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.

 

If It Does Not Fit...You Must Acquit!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, US Army (ret.), an expert in photo analysis, reviewed the photos taken at the Pentagon before the collapse and concluded, "The plane does not fit in that hole!" indicating that the damage was inconsistent with a 757 strike.



Note the Fire Engine:

i40.photobucket.com...

i22.photobucket.com...



Here is what seems to be the same type of fire engine, next to a 757:

i22.photobucket.com...

i22.photobucket.com...


i22.photobucket.com...

i22.photobucket.com...

img50.imageshack.us...

img130.imageshack.us...

img50.imageshack.us...




Remember only two windows width:

i40.photobucket.com...

i40.photobucket.com...

i40.photobucket.com...




The black line mark below the red line is supposed to be the left wing impact mark:

i40.photobucket.com...

i40.photobucket.com...

img520.imageshack.us...




Composites:

img138.imageshack.us...

img138.imageshack.us...

img150.imageshack.us...

img522.imageshack.us...

img150.imageshack.us...

img138.imageshack.us...



Original:

img503.imageshack.us...




Composites:

img503.imageshack.us...

img503.imageshack.us...

img503.imageshack.us...






posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I bet you think OJ is innocent also.

The "real" killer must be hiding on a golf course.




posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Forget Howard.


Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Note the Fire Engine:

i40.photobucket.com...

i22.photobucket.com...


That definitely bugs me.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I bet you think OJ is innocent also.

The "real" killer must be hiding on a golf course.





Yup, because we all know the "patsy" wasn't on the Pentagon's golf course.


Remember the supposed height the "craft" came in at, it's engine hit the generator trailer:




www.newsfollowup.com...


It doesn't fit Howwie



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Forget Howard.


Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Note the Fire Engine:

i40.photobucket.com...

i22.photobucket.com...


That definitely bugs me.



Bugged me when I saw it too.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
It doesn't fit even if you assume the craft was only a single inch off the ground!

When you consider the fact that the engine supposedly hit that trailer.....it's all over.

There is no physically possible way that it could have been a 757.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   
See the height of the "757" is too high to have made that hole:








And it would have left a tail section/vertical stabilizer out on the lawn. That's what happens in plane crashes:











posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
It doesn't fit even if you assume the craft was only a single inch off the ground!

When you consider the fact that the engine supposedly hit that trailer.....it's all over.

There is no physically possible way that it could have been a 757.



Jack,

exactly.


Maybe you can post some of those images on Joe Quinn's analysis to illustrate that point.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Edited By Me.

Duplicate post

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Merc_the_Perp]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
A Boeing 757 is a 13ft wide, 155 ft long cylinder with a tail fin that extends 45 ft into the air. Add to that the fact that there are two 6 ton steel engines attached under each wing about 6 feet to each side of the cylinder body. The wings extend out on each side for 50ft + making for a total aircraft width of 125 feet, a total length of 155 ft and a maximum height of 45 ft.

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!

But remember there was a generator trailer that the engine and wing had to 'hit' and clear.










Some 4, 5, and 6 ft tall spools of cable. And a tree (stump):






So we know an inch or anything less than 6 feet is not possible.

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.


According to the Pentagon Report:



"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."






What does my good buddy, Joe Hryczyk the FAA licensed A & P Mechanic (who provided the technical data to the members of the US Senate and US Congressional sub-committees on Aviation with respect to 'radio-controlling/flying' Boeing 7x7's from the ground via satellite hook up) have to say about that huge tail section (vertical stabilizer/rudder) and more:


"I wanna know where there are sections of the engine's WING SPARS...and WING SPARS aren't flimsy pieces of SHEET METAL! Wing spars are designed to take 2+ times the MAX GROSS WEIGHT of an aircraft! I wanna know where the sections/pieces of the HUGE VERTICAL STABILIZER-RUDDER are to be found!"


Tail Sections are not flimsy by any means...they usually survive crashes.













[edit on 3-3-2006 by Merc_the_Perp]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc


www.newsfollowup.com...


I am still wondering about these images.. Providing these are the real images.

There were images shown on TV that looked like this, I am wondering why tf it says 9/12 on it instead of 9/11. You think the government would have their # in gear to have the time right.

And you know, nobody has said anything about this why it was like this or anything... Only think I can think of is PhotoShop.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

I am still wondering about these images.. Providing these are the real images.

There were images shown on TV that looked like this, I am wondering why tf it says 9/12 on it instead of 9/11. You think the government would have their # in gear to have the time right.

And you know, nobody has said anything about this why it was like this or anything... Only think I can think of is PhotoShop.



Yeah I think they are doctored.

But this is the best part how we got that video(FOIA through Jamie McIntyre) they couldn't even explain where the video came from!!!...excerpts from a Washington Post artcle:


"The photos, which depict a fiery explosion on the building's northwest face, are each dated Sept. 12. Officials say the date may reflect when the images were catalogued by investigators since they are not the actual date of the attack."

"A bright orange fireball is visible in the photographs but the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible."
[...]

Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras.(Cuz these morons were scared to put their names on that doctored film)

"The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin. (SAY WHAT?!?!?!)

A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice."(....hmmmmm...WHY?)



