the pentagon are simply untrue, as they are contradicted by so many facts and evidence.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pale5218

Logic demands that if we are judging a story, a theory, a mystery to be examined, and if that story/mystery contains elements within forming the whole story, if any element of that whole story is false, then the entire story becomes false.

If one chooses to edit certain parts out of the whole story, so be it, but if the whole story is being judged, then the whole story must be true and accurate.

Sadly, many elements of the whole story regarding 911 and the pentagon are simply untrue, as they are contradicted by so many facts and evidence.



So that is a fair statement but much of the unanswered questions aren't so much contradictions but more as they are unknown or misunderstood.

The contradictions need to be leveraged against the source and the reasonable answer if there is no absolute proof. The contradictions have opposing positions to the story, so we have to assimilate the information and make that determination based on source and reasonableness.

The example I'll use is the Mineta testimony about the activity in the PEOC. What he states as position reports of 50, 30 , 10 miles cannot be validated, as far as I am concerned it contradicts what I believe happened with the inbound aircraft, AAL77 and UAL93. So with a lack of absolute evidence for either it's true or not, I make my judgment based on what I can accept as truth.

The Mineta testimony is a contradiction to the story but is this an intentional deception or is it a case of poor recollection? Let's face it, it doesn't add up.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop


And then ask yourselves just as honestly :

Do I oppose all these Official Stories doubting posts on this board because I am on some or any kind of government or military payroll, anywhere on Earth, and can't bring myself to honestly read and view, all these offered links, confronting officially released 9/11/2001 stories, since in that case, my whole world view, carefully build around me, shatters in thousand pieces.

Ask yourself just as honestly :

Or am I just on a quest to find minor flaws in offered posts, be they long stretched out, and filled to the rim with details and helpful links, by people you find actually despicable for any kind of reasons.?

Where does that feeling come from ; could it be implemented by carefully chosen psychological operations by your paymasters, online and offline.? Through indoctrinating TV news sources, -TV advertising, -TV series and films, -false TV and false online news, -right news - but just a bit twisted news, etcetera. There is a huge influencing operation going on, for many decades already, based on evil psychological tactics that evolve at an increasingly pace.



Typical Truth Movement rambling.

Who is on what payroll? Can you name names and provide proof. Typical truth movement implications of guilt through innuendo with no real target. Another straw man argument.

Cannot bring yourself to read what? Anything with a rational argument for flight 77 hitting the pentagon. But you drown yourself in biased truth movement YouTube channels and articles without reading opposing view points from rational individuals and debunking sites. Just look at your reference material. Most from YouTube by individuals held to no standard of credibility or any standard of research. Only goal is to provide a product to the truth movement consumer. Your logic is flawed. You need to muddle through debunking sites to challenge your view, to anticipate arguments, and test the validity of you referenced individuals and sources.


Most of your details are from only the truth movement with no effort on your part to test and research credibility, nor to verify facts. The truth movement is notorious for willfully taking evidence, quotes, and photos out of context and using only innuendo for proof. A truth movement that creates their own reality and hides key facts is not to be trusted. You should not enable the truth movement by giving into their desire for notoriety through their desperate search for a "smoking gun" more about YouTube likes than truth. The truth movement is out to keep a target audience, not about truth.

How about you and saying light poles were cut in half? You using ATS threads out of context? Starting to see a pattern.

I didn't realize there was large ad campaigns on 9/11. Sorry. Typical truth movement paranoia. I see government agents everywhere. They control everything. Everything is a lie.

I do not subscribe to pop culture, the whole official story, nor the truth movement. Avoid TV networks and main stream media. I used to take facts presented in these threads and research the crap out of them. Then found two patterns. One, most truth movement talking points have been debunked over and over again for the last 15 years. Two, most debunking evidence is bank. Debunkers seem to be more interested in reality, science, and credibility. Most truth movement evidence cannot be trusted, and must be research before use or you may be eating crow.

Most of the twisting of facts are from the leaders of the truth movement to stay relevant and financially afloat in the conspiracy marketplace. Sorry, you are a consumer of the truth movement. Not a truth hero.

