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: 17
2
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
(Seems like we both replied at the same time.)


Originally posted by Jack Tripper
YOU are the one trying to create a "divide" by making it look like ANYBODY in the truth movement are the bad guys here. Why would you do that?


Not at all. I admire and respect the real researchers and scholars in the 9/11 Truth Movement (who all reject the no-757 theory, especially those who live in or near DC). I dislike the liars who represent the no-757 theory as being born of the Truth Movement. It's not. It's deceptive. It's lunacy. It needs to die in order to get into the real issues with 9/11.

You and your "9/11 Lies Movement" are the problem... and many are beginning to see this.




posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Did you read the article in the original post in this thread?

Did you read this material from the 9/11 Truth Movement?
The No-757 Theory Is Actually Coordinated Disinformation!



Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Catherder's so called "forensic" analysis has been ripped to shreds and shown to be completely deceptive and false.

It was ripped to shreds by outed disinformationists with an agenda to spread completely deceptive and false information about conspiracy theory research.



Originally posted by Jack Tripper
If you are fine just accepting what you are told despite all the glaring anomolies, contradictions, and questions while people are consistently dying EVERY DAY as a result......then you have nothing more to contribute to this debate and should just go turn your boob tube back on.

It is now clear, that your own "9/11 Truth Movement" classifies your "glaring anomolies", "contradictions", and "questions" as a coordinated disinformation campaign to discredit and confuse conspiracy theorists. If you are fine with being a part of this deceptive and disruptive effort to obfuscate the truth, then you have no possible way to contribute to any debate that values the truth and you should go back to your handlers and report that "there are no boobs at ATS."


Stop being a joker.

You are taking comments of some people and attibuting them to a non-existent organization.

The truth movement is exactly that.....a MOVEMENT......not an coordinated organization.

ANYONE who doubts the official story AT ALL is part of the truth movement whether they like it or not.

So to deny you are part of the movement is to claim you believe EVERYTHING you are told about 9/11.

So you see it makes no difference if people disagree or if others within the movement think that the pentagon issue is coordinated disinformation.

That does not make it so.

It could be that the people claiming this (like you) are the coordinated disinformation in order to create a divide within the movement.

Am I obliged to believe or trust everyone within the movement just because I am part of the movement?

Of course not!

You have proven nothing but your ignorance on this issue.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
You are taking comments of some people and attibuting them to a non-existent organization.


You didn't even read any of the papers and articles linked.

Why? Because you know them to be correct. Your game has been discovered, described, and rejected. Go send your no-757 spam again. It worked once, maybe it'll work again.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm
(Seems like we both replied at the same time.)


Originally posted by Jack Tripper
YOU are the one trying to create a "divide" by making it look like ANYBODY in the truth movement are the bad guys here. Why would you do that?


Not at all. I admire and respect the real researchers and scholars in the 9/11 Truth Movement (who all reject the no-757 theory, especially those who live in or near DC). I dislike the liars who represent the no-757 theory as being born of the Truth Movement. It's not. It's deceptive. It's lunacy. It needs to die in order to get into the real issues with 9/11.

You and your "9/11 Lies Movement" are the problem... and many are beginning to see this.


This is your opinion and you have ZERO basis to call people who don't believe there was a 757 liars.

You are clearly trying to fuel the divide.

I have no special connection with the no 757 theory. I simply believe it. That does not make me a liar.

If I am proven incorrect then so be it.

But that still in no way means that 9/11 was not an inside job.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
You are taking comments of some people and attibuting them to a non-existent organization.


You didn't even read any of the papers and articles linked.

Why? Because you know them to be correct. Your game has been discovered, described, and rejected. Go send your no-757 spam again. It worked once, maybe it'll work again.


Sure I have.

I just don't agree. Just like I don't agree with the hologram or alien theories.

How do you know the articles you cite aren't disinformation?

Michael Ruppert is one of the most famous 9/11 truth movement researchers there is and his book "Crossing the Rubicon" has tons of great info.

But I believe his is a shill and think that he is controlled opposition/coordinated disinformation particularly because of his take on peak oil.

It's my opinion.

I am allowed to disagree with others within the movement.

