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 power generator oddity at the Pentagon

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Killtown
 


This tractor beam is of interest.
Reportedly carrying off cattle.

I now assume the saucer is a static electricity devise.
Surrounded by positive ions and pulled up by a beam of electrons.
Well sort of along those lines.

If electrons are lifting up the positive saucer, then the cattle must be
negatively charged to be lifted up to the saucer.

So beam down some electrons on the cattle.

Never thought I'd ever be talking about beams, all that Tesla
beams I thought was hooey.




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Its really very simple, if you believe as i do that a powerful missile hit the pentagon and not a plane then the damage caused here is completely consistent with the blast wave/flying debris of a powerful explosion.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
The damage to the trailer isn't remotely consistent with a missile or a 757.

Killtown is quite correct in that if a 757 hit as the ASCE reported there is no way a flaptrack on the wing could have possibly caused that groove.

This image even places the plane LOWER than the damage to the trailer:


Obviously a missile could not have created the groove either. It had to have been pre-fabricated.

This image is from before 9/11 and it looks like the "groove" is already there:



Here is a close-up of it from the side on 9/11:



As far as the bend in the corner of the trailer....that is likely nothing but the metal warping/failing from the intense heat of the fire:




They probably simply moved the entire trailer at an angle the day before.

We know that according to the renovation manager Lee Evey that the renovation of that section that had been going on for years would have been completed in a mere 5 days after 9/11.


"That's the one million square feet of office space that originally held 5,000 people that we were about five days away from completing at the morning of September 11th."
source



We also now know that on 9/10 they were moving around trailers!



"We were in the process right prior to September the 11th cleaning out the area. We just -- we moved all the trailers. Actually, on the tenth we had some other trailers that were just leaving because we were getting ready to turn it back over to the building."
source


So they could have easily unpinned the generator trailer and moved it at an angle as if they were getting ready to move it.

In essence nothing they did in the area in preparation for the attack would be seen as suspicious because they had the renovation wrap up to use as the perfect cover.

For instance they could have easily brought in an industrial sized dumpster packed with explosives and tiny pieces plane debris to be blown all over the lawn.




[edit on 19-3-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
757 impact proponents claim the fence shows forward moving damage. When it actually shows some strange inconsistencies. It shows the barbed wire hole just popped off, and while it shows one pole (yellow) bent down and it shows a pole (red) uprooted, kinked in two places and blown AWAY from the trailer.



Plus there are poles on the other side that are still standing:


We also know for a fact that they actually moved the fence out of the way of the flight path:

This is a photo from April 2000. I have added the red outline to show you roughly where they moved the fence to on 9/11.



Compared to the one they set up on 9/11.




Clearly they removed part of the fence, moved it back, and put some spools in between it and the vent structure. Why would they move the fence like that? Why would they reduce the amount of room they had to work with?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Amazing, thanks for the great work on the crash site.
It was under renovation and not headquartering any top officers as told by
news reporters. A bigger lie is always the best lie, imagine the CIA
Intel making that sympathetic copy.

History Channel had program on the Pentagon reenforcement and
I didn't have to be an Illuminati to think thats where Osama will hit.

But when, after its finished or while it empty of offices.
History Channel... more Government Intel bunny trails.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

As far as the bend in the corner of the trailer....that is likely nothing but the metal warping/failing from the intense heat of the fire:


Boy, you're gonna have a hard time 'splainin this one to the trutherz that say that jet fuel fires don't get hot enough to affect steel and/or make it warp/fail!!!!




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whodunnit

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

As far as the bend in the corner of the trailer....that is likely nothing but the metal warping/failing from the intense heat of the fire:


Boy, you're gonna have a hard time 'splainin this one to the trutherz that say that jet fuel fires don't get hot enough to affect steel and/or make it warp/fail!!!!



Structural steel on a massive high rise that is only affected by fire in about 5% of the building is not the least bit comparable to the thin outer layer of a trailer that is completely engulfed in flames.


Think man. THINK!



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Whodunnit

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

As far as the bend in the corner of the trailer....that is likely nothing but the metal warping/failing from the intense heat of the fire:


Boy, you're gonna have a hard time 'splainin this one to the trutherz that say that jet fuel fires don't get hot enough to affect steel and/or make it warp/fail!!!!



Structural steel on a massive high rise that is only affected by fire in about 5% of the building is not the least bit comparable to the thin outer layer of a trailer that is completely engulfed in flames.


Think man. THINK!


i think that since jet fuel burns in an open fire at around what, 1500F, it can't melt steel , which needs 2750F.

backpeddle man. backpeddle!!!



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whodunnit

i think that since jet fuel burns in an open fire at around what, 1500F, it can't melt steel , which needs 2750F.

backpeddle man. backpeddle!!!


I don't get your point.

No plane could have possibly hit that generator trailer since the plane was north of the citgo.

There is zero evidence that jet fuel had anything to do with that fire.

No doubt the temperature was initially much higher than 2750F when the explosives and/or incendiaries went off.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Whodunnit

i think that since jet fuel burns in an open fire at around what, 1500F, it can't melt steel , which needs 2750F.

backpeddle man. backpeddle!!!


No doubt the temperature was initially much higher than 2750F when the explosives and/or incendiaries went off.



Wellllllllllllll, jet fuel and diesel fuel have similar burn temps, ya? So the diesel in the diesel generator caught on fire too.

And you said something to effect of " the trailer no doubt collapsed cuz it was fully engulfed in flame." Then you put of a GIF of the trailer in flame.

Now you're saying that 2750F was reached when the explosives/incindiaries went off.............

Like I said.....

Backpeddle man. BACKPEDDLE!!!




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Yes it was clearly engulfed in flame.

Yes the cause HAD to have been explosives of some nature.

Yes the notion that this scenario is remotely comparable to the WTC collapse is one of the most absurd logical fallacies I have heard.

Pseudoskeptics.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Whodunnit

NIST tested the Structural Steel of the WTC, and it didn't fail under heavy load.
So Craig is correct in the comparison between Structural Steel and something that is far weaker.

NIST, 2005, p. 141;


"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain
information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All
four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours
without collapsing…"



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join