Want to talk about nuke bombs, lasers and holograms, missiles and holograms, fizzle no flush bombs, thermite ceiling tiles, rebar covered in C-4. Dustification? Stolen saltwater damaged Russian Missiles? The impossibility a missile or cordite caused the damage at the pentagon?


I do find it ironic that members in the truth movement are now calling for rationality concerning large jet strike at the pentagon now deniers are hurting their gig pushing WTC CD. Follow the money?

Holy cow batman, that is the biased and false logic in a few of your paragraphs!

edit on 17-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

edit on 17-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Forgot everyone's fav, dustification.

edit on 17-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Typical Truth Movement rambling.



Most of the twisting of facts are from the leaders of the truth movement to stay relevant and financially afloat in the conspiracy marketplace. Sorry, you are a consumer of the truth movement. Not a truth hero.



Want to talk about nuke bombs, lasers and holograms, missiles and holograms, fizzle no flush bombs, thermite ceiling tiles, rebar covered in C-4. Dustification? Stolen saltwater damaged Russian Missiles? The impossibility a missile or cordite caused the damage at the pentagon?



It seems to me the only argument left for the OS supporters to desperately cling to and lump everyone who doesnt buy into the 911 OS fairy tail is, the Dead Truth movement and little to nothing else.

Yet we none believes of the OS are ridiculed that everything we say are nothing but tin foil ramblings.

Funny how that door swings both ways, Pot calling Kettle. Not to mention, it is also off topic.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by: Pilgrum
A reply to: LaBTop

You're relying on a select group of witnesses (cherry-picked perhaps) whose accounts could support the notorious NOC theory and it is a theory without physical evidence to support it. And yet there are quite a few witnesses who claim to have seen the plane hit the lamp poles so, without physical evidence, we could decide that the actual path is indeterminate as the accounts in relation to north/south create an impasse but we do know without doubt that the building was struck by the plane.

Enter the lamp poles which are the physical evidence of the actual path so I guess you'd need to come up with an elaborate story, as you have, to explain how that evidence came to be there. That story sounds like utter nonsense no matter how many times you spin it - was it magic?

A thought I had a while back - look into the time of day, it was during daylight saving btw, and the elevation/bearing of the sun in the DC sky at the time of impact that fateful day.


Well, first this remark :


-- whose accounts could support the notorious NOC theory and it is a theory without physical evidence to support it.-- -- was it magic?


No, it was this, impressive evidence of a false flag operation :





Your last lines give me the impression that you contemplated on one REAL piece of physical evidence, that curious northern canopy ceiling flash, of reflected sunlight, in the FOIA freed CITGO gas station security video. I made a drawing once, with all data included that you hint at, based on the NOAA Solar Calculator,, filled in 09:38 and 9/11/2001 and Pentagon. It was also based on this first drawing, here is the first one :


Read about it here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This screenshot by Larson of the CITGO security video is perhaps helpful since it shows the shadows of the northern canopy on the western ground.
Btw, that is the exact 3 seconds earlier than the ceiling flash moment, where Adam Larson thought he saw a shadow of the plane on the southern pump entrance. He was wrong, nobody reacted in that video on his shadow, thus there was no plane at that moment thundering over the South side of the CITGO station :


Read about it here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Adam Larson's first screenshot in his opening post is the shot with the flash on the ceiling.!
Lots more on sun azimuth etc. But his idea of a shadow of a plane south sides of the CITGO is denied, since the people inside, on video, do not react at all, instead, 3 seconds later (not 2) when the ceiling flash arrives, they all run to the Pentagon side door. As you can clearly see in that CITGO video.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I seem to have saved my drawing of CITGO sunlight reflection lines from the sun's azimuth at that time of day to a passing B-757-200, back down to a car roof, then back up to that ceiling, in the picture repository of the now defunct Study of 9/11 website, which I frequented in those 2006 days, I can't find it in my ATS repository, so, Pilgrum, please try to draw your proposed sun height and position in one of the below linked to side-view pictures in my short thread, since Sgt. Lagasse said he "saw the plane first above that generator pole" (see above picture), and that's on Columbia Pike, which road rounds there the north side of the CITGO station at about 50 meters/yards ( I'll try to see if I still have my picture in one of my HD's or mem sticks, don't have high hopes on that).