We are not bound by some imaginary rules.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   



Ever wondered where the wreckage went at the Pentagon? How could a big plane like that just disapear? It didn't, here are some pictures.

www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm



The wreckage on that page cannot be conclusively proven to be from the Pentagon.

Notice how you can only find this report on Rense.com.

Notice how the photos and the report were only released on Rense.com, a conspiracy/UFO site.

By a "Sarah Roberts".

She came out of nowhere with these and made very erroneous claims about what they were and where they came from. No one had seen these photo's and no one been identified as the photographer.

Matter of fact, I dare you to find those photo's on a FEMA site. Or a military sites. I never have.

The photo has no date, time, or exact location...AND *NO* PHOTOGRAPHER CREDIT...anywhere.. Apparently the photographer wants to remain anonymous for some reason according to Russell Pickering.

So there is no proof they are legitimate. And besides. There are so many ways to explain them being there, even if they were taken *in* the Pentagon.


What does my good friend Joe Hryczyk, Licensed Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic, have to say about "Sarah Roberts" report:


Regarding Sarah Roberts "report"...I call it a bunch of whoo-wee. For you see, I wanna know where the chunks of >>TWO>NOT USED



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

*snip - a whole bunch of speculation and fantasy*



I don't buy that the van planted wreckage.
I don't buy that every clock in the pentagon had to be on exact time.
I don't buy the photos from every angle with lines all over them as being mathmatically or scientifically accurate in any way.
I don't buy the testamony of the supposed experts who then go on a rant about how they WANT the government to be guilty of supposed "crimes."

Seems the easier answer is that the smoke screen disinfo people WANT you to believe their fantasy lies (which still have no factual basis) the same way the KKK wants everyone to believe all african-americans are criminals.

It's nothing but a forcefed agenda which is no different than the one you "claim" to be fighting against. Pure and simple.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Hey everybody!

Zed doesn't buy it!



Boy that sure convinced me.

Of course this is coming from somebody that likens the 9/11 truth movement to holacaust deniers!





posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Well if you were planning something like this, would you not choose the cheapest, easiest and most convincing way?
Is so, then you would you not agree that the best way would be to.. just do it?
If not, well you'd never be in the position to make the decision, for a start.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

I don't buy that the van planted wreckage.
I don't buy that every clock in the pentagon had to be on exact time.
I don't buy the photos from every angle with lines all over them as being mathmatically or scientifically accurate in any way.
I don't buy the testamony of the supposed experts who then go on a rant about how they WANT the government to be guilty of supposed "crimes."

Seems the easier answer is that the smoke screen disinfo people WANT you to believe their fantasy lies (which still have no factual basis) the same way the KKK wants everyone to believe all african-americans are criminals.

It's nothing but a forcefed agenda which is no different than the one you "claim" to be fighting against. Pure and simple.



You gonna hold your breath too, while you're kicking and screaming?


I don't buy that the van planted wreckage.

Then don't. No one asked you to. Nor does anyone care.

I don't buy that every clock in the pentagon had to be on exact time.

Then don't. I still gave plenty of other irregularites with the timing of the attack.

I don't buy the photos from every angle with lines all over them as being mathmatically or scientifically accurate in any way.

HAHAHA...ok big guy, whatever you say.


I don't buy the testamony of the supposed experts who then go on a rant about how they WANT the government to be guilty of supposed "crimes."

Then don't. He ranted because he knows what he is looking at. And the "so-called experts" would be you guys. He is an expert witness. You guys are just a bunch of anonymous naysayers, using emotion and opinion as the basis for your conclusion.

Pure and Simple.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
You guys are just a bunch of anonymous naysayers, using emotion and opinion as the basis for your conclusion.

Pure and Simple.



Pot, meet kettle...

ps) I was posting opinion regarding the post and the topic. Myself...I'm tired of your innuendo attack style. Yesterday's news.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   


That looks awful rusty to be an aircraft engine. It looks to me like some mechanical equipment from inside the building.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

That looks awful rusty to be an aircraft engine. It looks to me like some mechanical equipment from inside the building.


Wouldn't that mean there was even less evidence of an aircraft?



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Howward that is a jet engine, there is no doubt there....

Engine casings can look rust coloured, you can see the engine casing in the middle where the tarp exposes it. You can see where the compression chamber is attached to the combustion chamber quite clearly....

