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.

 

9/11: A Boeing 757 *DID NOT* Strike the Pentagon

page: 11
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
ah! but there's more!

anthrax mailings, for one, but HEY! that's got 'nothing' to do with the pentagon attack, right?

so, what DOES it have to do with, then?

hunter s. thompson claimed to have solid proof of the 911 demolition, and he was trying to publish, and he was suicided. capiche? that's the way it is. spin away, but you won't change 'my opinion'.

what about reports of hijackers having 'guns' and 'bombs'? i think too many actors were improvising that day.

or you could say that just enough actors were improvising that day, and that the confusion they caused may eventually bury the 'gut' truth of 911, in the same manner that jfk is 'gut'-forgotten.

there is a certain point, in the pursuit of truth, where you hit 'too much truth', and you will pull your head into your skull like a turtle into a shell. the truth CAN'T be THIS BAD!

wellll.

it is.

deal with it.


billybob, ... and everyone who has contributed to either Catherder's, or any other thread regarding the events of 9-11.

We truly need to get past the debates and arguments as to what and when!

Our focus needs to be more on the WHY factor.

What's done is done, but WHY!?

If we expend our investigative energies focusing on the physical particulars of 9-11 are we not actually avoiding the issue(s) as to WHY it did or could have taken place!?

Personally, I would like to see/hear/explore more of a concerted effort into the WHY and HOW aspects rather than a slugfest between opposing sides concerning inconsequential material irregularities and "proof".

Just my $.02 ... for now

[edit: actaullay to actually]


[edit on 1/28/2006 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Correct. However, Joe Quinn's sensational exaggeration was in response to this paragraph in CatHerder's post:

Can you explain where in this paragraph CatHerder implied or otherwise indicated that everything else "folded up and flew inside the building"?


but joe quinn did not state that he said it nor did he sensationally exaggerate it in the least. so that means that YOU are sensationally exaggerating joe quinn's claims. he was merely stating the only given explanation since this was an important detail that was deceptively ignored by catherder.





I thought we were to focus on Joe Quinn's piece here?


joe quinns piece is a direct REBUTTAL to catherders piece so this is clearly about both.

if you are going to make deceptive comments about what he claimed catherder said then you bear the burden of showing exactly what he did say and how joe quinn's point is not honest.

so far it is apparent that joe quinn did not lie about catherders claims but only pointed out that catherder deceptively left out important info.

i simply gave you a chance to show that catherder did not do this.

i will take your refusal to mean that he certainly did.





[edit on 28-1-2006 by Lyte Trizzle]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Our focus needs to be more on the WHY factor.



well i don't see why you would say this when it is impossible to read the minds of the covert perpetrators.

but there certainly are obvious reasons such as feeding the military industrial complex with a permanent global war against a shadowy uncatchable enemy.

and probably a lot of not so obvious reasons like perhaps setting up the collapse of american hegemony to allow for the take over by international bodies such as the UN/NATO.

how many speculative posts could we possibly make on this?

discussing the "how" is extremely important and relevant since of course that is officially considered cased closed and the official story is a lie.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Ah ha.. finally found what I was looking for:

Pentagon cctv 9/11 : where are the missing frames and the 757?
posted on 8-7-2003 at 03:21 PM

Way back in 2003, some of the earliest questions about the 757 at the Pentagon were raised here on ATS. That thread has over 80,000 views which is very odd for an old thread with a handful of replies... so it's clear there was some big interest for a while. That's a full year before the Pentagon strike Flash animation mentioned in Joe Quinn's article was published.

Just jumping in to provide a little historical perspective.

As you were.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
i don't know about that S.O.

doesn't seem very meticulously researched if you ask me.


the evidence does not support a 757 at the pentagon so it would be disingenous to accept that it does simply because it makes an alternative 9/11 theory more palatable to the average joe.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
the evidence does not support a 757 at the pentagon so it would be disingenous to accept that it does simply because it makes an alternative 9/11 theory more palatable to the average joe.

Huh?

I have no idea what you mean there.

All I did was show that some of the early questions about the possible lack of a 757 were discussed here on ATS... long before SOTT picked up the issue.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

I have no idea what you mean there.

