It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:16 PM
Those spools of wiring were so severly damaged during the attack on the Pentagon that they could not have been used after cleanup. The damage that was done to the wiring could not be seen from that distance under those conditions. After the plane hit, the jet fuel that hadn not burned off in the explosion had soaked the wires on the spools. To add to that, the water and foam would have caused more damage to the wiring. The wires in fact shorted out when the water and fire retardant foam made contact with the exposed wires. Water, one of the main ingredients in foam, makes contact with the copper and other elements in the wires, they short out even though the wires were not powered. Since this process occured, the wires were removed after the fire was put out and they were disposed of properly.

Here's a little known fact about the attack on the Pentagon.

The Department of Defense had an airport fire engine stationed right about where the plane hit. That truck was wiped out when the plane hit the rig as it was stationary. The crew that was stationed on that truck stated that they had to run like hell to get away because they knew they could not have gotten that truck out of there in time. The fire apparatus was hit by one of the engines of the 757-200ER that hit the side of the Pentagon. The plane had just enough room between the engine both vertically and horizontally that it cleared the control tower for the helipad not eighty yards from the point of impact. Plus, this piece of apparatus would not have survived the subsequent fireball that came after the 757's impact. Even firefighters from Alexandria and surrounding areas reported seeing the 757 go down. As a result, most fire units that arrived on scene within five minutes of the attack were self-dispatched.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I can't help ya right there.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 08:18 PM
Originaly posted by Defcon5

Why do you think that aircraft, both military and civilian come with “No Step” written all over them, hm?

This was what I was refering to bro, and all I said was they are not as flimsy as you are trying to push. I'm not arguing with you to win anything, do I get a prize?

And I don't make claims about my past experience I can't back up, I worked on EA6B's with VAQ 132 the Scorpions deployed on the USS Saratoga, I then became a T-56 engine/prop/APU (P-3's etc. built just like civy planes) IMA mech, NEC 6418....U2U me if you want to see my DD-214.

I didn't say the airframe can't be damaged by the sharp corners of objects banged against them. And I'm not arguing the spools could have damaged the airframe either. Personally I'm not really quetioning the airframe here but I do question what happened to the engines, which I know for a FACT cannot be easily damaged. Engine cases are pretty damn heavy and tough and IMO there should be obvious signs of their existance left somewhere on the lawn of the pentagoon.

[edit on 31/1/2006 by ANOK]

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 08:39 PM
You mean like these?

Bird strike on a 747:

ILS antenna:

Perimeter fences and a gas station:

Those are pretty significant amounts of damage for fairly minor objects they ran into.

[edit on 1/31/2006 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:25 PM
Well well zaphod again doesn't read what i said, I'm not surprised.

Anyway do you know what was actualy going on when those planes were damaged?

This is from the second one...

this aircraft skidded off during the landing at runway 25R

Does that sound minor to you?

The last one went through the perimiter fence into a gas station...LMAO!!
You're killing me zaphod

Anyway again, what's this got to do with the engines?

[edit on 31/1/2006 by ANOK]

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:27 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
which I know for a FACT cannot be easily damaged. Engine cases are pretty damn heavy and tough and IMO there should be obvious signs of their existance left somewhere on the lawn of the pentagoon.

[edit on 31/1/2006 by ANOK]

If you bothered to read all of the accident statement, it hit two chain link fences, slid across a street, and stopped at a gas station. Does that sound like it hit something substantial to cause all that damage?

Just attempting to show that even minor things can cause substantial damage to the engines.

[edit on 1/31/2006 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:33 PM
IMO none of those accidents were minor, let it go. Why do always pick on the lamest stuff to argue about?

Defcon was claiming you could damage a plane just walking on a no-step area, we were not talking about planes running off runways on landing...Jeez!