What type or where it came from well.....

But to me it looks big for a turbo fan? Turbo fans are generaly smaller than regular jets. Because of the extra thrust created by the turbo fan they can be smaller and lighter.

[edit on 9/2/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That looks awful rusty to be an aircraft engine. It looks to me like some mechanical equipment from inside the building.


Joe, the A & P Mechanic, says it looks like an engine.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The next member posting a personal attack in this thread will receive a posting ban, if not more.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
And again, Flight 77 didn't take-off on 9/11:



Let me start right off with this one, since it’s glaringly obvious with this post that Mister_Narc is skewing information again. I was wondering why he showed this graphic so much smaller then the ones above it, the answer was pretty simple, because the bold caption headers and the 00:00’s on it show up even at the smaller resolution, he even is nice enough to add a red line to draw our attention to the grid….

This is so you miss the nice line above it, in now almost too small to read letters, which says, “ On September 11, 2001, American Airlines flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, on-time statistics are not available for these flights.



Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Guess who the owner is?

"Wilmington Trust Company Trustee"

Yes, it's the same owner as AA77. Again, it's an airbus A320, not a 757.


So what? It's a bank! Don’t you think that with airlines and aircraft it’s the same thing as when you have a car loan? Even though the car is in your possession, it’s the banks property until the loan is paid off. Same thing here, there are only so many banks that give out loans for things that cost in the fifty to hundred million dollar range, and this happens to be one of them…
No big shocker here, folks, common sense…

Here is the bank
www.wilmingtontrust.com...



Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Flight 77's tail number is N644AA

At the precise time Flight 77 is supposedly crashing into the Pentagon at 9:38 am, an America West Airbus, tail number N644AW* is landing at Reagan National Airport at 9:39 am. What a coinkidink.

Some screenshots from the BTS database:

Departure time from CHM (Port Columbus International) is 8:28:

Arrival time at DCA (Reagan airport) is 9:39 am:
The scheduled elapsed time is 65 minutes:

There are two planes listed (departing from CHM on 9/11) with the same tail number (N644AW). The second one (the same plane of course) has a scheduled departure time of 13:59.


So what is the point of all this, this shows nothing but the route of an American West aircraft that has nothing to do with the events other then being in the air that morning with 10 thousand other aircraft. The reason that it shows up as back at CMH is because it’s obviously routed to fly from CMH to DCA then back to CMH followed by going to PHX at 13:59. There is nothing unusual about this, many aircraft come and go from the same airport throughout the day, and many return back to the airport they flew out of in the morning to terminate for the evening. This is SOP for airlines.

If you’re saying that the plane was used to be a diversion, then that is just silly. Don’t you think that the people whose attention it was supposed to draw would notice if it made a near miss instead of hitting the building? Don’t you think that the passengers would have noticed almost descending into a building followed by pulling up to avoid it at the last second? Don’t you think they would have seen the explosion out the windows? Besides the fact that even if a 757 and an A320 are similar in size, though an A320 is stubbier and its body thicker, the colors are different. AA planes are silver, red and blue; AW are white, burgundy, and aqua…


Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Evacuation of Reagan Airport at *9:30 am*


It seems that people were thrown out of Reagan Airport a few minutes before the Pentagon crash, at about 9:30, but it doesn't look like a controlled evacuation. Take a look at these statements from people on Reagan airport:


Again, So what?
They knew the plane was heading to DC, they new that they were being used to ram buildings by this point. If I remember the day correctly, they were evacuating lots of buildings with large numbers of people in them that morning, including the Sears Tower. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Pentagon strike, it has to do with common sense. An airport makes a very attractive target mainly do to the fuel it stores and the amount of people in proximity to it. They knew at least one if not two planes were headed in that direction, again, it’s an airport, and they have access to ATC and radar. They knew its position and direction when it dropped from sight, thus they new they were in the possible target swath. So I am sure that the ADO decided to evac his building to ensure everyone’s safety, seems like a no brainer to me…


As to your witnesses they cannot even decide what they saw, so obviously their ability to identify what it was is well within the realm of being questionable. You list Steve Patterson and a few others, what is their aviation background, angle, and distance from the event?

