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: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Pot, meet kettle, kettle, meet pot.

What's the matter? You can't answer his questions? It seems everytime we answer you with evidence to back it up you either ignore it, or just call us names, or yell at us to read the Quinn article. While I will admit that the article is well written, it loses a LOT of creditbility by its responses to the points Catherder brought up. Especially when it starts calling people shills, and ranting about how illogical things are, and its analysis of how different parts of the plane react to crash impacts.

[edit on 1/27/2006 by Zaphod58]




posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Although it has a couple flaws, they're much less glaring and deceptive than anything the "truth movement" pushes. Why Catherder's post is so damaging is because it is a good argument. He was kind of an abrasive guy, but it didn't show in that piece. There was no condescension, no "enlightned" smugness, no rolling eyes anywhere to be seen. The "truth movement" can't do anything without being prickish about it.

Honestly, the "evidence" you guys have been putting forth for the last few days has a lack of science, a lot of speculation, and not that much credence. And you're being jerks about it.

I know you guys came here thinking you had all the answers and you were going to blow the minds of ATSer's, but you haven't. By explaining away the wreckage by saying: "someone put it there and took a picture", makes your credibility drop off the map. At least the guy that said it was part of the building tried.

If anything hurts the "truth movement" its people that push all conspiracies regardless of logic and then do it in a condescending manner. You hurt yourselves more than Catherder ever will.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
A drone hit the Pentagon.

Use all the evidence CatHerder have put together. Change every thing that says "Boing 757" with "Drone" and you have total clear evidence that it was a drone that hit Pentagon and NOT a Boing 757.

At the same time by doing that there are not really any unanswered question left. Is there..??

People over there in America....now you really have to wake up and get real. If you don't get that governement stopped very very soon it will kill much more of your own people. Next time Bush and his minions will not just kill 3000 people.....it will be much more massive.

So I urge you all.......get Bush and his minions stopped or we will face a huge crisis in the world very soon. please.....



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

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




i don't see how this is relevant to this thread.

but my answer to your question is that the moved taxi cab is more relevant to the entire 9/11 inside job picture rather than just the pentagon.

it's relevance is that if it is shown to be a staged event then it is EXTREMELY indicting evidence in the inside job assertions in general.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm



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.



i don't know joe quinn i just appreciate his piece.

although i will say that joe likely shares the disdain that i have for catherder and his deceptive piece and took the literary liberty of allowing for that to show through.

i personally ENJOY emotion in writing styles and don't think it hinders credibility in the least. it is a reflection of honesty imo.

this seems to be a major issue for some people around here and to me it seems to be method to avoid what is being discussed in favor of discrediting a person because of how it is being discussed.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
i agree. a frozen fish must have hit the pentagon.

wing tip vortices on frozen fish are know for their ability to knock very precise damage into anything they pass over. very much like a tornado.

knock the antenna off a jeep? no problem.
knock over a bunch of lightpoles? no problem.
don't knock over the infamous spools? no problem.
do spin the massive generator? no problem.

'prove it'? alright. give us the bloody video tapes, and this conversation will be less a discussion of frozen food and tornadoes, and more of a discussion about the STRANGE dynamics of the MYSTERIOUS impact..



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm


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.



yeah but no recognizable pieces.

no wings no tail section. nothing.

looks like you didn't keep reading.


While it is reasonable to state that the tail of a 757 may not necessarily have punched a hole through the facade of the Pentagon, can we expect to at least see some evidence of the tail having hit the facade? More than that, we must consider the forward momentum of those two, inescapable, 6 TON steel engines that were neither dropped on the lawn, nor were they smashed like pancakes against the side of the "13 ft cylinder." If I struck the facade of the Pentagon with a sledge hammer, is it reasonable that I would be able to cause some observable damage? The outer 6 inches of the facade of the Pentagon is made of soft limestone, yet our author sees no problem with claiming that such a soft surface, when struck by a piece of aircraft weighing SIX TONS and traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, would in no way leave any significant and observable damage.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

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.




ok.

but it created ZERO visible damage.

that isn't questionable to you?


While the "cylinder body" that our author keeps referring to is indeed 13ft 6in high, he omits the fact that the engines extend 5 feet below the body and over six feet to either side, meaning that, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1 inch above the ground (highly unlikely), the height of the "cylinder body" above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let us repeat that: if a Boeing 757 were actually able to fly at just 1 inch above the ground, the height of the "13 ft cylinder body" would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the fact that the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND a tail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder body making for a total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet with wheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon would have extended up to this height IF it was a 757 that hit the building.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

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?


we already went over the spools in this thread but it is quite apparent that even if the impact of whatever craft that did hit the pentagon moved the spools around a bit........

to suggest that they had no visible damage to them after being right in the flight path of a 3 or 6 ton engine traveling 400 mph is ludicrous.

