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: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Not saying I do know everything. I know that I don't know a lot. But to detonate an explosive, you need to have an explosion first. It's the same for a hand grenade, or a nuclear bomb. You can't just set off an explosive, or a thermite reaction, or any other type of bomb. They don't just blow up without something starting the reaction. Explosives aren't magic where you can just push a button and they magically go off, or start burning.


do you ever quit?

you are hijacking this thread and deserve points taken off.

get him mods!

controlled demolition at the towers is NOT what this thread is about and that part of the theory is not even required for it to be an inside job anyway!

it is just what makes the most sense when the scope of the phenomenon that was observed with the 3 buildings in new york on that day is scrutinized.




posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Ok, you wanna get back on topic? Let's see some logical arguments WITH EVIDENCE to debunk what was posted back on page two about the landing gear for the different planes, and all that. NOT your typical "Because I say so" answers. Let's see some FACTS. You do know what those are right?


fact Audio pronunciation of "Fact" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

dictionary.reference.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
do you know anything about high tech covert military explosives?

didn't think so.

none of us do hence the word covert.


Why not? There are a number of professional people here, some of which hold a great deal of responsibility and have years of experience in all kinds of areas.


Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
thermite is a reaction.

it just needs the necessary elements.

i believe the final element is steam.




For someone that believes in all of this so much, you don't even seem to have researched the basics!



re·search ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-sûrch, rsûrch)
n.
1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. See Synonyms at inquiry.
2. Close, careful study.
dictionary.reference.com...


I guess that's why some people drag along up the rear while places like ATS charge ahead.

You do realise that research is key to proving anything and key to keeping any credability one may have?
Or don't you need to waste time on pesky research when you've already made up your mind to what the truth is.
Perhaps you just take your shepherds word for it, ignorant to any possibility they may have ulterior motives, after all these people are our saviours..
Considering you are supposed to be part of a group of people that claim to be enlightened and free, while throwing around claims of dis-info and names such as 'sheep' or 'shill' - you appear to fall well within these descriptions yourself.

You blindly follow whoever writes up what looks like a convincing piece (as long as it isn't written by official scum), much like a sheep.

You shout the good word written by people with motives unknown, without even understanding the very basics. Isn't this dangerous? How do you know it's true? Maybe it doesn't matter because you like the idea and you just want to promote it - sounds similar to shillery to me.

You therefore spread innaccurate or incorrect information - or disinformation perhaps..

Perhaps you shoud spend more time on reading and learning this subject you feel so, so strongly about..

[edit on 27-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
You know I was making a new post for this thread, and doing the research to back up my statements, and have decided to instead just trash it.

Want to know why?
Its pointless, this person has shown in the last page, at the least, that this is all about her having preconceived ideas and a biased agenda. There is no point in even talking with her anymore since even if I took her back in time and stood her under that 757 as it came in she would believe in some other nonsense such as it being a hologram.

if you have placed requirements on what needs to be proven to show this was an inside job, are you really having a fair balanced debate here, or are you simply here to push your biased agenda?

Is this all about administration bashing, and that is why all your compatriot Authors are attacking this subject?

The Bushes have done plenty of other things that are questionable, without us having to make stuff up for you.

When you are ready to have fair debate that involves REAL fact, and REAL science, and wish to learn how a REAL aircraft reacts to a REAL crash, then you let me know. Till then I am outta here. I will save up my research for the Feature Focus and present my information there.

Don’t bother with trying to bait me back, you burned your own strawman…

Have a nice one sided debate.




posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Thanks for the insult. Nice way to play.


What insult? Are you really that sensitive? Oh poor you


It was a stupid question with no relivance to the thread, just another laim distraction that didn't need to come up at all if you had thought about it first.

As far as hundreds of people needing to be in on it, garbage. You obviously have no idea how government works.
Ever hear the term departmentalisation or 'need to know'?

People work their own little part unaware of the big picture.

You guys are making a lot of acusations for a group who is doing their best to turn this thread into another stupid argument over questions you could easily answer for yourselves if you step back and think, instead of just reacting. Again it seems you are all more interested in winning an argument than getting to the truth.

