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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


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





It's not a matter of whether or not I will simply reply, just to reply...or to make you happy. But whether or not you have anything other than theory, conjecture, he-said she-said, half-baked "facts" from people that have zero investigative background experience, or "proof" in the showing of poor quality, grainy cells from much reproduced video.

I watched the second plane hit, saw the huge fireball and giant cloud of flaming debris exit from the far side of the tower. In a few minutes, I watched as each tower began its collapse right at the damage site...not above, not below, but right at the large hole in the horrific outline of a large airplane.

The FLOORS began the collapse, "pancaking" onto the one below. This will blow all air/smoke/ash out from in-between, resulting in the giant puff of grey material split seconds before the center core could no longer support the massive shift in weight. Although the steel was at a higher fire rating than "normal" steel, all blown insulation was blasted from the support beams in the initial explosion, exposing the steel to at least 1200degF. The steel did not have to melt at all, only be weakend by the heat enough for the shift in weight to cause them to fail....and we all fall down.

Stressed concrete will easily pulverise into dust, much like tempered auto glass will shatter into those itty-bitty little diamonds when broken. But the statements about total dust is misleading...and you know it...for all the concrete did NOT pulverise, as the many truckloads and large blocks hauled from the site attest to (not to mention, that many survivors were pulled from between floor slabs).

To get back on subject matter: There is NO credible evidence of anything else BUT a large commercial aircraft hitting the Pentagon. The debris field yielded nothing but 757 parts (yes, many parts are common with other aircraft, but their parts were not among the recovered debris). There is NO credible evidence of any security camera tapes being taken from the area gas stations (not to mention, the camera's would not be trained up to see what is going on at the Pentagon, but down at the fueling islands. The building was designed 60 years ago to withstand a bomb attack, not a horizontal impact from a very large, very fast, aircraft of a type that was inconceivable at the time. That it was able to take the impact and shear the wings likely saved many more people from immolation by keeping thousands of pounds of fuel from getting inside.

Theories abound, conspiricies run rampant, so-called "experts" have their say about what may or may not have happened...yet not one bit of real live evidence points in their direction. Yep, lots of twisted spins on video footage from the guard shack ( I distinctly recall seeing that on CNN, and clearly seeing a large commercial aircraft fly into the wall).

So, Bsbray11, I do not "hit and run" on the many forums here(nice baiting though), quickly posting my thoughts and never to return. I read, and monitor, and post when I think my thoughts need posting. Then I go back to reading, and monitoring, to see if my thoughts need to be reiterated...like now (but not because of the baiting).

I do not believe anything else but terrorists flew commercial aircraft into 3 buildings, and failed with a fourth. There is NO credibleevidence or proofs otherwise. Links to other conspiricy sites only further my conviction of reality. Posting theories, guesses, and un-proven bits of spin only show me that some people have way too much time on their hands


Later!




posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Nice to see that you check up, but it'd be even nicer if you hopped on one of the other threads here to rebutt the evidence that you don't believe we have.

Welcome aboard, maybe?




posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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?



Actually it did happen on both jets that hit the towers. I was watching a show that was trying to say there was a flash before both jets hit. They showed super slow motion to show it. They were trying to say something in the nose exploded in both cases. In both cases the flash happened the instance before impact. That was in BOTH cases a static electric discharge. Reason you don't see them on normal video is because of the speed of the jets and the speed of the flash. If the arc happens at 5 to 10 feet out and the jet is moving 300 or 400 mph there is no way you see it real speed. It is simply too fast.

What you saw on 9/11 in NYC with WTC 1 & 2 was very simple. Two jets where hijacked and crashed into the buildings. In both cases a static electric discharge occured a fraction of a second before impact. You may be talking about 0.1 seconds or less. In both cases the jets entered the building and exploded. A bit later on the upper levels of the buildings collapsed because the steal structures supporting them failed due to excessive heat. The collapse of the upper sections caused the floors below them to collapse because of the downward force of the floors above them.

The only questionable thing in NY that day was WTC #5.

When it comes to WTC #1 & #2 people are just going to see what they want to see regardless of what the facts of the crash are. For christ sakes they are flying a jet full of fuel into a building. You really think a missle will make a bit of difference? Or explosives in the nose? Or whatever? No. That much jet fuel will take care of things without the nonsense of trying to equip a jet with anything else. And trying to time something to go off a split second before impact is damn near impossible without some high tech equipment.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Look at the Spiegel pic again:



You can see the "flash," or what you claim as static disrcharge, in the form of a circle of light on the facade of the building, being reflected by the bottom of the fuselage for one frame in the CNN footage and two frames in the Fairbanks footage. The CNN video was at 60 fps if I'm not mistaken, and though I don't know the resolution of the Fairbanks footage off the top of my head, it wouldn't make sense to be slower than the CNN footage and somehow pick up maybe twice the footage in a given amount of time.

