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.

 

The 757 Hitting the Pentagon

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Tom Flocco, so reliable even Rense discredits him.

I especially like the bit about the wing under the tarpaulin, I forgot that planes only have wings in the middle, because I always thought they had tailplanes too! (that's the little wings at the back
) DOH, stupid me...






Couldn't possibly be part of that could it....


The wheel is also exactly like a 757 wheel, probably because it is:





The fact they post rubbish like this says it all:


Here, Schwarz gets very specific: "They also made the wheels for the 757 but a simple proportional check of width versus diameter will easily show that the photo (left) is not a wheel hub from a 757, which has a much larger radius than width. This radius is about the same as the width of the wheel hub, and is another clue that the ' 757-crashed-into-the-Pentagon' story is a Bush lie," he said.


I think the photo clearly shows the truth and is more evidence of fact distorting by the amazing Tom.

I wonder why they didn't post a photo of a 757 wheel for comparsion? One would have thought that if it was an accurate statement it would be conclusive proof. Well it is, proof that his story is rubbish.

Funny how some of you often argue there was not enough plane wreckage at the site, yet so easily find some when it suits you (or you think it does).

This story is yet another ideal candidate for the Tom Flocco alternative media awards.


Invitations are open to all to see who can make up the biggest load of bull****, and dress it up with the most bravado in the inaugural Tom Flocco alternative media awards.

I've previously submitted two examples so that contestants can see what kind of material is required. It should be noted however that I broke one important rule in those two examples. That is - the very basic conclusions of the articles were accidentally true, even though the spin presented to make the argument was a load of crap. Such accidental truthfulness should be avoided.

The rules are as follows.

1. No sources from anything checkable in the public domain are to be used.

2. There should be some kind of hero in the story - someone who knows more than anyone else and is risking career, life and limb to reveal it.

3. The story should strongly imply that justice for the evil doers is about to take its course through the legal system, so all you have to do is cheer and donate.

4. The alleged facts and sources should be vague that nobody can specifically identify a tangible "error" as such.

5. The story should preferably comprise one hero interviewing another hero about what a third hero told them, so that when the story fades away or busts, its difficult to point the finger at anyone specifically.

The winner will be eligible for significant funding from USG covert propaganda agencies to set up their own alternative media website and radio station.

So get cracking on those keyboards and start manufacturing! Let Tom Flocco be your inspiration. Study closely the techniques of the master. Any old bull**** will do.
rense.com...


[edit on 11-10-2005 by AgentSmith]




posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Tom Flocco, so reliable even Rense discredits him.


i don't know if you read the article, but his sources are clearly identified in this particular article. i believe he names a 2008 presidential candidate as the source(who was quoting from two mystery people, which i admit, makes the evidence sheer heresay.
i think i would want to remain anonymous, too. wouldn't you? i mean C'MON! IF what the accusers are saying is true, then they would be foolish to reveal themselves.


and don't you know?
everything on rense is a lie. it's been 'proven' with doublethink logic, the way all things are 'proven' by the 'the official story is true', 'bush is a patriot saint' camp(less than ten percent of the ats population in that camp, according to wecomeinpeace's fine, fine poll).

and so, while the pundits of 'two minutes of hate' bark loudly about having debunked this, and debunked that, and 'proven' this, and 'proven' that, the majority of ats-ers voted C., and this point of arabs/no arabs is a tiny straw in a haystack of evidence.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
and so, while the pundits of 'two minutes of hate' bark loudly about having debunked this, and debunked that, and 'proven' this, and 'proven' that, the majority of ats-ers voted C., and this point of arabs/no arabs is a tiny straw in a haystack of evidence.


This thread isn't about the arabs, this is about the 757 hitting the Pentagon, and threads are generally in place for their subject to be discussed. If you want to discuss WCIP poll and the results then do so in his thread, rather than try and steer the topic off course in the hope of burying the valuable information contained in it because it doesn't backup your ideas. I've noticed this is a favoured tactic you use, it's practically only a couple of steps away from spamming.
You also have an uncanny talent for not addressing points presented to you which are very difficult to argue against, I find it hard to understand how anyone can argue while artfully dodging the use of any evidence or information and avoiding questions posed to them- but you truly are the master of it.
In fact I think you would make an excellent politician, Animal Farm anyone?

