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: 18
2
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
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.






Yeah, that's it. Look again. That was damage control. Flight's 93 and 175 had wheel's off time. Flight 11 and 77 didn't. That caption you are referring to was put there and changed after the fact.

thewebfairy.com...



So what? It's a bank!




Yeah, same bank owners. Same Tail number minus one letter due to airline name. Flying over the Pentagon at the exact time this "craft" hit the building? And you say so what?



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.



Ok again, you have to be familiar with the flight path of Reagan. Which I explained. This plane just blended in with all the rest.



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?



Didn't you read Eastman's info? Don't you know the locations? And what people could have seen? This has been all addressed. And again only offers more realistic possibilites to explain what some people saw. While other people were told to say they saw something else. Apparently with some people not being able to keep their mouth shut. A jet traveling 500-700 fps and military grade explosion flash like a flashbulb. The whole thing happens so quick while blinding plenty.



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…



That's still in the development stages of investigation. And with paint or other hightech gadgetry. Anything is possible. Have a look at N644AW, under test registration F-WWBD in Jan 2003, plus keep in mind the FAA reg show certification at 2/10/03, but obviously it was flying under N644AW on 9/11/01...Body job...

i40.photobucket.com...



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…



Are you reading what I just read everyone? So if it is such a no brainer, THEN WHY DIDN'T THEY TRY TO EVACUATE THE PENTAGON??? Hello?!?!?!?!?! They evacuated *after* the terrorist attack.


WASHINGTON, Sept. 11, 2001 -- Personnel who left the Pentagon after a terrorist attack said the evacuation of the building this morning was remarkably calm.
www.defenselink.mil...



What's even worse, "Flight 77" supposedly passed right over the White House on it's way to the Pentagon at 9:38 and what do we see happen?


9:45 a.m.: The White House evacuates.
archives.cnn.com...


But apparently, according to you, Reagan airport stores fuel, so they are much more important.



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?


They "cannot decide"? Come again? Who says? Because YOU said so? Sounds pretty clear in their statements. I can produce other ones that contradict an AA 757 hitting the Pentagon if you'd like.



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?




I don't even know what you're even going on about. I probably didn't find it important, nor was I going to entertain you. You haven't been able to keep my interest with real debate or challenge. But if you'd like I can ask your question to Joe, who also has been called upon to examine crash sites. After all, he IS the expert.




posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Why were the videos confiscated ? And how did the FBI know ALL the private video camera locations within 5 minutes ? Sounds pre-planned. What are they hiding ?

It is quite obvious from the penetration of 3 rings that a missile of some sort was used (as seen in the released 5 frames) ... whether it was in conjunction with a 757 or A3 or Globalhawk is irrelevant since it is quite sane to say a 757 didn't penetrate 3 rings and surely a human pilot didn't manouever a 757 in a descending 360 degree dive at over 400 mph and hit the Pentagon at less than 20 feet above ground.

Any airline pilot anywhere in the world will acknowledge that impossibility .. let alone from a *snip* who could fly a cessna.

The fact is 911 didn't occur according to the official version . and the government is hiding the truth... whatever that may be. And there are several SHILLS on this board who will never stop at debunking anything other than the 'offical' conspiracy theory.

These SHILLS are traitors to the U.S.A. and deserve nothing less than execution... as does Bush & his cronies.

Mod Edit: I removed the racial slur and your posting ability. Having multiple names to detract the discussion is against the Terms & Conditions.

Have a nice day.



[edit on 10-2-2006 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.



Yeah, that was Jon Carlson and Karl Schwarz.

And regardless of your completely irrelevant and invalid analysis.

It isn't an RB211.

I will have some info from Joe on this one.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Yeah, that's it. Look again. That was damage control. Flight's 93 and 175 had wheel's off time. Flight 11 and 77 didn't. That caption you are referring to was put there and changed after the fact.


Oh right, so they did that but didn't have the power to change the statistics then?


Welcome back Zamboni, as for them knowing where the tapes were located - well yes I imagine it was pre-planned. They would ensure they are aware of all cameras with a view of the Pentagon, that would be standard procedure, or do you think that it's unusual?



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Yeah, that was Jon Carlson and Karl Schwarz.

And regardless of your completely irrelevant and invalid analysis.

It isn't an RB211.

I will have some info from Joe on this one.


Whatever. I'd still like to see the plane that uses an engine bigger than an SUV.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Whatever. I'd still like to see the plane that uses an engine bigger than an SUV.