For the flash to be static discharge, the circle of light on the facade of the building would have to last at least twice as long as the whole actual discharge (assuming we just barely missed the discharge on the actual footage), appearing and disappearing and all, according to the Fairbanks footage (captured 2 frames of flash but 0 frames of static discharge). At most, of course, there was no discharge.

So I suppose what you're going to have to prove for the static discharge idea to remain legitimate is that a discharge can take place and leave a circular flash of light similar to what we see in the Spiegel pic that lasts at least twice as long as the discharge itself.


Btw, let me state again that I don't know what that flash was. I don't think a missile was being launched into the building, because, yes, that is a silly idea. But that doesn't automatically clear all of the theories backing up the official story, either. Like I said, I don't know what it is.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:32 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?


What he said. Exactly.

There are around a dozen excellent threads with really good arguments for either side of the coin. Almost anything you say here has been covered there (either disproved or supported), or you can perhaps add to the conversation there and help improve the 'big picture'.

This thread is titled no plane hit the pentagon, yet you're discussing WTC collapses. That makes about as much sense as a thread titled 'The Sun is Cooling' and discussing the Moon Landing conspiracy. There are already a couple great threads where you should be bringing up your 'no Plane hit the Pentagon' theory, and expanding upon it. Your opinion doesn't mean squat, what facts and evidence you bring to a discussion is what matters.

Use the search function found at the top of this page to search for "757 Pentagon" or "WTC Attack" or "WTC Collapse" or whatever else it is you want to discuss. You'll find a wealth of information waiting for your perusal, discussion, and arguments.


[edit on 5-9-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by And1balla2829
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...


I know what your saying, did anyone notice anything odd about the attacks on 9/11? well i am a bit worried about saying this but did anyone notice about building 7? that building crashed without a plane hitting the building. I saw the video on a website, if you search on google for video of 9/11 attack building 7 or something like that on the website shows you the real footage of building 7 going down without being attacked.

This is scary, and no one was allowed to mention about building 7 they where told to be quiet about it because they might get in serious trouble.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by IKnowSomethingYouDont
I know what your saying, did anyone notice anything odd about the attacks on 9/11? well i am a bit worried about saying this but did anyone notice about building 7? that building crashed without a plane hitting the building. I saw the video on a website, if you search on google for video of 9/11 attack building 7 or something like that on the website shows you the real footage of building 7 going down without being attacked.

This is scary, and no one was allowed to mention about building 7 they where told to be quiet about it because they might get in serious trouble.


Good morning... I'm sure you'll have fun reading all the threads for information cause starting over again looks a bit over the top imo.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
This was supposed to be about the pentagon guys...



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by And1balla2829
This was supposed to be about the pentagon guys...


There's a massive thread on that here.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
As Army stated, give us some proof, any proof. Not gap fillers, rumors of gas station attendants being threatened, not panicked observations... but PROOF. It requires the slightest amount to refute what hundreds of people witnessed, recorded & scientifically explained. Loose change is simply a collage kids attempt at justifying to his parents his liberal arts school, so don’t bother posting that childish link again.

Not understanding something DOESN’T mean it isn’t true. I am aware of no witness who claims they saw a missile hit the Pentagon. I know of no evidence saying anything other then a plane hit the Pentagon. I have heard lots of wild claims, but no proof.

Ignorance begets Ignorance.

Aren't we supposed to Deny Ignorance? Why do so many seem to embrace it?


[edit on 5-9-2005 by Jake the Dog Man]



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
As Army stated, give us some proof, any proof. Not gap fillers, rumors of gas station attendants being threatened, not panicked observations... but PROOF. It requires the slightest amount to refute what hundreds of people witnessed, recorded & scientifically explained. Loose change is simply a collage kids attempt at justifying to his parents his liberal arts school, so don’t bother posting that childish link again.

Not understanding something DOESN’T mean it isn’t true. I am aware of no witness who claims they saw a missile hit the Pentagon. I know of no evidence saying anything other then a plane hit the Pentagon. I have heard lots of wild claims, but no proof.

Ignorance begets Ignorance.

Aren't we supposed to Deny Ignorance? Why do so many seem to embrace it?


[edit on 5-9-2005 by Jake the Dog Man]


You really make me sick, along with your other buddies who have replied to this thread.
Why dont YOU prove to US that "terrorists" were to blame for the Pentagon and WTC attacks. Are you people so blind to see that there is something VERY wrong with the supposed "terrorist" attacks on WTC and the Pentagon.
That video that was posted brings up some VERY valid points.
Speaking of the "gas station" tape, why wouldnt it be allowed to the public? Witnesses being threatened or not, when you have things to hide you hide it as best as you can.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I just gut done watching the second part of that video, and all I have to say is: Im Scared!
I cant question any of the points made in that video.
I am getting the hell out of the United States of Corrupt and moving back to Chile, LOL!