You also appear to be a black and white thinker, all good or all bad. You don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of the fine mesh of colour that makes up our world. People's opinon of Bush, rightly or wrongly, does not automatically mean everything bad that happens is down to him and neither does it mean he is a saint and in the clear.

And no disrespect to WCIP, but if you are on about this poll:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then just over 70 people voted in the end for C.
Out of over 50,000 members of which there are normally 3000 - 3500 'active' (going by the msg at the end of ATS U2Us) I would hardly say 70 people constitute as being the 'majority of ATS-ers'.
Nice attempt to massage the figures there to your own end.
In fact seeing as ATS is a conspiracy board, it's pretty dismal don't you think?

[edit on 11-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
EDIT: It was an unfounded statement

[edit on 11-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
thank you, agent smith. i think you pretty much called my style there, except for the black and white part. that's a "either with us or against us" sith-type thing, not a panty waist tulip walker thing.

and except for the idea that bringing in 'supporting evidence' is not fair dinkum in debates. SOME outside factors ARE irrelevent. others serve as 'context', and this is my intention on introducing them. 'context' is a little thing that USED to go along with 'news', but has since gone the way of the dinosaur in favour of general amnesia.
disinformationlists(not you, of course) always like to disuade the introduction of supporting evidence, character witness, unexplained phenomena, etc., and keep everything under the microscope, isolated in a hermetically sealed cell. they persuade people to stare at tiny dots, and disuade people from panning out and seeing the big picture.

it was a major crime, man! do the cops go in to a murder investigation, look at one fact, and then decide guilt or innocence? or do they sometimes have to piece together a puzzle using SEEMINGLY unrelated facts.

i actually agree i needn't have mentioned the arabs, here. i was awake for tweny four hours and them there were my twilight ramblings. i thought i was ON that other thread, HAHA! i wondered why my long dead cat fluffy kept crawling up onto the keyboard while i was trying to type.

[edit on 11-10-2005 by billybob]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i actually agree i needn't have mentioned the arabs, here. i was awake for tweny four hours and them there were my twilight ramblings. i thought i was ON that other thread, HAHA! i wondered why my long dead cat fluffy kept crawling up onto the keyboard while i was trying to type.


I guessed that was what it was, I've known that feeling myself, still do sometimes! LOL
I'm sorry about Fluffy though, I love my cats...

But anyway, I know exactly what you mean regarding the panning out and looking at the bigger picture, your completely right. However by allowing warped facts to play a part it makes the whole thing worthless.
Look, at the end of the day if anything is going to be proven either way, it's going to have to be squeaky clean, let alone have blatant lies or errors within it. Yes I know no argument is going to be infallible, realistically, but some of these arguments are ludicrous. By allowing them we help create a smokescreen around any valid information and thus anyone hoping to expose the truth effectively shoots themself in the foot.
While people are worrying about clerical errors, things like the new law allowing people to be held in police custody for 3 months without charge are breezing through (here in the UK). A good thing if it stops terrorists, but what if it's mis-used?

No-one is going to take anything seriously if people keep flogging the same, dead old horse. A horse that isn't even a horse but some roadkill, probably a badger, left on the road somewhere.

People are always worried that the TPTB warp news given out on the mainstream media, but don't you think the same happens on the internet?
The Internet is mainstream media these days, some of these stories are the dis-info tactics that people keep crying about. Try and experiment, write up some convincing fiction and submit it to good Tom Flocco amd see if it gets published, bet it does


Sopme of the guys fighting the good fight are their own worst enemy, and will be the downfall of all of us.

[edit on 11-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Tom Flocco, so reliable even Rense discredits him.

I especially like the bit about the wing under the tarpaulin, I forgot that planes only have wings in the middle, because I always thought they had tailplanes too! (that's the little wings at the back
) DOH, stupid me...





www.abovetopsecret.com...

Whatever... I'ts just empty tent carried by some ppls. I don't know where someone can see in this photo some parts of plane/missile/drone secretly moved out of Pentagon "attack area".



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by STolarZ

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Tom Flocco, so reliable even Rense discredits him.

I especially like the bit about the wing under the tarpaulin, I forgot that planes only have wings in the middle, because I always thought they had tailplanes too! (that's the little wings at the back
) DOH, stupid me...





www.abovetopsecret.com...