I'm being insulting?
Who was it told a poster to piss off in capital letters, and where was the warn? Give me a break.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
It has been debunked and debunked and debunked that a 757 did IN FACT strike the Pentagon. We know those parts scattered on the Pentagon grass came from the plane. You can clearly see, unless you're blind or just have some really dark sunglasses on, you can see the tail of the plane go by the toll collection box on the video. Even FAA officials confirmed it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon. 9-11 was soemthing that we never saw before and will hopefully won't ever see again.

I have two questions for merc_the_perp, Lyte_Trizzle, and Mister_Narc.

Why hasn't anyone looked into why a stand down order was issued on 9-11?

And

Have you guys actually done any form of research to see if it wasn't a 757?



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Ok, you wanna get back on topic? Let's see some logical arguments WITH EVIDENCE to debunk what was posted back on page two about the landing gear for the different planes, and all that. NOT your typical "Because I say so" answers. Let's see some FACTS. You do know what those are right?



i don't remember posting anything about the landing gear.

i believe it was probably planted.


While we agree that the wheel rim from the Pentagon appears to be the same as that of a Boeing 757, does this mean that it comes from a 757? Do other types of aircraft use double rims such as those pictured above? We need to look at the "wheel rim" evidence firstly in the context of there being a massive government conspiracy on 9/11 and secondly in context of the other massive evidence that points to something else having hit the Pentagon. Taking these facts into consideration and the evidence for a general 9/11 government conspiracy, is it not plausible that the conspirators would have taken the precaution to plant evidence at the scene to cover up the truth of their activities? Could this planting of evidence not include a "damaged" wheel rim from a 757 landing gear? In the final analysis, the only people qualified to make any definitive statement on the "wheel rim" evidence at the Pentagon are those people whose jobs involve designing or maintaining Boeing 757 landing gear and/or those people whose jobs involve the design or maintenance of Global Hawk landing gear.

Keep in mind that there are very few available photos of aircraft debris inside the Pentagon: a wheel rim and a landing gear strut, and an engine combustion chamber. The wheel rim was in the non-renovated Wedge 2 by the AE drive hole. And despite the assertions of the author of the ATS post, without expert analysis, no one can say that the few recognizable airplane parts are unequivocally from a 757.


[edit on 27-1-2006 by Lyte Trizzle]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
You know I was making a new post for this thread, and doing the research to back up my statements, and have decided to instead just trash it.



good.

buh bye.

if you recall this post is of an article that is a DIRECT debunk of catherder's deceptive post.

what you should be doing is copying one point by the author, joe quinn, at a time and debunking it!

there is really no need to address me directly at all.

but good riddance.

(i am not female)



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Well let's see, looking at the ENTIRE 9/11 event....

You have 30 hours to wire two buildings with explosives, three if you count WTC 7. (Remember, there is a claim that the WTC was powered down for 30 hours) That's going to require several hundred people per building to place explosives and wire them up. And all of those people are gonna know what they were placing them for.


you are spouting nonsense. those buildings could have been wired by the same crew of 5 "internet connection uprgading contractors" over weeks or months or years for that matter. you have no clue.



Have you ever done any construction work?

Have you ever done any construction work in a large highrise?

Have you ever done any construction work in a building occupied by multiple tenants?

Have you ever done any construction work in a building space occupied by financial sector companies?

Have you ever been a member of a trade union?

Have you ever had to work with members of a trade union?

Have you ever been a member of a trade union in New York City?

Have you ever been a maintenance engineer in a large building?

Have you ever even been in a large high rise building?

I think that it is you who has no clue about what you are talking about.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Back on the topic,

another good picture of the debris:

(thanks, AS)





[edit on 27-1-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
not a good picture.

try again.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
buh bye.


I have a semi-related question.

Why does there seem to be a lack of general cordiality amongst the counter-757 people?

I've watched these threads and topics since first appearing here on ATS, and generally I observe a more belligerent attitude existing among those who are "against" the 757.

Why is that?



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Here is the picture Howard was trying to post:




posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Here is the picture Howard was trying to post:


and why is this relevant?

are you trying to claim this is definitively a piece from a 757?

you better source the part number and diagram and prove that it can't go with any other aircraft.

did any of you guys even READ the rebuttal to catherder?

that is what this thread is about you know.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
buh bye.


I have a semi-related question.

Why does there seem to be a lack of general cordiality amongst the counter-757 people?

I've watched these threads and topics since first appearing here on ATS, and generally I observe a more belligerent attitude existing among those who are "against" the 757.