Of course you need a sideway impression of the CITGO gas station situation at 09:38:??secs, to get a honest depiction of the sun's height and the plane its height (Lagasse said it passed at about 50 to 100 feet high, one ANC worker said in his CIT video interview that it clipped a telephone pole-top on Columbia Pike), so use one of these pictures of the sideways pictured situation at the CITGO that can be found in this 2008 thread its only page :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

All missing Flight77.info pictures by Farmer, I posted there in 2008, are now hopefully on Farmer's new site :
bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com... (He really should avoid political subjects)
bluecollarrepublican.wordpress.com...

Then ask yourself if reflected sunlight from a shiny clean aluminum fuselage of that B-757-200 in a 30 - 35 degrees bank angle to the ground, left wing up, could bounce off, downwards to a parked car its shiny roof, and then bounce up again to that north side canopy ceiling.
It could.
Try it with some mirrors as the plane, car and ceiling, and a flashlight as the sun, in a darkened room. Angles of sun rays, in and outbound, are equal.
Please post a video of your efforts.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
This is a plane banking while descending and while remaining in level flight, lots of reflective surfaces -wings, fuselage, huge tail fin- to send that flash of sunlight down to that northerly parked car roof and up again to that white colored, reflective ceiling. :



By the way, the CIT guys think it flew higher than the VDOT radio mast, I don't think so, it was lower, since Edward Paik saw the plane, while sitting BEHIND his desk that stood in front of his office room window, that looks out on Columbia Pike (that white colored wall beside the left side of the Pike is the wall of his garage and office) :



If it started out that high, the dive angle would even be steeper.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Don't worry, I'll address that guys G-forces question many posts back, there's a corrected video by PfT about that. It's their incorrect PfT earlier 13 G video, then in 2011 corrected to their new, 3.5 G, video.
They advised 3.5 G or even more, depending on the dive angle, and that's what I say all the time, a plane at that crazy speed, leveling off from a still uncertain dive angle, will experience G-forces that will additionally flex its wings, that were already flexed to their maximum standard flex-value during its STRAIGHT dive down flight at that crazy speed :

G FORCES - Scene From 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON (2011)

An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles Article. "G FORCES", a scene from the new film "9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON" produced by professional pilots, Aeronautical Engineers and physicists analyzes the G forces required for a 757 to negotiate the Arlington region on September 11, 2001 based on flight data provided by the US Govt.

www.youtube.com...



Who knows the specs of this below AA plane's wings.? Is it a B-757.? Note the wing flex, with installed winglet. Note it is pictured at landing speed :




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Here you see the extra 6 feet up of those VDOT poles their lamp truss holder :



Note also how far back that generator trailer its front diesel tank was from the corner of the fence, where the right jet engine nacelle allegedly went through both corners.

There's also something very strange with this photo.
This photo was taken from a news helicopter, when that first emergency order was given to all rescuers, to leave, but sadly, you can't see if it's before or after the collapse.
A grayish rectangle is placed over that generator and its tank, the tank is not burning at all, and is standing totally dislodged and far away from the wooden stairs leftovers, that originally stood in front of the double doors in the middle of that trailer.
In other, later photos than this one, the whole trailer is again standing somewhat beside those stairs (could be lens distortion) and its diesel tank is burning like hell. And the back of that pump-truck is also burning again, and that big tree is also burning again.





Diesel does not ignite with a resulting WHITE cloud on top, its pitch black all the way, i.m.h.o. This happens when you ignite a small HE charge inside it :





No burning diesel tank, smoldering perhaps, and no rescuers on scene :



This is a good one too, note the position of the generator trailer, and the suddenly much bigger holes in the two fence corners, compared to that above, strange photo :




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
A NoC coming plane could have just as easily cut that gouge in the roof of the generator trailer :





Note the 330 ft/100 m scale line.