Oh I get it.

You think it's bigger than a SUV.

Take another, closer, look.

It's resting on top of debris. Raising it's height.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I'm well aware of that. And I'm also capable of telling what's engine, and what's debris. But if you compare what's supposed to be the engine casing, to that SUV the engine is STILL pretty massive compared to that car.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   
I'm a little confused what the argument is with the engine??

It was supposedly found at the pentagoon, right?

Supposed to be from the 757 that supposedly hit the pentagoon?

Am I right so far? If not someone pls correct me...



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   
According to Rense.com it's supposed to be from the Pentagon, and it's a JT8D, which was used in the A-3, so it proves that it had to be a Skywarrior that hit the Pentagon and not a 757.

Edit to add: However the A-3 used the JT3D/J57, and that looks way too big to be a tiny little JT8D.

[edit on 2/10/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Edit to add: However the A-3 used the JT3D/J57, and that looks way too big to be a tiny little JT8D.

[edit on 2/10/2006 by Zaphod58]


Thanx Zaphod. Well we agree then that it's too big for a 757 powerplant.

P&W JT8D

Engine Characteristics

Fan tip diameter: 39.9 - 49.2 in
Length, flange to flange: 120.0 - 154.1 in / 10 ft - 12.84 ft.
Takeoff thrust: 14,000 - 21,700 lb
Flat rated temperature: 77 - 84° F
Bypass ratio: 0.96 - 1.74
Overall pressure ratio: 15.4 - 21.0
Fan pressure ratio: 1.92 - 2.21


www.pw.utc.com...

Not so tiny is it?

How big is that SUV, or is it a mini van? Looks like it could fit to me.

A3 Skywarrior


Name: SkyWarrior
Designation: A3
Manufacturer: Douglas Aircraft Aircraft Co
Type: Carrier-based attack bomber
Crew: Pilot, Bombardier, 3rd crewman
Power Plant: Two Pratt & Whitney J57-P-6 turbojets
Dimensions: Span 72' 6
Weight: 70,000 lbs gross
Speed: 630 mph
Range: 1050 st mile


www.nebna.org...

The J57/JT3 is hardly a little engine either, infact I believe it's bigger than the JT8...I couldn't find the specs for size but here is a pic...

www.wpafb.af.mil...

[edit on 10/2/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   
There are pics of both of them back a page or so. Just because the gov't likes the Explorer, I used that as reference. The Ford Explorer comes in at 16 feet long. The JT8D is 14 feet or so, I can't find the specs of the JT3D/J57 to get the length right off hand though. It's similar in size. The TF33 version of the JT8D is a bit longer, because it added a bigger fan section on the front end.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:08 AM
link   
OK I was away for a couple of days guess I missed that...

Hmmm still thinking about this one though, that vehicle is at a wierd angle, hard to tell what it is, or its size relative to the powerplant realy...
And it's hard to tell how long that powerplant is, we only see the middle.
Could there be something else on the right side, coverd by the tarp, that's not part of the engine? In fact it looks like there is.

But this pic could be from anywhere though right? Is there proof it came from the pentagoon?

Oh well, that's prob been answered if I go back a page or two??



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   
There's nothing conclusive to say that it IS from the Pentagon, that's the only pic I've ever seen of it.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:53 AM
link   
OK thanx, first time I've seen it also....

Maybe there's a wide angle shot somewhere, should be able to see the SUV/Van at least?



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Also, the Jeep Cherokee has no/flat tires and is being pushed down to the ground by debris.


More oddities here:

car.batcave.net...



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
From this angle, it looks less like an engine. Look at the way it's twisted and deformed, like it's just a thin piece of metal that was damaged.





posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
You can't tell anything from that pic, and there is a sheet of metal bent over the engine.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Yeah I can't even see the powerplant in that pic, it's behind the vehicle.
Good find on the pic though.

Hmmmm Narc, thanx for the link. So we have more moving vehicles? This just gets stranger.

[edit on 10/2/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Howiethejew
It is quite obvious from the penetration of 3 rings that a missile of some sort was used (as seen in the released 5 frames) ...





Don't assume too much, you don't know wether the alledged 'exit hole' was caused by projectile OR by mop-up team AFTER the attack, do you?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
There is evidence of "chiseling" so they were most likely created AFTER the attack.

Problem is that official's stories conflict on this.

Why all the secrecy?

Here is another good pentagon breakdown....

www.gallerize.com...




top topics



 
2
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join