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ResinLA

That video that was posted brings up some VERY valid points.
Speaking of the "gas station" tape, why wouldnt it be allowed to the public?


This question has already been answered more than once. You'd know this if you read the 9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon thread.


This is a link to a post regarding the FBI posession of tapes for use in evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, in January of 2006, where they are seeking the death penalty. (Post titled: An update: Department of Justice response to court order (re: video tapes)) You can see that the FBI admits to having in their posession 2 tapes showing the attack on the Pentagon and cite the reason for not releasing either one to be because they are potentially evidence to be used in the trial of Moussaoui.

That should answer your question completely.

[edit on 7-9-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder

This is a link to a post regarding the FBI posession of tapes for use in evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, in January of 2006, where they are seeking the death penalty. (Post titled: An update: Department of Justice response to court order (re: video tapes)) You can see that the FBI admits to having in their posession 2 tapes showing the attack on the Pentagon and cite the reason for not releasing either one to be because they are potentially evidence to be used in the trial of Moussaoui.

That should answer your question completely.

[edit on 7-9-2005 by CatHerder]



You do realise that's just an excuse right?
Unless Moussaoui is actually visable in those tapes or anything that can directly relate to him is visable in that tape besides what i imagine would be a blur and an explosion, there's NO reason why it needs to be withheld for 'evidence'.

A plane moving at 500mph caught on security tape is not going to provide any crucial proof to a case, i find it hard to believe witnesses who were there can honestly say they saw the plane hit the building at that speed without closing their eyes or turning away but instead have filled in their memory gaps with the information they've been told, that they did see a plane enter the building - they know they saw a plane and an explosion.
Unless that tape has something on it which isn't something on the WTC videos, then it would be virtually impossible to convict someone for the WTCs because that 'evidence' has been made public and no longer 'untainted', you couldn't use those tapes as evidence if the precedent in this case is that those tapes must stay locked up or else they can't be used as evidence.

If anything, this video will be scrutinised and labelled so much because of it's lack of detail (or added detail) that the reason they are withholding it until after the trial is so the defendent can't site a hundred websites worth of research and analysis and make a claim around the tapes authenticity and/or quality.

It would be interesting to know if Moussaoui's lawyers have seen the tapes?
It's much easier for the FBI to withhold those tapes from public scrutiny and force Moussaoui's lawyers to do their own research on those tapes than allow the public to see them and provide evidence for Moussaoui's case by pointing out error or problems with the tapes.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by ResinLA

That video that was posted brings up some VERY valid points.
Speaking of the "gas station" tape, why wouldnt it be allowed to the public?


This question has already been answered more than once. You'd know this if you read the 9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon thread.


This is a link to a post regarding the FBI posession of tapes for use in evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, in January of 2006, where they are seeking the death penalty. (Post titled: An update: Department of Justice response to court order (re: video tapes)) You can see that the FBI admits to having in their posession 2 tapes showing the attack on the Pentagon and cite the reason for not releasing either one to be because they are potentially evidence to be used in the trial of Moussaoui.

That should answer your question completely.

[edit on 7-9-2005 by CatHerder]


You are about as smart as a truck, I tell you.
I dont buy into the tape being withheld for evidence in a trial thing. I gaurantee you the trial doesnt even go through.
I would tend to believe the gas station tape was seized to hide the fact that either a missle, or a bomb or whatever hit the Pentagon.
Like that vid mentions, the tapes were confinscated very shortly after the Pentagon attack. Why would they do that? And how do they know what was on that tape had anything to do with Moussaoui?



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
It would be interesting to know if Moussaoui's lawyers have seen the tapes?

It's much easier for the FBI to withhold those tapes from public scrutiny and force Moussaoui's lawyers to do their own research on those tapes than allow the public to see them and provide evidence for Moussaoui's case by pointing out error or problems with the tapes.


No, it's not much easier.

Anything you submit into evidence, or use in a federal court *must* be given to the defence (or prosecution) 30 days prior to trial or it is not submittable (pretrial disclosure). If they choose to not give the defence the tapes prior to trial, then the judge must grant a period of time for the defence to review the evidence before the trial can continue (this means days or weeks) if the tapes are submitted as evidence in this trial. It could also be presented during discovery, but there again the defence has the right (and obligation to his/her client) to request a continuation so they can review whatever materials presented in discovery that were not made available in pretrial disclosure. This could mean requesting time for experts to review any physical evidence (or electronic evidence).