Wingspan one wing : 125 ft/38.1 m./ 2 = 62.5 ft
Half fuselage width : 13 ft 2 inch / 2 = 6.5 ft
Thus length of 1 wing its span plus 1/2 its fuselage width = 69 ft / 21 meters
measured from the center beam of a B-757-200.
If you use your pair of compasses, and the 100 m scale line I drew in there, you'll see that even at a 90 degrees impact angle to the wall, its wing tip could have scratched that trailer roof, and at a 62 to 85 degrees attack angle, its wing tip easily covers that whole roof.

So, YES, also a NoC incoming B-757-200 under an attack angle of f.ex. 62 degrees, could have easily made that gouge in the roof of that generator trailer.
And, as a bonus, would have had NO light poles in its way on a 62 degrees incoming angle.

Thus, we are left with those 5 light poles that deny such a NoC attack angle.
Well, I strongly BELIEVE in the sincere words from Lagasse and Brooks in their 2006 CIT interview. Completed by the words of another 23 eyewitnesses.
So, it was a NoC plane that caused that gouged trailer roof, passing to the right of the heliport concrete and to the right of the two trees that stood in front of that concrete landing pad, along Route 27.

And those cut light poles were then clearly fixed by 9/11 planters, to enforce and imprint the notion in the populace, that objection to that SoC flight path was useless, "see our 5 cut light poles". Yup, sure. Kiss my buttocks : listen to Lagasse and all the others, and this too :




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I am only arguing large jet strike at the pentagon. More intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Care to state what hit the pentagon. Or you just going to avoid the question.

Again. Want to talk about the truth movement and dustification, termite ceiling tiles, fuzzle no flash bombs and talk about explosions at the WTC with the same sentence , holograms and lasers, holograms and missiles, stolen missiles, or nuclear bombs. How about the insuring, maintenance, and building office buildings that are designed to self destruct.

What to talk about the cause of the WTC 7 collapse was already taken to court by the insurance companies to get out of the payout?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
REFERENCES :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by: LaBTop

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by: LaBTop

bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com...
John Farmer his website (ATS member name 911files).
To find out how the pilot got the coordinates of the last seconds of AAL77 according to the FAA officials he took to the Pentagon in his helicopter, while following their instructions regarding the flight path of AAL77, start reading at page 20/36, from line 5 on.
Then read its page 22/36.
Pilot Dan refers to his designated landing zone to the SE of the CITGO, and explains how he flew on the afternoon of 9/11 with some officials from the FAA and a photographer, along the by these FAA officials constructed AAL77 flight path, starting from over a small office building behind/west of the Navy Annex, about a mile from the Pentagon, then over that much bigger building complex, that's the Annex, then over the CITGO gas station.
He explains then in lines 7 to 10, where his helicopter flew during the recreation of AAL77 its flight path, with those FAA guys on board who seemed to have the right coordinates.
His helicopter stood parked at that spot SE of the CITGO, with its tail rotor towards the Pentagon, that's why he says : ""As you look at it from where we were, to the right, the Pentagon would be to your back, so it would be off to the right"", and there was the CITGO gas station situated. Dan : ""So yeah, it was over that building."" Then read the last few lines 14 to 22, on page 21, so you know it's there, that they talk again about the Navy Annex.
In fact, he explains that they flew from that little office building about half a mile from the Pentagon, OVER the Navy Annex, and OVER the CITGO station, to all the damage at the Pentagon.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
My post about the much lower airspeed of AAL77 if in a 30 degrees bank angle.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
My post about 23 more witnesses than Lagasse and Brooks.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Give it up. You cite no scientific research, only cite biased sensational YouTube videos, and use ATS posts out of context.

You avoid answering questions directly, and pass for concise and logical explanations for your long and fabricated reality.

Still waiting for you to prove the light poles were cut in half?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: LaBTop


And then ask yourselves just as honestly :

Do I oppose all these Official Stories doubting posts on this board because I am on some or any kind of government or military payroll, anywhere on Earth, and can't bring myself to honestly read and view, all these offered links, confronting officially released 9/11/2001 stories, since in that case, my whole world view, carefully build around me, shatters in thousand pieces.