Talk about taking a minor comment and blowing up into a major argument.
And you all acuse us of doing that

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:39 PM
Oh gee, I'm sorry that I bothered to attempt to prove that relatively minor things could cause significant damage to engines. Those minor accidents caused that much damage, but you claim that flying into a concrete wall would leave large pieces of engine laying around, and leave them mostly intact. I forgot that everything you're arguing is so highly important, and trying to disprove any part of it is insignificant and stupid.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 04:06 AM
Zaphod it just your opinion that those accidents were minor!

A plane running off the runway on landing IMO is NOT minor.

Think about it, what's the landing speed of your average comercial jet? Around 150 mph as a guess, if you ran a car off the road at that speed do you think it would have as little damage as in that pic?

And read what it says in the one that went through the fence...

given that the airplane went through the noise abatement fence, the perimeter fence, across the street and into a gas station, the engine doesnt look too bad

I would say the damage is very minor for what happend, how can you say the accident was only minor.

Jeez why am I even waisting my time with you?

[edit on 1/2/2006 by ANOK]

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 04:14 AM
I can say they were minor because there was easily repairable damage to the planes, and in the case of the Southwest, there was sadly loss of life in a car that it hit, but no other major injuries. Yes, the death was sad, and I'm sorry for their family that it happened, but there were over 100 people on the plane, and not one of them was killed or even seriously injured.

These would probably be a Class B accident. Four or five days and your back in service. Yes running off a runway CAN BE serious, and SOUNDS serious, but it's only serious if people are killed, you burn the plane to the ground, or you damage it so badly that it has to be taken out of service for good.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 05:37 AM
Where the hell are you going with this argument zaphod?

A plane running off the runway is pretty serious whether anyone dies or not.
The damage shown in those pics is not unusual for what happend.

Where's the pic of the guy putting his foot through a wing panel, that was what we were talking about, not planes running off runways.

I'm very surprised the damage to those planes is so lite.

Should we get back on topic now, or do you want to continue with this stupid pointless banter?

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 05:44 AM
So that's normal damage, but a plane flying into a concrete building at high speed would leave huge chunks of engine laying around?

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:07 AM
The No-757 Theory Is Actually Coordinated Disinformation!

There are more indications of a deep-seated dissatisfaction with the "no-757" theory within the so-called "truth movement". All of these websites are often and/or regularly sourced as part of the "truth movement", yet clearly feel the "no-757" theory is at it's least bunk, or more likely, organized misinformation -->

The Pentagon attack:
the "no plane" theories discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven evidence of complicity
- the fake debate between no plane and no complicity gets the Bush regime off the hook
- there is zero evidence for any of the "no plane" claims - hundreds of people saw the plane, none saw a cruise missile, Global Hawk robot plane, smaller plane or flying saucer piloted by giant lizards
- the physical evidence shows that a large twin engine jet hit the nearly empty part of the Pentagon, the "Black Boxes" were found, cleanup crews found remains of the passengers, the "hole was too small" claim was a hoax
- making 9/11 complicity dependent on the no-plane claim was a brilliant tactic to discredit the real evidence for people inside the Beltway, both for the majority who vote against Bush and the political / military elites (especially the military officers who saw the plane crash or the plane debris)
- the material on this page and all of the websites that are linked here should finally extinguish the "no plane" hoax -- except for those who have staked their credibility on these claims and cannot admit a mistake, and those who intentionally promote the hoax. Every claim for the "no plane" hoaxes is refuted here or at a page linked from this page

Families of victims and others who work at the airlines, as well as many witnesses I have spoken to, are offended and shocked by these unfounded speculations. Those willing to do a modicum of investigative work here in DC will be quickly disabused of this disinformation.

