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.

 

Possible reason for no debris at pentagon.

page: 13
4
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 





My beef is that all these hijackers that went to flight school apparently didn't care to learn the art of landing, but the plane that hit the Pentagon was essentially landing into the Pentagon. SMH


Landing is totally different then flying.
They flew these planes into the buildings.

Landing involve slowing down and flairing the nose up. Much more difficult.




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh, good GOD won't this "no plane hit the Pentagon" internet hoax ever die?


No one said 'no plane' most people are saying no 757 hit the pentagon, because no 757 did hit the pentagon.

You've been here 3 years, and this has been debated long before you came, but you're still here moaning about it because it's your sole purpose to stopo peeople talking about it and to muddy the water.

People aren't stupid, BTW, 'God' as you put it is a hoax, religion is a hoax, and no 757 hit the pentagon!



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


That didnt help, there was no video of the aftermath, but I think I saw the wings shearing off, because the plane was somewhat wider than the target so I assume the sturdy wings of a fighter jet would have been recovered some distance away from the target badly mangled, because they did not impact the target. Maybe the civil aeronautic industry performs crash tests of sorts?
edit on 5-6-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I have never understood how you get the nose of a jet passenger plane to hit the Pentagon wall at ground level and not have it standing on it's nose at the moment of impact. The nose is a good ways above the ground. That's why they use ladders to get into the plane.

This would have put it's tail setion at or above the top of the building.

I have never hear of many metals which "suddenly vaporize" when cast into a fire.

BUT !!

If the wings vaporized as the plane hit the wall, would there not have been atleast some puddles of aluminum on the ground at the base of the wall. It was said that any aluminum which was reportedly seen burning at the WTC would have been fron the melted parts of the planes.

I have read that the explosions which were reported, were this molten aluminum coming in contact with the water from the sprinklers being activated to put out the fires.

It just seems the more we try to explain these things, the more twisted and convoluted they become compared to the O S.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
I have never understood how you get the nose of a jet passenger plane to hit the Pentagon wall at ground level and not have it standing on it's nose at the moment of impact. The nose is a good ways above the ground. That's why they use ladders to get into the plane.

This would have put it's tail setion at or above the top of the building.






That depends. The pentagon is not a small building. How high is it and at what floor would the plane impact if the plane if flying with enough ground clearance? Is ground effect an issue or does it not occour as long as the flaps are in?
edit on 5-6-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Cassius666
I am talking right after the impact, like before the wall collapsed. Would a high velocity impact cause whatever did not end up inside the pentagon to shatter into tyiny debries, so that the wings and any such are scattered over a wide area and can not be identified as such in the immediate impact area?


Yes it would. Here's a video that has been posted countless times before of such a test- once upon a time there was concern of what would happen if a place crashed into a nuclear plant so they ran a test to find out. The high speed cameras show the plane was all but vaporised by the heavy concrete wall. This is because the wall is solid and the plane is hollow, so physics ain't on the plane's side.



Granted, the walls of the Pentagon weren't this thick and heavy, but it's also obvious that a plane crashing into the Pentagon can't be remotely compared to a crash site where the plane landed on its belly in an open field either.


I'm so confused on how exactly these plane parts traveled through the Pentagon to create the "punch out hole". What exactly continued throughout the Pentagon and exited the C ring? Landing gear & fuselages? Where would the passengers strapped to their seats end up? I'm not an expert in engineering or physics so I have no clue lol


Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"- Popular Mechanics


Okay so this person held parts of uniforms from crew members and even body parts.


Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." Popular Mechanics


This guy is saying the parts were pretty much liquefied. How the hell is one person saying they were holding body parts when this expert is explaining it was all basically a liquid when it breached all the rings?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

No one said 'no plane' most people are saying no 757 hit the pentagon, because no 757 did hit the pentagon.


You need to double check with the "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" people to find out what they're saying about missiles, predator drones, UAW's and the like, and while you're at it you need to check with the "Pilots for 9/11 truth" people to find out what they're saying about how physically impossible it is for any craft regardless of what it is to fly six feet off the ground. Characters like April Gallop even filed lawsuits claiming there was no craft whatsoever and insist it was really a bomb. there seems to be a heck of a lot of "no one's".

The fact of the matter is that hordes of eyewitnesses specifically saw a plane hit the Pentagon and wreckage (including the black box) recovered from the site specifically shows a plane hit the Pentagon. Not only is there an overwhelming evidence showing a plane did hit the Pentagon, the only thing the conspiracy people can offer in rebuttal are these ridiculous Rube Goldberg conspiracy theories and nonstop accusations of everyone from Ted Oldon to an immigrant from El Salvador watering the lawns of being a sinister secret agent.

Seriously, dude, why can't a plane have hit the Pentagon AS WELL AS the 9/11 attack was a staged event? The two don't cancel each other out so it's ridiculous to force more abject paranoia into the mix in areas where it isn't needed.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb
I'm so confused on how exactly these plane parts traveled through the Pentagon to create the "punch out hole". What exactly continued throughout the Pentagon and exited the C ring? Landing gear & fuselages? Where would the passengers strapped to their seats end up? I'm not an expert in engineering or physics so I have no clue lol


I don't understand your point. If you're not an expert in physics or engineering...and I'm going out on a limb here and speculate you're not a crash site forensics specialist either...then why the heck are you bickering over what should or should not have specifically happened to that specific type of plane when it hit that specific building in the specific way it did?