Ask yourself just as honestly :

Or am I just on a quest to find minor flaws in offered posts, be they long stretched out, and filled to the rim with details and helpful links, by people you find actually despicable for any kind of reasons.?

Where does that feeling come from ; could it be implemented by carefully chosen psychological operations by your paymasters, online and offline.? Through indoctrinating TV news sources, -TV advertising, -TV series and films, -false TV and false online news, -right news - but just a bit twisted news, etcetera. There is a huge influencing operation going on, for many decades already, based on evil psychological tactics that evolve at an increasingly pace.



Typical Truth Movement rambling.

Who is on what payroll? Can you name names and provide proof. Typical truth movement implications of guilt through innuendo with no real target. Another straw man argument.

Cannot bring yourself to read what? Anything with a rational argument for flight 77 hitting the pentagon. But you drown yourself in biased truth movement YouTube channels and articles without reading opposing view points from rational individuals and debunking sites. Just look at your reference material. Most from YouTube by individuals held to no standard of credibility or any standard of research. Only goal is to provide a product to the truth movement consumer. Your logic is flawed. You need to muddle through debunking sites to challenge your view, to anticipate arguments, and test the validity of you referenced individuals and sources.


Most of your details are from only the truth movement with no effort on your part to test and research credibility, nor to verify facts. The truth movement is notorious for willfully taking evidence, quotes, and photos out of context and using only innuendo for proof. A truth movement that creates their own reality and hides key facts is not to be trusted. You should not enable the truth movement by giving into their desire for notoriety through their desperate search for a "smoking gun" more about YouTube likes than truth. The truth movement is out to keep a target audience, not about truth.

How about you and saying light poles were cut in half? You using ATS threads out of context? Starting to see a pattern.

I didn't realize there was large ad campaigns on 9/11. Sorry. Typical truth movement paranoia. I see government agents everywhere. They control everything. Everything is a lie.

I do not subscribe to pop culture, the whole official story, nor the truth movement. Avoid TV networks and main stream media. I used to take facts presented in these threads and research the crap out of them. Then found two patterns. One, most truth movement talking points have been debunked over and over again for the last 15 years. Two, most debunking evidence is bank. Debunkers seem to be more interested in reality, science, and credibility. Most truth movement evidence cannot be trusted, and must be research before use or you may be eating crow.

Most of the twisting of facts are from the leaders of the truth movement to stay relevant and financially afloat in the conspiracy marketplace. Sorry, you are a consumer of the truth movement. Not a truth hero.

Want to talk about nuke bombs, lasers and holograms, missiles and holograms, fizzle no flush bombs, thermite ceiling tiles, rebar covered in C-4. Dustification? Stolen saltwater damaged Russian Missiles? The impossibility a missile or cordite caused the damage at the pentagon?


I do find it ironic that members in the truth movement are now calling for rationality concerning large jet strike at the pentagon now deniers are hurting their gig pushing WTC CD. Follow the money?

Holy cow batman, that is the biased and false logic in a few of your paragraphs!


Just hate for Labtop to forgot about this post due to old age.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
My dear, you're not important.
You are clearly here to bait me.
I don't fall anymore for that worn out ban-trap technique.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop


Because they all use the same design : composite carbon fiber skin and internal aluminum wing spars covered by CF.


This is incorrect.

Would you admit that you have the materials of construction wrong?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

I still don't get your point? Are you saying the speeds would have ripped the wings from the jet?

Well, the wings stayed on long enough to get the jet to the crash site. I would say there might have been enough stress the airframe would never be put back in service. Stressing a jet doesn't equate to falling out of the sky.

Boeing 757 Low Pass, Awesome Climb - RNZAF Air Show 2009
youtu.be...

Boeing 757 - High Speed Low Pass! All Out
youtu.be...

What you do not grasp are design specifications are to help the airframe achieve economic longevity for its set service life.

Ok, flight 77 hit speeds which would have taken it out of the fleet if it had not crashed due to over stressing the airframe. So what is your point.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
A reply to: D8Tee

Did you and Zaphod notice my "before 1990" remark.?




top topics



 
61
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join