It took me a while, but it's now easy to see/understand. There *are* 757 plane parts in the photos, and the fire/impact area of the photos *is* the size of a 757. The reason there aren't any large, obvious pieces of 757 in the photos: planes flying that fast into large buildings get pretty shredded. (Nonetheless, there are clearly visible 757 parts in the photos.) - Emanuel Sferios,

My quick analysis on how this is happening right now would be to point out two red herrings: The Pentagon Theory and the accusations of anti-Semitism. Paul Thompson of the 9/11 Timeline was on the Morning Sedition show and host Mark Marin dismissed the entire 9/11 Truth website by saying, "Oh, it’s one of those sites that say no plane hit the Pentagon." We're being judged by our weakest link. And it is pretty weak.
You had rush hour traffic on I-395 that saw the plane hit, you have 100 eyewitnesses compiled in the pamphlet published by Penny Schoner. Where the hell did this theory come from? Thierry Meyssan’s book "The Horrible Fraud" was the original source. Meyssan wrote his book from Paris, he didn't travel over here. The book is highly imaginative, and in the middle of a trauma, people are searching for answers. A lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement glommed onto this one and I think it’s hurt our credibility over all. You have to wonder if that was by design. For instance, all the right-wing magazines (e.g. National Review) have had a field day.

There is no question that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Remaining agnostic on this point also gives ammunition to the perpetrators of the stand-down and serves to discredit the other good work that continues to be done about the reality of what happened that day. It is my feeling that this thesis was actually part of an intentional disinformation campaign that spreads red herrings to discredit the real findings. "These conspiracy theorists will believe anything" say our detractors. Let's discover and present the hard facts and force the coincidence theorists to come up with plausible explanations instead of spewing out speculations we cannot back up and leaving ourselves on the defensive.

The game is an old one, to plant bogus and easily disproved claims in any inquiry into what the government is doing, in order to ridicule those asking questions. In the old days it worked, because the media was under government control and could be counted on to withhold exposure of the fraud until it could most damage those who asked questions. These days, in the age of the internet, such planted hoaxes do not survive because the questions the media should ask but refuse to do so ARE asked and answered.
For example, the claim is that the 9-11 masterminds used a missile on the Pentagon to simulate the impact of the aircraft then spirited away the actual plane and killed the crew and passengers. Why would anyone bother? If the end result is the death of the occupants, why not go ahead and carry the crash out?

I found ALL OF THIS within 3-4 minutes on a simple google search of "truth movement" and pentagon 757.

Merc, you should leave in disgrace now. Goodbye. Good riddance. So long.

You have been lying to us.

(Altered headline)

[edit on 2-2-2006 by SkepticOverlord]

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:36 AM
Wait, I found more!

How the "no plane" claims divided the 9/11 truth movement

Most of the sites promoting untruths about 9/11 under the guise of exposing official complicity are probably well-meaning efforts. The most effective covert operations are when the plotters are able to get outside forces (in this case, some of the 9/11 skeptics) to do their work for them without realizing that they are helping the covert operation.

If you look at who is peddling the "no plane" stuff the hardest, it is generally those who are also pushing the most demented stuff -- pods, missiles at WTC, the Moon Landing was faked, and Holocaust Denial. There is one site praising holocaust denial crap that doesn't buy the no plane crap, but otherwise, all of those pushing the silliest stuff promote no planes.

The Flying Wedge

I find it deeply unfortunate and potentially disastrous that the Pentagon "missile" is becoming something of a wedge issue for 9/11 skeptics.

Funny things did happen at the Pentagon that morning, but in my estimation the missile theory doesn't rise above the folkloric. There is simply too much to counter the fantastic claim for the 9/11 truth movement to be squandering its integrity on such speculation. Here, and from what the general public would call "conspiracy" sites, is a compilation of evidence for Flight 77 striking the Pentagon, here are photos of the plane's wreckage, and here's a refutation of the missile theory by respected Washington-based researcher John Judge.

Something to consider: when an anomalous event occurs, like a jet striking the Pentagon, we ought to make allowance for anomalous evidence. Yes, the hole looks too small, but with what do we have to compare the event? The walls of the structure - particularly the virtually empty side the plane went 270 degrees out of its way to hit, which had been hardened against attack - are much stronger than those of the WTC. So what's it supposed to look like?

