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.

 

No Plane hit pentagon... dont beleive them

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Okay, a gas station near the pentagon caught it all on its security camera... but the FBI took away the tape and threatened the owner not to tell anybody what he saw and stuff. Anyways thats not my proof, watch this documentary (I forgot if its in part 1 or 2, but either way they're both interesting... they talk about the WTC and Pentagon Attacks) Please dont respond until you've seen the video. (I think its in part 2 sometime) novakeo.com...




posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Loose change has been seen by many here,and is linked for download. There are a few good 911 threads in progress about the pentagon and WTC.
I will add it is a very good video



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Many keep saying the flash you see before the plane hit the WTC is a missile firing which is not true. Its called Laser targeting. A target is painted with a laser to guide the ordinance to its target, the ordinance is the plane itself. Now did the plane have an explosive aboard? Some say yes.
We also heard that it is almost next to impossible to find a structure like the WTC and fly a 757 with any precision to its target.

The plane isnt what brought the WTC down though. 1 of 2 things brought it down.
1. Common explosives used in a controlled demolition
2. A new kind of matter disruptor explosive device(similar to a nuke but different) that may have been attached to the plane or that was already in the building.

(Remember all the talk about the super collider research etc in the 90s and then all of the sudden it went quiet) no more news or they said it wasn't feasible. Which indicates they found something and classified it National Security.

Some like to say,,,Ahhh your full of it and you watch too many X-Files shows but to be honest with you, I dont think any building of this size has ever been brought down with a controlled demolition (110 stories tall) They said the building was pulverized into dust which leads me to believe it was a more advanced modality than the common controlled demolition used to bring down smaller buildings.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I watched the whole second film and no mention of the pentagon.

So I will watch part one later.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
The flash you see when the 757 is hitting the WTC is nothing more than a static electric discharge. Its the same thing that happens with helicopters. This has never been seen before because we've never seen footage of a plane in flight making contact with a metal structure. Yes the WTC exterior was metal. So basically an arc was created between the plane and the exterior of the building much like a spark plug.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Firstly, this thread should be moved.


Originally posted by Indy
The flash you see when the 757 is hitting the WTC is nothing more than a static electric discharge.


I'm not even going to try to argue what that flash was. I have no idea what it was. I'm pretty sure those things aren't normal, though.



Look at the second image on the top row, labelled "Spiegel TV." You can find other images from the Spiegel clips from Google searches. But three questions I would raise:

· Why was the actual discharge not recorded on any film? Video is normally shot at 15 to 30 frames per second, and I know of at least one major media source shooting at 60 fps on 9/11, but apparently the only part of the "discharge" that was filmed was the circular glow on the facade of the building (WTC 2).

· You can see the circular glow of light on the facade of the building reflected by the bottom of the fuselage. At what stage in an electrical discharge do the discharges appear as such, and why did it remain for so long while the discharge itself was not seen?

· If this is static discharge, why did it not connect to the tip of the fuselage, which, of course, would've been closest to the building?



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
The flash you see when the 757 is hitting the WTC is nothing more than a static electric discharge. Its the same thing that happens with helicopters. This has never been seen before because we've never seen footage of a plane in flight making contact with a metal structure. Yes the WTC exterior was metal. So basically an arc was created between the plane and the exterior of the building much like a spark plug.



do you have an example of a heli or a plane that i can view. never heard of such thing.

thanks.

and if it was just that, can you explain the logo on the plane not matching the reported airline hijacked?

thanks again




posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
So has anyone watched any of the documentary about a non-conspiracy explination of what brought down the WTC? I watched it on the discovery channel a few days ago, and it does a fairly good job of explaining what may have caused the buildings to come down. i.e. no explosives, just heat basically melting the metal until the floors gave out and the structure lost its integrity and basically fell in on itself. I noted that none of the survivors interviewed mentioned anything about explosives sounding prior to the collapse of either tower. Most notably, a firefighter was making his way down the stairwell and was on or around the 6th floor when the tower came down on top of him. He only stated that he heard the building "sounded like it was caving in on itself".

I am just curious about what the skeptics think about this, as well as the non-believers of the conspiracy. Are your opinions biased when faced with all of the information given, because you can't accept that the towers MAY have collapsed without the help of Pres. Bush and Co. or do you take the information given and use it in a complete analysis?

Also, I was curious about the Freedom of Information Act or what ever that is called. Wouldn't it be possible to request the video footage from the gas station through that act? or is that only for text documents? I am not familiar with any of that act at all. If it is possible, someone on ATS should get to crackin and get that footage sent to us.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I'm familiar with the official explanations of the collapses, and I don't think they hold up. These are discussed much on the 9/11 part of ATS if you want more info.

