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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
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.


Boy that sure was intelligent.


Is this absurd blanket denial all you guys can muster?

Since when does "blast proof" = 90 ton 757 at 400 mph proof? How absurd.


You are ignoring all the points made in this thread particularly the orignial post which makes it quite clear that the vertical stablizer is HUGE and strong and obviously could not have went in the building or "vapourised". Since of course we know that the engine would have had to have been what hit the trailer......It's clear the verticle stablizer did NOT enter the building. If it went over the building you would see it between the rings or on the roof. There are plenty of aerial shots and pics between all the rings.

Nothing.






posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Boy that sure was intelligent.



Thats the kind of comment that really keeps any kind truth seeking motivation I ever had.

I mention the strength of the walls because thats something the 'turth movement' use as evidence pointing towards some kind of missile/bomb being used.

Also you say it's clear that the stabelizer did not go into the building... How so? If it was in the building you wouldnt see it. And sure its strong, but it would probably break into at least 2 pieces.

But then again, feel free to ignore this post. It;s obvious that anybody that makes conflicting points isn't 'intelligent' enough for you.

[edit on 5-3-2006 by ihatescifi]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi

Also you say it's clear that the stabelizer did not go into the building... How so? If it was in the building you wouldnt see it. And sure its strong, but it would probably break into at least 2 pieces.



It's clear because of the dimensions of the plane!

We know that the engine hit the trailer so that puts the impact of the craft a good 12 feet off the ground to begin with which right away throws everything out of whack with the impact hole.

But the vertical stabilizer is 45 feet tall so add another 10 feet to clear the trailer and that's 55 feet!!! (but oh yeah...The engines extend 5 feet below the body so make that 60 feet!)

It is impossible for a piece that big and strong to have slipped into an impact hole that tops out at only 2 stories up.

Even if it did break into two pieces. Plus there would still be remnants.

There are TON of pictures from inside the building but none of any vertical stabilizer pieces. Are we supposed to assume they just didn't bother taking any pictures of it??

Come on now.





[edit on 5-3-2006 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
It does look suspicious, but I'd have to see clearer photos of the damage before I make up my mind. All the pics I have ssen so far have too much smoke or water spraying.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
It does look suspicious, but I'd have to see clearer photos of the damage before I make up my mind. All the pics I have ssen so far have too much smoke or water spraying.


Now you're talking.

Stay on that trip scifi.

Don't stop questioning.

Here is a great pic that shows the dimensions of all the damage...



So think about this for a second.............the damage tops out at 26 feet.

We know from the damage to the trailer that whatever hit was at least 10 feet off the ground.

The engines hang 5 feet BELOW the fuselage and the verticle stabilizer is 45 feet tall.

That means there should be some sort of impact damage from the vertical stabilizer going as high up as 34 feet above the impact hole!!!

Here is a close up of the hole showing this clearly to not be the case. The area above the hole is not obstructed by water.






posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
for all you "could barely land a cessna" people, here is hanjour's instructor's comment:


Hanjour obtained a commercial pilots license in 1999 and according to the chief instructor, "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.


When are people going to get off that part of the argument? He got his pilot's license...he could fly the plane.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by kmrod
for all you "could barely land a cessna" people, here is hanjour's instructor's comment:


Hanjour obtained a commercial pilots license in 1999 and according to the chief instructor, "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.


When are people going to get off that part of the argument? He got his pilot's license...he could fly the plane.



Wrong wrong wrong!

Thank you for this other link that points out that despite the fact that he had his license...............HE COULD NOT FLY!

www.cbsnews.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">
www.cbsnews.com...



Plus of course the statement is constantly brought up DESPITE the fact that he said it on September 14, 2001

Do you really think that 3 days after the attack that this guy knew ANYTHING about the flight path at the pentagon?

Of course not.

He might not have even known they were talking about the pentagon as opposed to the towers.

Plus.....this guy may just be a flight instructor for small craft and may not even have any experience flying commercial jumbo jets.

One thing for sure is that he sure is a good testament to the fact that hanjour could barely fly a cessna!



But here is what some folks that actually have flown jumbo jets have to say about it........

Group of pilots disputes question official version of 9/11

And of course we can't forget this fact.....

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Wrong wrong wrong!

Thank you for this other link that points out that despite the fact that he had his license...............HE COULD NOT FLY!

www.cbsnews.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">
www.cbsnews.com...



Plus of course the statement is constantly brought up DESPITE the fact that he said it on September 14, 2001

Do you really think that 3 days after the attack that this guy knew ANYTHING about the flight path at the pentagon?

His comment was that hanjour would be able to aim the plane and hit a target. How is anything he or I said incorrect?


He might not have even known they were talking about the pentagon as opposed to the towers.

aim the plane, hit a target... pentagon or towers doesn't matter.