Peer Pressure on the web

I am deeply disturbed by the level of hostility and invective towards pro-757 views that seems to have become quite widely accepted in some circles. That in itself has played a major role over time in undermining my previous confidence in the no-757 side. We are in the midst of a global political crisis, where the consequences of missteps are enormous, and something like the no-757-crash has to be absolutely incontestible in order for it to help the cause. That, it isn't -- but egos and agendas seem to be conspiring to prevent acknowledgement of this. My instincts lead me to agree very strongly with Hoffman's warnings about the furor of publicity over this theory ultimately threatening to do more harm than good.

The 9/11 Truth Movement, The Guerrilla News Network

Similarly, the 9/11 Truth Movement bears the seeds of its own destruction. At times, the serious questions seem threatened to be drowned by the theories about “pods” being attached to the bottom of the planes, “napalm” being planted in the World Trade Center explosions, or the real ringer, “Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon at all.”
This reporter attended the movement’s first national conference in San Francisco in late March. Anyone who still believed that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon was instantly labeled an agent of “limited hangout.” In the movement, this term (coined by President Nixon while trying to limit disclosure on Watergate) is always pronounced with a sneer.

We'll just call it the "9/11 Sack of Lies Movement"... okay?

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:42 AM
Well done Grimm! Good research there. We probably should not be so hard on them though as they more than likely believe what they are saying. We need to find out who the real puppet masters are, I suspect that the structure will be much like any other with people in the middle probably being high-profile conspiracy theorists (not all high-profile theorists being disinformationists obviously).
We should look out for anyone peddling any popular wares that is considered high profile, who also entertains any of the obviously bogus ideas like the pods, holographic planes, etc.
The hardcore theorists would know to be dubious of such things and once we find the ones that encourage that sort of thing enthusiastically without even questioning it, then we more than likely will be one step closer to narrowing down the list of serious disinformation spreaders.
Once they are exposed then it will free up the movement to examine the real issues.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So that's normal damage, but a plane flying into a concrete building at high speed would leave huge chunks of engine laying around?

Zaphod what are we talking about, airframe or engine? Pls make your mind up.

You show me a couple of pics of minor AIRFRAME damage from pretty substancial accidents, and then try to claim because of that you wouldn't see chunks of ENGINE lying around?

You do know the difference between the airframe and the engine right?
None of your pics show ANY damage to an engine casing.

I don't understand your logic here. It's like the dude who claimed a car hit only in the windshield could cause a broken axle.

You are not making sense with this, sry if that's harsh but it's true.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 03:57 PM
Really nice stuff Grimm:

You have voted Grimm for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

I think the internet is a God send to the disinformation artists who are trying to cover up what really went on on 911. It's so easy for some middle aged suited guy sat in an office in Washington to pretend he's a 20 year old conspiricy enthusiast operating out of his garage, bringing you the "truth".

It doesn't even take many of these guys if they are clever enough (and they surely are), they just have to set up the right sites, visit the right boards and get the ball rolling. Soon enough there will be enough credulous people starting their own sites etc, and before you know it silly theories about the Pentagon not being struck by a 757 are everywhere. Then nobody is asking the questions that the authorities don't want asked, or if they do it is lost in the background noise of disinformation.

If any investigative journalist or just interested member of the public came to this site and saw this thread ,or especially the one about the non-moving taxi, they would probably throw their hands up in disgust after 5 minutes and leave. They might even give up their quest for information as they feel like they will never be able to wade through the sea of BS to get to the truth.