Basically, the official explanation is that the heat from the office fires caused certain steel columns on the affected floors to give out, which *somehow* caused all of the columns on those floors to blow out simultaneously. The collapse then proceeded in a totally symmetrical and vertical collapse, blowing out each 12-foot floor in about 0.3 seconds each, while never off-setting from resistance or lopsiding.

This is the magic bullet theory of 9/11.

There were also explosions that were recorded from many different video footages from many different angles that blew concrete dust out well over a hundred feet into the air before the collapse even reached the area. In demolition, these are known as "squibs": explosive charges that go off before early and stick out like sore thumbs. There does not yet exist any logical explanation of these explosions from the official-story camp. FEMA and NIST both utterly failed to even mention them in their 'explanations'.


Originally posted by IamIronMan
Also, I was curious about the Freedom of Information Act or what ever that is called. Wouldn't it be possible to request the video footage from the gas station through that act? or is that only for text documents? I am not familiar with any of that act at all. If it is possible, someone on ATS should get to crackin and get that footage sent to us.


The current excuse is that the tapes are being withheld for the sake of a trial, and their release might somehow jeopardize the state's desired ruling in the case. I can't see how that isn't a bad reason to hold the tapes, either from the stance of absolute justice or logic. But even after trial, I wouldn't hold my breath.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Exactly how, please tell me, did "they" plant enough charges to blow out the support columns when the WTC is NEVER closed? It takes hours, if not days, to do so commercially on large buildings, how was it done so covertly that not one of thousands of persons in those buildings notice any planting hundreds of individual cutting charges, and the needed thousands of feet of Det-Cord, and the many hundreds or thousands of feet of wiring to connect all the charges?

Exactly how, please tell me, did the aircraft hit precisely at the location where all these hundreds of charges were planted.....without disturbing a single charge, wire, Det-Cord, or mount.....TWICE?

Exactly how, please tell me, are you so positive that the collapse did NOT occur in the center core of the towers, which would result in the expulsion of air and debris from the broken windows before the outer skin began to fall?

Exactly how, please tell me, can you look at a poorly enlarged cell from a grainy video and know that the alledged flash is an "electrical discharge"....rather that the sun glinting off a polished aluminum panel?


yeah, exactly.


You can believe that Clinton didn't inhale because only ONE man told you so. Yet you fall hook line and sinker for foolish and ignorant conspiricies that must involve hundreds if not thousands of people from the President on down to commercial airline fuel handlers.....and they ALL have kept their mouths shut about it.


puhhhhleeese



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Army
Exactly how, please tell me, did "they" plant enough charges to blow out the support columns when the WTC is NEVER closed?


I don't suppose you're familiar with the testimony of WTC employees, saying that prior to 9/11, sections of the WTC would be closed for days at a time, security cameras and all, for 'cable upgrades' while so-called "engineers" came and went constantly.


It takes hours, if not days, to do so commercially on large buildings, how was it done so covertly that not one of thousands of persons in those buildings notice any planting hundreds of individual cutting charges, and the needed thousands of feet of Det-Cord, and the many hundreds or thousands of feet of wiring to connect all the charges?

Exactly how, please tell me, did the aircraft hit precisely at the location where all these hundreds of charges were planted.....without disturbing a single charge, wire, Det-Cord, or mount.....TWICE?


Remote detonation technologies have been available for a while now. You can look these up online if you want. Imagine what our military could rig up with this tech, and how easily such a job as 9/11 could be contracted.


Exactly how, please tell me, are you so positive that the collapse did NOT occur in the center core of the towers,


There wasn't enough damage for enough core failure to initiate collapse. The impact into WTC 2 missed probably upwards of 90% of the core columns, if not all of them, because of its impact angle.

Here is a diagram showing the fuselage's angle as it impacted WTC 2:



The wings were made of thin aluminum and titanium bars that allegedly failed to even puncture the facade of the Pentagon, so it would be insane to think that they would be in any shape to take out a core column after being slammed into a matrix of perimeter columns. The engines could've taken out two columns, maybe, if they were to hit the columns dead-on, but that would've only amounted to 2 or 3 severed columns out of 48 at most.

Neither FEMA or NIST has tried to suggest core column failures as initiations, so you're quite alone on your suggestion here.


which would result in the expulsion of air and debris from the broken windows before the outer skin began to fall?


You're suggesting that core columns below the impact damage somehow gave way before the rest of the collapse reached those areas. How exactly would this occur if the collapsing of the center columns was only a result of other, nearby failures (ie perimeter columns, total destruction of concrete, etc.), which had not yet occured on lower floors?