PS.. I am still waiting to hear what an engine does when it sustains a catastrophic failure, you just seem to avoid this question and never answer it, why?



[edit on 2/10/2006 by defcon5]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
If a 757 didn't crash at the pentagon, then why did the FBI confiscate video tapes from surveillance cameras located outsied the Pentagon? I would most certainly think that it was due to an aircraft hitting the Pentagon.

Let's see, four seperate locations around the Pentagon.

Location #1.
V.D.O.T. camera on Route 27 Northbound facing the Pentagon from the South.
Location #2
V.D.O.T. camera on Route 27 Southbound facing the Pentagon from the North.
Location #3
Surveillance camera at the Marriott that is directly across Route 27 from the Pentagon.
Location #4
Surveillance camera at the Citgo Station across from the Marriott that is directly across Route 27 from the Pentagon.

Just one question of mine.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Ah yes, the Rense JT8D. Rense.com would have you believe that the engine in the picture is the Pratt and Whitney JT8D, and that the A-3 Skywarrior used the same engine.

Let's look at a few facts here. First the A-3. The A03 used the JT3D/J57 engine. It was smaller than even the JT8D.


The J57 was the world's first jet engine to develop 10,000 lbs thrust. It evolved from the T45 turboprop engine designed for the XB-52 program. The J57 featured a dual-rotor axial-flow compressor which allowed low fuel consumption over a wide operating range and improved the sluggish acceleration previously characteristic of jet engines.

The civil version, the JT3 made possible the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8.

Production began in 1953 and lasted to 1970 (per U.S. Air Force Museum. Pratt & Whitney gives the production dates as 1951 - 1965). Over 21,000 were produced.

www.shanaberger.com...

Note the prduction dates. It was used by the USAF, almost exclusively, with the exception of the Boeing 707, and DC-8.


A turbofan version of the J57 developing up to 21,000 pounds of thrust.

First flight: 1958
Production years: 1959-1985
Engines produced: about 8,600
Plane Popular Name Maker
707-120B, 320B & C, 323C Boeing
720B Boeing
DC-8-50, -60 McDonnell Douglas
DC-8F Jet Trader McDonnell Douglas
B-52H Stratofortress Boeing
RB-57F Angel Convair
C-135B Stratolifter Boeing
KC-135B Stratotanker Boeing
C-141A Starlifter Lockheed
VC-137B,C Presidential Plane Boeing

www.pratt-whitney.com...

JT8D-


JT8D -7 -17AR -219
Application 727 727, 737, DC-9 MD-80, Super 27
Takeoff thrust 14,000 lb 16,000 lb 21,000 lb
Bypass Ratio 1.07 .96 1.74
Overall pressure ratio 15.4 18.5 19.4
Fan pressure ratio 1.93 2.16 1.91
Fan dia 40.5 in 40.5 54.06
Length 123.5 in 123.5 168.6 in

roger.ecn.purdue.edu...

Notice the length of the engine. The longest JT8D variant is 14 feet long.and 4 1/2 around at the fan. Now how is a 14 foot long engine suddenly at LEAST half again as long as an SUV, and as tall as one?

Here are pics of the real JT3D and JT8D.


727 JT8D
737 JT8D
MD80 JT8D
A-3 JT3D

That engine in the picture is bigger than most UAVs that are flying around now, and so heavy that most planes would have trouble getting airborne with that thing mounted.

By comparison, the 777 which has the most powerful engine on the market at 100,000 pounds of rated thrust, is tiny compared to that engine. It comes in at around 24 feet long with fan, and 11 1/4 feet around. After the fan the diameter drops way off though. Even THAT isn't comparable to the SUV in the picture.


[edit on 2/10/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
If a 757 didn't crash at the pentagon, then why did the FBI confiscate video tapes from surveillance cameras located outsied the Pentagon? I would most certainly think that it was due to an aircraft hitting the Pentagon.


Well people like to argue that it's because there was no plane and they don't want the evidence to get out, but obviously as with any criminal investigation the evidence is acquired as quickly as possible before it can be lost, destroyed or tampered with.
They tend to seize CCTV tapes during any incident when they may be of use, like when someone goes missing for instance - so unless it means that they are behind all kidnappings as well......




top topics



 
2
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join