I think Merc_the_Parp, and his alter egos, is just one of the useful idiots, rather than a disinfo agent himself. At least I hope this is the case, as if some spook can pretend to be like that so effectively then there is probably no hope for us ever to find out what the real story is - these guys are just too good.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 04:41 PM
That's funny Anok. I thought the part that turned WAS the engine. All three of those pics were of the funny thing out on the wing that spins around real fast. If that's not the engine then what is?
And I guess you DIDN'T say how tough then engines are, and that they would have left big chunks on the lawn.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Grimm
There are more indications of a deep-seated dissatisfaction with the "no-757" theory within the so-called "truth movement". All of these websites are often and/or regularly sourced as part of the "truth movement", yet clearly feel the "no-757" theory is at it's least bunk, or more likely, organized misinformation

Know why I hardly ever post on Pentagon-related threads?

If 9/11 was foul play, that foul play would definitely extend to the Pentagon, the most obvious nerve center of our military-industrial complex. But whether a 757 hit it or not -- there are more important, and more easily verifiable issues.

And even if there were not, look at the Pentagon frames as they were released. They were obviously doctored: just look at the lighting from frame to frame for starters. I don't think "they" would've made it so obvious if they didn't want people to bring it up; they were adding their own fuel to the fire!

How many here on the conspiracy side have considered this?

If your persuits are genuine then I respect you and your efforts to expose the truth of 9/11. You guys are my brethren in many ways that the hard skeptics and Roarks cannot be (well, generally, I should say; I could imagine getting along just fine with people like Zaphod and maybe a couple others). I haven't personally came to any conclusions as to what did or did not hit that building, so I won't even go there; I only wish that people would not be so attached to this particular issue. It smells bad to me. If the truth movement gains momentum and this largely-publicized aspect (even propogated by our government itself, mind you!, by the overly-obvious released frames) happens to be shown wrong by the release of the tapes, it will be a huge embarrassment to the movement in general, even when so many members focus on the WTC and not the Pentagon.

This whole issue may be nothing but an ace in the hole. Like I said, the whole thing smells bad to me just from the way it has been presented. Whether distraction or disinfo or what, the efforts could be put to better use. Look to the WTC. The problems with the official story there are much more obviously legit, and at least if they can miraculously pull off a satisfactory explanation on what happened there, we'll have had some of the greatest minds of our nation wrong alongside us through our efforts to find that explanation, and that's the worst that could possibly befall that part of the movement.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 05:37 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the whole coverup (and there is indeed a coverup, but of what) is truly due to national security...

anyone familiar with active armor? (i think that is what it is called)
it is a layer of armor on some tanks that blows up, when hit, so that damge is kept outside an internal shell...

I wonder if they use a similar system on D.C. buildings... they wouldn't tell us if they did...
it would make for a very interesting plane crash scene...
probably make for rather strange "blown out" areas, instead of blown in areas... as well as strange amount of damage to the object hitting it...

also... when the government could easily shut up vocal critics with ONE PICTURE of the plane hitting (from various confiscated security cams) why dont they?
IMO they are saving that little surprise for the first person that really scares them.
even if a plane didn't hit the pentagon, we would have a very clear pic of a very clear plane hitting the pentagon (photoshop is nothing else)

it also distracts from the real issues of 9-11 conspiracy... the theories stand very well without help of flight 77...
and as has been said, it is used as the label and litmus test of media/public attention...
"ohh, that is just one of the no planners sites... they are BS" takes away all the truth that could be spread...

so I ask you... shouldn't we be looking for a more believable angle to promote to unbelievers?

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 07:16 PM
Zaphod, since when is this the engine?

You do realise that's just the AIRFRAME that the engine sits in right?
And the engine access doors are open, making it look worse than it is.

And this one.....

The only damage to the ENGINE you can see is the first set of rotor blades/fan blades.
The AIRFRAME has been obviously damaged, infact it's not even there.
I see NO damage to the engine casing at all.

Again this one only has minor damage to the AIRFRAME, you can't even see the engine except the first set of rotor blades...

I'm beggining to wonder if you know ANYTHING about aircraft.

In fact it's making sense now why you keep missunderstanding my posts.

And it should dawn on you now why I find it hard to understand why no engine parts survived.
Think about it.........

[edit on 1/2/2006 by ANOK]

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in