All I did was show that some of the early questions about the possible lack of a 757 were discussed here on ATS... long before SOTT picked up the issue.


from what i read of that they asserted that it was a 757 but part of the inside job operation.

either piloted by hani hanjour or as a military drone.


certainly i entertain this as a possiblity.

but so far i have not been able to justify it as being a 757.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
actually that site does shows quite well that the 'evidence', that is the five frames of poor video, has been tampered with. there is good logic in those arguments.

they also argue that the flame indicates a solid fuel expolsion, as opposed to kerosene. they suggest that there was a depleted uranium warhead used to penetrate the wall. a bunker buster type device, which COULD have been loaded onto a big boeing passenger jet, or a 'snark' missile with fake wings and paintjob.
i personally like the a3 skywarrior the best as the candidate.

back to the evidence, one of the most important things in that analysis to me, is the thing which i can agree with easily, and that is that the frames were 'corrected' to hide the jostling of the camera by a shockwave.
the contrast and the colours of the explosion i know nothing about, but i did note that the explosives expert who is linked to in the paper, has become a dead link. typical of 911 research. dead links.

more tampering with evidence, as in the mystery of the moved taxi. more invisible fingers pointing at an ELABORATE COVER-UP.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
actually that site does shows quite well that the 'evidence', that is the five frames of poor video, has been tampered with.

Including the first two frames having the exact same timestamp.

Odd that.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
but joe quinn did not state that he said it nor did he sensationally exaggerate it in the least.

He certainly did. At no point in CatHerder's article was there ever any implication that the wings folded up and went inside the building. Joe is lying, and your defending the lie.

I'm also still waiting for Joe's evidence of the position of the cable spools prior to the attack.

And information about the sapling that was burned but not broken... but according to Joe, should have been broken.


Back to Joe's article;


Item Eleven
This is the first of Joe Quinn's blue text additions -->

The above "opening gambit" is very telling since it delivers hard facts, one after the other, all of which are accurate. It is in this last statement that the twisting begins. The fact that the length of the Pentagon is equivalent to 7.4 757's wing to wing, or that the width of one 757 equals 13.5% of the facade of the Pentagon has no bearing on the actual damage done. Indeed, given the weight and speed of the 757 that is alleged to have impacted the building, the actual damage done to the Pentagon is entirely inconsistent with an aircraft of the size, weight, and speed of a 757. In other words, the argument actually supports the "no-Boeing" theory better than it supports "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."

The bolded section indicates Joe is presenting as a statement-of-fact, his speculation and opinion. A bit of solid evidence regarding his motivations to push one particular theory, rather than examine reality.


Item Twelve
Again, in the next bit blue-text additions -->

Even if the wings could do that, we are still left with the two 6 ton engines that were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which, together, are as wide as the cylinder body!

I thought we had established that the engines were not 6 tons each? Where did Joe get 6 tons from?
Also, how is Joe so certain the engines are not on the lawn?
Also, the two diameters of the engines do not add up to the diameter of the body. Why is Joe saying this?


Item Thirteen
In the very next bit of blue-text additions from Joe Quinn -->

Joe Quinn
Again, this is not JUST a "13ft object" by any stretch of the imagination. By now it should be obvious that the author is attempting to subtly manipulate the reader by reducing a large, 82 ton passenger aircraft to "a 13ft object".

Why is Joe so hung up on the diameter of the body, and continue to misrepresent what was written in CatHerder's post. Let me remind what was first written:

CatHerder
That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high.

He never indicated an 82 ton aircraft was a 13 ft object. Why is Joe altering CatHerder's words again? Why does your "truth movement" need to misrepresent what people say in order to make their point?
Joe continues to harp on this point again in the very next blue-text paragraph he added -->

Is "a 13ft object" a reasonable description of a Boeing 757? Is it reasonable for the author to reduce a large plane that can carry up to 200 adult human beings to "a 13ft object"? We could take this unreasonable definition one step further and flesh out the image that our author is trying to plant in our heads and say that, according to our author, the Boeing 757 that he/she alleges hit the Pentagon, was comparable to a large SUV, or a similar "13ft object".

He really wants to convince us that CatHerder misstated the size of the aircraft.


And now, something else.


Finally, I'm certain anyone in your "truth movement" would categorize Indy Media as being either part of the movement, or "soul sisters" if you will. With that in mind, you may want to review this IndyMedia.org page:
chapelhill.indymedia.org...

