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.
originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: neutronflux
The last five minutes of that last vid I posted, shows the targets being met by other targets.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed
[POST REMOVED BY STAFF]
How are the photos and videos of the wreckage at the pentagon inconsistent with a high speed impact of a jet pushing in to and through three rings of a large building?
Look at the lawn. How could a plane fly that close to the ground and leave the grass in that condition?
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
There is no proof a missile hit the pentagon.
The entrance hole in to the pentagon is constant with a large commercial jet plowing into the pentagon.
Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement.
More in there is no credible evidence a missile hit the pentagon.
The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.
By John D. Wyndham (PhD, Physics)
www.scientistsfor911truth.org...
Conclusion
Clearly, the main theory, that a large plane such as a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, is by far the most plausible theory compared with the alternative theories. The main theory still has some unanswered questions, but it is much stronger than any of the alternative theories.
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AgarthaSeed
Look at the lawn. How could a plane fly that close to the ground and leave the grass in that condition?
Considering that most of the plane was inside the pentagon . . . .
>
What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
www.journalof911studies.com...
Hole too small. The photo most often displayed shows a hole too small to admit a 757, however the lower part of the photo is obscured by water spray from a fire truck. This question has been carefully studied. Jim Hoffman has collated photographs from a number of sources, taken prior to the collapse of the front wall, which show that the entry hole is indeed wide enough to admit both motors and at least the lower and heavier parts of the fuselage of a 757. There are marks visible beyond this. He shows that the damage to the building, to objects in front of the building, and to the light poles, more closely matches a 757 than a smaller aircraft,23 and certainly does not correspond with damage that a missile might do. It has been argued that the pole damage was faked but the idea that all five poles could have been knocked over, taken away and replaced with poles which were bent and broken, without anyone noticing is hard to believe. CIT has argued that the poles may have been removed and replaced during the previous night but it is still hard to believe that no-one would have noticed. The area was, after all, surrounded by many people, caught in a traffic jam, with their attention sharply focused. No evidence that damage was faked has ever been produced.
It is not surprising that the marks on the wall are hard to see as that section of the Pentagon had recently been reinforced, including provision of windows nearly 2 inches thick (5 cm) of blastproof laminated glass and the brickwork was backed with steel supports and Kevlar.24 Why was the plane aimed at the reinforced section, which still had few occupants due to the recent renovation? Why did it not hit the relatively weak roof? Would al Qaeda have wanted to minimize casualties? There were auditors in the damaged section who were investigating the loss of trillions of military dollars.25 Most of the auditors were killed, which has led to considerable speculation regarding motive. Who would wish to kill auditors?26
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: neutronflux
Allow me to clarify. Please post photographic evidence of flight 77's crash. Plane parts, wreckage, etc.
And btw, this quote:
I have cited sources that there is no reason to believe there is any other related flight 77 video to release in other threads. Is that false.
The truth movement concern over the pentagon surveillance video is a distraction.
Is completely void of sense in terms of investigation or research.
You are saying there are not photos of the wreckage on the internet? Photos submitted at the Moussaoui trial of the wreckage? No video and photos of bits of wreckage on the lawn? Do you research anything?
Here is a link to a video of a P-51 hitting a runway at high speed.
Reno Nevada P-51 plane crashes into crowd on camera
m.youtube.com...
Nothing recognizable as a P-51 without picking up the book size wreckage? Is that false?
How are the videos and the photos of flight 77 wreckage on the internet not constant with a high speed jet pushing through three rings of a large building? Not constant with a high speed crash where momentum carried the wreckage in to and through a building over 20 acres in size?
originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AgarthaSeed
Look at the lawn. How could a plane fly that close to the ground and leave the grass in that condition?
Considering that most of the plane was inside the pentagon . . . .
And yet when I ask for proof of that, nobody seems to be able to produce it.
originally posted by: edaced4
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: neutronflux
Allow me to clarify. Please post photographic evidence of flight 77's crash. Plane parts, wreckage, etc.
And btw, this quote:
I have cited sources that there is no reason to believe there is any other related flight 77 video to release in other threads. Is that false.
The truth movement concern over the pentagon surveillance video is a distraction.
Is completely void of sense in terms of investigation or research.
You are saying there are not photos of the wreckage on the internet? Photos submitted at the Moussaoui trial of the wreckage? No video and photos of bits of wreckage on the lawn? Do you research anything?
Here is a link to a video of a P-51 hitting a runway at high speed.
Reno Nevada P-51 plane crashes into crowd on camera
m.youtube.com...
Nothing recognizable as a P-51 without picking up the book size wreckage? Is that false?
How are the videos and the photos of flight 77 wreckage on the internet not constant with a high speed jet pushing through three rings of a large building? Not constant with a high speed crash where momentum carried the wreckage in to and through a building over 20 acres in size?
However what you just posted are not nearly consistent with the supposed crash at the pentagon...a P51 is not nearly as big as flight 77 (a 757)
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: edaced4
It would not have left a cartoon cutout. The wings never would have gone through that wall, and they didn't. They are far too fragile.
originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed
So? Am I a bot as in Robot? A bot as bothersome to your fantasies of conspiracy? Bot as in Bottle?
Do you try to work in one mainstream media cliche phrase a day?
How are the photos and videos of the wreckage at the pentagon inconsistent with a high speed impact of a jet pushing in to and through three rings of a large building?
Since you STILL haven't posted any photos. Here's a few:
The problem with these parts, is in the next photo:
Look at the lawn. How could a plane fly that close to the ground and leave the grass in that condition?