Further, such an event would hardly pound concrete into a load of fine dust and then eject that dust through all of the intact offices and then over 100 feet out into the air.


Exactly how, please tell me, can you look at a poorly enlarged cell from a grainy video and know that the alledged flash is an "electrical discharge"....rather that the sun glinting off a polished aluminum panel?


yeah, exactly.


Here you mock one of the arguments of your own "side" while offering an explanation that is even more ridiculous.

Sunlight glinting off of the aluminum would suggest the sunlight was being directed into the camera lense from an angle. The flash at WTC 2 was recorded from at least four different angles.


Light doesn't reflect in four totally directions at once from one flat surface.



You can believe that Clinton didn't inhale because only ONE man told you so.


I suppose you're calling me a liberal here.


Yet you fall hook line and sinker for foolish and ignorant conspiricies that must involve hundreds if not thousands of people from the President on down to commercial airline fuel handlers.....and they ALL have kept their mouths shut about it.


puhhhhleeese


Why would they have to involve so many people? If you think you would have to describe the entire plan to the "fuel handlers," or even the president, then I can safely say that you yourself would never succeed with any conspiracy, ever.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Don't tell me this is going to turn into another thread debating the cause of the WTC collapses. Why don't people contribute to the existing threads before they start arguing stuff that's already been raised, debated and done to death there?

Here's just a few:
The Progressive Collapse Challenge
WTC Challenge
Provide Witnesses Challenge

A whole forum of 9-11 threads:
ATS: 9/11 & 7/7 Conspiracies

There are a limited amount of people regularly contributing to these threads. We could always use some new input/fresh blood.


[edit on 2005-9-4 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
This is probably the first, and one of the few times I'll say this, but I agree with wecomeinpeace. The thread was about whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon, let's not turn it into a "How the WTC collapsed thread". There are enough of them out here already.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Actually I will agree as well. Please keep to the topic at hand in this tread. If you want to debate the WTC collapse there are plenty of thread listed above.

Thanks
FredT



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
This is probably the first, and one of the few times I'll say this, but I agree with wecomeinpeace.


OMFG! Wait! Stop the presses!



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Don't tell me this is going to turn into another thread debating the cause of the WTC collapses. Why don't people contribute to the existing threads before they start arguing stuff that's already been raised, debated and done to death there?


I didn't really think (and still don't) that Army would reply anyway.


If it were up to me (and I realize it's not), I would say post wherever to a certain extent, as I can't keep track of where I'm posting half of the time anyway. But if people can criticize the conspiracy in single posts scattered here and there, then I don't see how it would hurt to respond here and there when these people don't look at the main threads in the first place. At least maybe they're a little more encouraged to come join us now.


[edit on 4-9-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by IamIronMan
So has anyone watched any of the documentary about a non-conspiracy explination of what brought down the WTC? I watched it on the discovery channel a few days ago, and it does a fairly good job of explaining what may have caused the buildings to come down. i.e. no explosives, just heat basically melting the metal until the floors gave out and the structure lost its integrity and basically fell in on itself.


Lol, the metal that the WTC was made out of, was made to withstand about 2.5x the heat that would have possibly been created inside the WTC at the time of the bombing.


Originally posted by Army
Exactly how, please tell me, did "they" plant enough charges to blow out the support columns when the WTC is NEVER closed? It takes hours, if not days, to do so commercially on large buildings, how was it done so covertly that not one of thousands of persons in those buildings notice any planting hundreds of individual cutting charges, and the needed thousands of feet of Det-Cord, and the many hundreds or thousands of feet of wiring to connect all the charges?


As others have answered your stupid question - stupid, because if you watched the documentary you wouldn't have asked, the WTC was closed prior to 9/11 due to drills and upgrades.


Originally posted by IamIronMan
Exactly how, please tell me, did the aircraft hit precisely at the location where all these hundreds of charges were planted.....without disturbing a single charge, wire, Det-Cord, or mount.....TWICE?


It's called skill.
Who said there were hundreds of charges? Who said they were anywhere near the plane, as opposed to below it? Who said they are even effected by the plane??

The plane was either laser guided (very accurate) or remote controlled.
How is it possible to do it with such accuracy?

Buy a flight simulator, see if you can hit the WTC at a specific location. Keep practising for an hour, and see how much you've improved.


Originally posted by IamIronMan
Exactly how, please tell me, are you so positive that the collapse did NOT occur in the center core of the towers, which would result in the expulsion of air and debris from the broken windows before the outer skin began to fall?


Answered clearly above.


Originally posted by IamIronManExactly how, please tell me, can you look at a poorly enlarged cell from a grainy video and know that the alledged flash is an "electrical discharge"....rather that the sun glinting off a polished aluminum panel?