There has been a concerted effort to convince those that disbelieve the official 9/11 fable, to believe another, even stranger, fable. Namely, that the damage to the Pentagon was caused by a missile strike. Why the perpetrators of 9/11 want to spread this missile myth is not at all clear, as even a cursory investigation of the facts, makes it clear that it was not hit by a missile. Maybe the reason they are doing this is to tar the disbelievers as a lunatic fringe, or perhaps they just want to create as much confusion about the issue as possible, to obscure some, as yet unknown, fault in the fables fabric.

There is a great deal of information there which has not been discussed extensively here. And this represents at least one other popular "alternative" site proposing that the no-plane theory is wild hogwash.




Thank you.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Actually if you look closely at the pictures of the spools, there IS obvious damage to at least one of them. You can easily see where something hit it and damaged it.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Like this?






posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   


more tampering with evidence, as in the mystery of the moved taxi. more invisible fingers pointing at an ELABORATE COVER-UP.


Since this thread seems to be about proposing alternate theories heres mine.

Instead of invisible fingers pointing to an ELABORATE COVER-UP, maybe those fingers are pointing to cases of delusional paranoia.

Every day there seems to be more poeple added to this ELABORATE COVER-UP. Eventually everyone in the DC metro area will be added to the list of actors who were paid/bribed/threatened to keep the lid on this ELABORATE COVER-UP.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
About the spools. Can anyone provide a photo which shows the spools were DEFINATELY in the path of the planes fuselage. As I can see it the main body of the plane could have been to either side of the spools.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Including the first two frames having the exact same timestamp.

Odd that.



The 5 frames were extracted from the videotape and it is likely they did not originally form a sequence.

The first 2 frames were of the plane then the plane hitting the building and the plane would take fractions of a second to cover that small distance therefor both these frames are within the same second. The frames of the explosion are generally space further apart as fireballs probably grow slower than 400mph and they most likely took those frames because they illustrated the explosion better


Sorry if you don't understand, I'm not very good in putting thoughts into words... something I hope to brush up on.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm
He certainly did. At no point in CatHerder's article was there ever any implication that the wings folded up and went inside the building.




Right, he was asserting a couple of things.

1) The bottom half is what made the hole. The top half "shredded into chunks"


This is the part that punched the hole in the Pentagon, the rest of the thin, hollow, top of the plane just shredded into chunks, some of which are laying on the lawn and around the rescue vehicles


And so where is the top half out in the lawn? Why is there only 3 larger chunks? And why do they appear to be parts from the front of the plane, which should have entered the building already? Like the "C"?

Here's a "chunk" from that "thin, hollow, top of the plane" that survived an impact, a fireball, several steel columns, being ejected at hundreds of feet in the air at hundreds of mph...




2) And he seemed to echo the Purdue animation, that the wings and tail went completely into the building and "disintegrated".

Again this is not what the video shows. The video shows the back portion of the fuselage in the air, OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, ejecting the tail...



I can't begin to fathom how you think the left wing entered. When according to oilempire (a favorite of some here), that black mark along the building is from the wing. The left wing should be on the 300zx/Jeep Cherokee or it should be in the lawn

The right wing should be the dead giveaway. But apparently you aren't paying attention.

The right wing was tilted up, supposedly. So it wouldn't have entered the building. And it certainly couldn't have, given the damage of the right side of the impact area. As already demonstrated, the columns are blown out. The left wing would have come off when it hit that supposed generator trailer.

So where is the right wing and engine?




And this doesn't even look like the correct angle/trajectory, or the right height for that black mark that was supposed to come from a 757 left wing.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm
Hi again Lyte, thanks for your responses.

So I think we've established that we cannot be certain Joe Quinn is not a disinformationist, and likewise, the same applies to CatHerder.




I think one tip is Joe Quinn uses his real name, and Catherder doesn't.

Joe Quinn made some pretty obvious observations.

That's it.

I don't know how you could even lump me or him into that category.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
This is a very tricky subject for me. There is so much conflicting evidence that I don't know what to think.
If I had a double-cheeseburger to my head, I would say that NO plane hit the Pentagon.
Quite a small hole for a plane to go through if you ask me.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
I think one tip is Joe Quinn uses his real name, and Catherder doesn't.

Joe Quinn is attempting to be an alternative media journalist, CatHerder is just someone on a discussion board.

Rick Doty is a confirmed disinformationist, and he used his real name.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Sorry I may be a bit late to this thread But wasn't there an ats'r who saw the actual plane hit the pentagon I don't know if this is true or i am remembering it from something else but hope that helps something
(But i doubt it
)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join