Whatever... I'ts just empty tent carried by some ppls. I don't know where someone can see in this photo some parts of plane/missile/drone secretly moved out of Pentagon "attack area".


Nice point there, I'd never seen the full version of the pic, it's not so clear in the little blurred one (co-incidence there Flocco?) but you can see in the bigger one. I just went with the wing thing because that was the theme of the day, my bad for not investigating further.



But glad you did find that bud, I think it proves even more what an unreliable source that site is. I wonder why they blurred their picture so much, doesn't seem like normal compression artifacts.... Really makes it look like a wing....

Really show how retarded some people can be at the best of times, because even if they had been able to continue passing it off as a wing photo, then the tailplane argument would still prevail.

[edit on 11-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I think the point for many of us skeptics of the official version is that the thing (wing or not - whatever) is covered up - as in COVER UP. I mean, why go to the trouble to cover it up before moving it? Were they afraid it might get damaged by sun exposure?


I have watched a few accident investigations where a death was involved and in my experience items crucial to the investigation are never moved until the scene has been mapped and everything tagged and photographed. That is not what happened on the Pentalawn on 9-11. There was no apparent investigation, just demolition and 'clean up.' No, but there were furtive men in ties skulking about with hunks of debris in their hands. At every crash scene that day the public was threatened with criminal prosecution if they touched anything and most if not all of the physical evidence was moved (and at least for the steel from WTC) shipped off as quickly as possible.

That can only be because the govt. had no interest in determining what happened because it already knew exactly what happened. Just like Dubya kept reading the goat story to the kiddies. No shock there. Just one stage in the PNAC plan. Mr. President, weren't you or the SS concerned about being a target in that public, unguarded elementary school so close to an airport when the world new your itinerary the day the terrorists came to town? Nah. Hey, those guys like me. The bin Ladens and the Bush clan go way back man. Heck, why do you think we got them the heck out of the country like that? Wouldn't be prudent to let some clean cop question those nice folks.

Like I said, cover up. Can we at least agree on that? Who told the tie guys to go out there and start moving stuff around and removing it? I suppose that was so no one would trip over those jagged pieces of metal and get a bob boo. A 757 did not make those neat little holes in those walls and also didn't make that 270 degree, 2.5 minute, 7000 ft. drop and dive into the wall - unless it was remote flown. Whatever did cause the damage is likely hidden in the tapes confiscated by our govt. which are the subject of a motion to compel in a pending civil case. So hopefully we will know and be right or wrong soon.

Finally, IMO the explosion was too uniform and seemingly coming from one central point and expanding in a uniform fashion to be from the jet fuel in the large wings on opposite sides. Did they check the remaining area and building material for evidence of explosives? Nah. Didn't at the WTC either. Why were they so unsurprised that those steel frame towers came down? No curiosity at all. 9-11 investigation stifled by Dubya and almost doesn't happen. I'm just saying.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Too uniform? I hadn't heard that one yet. What exactly is supposed to happen when you have an explosion INSIDE of a massively reinforced wall, with only one opening to go out of? You have a nice explosion radiating out of a central point.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Explosion 'inside' a massive wall? I thought it took place on impact and against the outer wall? At least, that's what the tape shows. That is unless there was a device set up inside the walls as well. If the explosion took place inside the wall I would expect to see more damage to the wall itself rather than a neat , round little hole. So your saing that the impact of the physical object (nose cone and fuselage, right?) caused the holes and that the fuel didn't ignite until it was actually inside the hole and on the other side of the (at least one) wall?

What would keep the fuel from igniting on impact? The nose hits and halts at least some of the momentum but the kinetic energy of the wings (the mass of the wings themselves plus the mass of the fuel in them traveling at ~ 500 mph) extending to the sides and not part of the "can" or tube strength of the fuselage causes them to continue towards the bldg. which causes them to rupture and fail and tear off and continue into the wall as separate objects recently filled with tons of jet fuel which ignites either just before it hits the wall or just after but before the fuselage manages to squeeze into that little hole. Especially when it appears that the plane hit the wall at a slight angle.