It ISN'T an electrical discharge. It's not the sun either, because the flash is the same from all angles.


Originally posted by IamIronManYou can believe that Clinton didn't inhale because only ONE man told you so. Yet you fall hook line and sinker for foolish and ignorant conspiricies that must involve hundreds if not thousands of people from the President on down to commercial airline fuel handlers.....and they ALL have kept their mouths shut about it.


You're the only ignorant person here. You're the only foolish person here.
We base this conspiracy on a huge mountain of evidence and facts, when stacked up make perfect sense, as opposed to the half-arsed story made by the government.


Originally posted by IamIronManpuhhhhleeese........
...... stop posting Crap.

Thank you.

If you don't know what you're talking about, and you clearly don't, then please do this.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by Manincloak]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Hitting the Towers with a degree of precision, even for a low-time pilot doesn't strike me as being too difficult.

Very seldom does an airliner miss the white center line on the airport tarmac and that usually due to very severe crosswinds.

Large aircraft are easier to fly accurately than are small aircraft.


As far as the "controlled demolition" type charges being placed in the towers it sure seems like someone would have seen something going on with that.

Buildings that are set up to be brought down with controlled demolition charges have the steel supports cut partially away prior to the explosives being set off.
At least that's happened in all the documentaries about buildings being demolished by explosives that I've seen.


How about the families of those who perished?
That many people can't keep a secret.
A father at the company I used to work for lost a daughter on one of the aircraft that hit a tower.
I doubt very much he's lying about that.


As far as the aircraft - or lack of an aircraft - that hit the pentagon goes, ever see the video of an F4 lashed to a small rail car that rode the car along the rails and hit a massive cement block at about 300 mph?
The plane, engines and all virtually disintegrated.


As far as the steel being able to resist a particular temperature, time comes into the equation as well.
The fires burned for quite a while before the buildings started collapsing and that could have brought the steel to the critical point.
Keep in mind that steel bends at a much lower temperature than it melts.

The WTC disaster was what it was and what it was, was a terrorist act pure and simple.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
For those who wish to learn something about electric discharges.

www.rttc.army.mil...

"Electrostatic Discharge (ESD)

ESD is a charge of static electricity inadvertently discharged to the ground -- after it has built up on a system, component, or human being. Personnel generate PESD; helicopters generate HESD."

and more...

www.littlebelt.com...

"Helicopters coming in to land or landing an external load usually have static electricity at different potentials than the earth below. Fortunately, the discharge current, when contact is made, is typically so small that it does not cause problems. However, during very dry weather the static charge can be very high, resulting in electric shocks to the ground crew, ignition of flammables and/or damage to electronics and other equipment."

and more importantly...

www.sri.com...

"J.E. Nanevicz and his colleagues developed the device used on airplane wings to discharge static electricity as it is produced--say, by the friction of water droplets as the plane flies through a cloud--so that it does not build to levels that might cause radio interference or other problems."

Static electric discharge is a concernto those who fuel aircraft as well. This is a very real issue. Steps are taken to minimize the load in flight and steps are taken to prevent a discharge during fueling.

What is more likely?

a) That a mysterious pod or whatever existed under a plane and that a missle was fired just before impact (being that the fuel onboard wasn't enough for an explosion)

or

b) That a natural process of a static electric buildup on the plane discharged like a spark plug when the plane got within inches or feet of the building.

"b" is the obvious winner. There is simply no credibility with option "a"



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Indy,

Nice try to avoid my questions there, but of course you failed to answer any of the them.


Also keep in mind that I never claimed it was a missile. Rather, I explicitly said that I didn't know what it was. Go reread my post if you want, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from implying that I have said things that I have not.


"Most likely" is not scientific, especially when you get to chose your second choice. I could say, "which is more likely: the moon is made of cheese, or the moon does not exist at all and when we look up in the sky we momentarily trip on '___' and think we see it?" That's right; 'the moon is made of cheese' is the obvious winner.



But here would be the three questions again, should you ever decide to try to answer them:


· Why was the actual discharge not recorded on any film? Video is normally shot at 15 to 30 frames per second, and I know of at least one major media source shooting at 60 fps on 9/11, but apparently the only part of the "discharge" that was filmed was the circular glow on the facade of the building (WTC 2).

· You can see the circular glow of light on the facade of the building reflected by the bottom of the fuselage. At what stage in an electrical discharge do the discharges appear as such, and why did it remain for so long while the discharge itself was not seen?

· If this is static discharge, why did it not connect to the tip of the fuselage, which, of course, would've been closest to the building?


[edit on 4-9-2005 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join