Why is that?


first off the pseudoskeptics are quite good at bringing out the worst in us and have their fair share of non-cordial behavior as well.

but to be honest with you (as i have been since i joined this forum last week).........and i can only speak for myself here...............

the deceptive catherder post on the pentagon issue is a source of contempt.

it has been very damaging to the 9/11 truth movement and is cited quite often in debates in other forums.

the deceptions HAD to be exposed and with the gracious blessing of skepticoverlord.................

joe quinns article and this thread have succeeded in doing so.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
did any of you guys even READ the rebuttal to catherder?

Yes.

If you'd like, to make it more simple, you could respond to each of this points in a separate post.

Item One
The article by Joe Quinn, and the follow-up drama inspired my emergence from a long silence with this post -->
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Item Two
And I referenced Joe Quinn's piece in this response within the taxi thread -->
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Then, since you seem to be presenting yourself as an advocate of Joe Quinn, if you don't mind, I have some specific questions about his article. It would be better if Joe were here to respond, but I assume you won't mind doing so in his stead.


Item Three
In his intro, he writes -->

The purpose of this small introduction is to prepare the reader for the fact that, in his attempted rebuttal of the no 757 at the Pentagon theory, the ATS article author, CatHerder, appears to have succumbed to the influence of the mainstream media shills that have incessantly parroted the official government story about what happened on 9/11 for the three years prior to the writing of the article.

Why must he assume such an unprofessional tone when attempting to deliver an analysis of a popular contra-conspiracy article? Is he/you not aware that credibility is first gauged by apparent professionalism? Could you please help me understand why this tone is adopted? Thanks.


Item Four
Further in his "blue text" additions to the CatHerder article -->

The above nonsensical argument would have you believe that the only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that just magically lost everything else, or that everything else just "folded up" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ft cylinder

Can you show us where there was a claim that everything "folded up and flew inside the building?" In these discussions here, I've seen lots of photographs and analysis of debris on the lawn that is indicative of pieces from a possible passenger airline.


Item Five
Again, in his "blue text" additions, he provides this commentary -->

Conclusion? The tail fin of a Boeing 757 did not strike this area.
What does that suggest? That a Boeing 757 was not involved in the attack.
Is that logical enough?

Can you explain in what way this conclusion was arrived? It's certainly logical to assume that, the tail section being at the rear, inertia and kinetic energy of impact was much different than at the nose. If we suppose that a passenger airline struck the building, the tail section would have impacted with much less energy than the nose that supposedly created the initial hole. So a smaller-"softer"-lighter tail section would certainly create less damage than the nose.


Item Six
Also in the blue text, a subject touched upon in this thread -->

What is more, evidence from photos of the site show cable spools that were clearly untouched by any incoming aircraft, suggesting that the aircraft would have to have been flying above the maximum height of the spools (some 6 feet) when it hit the Pentagon.

He seems very sure of himself in saying, the spools were "clearly untouched". Could you please post the "before" pictures he used in his research that allowed him to come to such an assured statement?


There is much more, but I think this will give us an excellent starting point in getting back to Joe Quinn's article. Thanks in advance for helping to analyze these points.

G.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
For those of you who are interested in additional data regarding the Pentagon attack and the fire department response, here is an interesting report

The Arlington County Fire Department, After Action Report

A number of fire department personnel actually observed the crash and self dispatched to the scene.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Here is the picture Howard was trying to post:


and why is this relevant?

are you trying to claim this is definitively a piece from a 757?

you better source the part number and diagram and prove that it can't go with any other aircraft.

did any of you guys even READ the rebuttal to catherder?

that is what this thread is about you know.



So are you conceeding that it is not a missile?



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

So are you conceeding that it is not a missile?


i am not claiming to know for sure what it was.

but i postulate that it was probably a military drone perhaps packed with explosives but that probably shot an air to ground missle at point of impact just like at the towers.

i think the general consensus by the truth movement is that there was an aircraft of some sort used.

but it was not a 757.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
did any of you guys even READ the rebuttal to catherder?

Yes.

If you'd like, to make it more simple, you could respond to each of this points in a separate post.

Item One
The article by Joe Quinn, and the follow-up drama inspired my emergence from a long silence with this post -->
www.abovetopsecret.com...



this just sounds like the whoever wrote this is playing the role of black kettle.



new topics




 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join