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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
thermite is a reaction.
it just needs the necessary elements.
i believe the final element is steam.
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...
Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Thanks for the insult. Nice way to play.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
buh bye.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Here is the picture Howard was trying to post:
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?
Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
did any of you guys even READ the rebuttal to catherder?
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
So are you conceeding that it is not a missile?
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...