Plus.....this guy may just be a flight instructor for small craft and may not even have any experience flying commercial jumbo jets.
aim, hit... and we know for a fact hanjour was ground training on a 737



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Sorry but you are wrong.

The flight path was not that simple and neither is handling big birds of that size.


You have not refuted any of this point that was made by numerous airline pilots which you are not.

Plus......

How do you explain this?


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.



Although this is obviously a fake hanjour and certainly opens one of many questions in regards the hijackers identitites.......most people simply believe what they are told and refuse to scrutinze the evidence like this at all.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Although this is obviously a fake hanjour and certainly opens one of many questions in regards the hijackers identitites.......most people simply believe what they are told and refuse to scrutinze the evidence like this at all.


Or, maybe they're mistaken and that's just a picture of someone else.

Funny how you're claiming that's not him (and it might not be) but the other guys he was traveling with and who helped hijack the plane aren't in question.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Actually most of the hijackers identities are in question.

This would take a whole separate thread and my buddy merc is actually the expert on this so I'll see if he'll start one.

One thing I do know is that the 9/11 commission ignored this fact even though it was publically aknwoledged by former FBI director Robert Mueller.

FBI Chief Raises New Doubts Over Hijackers' Identities



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Actually most of the hijackers identities are in question.

This would take a whole separate thread and my buddy merc is actually the expert on this so I'll see if he'll start one.

One thing I do know is that the 9/11 commission ignored this fact even though it was publically aknwoledged by former FBI director Robert Mueller.

FBI Chief Raises New Doubts Over Hijackers' Identities


I don't care if the real hani hanjour is sitting in saudi sipping pina coladas right now, someone with his IDENTITY flew a 757 into the pentagon. It really doesn't much matter *for*this*discussion* if it was really him.


(but it was him)



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
In order to ensure a hit the 757 was remotely piloted out to sea to rest in the murky depths while a cruise missile scored a direct hit on the passenger plane parts storage room in the Pentagon.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
In order to ensure a hit the 757 was remotely piloted out to sea to rest in the murky depths while a cruise missile scored a direct hit on the passenger plane parts storage room in the Pentagon.


wtf are you talking about?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by kmrod

I don't care if the real hani hanjour is sitting in saudi sipping pina coladas right now, someone with his IDENTITY flew a 757 into the pentagon. It really doesn't much matter *for*this*discussion* if it was really him.



Then you are failing to see the big picture.

The 9/11 commission positively identified ALL of the hijackers despite many questions that were even acknowledged by Robert Mueller!

We have used these identities as a pretext to wage a "permanent global war" that has already caused the deaths of countless 10's of thousands of innocent people.


There is ZERO reason that bin laden would use stolen identities of fellow saudi nationals that are linked to al quada! He would use identities that wouldn't lead back to him.


These identies were used in order to pin this on bin laden.

Think for a moment about this.

Use your head.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by kmrod

I don't care if the real hani hanjour is sitting in saudi sipping pina coladas right now, someone with his IDENTITY flew a 757 into the pentagon. It really doesn't much matter *for*this*discussion* if it was really him.



Then you are failing to see the big picture.
christ............

Please READ what I write. I'm doing my best to read everything you're writing, courtesy would have you try as well.

FOR THIS DISCUSSION it doesnt' matter if it was him or not, FOR THIS DISCUSSION all I care about is if a 757 hit the pentagon.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Good work everyone.

Of course the astro turf on the pentagon lawn also survived without a scratch, even with a major airliner sliding along it.

When the truth actually comes out about WHO did this to us... it is gonna change the power structure in the entire world.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by kmrod
Then you are failing to see the big picture. christ............

Please READ what I write. I'm doing my best to read everything you're writing, courtesy would have you try as well.

FOR THIS DISCUSSION it doesnt' matter if it was him or not, FOR THIS DISCUSSION all I care about is if a 757 hit the pentagon.


Oh ok then buddy.


Why don't you go back and take a look at your first post in THIS DISCUSSION.

It was YOU that brought up hani hanjour and since of course he is the one that allegedly piloted this thing.......his involvement is quite relevant as proof about whether or not the official explanation about what happened at the pentagon is a lie.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Oh ok then buddy.


Why don't you go back and take a look at your first post in THIS DISCUSSION.

It was YOU that brought up hani hanjour and since of course he is the one that allegedly piloted this thing.......his involvement is quite relevant as proof about whether or not the official explanation about what happened at the pentagon is a lie.
I later said it doesn't matter if it was him or someone using his identity...for THIS discussion all that matters is a 757 hit the pentagon. I'm talking about what happened, then we'll figure out who and why.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
But it clearly does matter because if stolen identities were involved at all....and we know that the 9/11 commission covered this up.............

we've got serious issues.

As I said.........there is not a conceivable reason on earth that bin laden would use stolen identities of saudi nationals linked to al quada.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join