It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: username74
a reply to: kwakakev
'granit' antiship missile from the kursk hit pentagon. didnt go off.
worried about devices on 'planes' could cause airburst blast.
pulled towers. nuclear demolition confirmed.
There is no why a four foot diameter missile made an entrance hole into the pentagon 93 feet wide at the wings, and two stories tall at the tail section.
And the clips from the pentagon shows a jet.
Blink Comparator Views of
the Plane at the Pentagon
You are confusing the large gap in the wall of the Pentagon caused by its collapse and the original small hole too small to have ever allowed a whole commercial jet to pass through. And the frames in the SINGLE clip show a plane, not a large commercial jet. The distinction is highly significant.edit on 4-1-2019 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.
originally posted by: username74
a reply to: neutronflux
go on, lol
third of the way down
probably too much for you.
HD footage of underground nuclear tests 1980s
Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016
The Missile Hypothesis
The missile hypothesis cannot explain the spatial characteristics of the physical damage. The light poles were effectively 100 feet apart, and the generator-trailer and low concrete wall were effectively 43 feet apart. These objects could not all have been impacted by a missile. The shape and size of the impact hole precludes a missile, the damaged internal columns were spaced apart over a wide area, and the bowed and abraded columns could not have been rendered in such a condition by a missile. A missile could possibly have created the C ring hole, but only plane parts were found in the debris in the AE Drive.
Donald Rumsfeld alluded to a missile, and eyewitness Mike Walter spoke of a missile, but in the metaphorical sense of a plane acting as a missile. These comments fueled the missile hypothesis. But no witnesses claimed to have seen a missile. Witnesses overwhelmingly described a large plane. The missile hypothesis fails the test of the scientific method and the analysis shows the hypothesis is false.
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.
Compositing Photographs to Determine Impact Damage
Due to the presence of smoke and firefighting operations after the explosion at the Pentagon, no single photograph shows the full extent of the damage to the facade before the collapse of the overhanging section. However, the maximum extent of punctures to the facade have been determined by compositing a number of photographs. This process allows us to determine the dimensions of the region with punctured walls:
about 96 feet wide across the first floor
about 18 feet wide across the second floor
about than 26 feet high in the center
The following composition was created by the author of the guardian site.
Although the composition is reasonably accurate, it does not use the best avialable photographs of impact damage. For more photographs and better-resolution photographs, see the pre-collapse damage photographs in the Pentagon attack evidence section. Also a detailed damage assessment is provided in the article Pentagon -- Exterior Impact Damage.