Also, if the tapes are not submitted in the trial of Moussaoui, then the Department of Justice is in violation of the previous court order from the Federal Judge (for the FOI request from Scott Bingham). Somebody at the DOJ will go to jail for this if they do not actually use the tapes in evidence, or release the tapes to Bingham, should Bingham's attorney press the issue after the completion of Moussaoui's trial and the DOJ then refuses to release the "documents" as per the FOI request and subsequent federal court order.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ResinLA
Like that vid mentions, the tapes were confinscated very shortly after the Pentagon attack. Why would they do that?


Because it's what they do. They gather any and all evidence at/of a crime...


And how do they know what was on that tape had anything to do with Moussaoui?


What a stupid question. They didn't know who did what at the time. All they knew was that it was potentially evidence of an attack on the Pentagon.

The only reason they NOW refuse to release the video tape evidence is because they've cited their rights under the FOI act to withold evidence that may be used in a criminal trial. The reason they didn't release it previously was because nobody asked for it (legally) until one private citizen filed a Freedom of Information request over a year after the attack (the Washington Post also filed an FOI for any and all video tape evidence including the guard shacks, the gas station and the hotel).



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Please, would someone be so kind to enlighten me, why they were able to release the 5FPS crap video with explosion, and they have problems to release other footage (hotel, etc.) because of that trial?

This is not a potential evidence which can be used in the trial of Moussaoui?


Thanks.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   
I am going to chime in here some with some personal experience, even though indy has already shown that static does in fact build up on aircraft in flight. I am not certain that the flash is in fact static though…


Originally posted by bsbray11


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?



It is true the aircraft build up electrical discharge while in the air. As a matter of fact if you even watch a ramp crew work on an aircraft one of the first things that is done is a wire is connected from a bolt on the landing gear door to a bolt that is sunk into the ground near a fuel pit. Similarly the aircraft is again grounded prior to fueling it with cables attached from the truck to the aircraft and the fuel pit. I have never seen a flash from this electricity arching, but have heard that it can be enough to kill a man. Helicopters are renowned for this being a problem, perhaps since they use hoists unlike other aircraft.

The flash in these pictures though appears to be about where the pitot tubes on the fuselage are located,and while at the front of the plane it does mean that the nose is already in contact with the building. I would suspect that the flash is nothing more then the same thing you would get if you rubbed two metals together with enough force, similar to earth lights. Also, though it has been many years since I took physics, I seem to recall something about the transfer of energy from a body in motion to a stationary one, something like in the transfer energy is lost in heat, light and sound…

So the point is that the flash is most likely from friction, and energy released from the impact, static may also have played a role. The area where the pitot tubes are is a bit uneven and has metals of different types projecting out of the fuselage, these include the Angle of Attack Sensor, and the Static Air sensor, and the Pitot tubes themselves.

Another thing to consider is that the nose is the ray dome for the local area radar. I am not sure what kind of discharge that would have sent through the aircrafts electrical system, and if it did, would it have discharged at the electrical equipment behind the above mentioned instruments.



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


Most aircraft have a grounding wire, a ¼ inch insulated wire that is frayed at the end like a brush which hangs down between the nose gear wheels, this is supposed to dissipate the charge when an aircraft lands. The reason that the charge builds up is that unlike your car which is in constant contact with the ground, an aircraft which is traveling at high speeds and high altitude through dry air builds up static like a big capacitor and there is no way to dissipate that charge since it is insulated from anything that could compete the circuit, at least until it hits the ground, or in this case the building.




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


I cannot even make out the logo, as a matter of fact it is tough to tell if that is a Blue/Gray United plane, or a Blue/Gray/Aluminum American plane to me. Still I see no discrepancy with the colors, you might not realize this but airlines change their paint schemes all the time and it’s a big job to do that. When Continental Airlines went through bankruptcy part of the reorganization plan called for the repainting of aircraft as an advertising ploy, much of their fleet was in different colors for years. Each aircraft has to be rotated out of service for an extended amount of time to paint them, and so I am guessing that even now many years later not every aircraft has the new paint job on it yet. Some aircraft are too old and too close to being retired to even bother to repaint, so they just repaint the tail logo, and leave the rest of the body as it was.


Edit to add: that it also just occurred to me that the Pitot Tubes and the Static Air Port area are also heated, and they are copper. Whatever that flash is though it is defiantly coming from that area and involves those instruments.


[edit on 9/7/2005 by defcon5]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Further evidence that USA is playing dirty games with it people, its about
the pentagon crash with very clear traces that it wasn't a plain that hit it:

www.robrob8.com/you_wanted_to_know/pentagon-terror-conspiracy.htm



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join