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
And have you ever noticed this from the satellite image before 9/11. This one is from 9/7/01

I am not going to post the image cause it is to big.. but look where the plane supposedly hit and look at the mark in the ground before 9/11... Interesting or no?

9/07/01
www.spaceimaging.com...

9/12/01
www.spaceimaging.com...

[edit on 3/3/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Yeah that mark is suspicious but it doesn't add up to much.

The proof is in the pudding.

Merc layed it out real nice and easy to understand in this thead.

The silence from the official story apologists like roark, smith, and zed in this thread is utterly deafening.


This is it folks.

If it doesn't fit you gotta acquit.

Bin laden didn't blow up the towers.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Hmmm, I'm torn on this issue.

On the one hand, I find it extremely hard to believe an "average to below average" pilot could pull that off. Impossible? No - but I bet he could try 100 times and only manage it the once. He could have got lucky, but it still seems a stretch to me. And there really should be more bits of plane left - that's very wrong.

However, as already said a millions times, it makes no sense to come up with such an elaborate plan of deception - there's no way they could manage to cover every possible angle......it would be far too risky and there would be so many variables. Staged traffic jams, planted witnesses, planted wreckage, etc, etc. No way.

I really can't make up my mind, darn it



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
However, as already said a millions times, it makes no sense to come up with such an elaborate plan of deception - there's no way they could manage to cover every possible angle......it would be far too risky and there would be so many variables. Staged traffic jams, planted witnesses, planted wreckage, etc, etc. No way.



Look, that part of it is speculative. It is only to try and find out what exactly happened. Who was involved. How it was done.

Could we/I be wrong on some of the info? Sure. Could some of it be right? Absolutely.

But what we know 100% for sure, is a 757 does not fit.


That's all that matters.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curio


I really can't make up my mind, darn it



It's pretty simple.

When the facts don't fit the story............it's because the story is a lie.

There is no reason to question elements that nobody is sure about when there are plenty of elements that we ARE sure about that are obviously absurd.

There is enough proof in this single thread that blows the official pentagon story out of the water.

757 huggers are in ultimate denial of the sheer size/mass of this plane and the damage that it didn't cause.

It could NOT have been flown in this fashion by hanjour or any novice pilot 1 out of 100 times, or at all.

Not to mention THEY USED AN OBVIOUS BODY DOUBLE FOR THE AIRPORT SECURITY PICTURE OF HIM!

Check this insanity out.

Here is our boy......alleged hijacker pilot of flight 77 Hani Hanjour from an FBI photo:


Here is another FBI pic...notice the high hairline...


Here is our barely able to fly a cessna buddy in the background at an ATM 6 days before 9/11 getting out some ducats with his pal Majed Moqed to go party at a strip club before he goes and commits suicide as a religious fanatic........still sporting that high hairline and his regular long skinny face.



Now THIS is supposedly a security camera pic of him at the airport ready to go do the deed!!!!!! One problem. You would have to be an IDIOT to think that this heavy set dude with the low hairline and quite round face is the same person! He sure gained a lot of weight in 6 days not to mention got a REALLY GOOD hair transplant job going on there for his suicide mission!


These pics and the questioning of this security cam pic is right in Wikipedia


On September 11, 2001, Hani Hanjour boarded American Airlines Flight 77 at 7:50am, though it is still disputed whether or not he had a ticket for the flight, or appeared on any manifest. In the security tape footage released in 2004, Hanjour appears to walk through the metal detector without setting it off, the only hijacker to do so. There is a controversy over whether or not the security tapes indeed show him, since the man claimed to be him seems significantly heavier than Hanjour, has kept his beard (Which the hijackers all reportedly shaved off the night before), and has a different style of hair.



Do they really think the average public is as bullheaded as the strangely silent HowardRoark, AgentSmith, and Zed type of pseudoskeptics that keep massaging the official story DESPITE being presented with all of this blatant hard evidence?

I don't think so.

Unfortunatley most simply believe what they are told and refuse to scrutinze the evidence like this at all.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
It cuts both ways tho - you're as pig-headed as Smith and Howard. Neither side is willing to let up an inch


I think the vast majority of people who are curious enough to visit this site are split on the issue. I certainly don't take the official story as gospel - as I said, there's a lot wrong with it and obviously more going on than said.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
But what we know 100% for sure, is a 757 does not fit.


That's all that matters.


Of course it did.

Heres some answers I got.

The wings and such disappeared when the plane hit the wall.
They vaporized.
They got blown into tiny little pieces.
(this one above I would agree with, But where are the tiny little pieces.)
They broke off before it hit the building.
(I would also agree with this, but again where are the pieces)

So you have it, its not just me who thinks its real... its everyone else on the planet to..

:::Notice the sarcasm in that post above, I really don't think a plane it the pentagon..:::

[edit on 3/4/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Well seeing as the walls of the pentagon are so blast proof (a piece of evidence that the 'truth' movement only ackknowledge when it suits thier agenda) it's not surprising that not all of the plane made it in. Much of it was chucked over the building, much of it was vapourised... someof it was on the lawn (but of course, it was obviously planted).

As for the wings, I believed they broke into pieces on impact and went through the lower floor windows.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join