I just don't see how the fuel ignites only after that fuselage somehow squeezes through all those little holes left by the relatively large in diameter and lightweight (low mass) nose cone. I guess I could see it knocking part of the outer wall down but continuing on through the other walls and making virtually identical neat round holes in each??? Nah. Wouldn't happen. I would like to see them replicate the crash with an old 757 sometime. Lord knows we can remote one in.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
The forward part of the fuselage was already in the building when the wings impacted the outer facade. There were fuel tanks in the forward body, and in the fuselage between the wings, that would have exploded inside the building, as well as fuel tanks in the wings, and aft part of the fuselage. The wing tanks, and aft body tanks would have exploded on impact, and the forward body tank, and probably center wing tanks would have exploded inside the building, and blown out through the hole it made.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   
AgentSmith: i'm writing about tent like tents on this photo:



Just tents. But... other question is what is in those tents ?

An other to stay on topic again about his photo. Why there is a fire damage visible on the roof in this places ?




posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Don't know to be honest. Do they use the colour blue particularly to signify anything? I tried searching and even though it seems to be used a lot, I couldn't find anything that specifically said it is the 'official' colour of anything.
Can anyone here shed any light on this?

If it is significant, then I imagine it will be pieces of evidence left in place, possibly body parts?

As to the fire damge, it is curious, I don't know why it would have happend like that. I can't see any reason for it using any of the explanations really. I expect there is an obvious answer, can anyone else help with this?

Good photo's by the way.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
The roof at least partialy collapsed, or WAS collapsed there. If you blow it up you can see the collapse damage. I'm not really surprised, considering that the fire was supposed to be pretty intense. That looks almost like where the sections were joined together. There were reports of the floor sinking at the joins from the damage, so that might be what happened there. The sinking was pretty significant from some reports of people crawling around in the building.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by STolarZ
AgentSmith: i'm writing about tent like tents on this photo:



Just tents. But... other question is what is in those tents ?

An other to stay on topic again about his photo. Why there is a fire damage visible on the roof in this places ?



Those blue tents, if you ask me, look like De-Con tents that you would use during a chemical spill. It makes me think that there was something other than jet fuel in that plane. It could have been anything from napalm to depleted uranium. But I'm leaving that up for you guys to make a decision on that.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
All planes had Depleted Uranium in them, until the mid to late 80s. A 747 had 13-1500 Kilos as ballast.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
Those blue tents, if you ask me, look like De-Con tents that you would use during a chemical spill. It makes me think that there was something other than jet fuel in that plane. It could have been anything from napalm to depleted uranium. But I'm leaving that up for you guys to make a decision on that.




All decontamination tents are supplied ready equipped with curly blue hose complete with pistol shower heads ready for immediate use.

* Greatly reduced setup time.
* Decontamination tents only need to be inflated and they are ready to use.
* All units are available in NATO green or civil protection orange.
* Colours are available depending on quantity.
* Decontamination tents are supplied palletised for air shipment.

www.unionindustries.co.uk...

It would imply that blue is not a standard colour for de-contamination, though I may be wrong.

But then saying that I found this in relation to Flight 93:


9/16/2001 -Somerset Crash Site - The decontamination station for workers leaving the site is located in the blue tents just to the right of the crash site. DEP has been providing investigators with information on the site to guide their excavation since it was a reclaimed mine area, decontamination and advice on handling potentially hazardous fuel and fluids.


www.dep.state.pa.us...


Also says this on that page:


FBI and other investigators at the scene have excavated the crash site down to a depth of about 45 feet looking for clues. Digging a trench that deep requires special care to avoid cave-ins and constant monitoring to ensure any fumes from soil contaminated with jet fuel and hydraulic fluid do not present a hazard to emergency workers.


You've got to remember that these people will practically erect a tent if they find a thimble.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The roof at least partialy collapsed, or WAS collapsed there. If you blow it up you can see the collapse damage. I'm not really surprised, considering that the fire was supposed to be pretty intense. That looks almost like where the sections were joined together. There were reports of the floor sinking at the joins from the damage, so that might be what happened there. The sinking was pretty significant from some reports of people crawling around in the building.

Strange that these partial collapses occured so far from place where 757 or whatever hit Pentagon.
Btw. Where fires were "pretty intense" ? In this whole "red" section of Pentagon ? If so why there is no exact marks on the roof in "green" section ?




posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by STolarZ
Btw. Where fires were "pretty intense" ? In this whole "red" section of Pentagon ? If so why there is no exact marks on the roof in "green" section ?



cause those parts of those sections dont have those cheap gray roofs like the burning parts had.
seriously its those cheap gray roofs.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join