ESPECIALLY if we are to believe that the entire 90 ton craft was reduced to confetti!



are we supposed to assume that if they were in a different place before the impact that they simply landed in this position virtually unscathed after the impact?

right.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

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.


you're welcome.

what else ya got?



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
are we supposed to assume that if they were in a different place before the impact that they simply landed in this position virtually unscathed after the impact?

Yes I know it was covered, but I think I'm taking an alternate approach by seeking Joe Quinn's reference material.

But you don't know for certain then? Because, Joe Quinn seemed absolutely certain those spools have not been touched at all.

So my question is... in the absence of "before" pictures, how can be be certain?

Thanks.

G.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
yeah but no recognizable pieces.

Perhaps I didn't make my question clear, I apologize.

Can you show us where there was a claim that everything "folded up and flew inside the building?" Joe Quinn seems to be saying that CatHerder (or follow-up thread posts, don't know) indicated these items acted as indicated in the bold section. Can you help us find his reference for that statement?

Thanks.

G.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
www.abovetopsecret.com...
this just sounds like the whoever wrote this is playing the role of black kettle.

I understand how you might feel that way. But would it be possible to address the points I raised. I think they apply to these discussions and it would be helpful to understand what you think.

Thanks.

G.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete
Although it has a couple flaws, they're much less glaring and deceptive than anything the "truth movement" pushes.


why is it that you feel these generalized pointless claims are relevant to this thread?

if you had actually read the referrenced article then i would think you would have something specific to point out that you don't agree with.

to say you don't like the tone of the piece hardly suffices.

your blind support for catherder's piece despite the fact that it has been thoroughly exposed as deceptive and inaccurate speaks volumes.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
what else ya got?

Your thoughts on item 2 from my post would be helpful.

Thanks.

G.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
www.abovetopsecret.com...
this just sounds like the whoever wrote this is playing the role of black kettle.

I understand how you might feel that way. But would it be possible to address the points I raised. I think they apply to these discussions and it would be helpful to understand what you think.

Thanks.

G.


they called ats cointelpro.

you say it hurts their credibility.

you called them cointelpro.

therefore by your own logic that should hurt your credibility.


perhaps it's all mudslinging or perhaps there is some truth to it.

i have only been on ATS for 1 week.

i have never posted at SOTT.

i don't know for sure either way and there is nothing in your post that proves you know for sure either way either.

therefore i say this is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Your thoughts on item 2 from my post would be helpful.


scroll up.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
therefore i say this is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

I'm sorry, but I think the possibilitie of disinformation is very concerning in any examination of 9/11 events.

From my post -->

DPP and "operation mockingbird" are still in full force, and their focus on Internet disinformation and confusion is a very logical extension of a wide ranging and successful project. Subversion of the free and open Internet through a systematic plan of wildly conflicting disinformation, strategic infiltration, and character assassination are classic tried-and-true hallmarks of mockingbird.


At what point did we begin to see "wildly conflicting disinformation", "strategic infiltration", and "character assassination" in regard to 9/11 topics? There is a clear point in the sequence of events that stands out, and I like your opinion on when that happened, and what you think it might mean.

Thanks.

G.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
scroll up.

You avoided the important point raised in my post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let me alter that final sentence to: "For example, how is a detailed analysis of a damaged taxi cab, and whether or not it was moved, germane to identifying what struck the Pentagon?"

The critique of the CatHerder article and ATS centered around reoccurring sentiments such as this in an effort to discredit the source(s). The idea that "confuse and deflect" through overwhelming data is the theme upon which the "COINTELPRO" accusation had been first constructed.


Joe Quinn argues that confusing and overwhelming data is a cointelpro technique, then we see him and "Merc" use the same apparent technique.

How are we to know what is, and what is not "cointelpro" or professionally planted disinformation?

For the sake of argument, it's just as easy to say that Joe Quinn is engaged in keeping discussion focused on an entertaining controversial subject so that it doesn't stray away. It's also just as easy to say that both Joe and CatHerder are collaborating to keep us hapless fools engaged in one chosen topic.

How do we know?



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

At what point did we begin to see "wildly conflicting disinformation", "strategic infiltration", and "character assassination" in regard to 9/11 topics? There is a clear point in the sequence of events that stands out, and I like your opinion on when that happened, and what you think it might mean.


on 9/12 when the mass media was fed the bogus story of barbara olson's cell phone calls

and by the framing of the stolen identities of the hijackers.

it means that every facet of this operation has deceptive elements that are typical to a false flag state sponsored synthetic terror event.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join