It's as if you're arguing over what color you're going to get when you mix two cans of paint without knowing what colors are in the cans to begin with.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by homervb
I'm so confused on how exactly these plane parts traveled through the Pentagon to create the "punch out hole". What exactly continued throughout the Pentagon and exited the C ring? Landing gear & fuselages? Where would the passengers strapped to their seats end up? I'm not an expert in engineering or physics so I have no clue lol


I don't understand your point. If you're not an expert in physics or engineering...and I'm going out on a limb here and speculate you're not a crash site forensics specialist either...then why the heck are you bickering over what should or should not have specifically happened to that specific type of plane when it hit that specific building in the specific way it did?

It's as if you're arguing over what color you're going to get when you mix two cans of paint without knowing what colors are in the cans to begin with.



Okay then Dave, thank you for the a-hole remark. I also appreciate you NOT addressing the popular mechanics quotes I enclosed. Have a good day sir, I am sure to ignore everything you say from now on.

p.s.

You really need to take time off these forums. You are here way too much, and you're anger just pours through your posts. Why don't you just LEAVE if you're so tired of our theories/hoaxes?

IGNORED



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


two words...APRIL GALLUP



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by doryinaz
reply to post by hdutton
 


two words...APRIL GALLUP


AKA ---- Sue Crazy.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Do you even know who she is?????????



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by doryinaz
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Do you even know who she is?????????




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I often wish I had the talent and skill with a computer to show you what I can see with my imagination.

What I envision is a plane, Boing 757, standing inplace next to the pentagon. It's nose cone would be on the ground in the location at which the plane struck the building on 9/11. This would put the plane at a very acute angle compared to a much more normal position as is show in the CGI vids which I have seen. It would also put it's tail fin and most of it's tail section high into the air. It may be as high as the top of the wall of the pentagon.


I hope this "image" is sufficient for you to understand why I question this aspect of the OS, as it just does not make much sense compared to the images released by the government.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by doryinaz
reply to post by hdutton
 


two words...APRIL GALLUP


I never claimed to be the sharpest bulb in the box, but I have read my post and your reply twice.

I am afraid I am lost. I can not find a connection to your refference to Ms. Gallop.

If I missed something, I must appoligize.

I mean no disrecpect to anyone other than those who continue to stubbornly hold to the OS and refuse to use their minds enough to question those things which refuse to add up.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
The transponders are a big giveaway, as soon as the transponders went off the military would have been alerted, but they did nothing, and waited a while before even doing anything. Instead of sending fighters stationed 10 miles away, they sent ones from 100 miles away, that should tell you something!

The witnesses that claim it was a 757 were govenment personnel from the pentagon, how convenient, and members of the public heard whilsting/whooshing sounds, and no jet sounds, which would have been literally deafening.

The 'plane' was apparently obliterated, but they still managed to find body parts?

They immmediately conviscated CCTV from the local area, and never released any CCTV from all the footage they had except one doctored clip that shows no plane. If there was a plane then why would they not show that CCTV footage to clear matters up? Obviously because it would reveal something.

They banned reporters from getting close, yet they allowed the towers to be filmed live?

The only photos are from members of the public, or their own staged photos of supposed 757 parts.

Whatever hit it struck the part that was least occupied, and the part that was currently being refurbished.

If hijackers were supposedly flying the plane, then there objective would be to cause as much devastation and death as possible, so why did they instead risk pulling off an impossible maneuver hitting a part of the building that would cause less damage and death? Surely they would have flown the plane further in to maximise victims?

Flight 77 was also reported to have landed at Cleveland, and then that was retracted as a 'mistake' how does one make such a mistake like that? It either landed or it didn't!

The pentagon is the real smoking gun, they sure made a complete mess of that.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   


Maybe because the plane flew over!

Seems pretty obvious from this picture that either a missile was launched from this plane, or this plane is flight 77 and a missile/drone was launched by other means, and eye witnesses didnt notice flight 77 flying off because the explosion caused confusion.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Are you for real?




Seems pretty obvious from this picture that either a missile was launched from this plane, or this plane is flight 77 and a missile/drone was launched by other means, and eye witnesses didnt notice flight 77 flying off because the explosion caused confusion.

You just got done saying that all the witnesses were gov agents. So why would you now say eye witnesses didn't notice?

See that's been the problems with ALL truthers. You can't get your stories straight.

You need to all get behing one and only one story and stick to it. You need to have evidence to support your ONE story.

But alas with each truther comes a different story.

But the OSers have had the same story from the beginning. And we have proof!



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Are you for real?




Seems pretty obvious from this picture that either a missile was launched from this plane, or this plane is flight 77 and a missile/drone was launched by other means, and eye witnesses didnt notice flight 77 flying off because the explosion caused confusion.

You just got done saying that all the witnesses were gov agents. So why would you now say eye witnesses didn't notice?

See that's been the problems with ALL truthers. You can't get your stories straight.

You need to all get behing one and only one story and stick to it. You need to have evidence to support your ONE story.

But alas with each truther comes a different story.

But the OSers have had the same story from the beginning. And we have proof!


Then why take the time to sit on this forum and "debunk" everything we say? Personal satisfaction? A majority of the "OSers" seem to be so sick of any discussion of a conspiracy but yet they come back every single day, multiple times a day and write lengthy replies.

In the words G.O.D.: "Get off those damned fool conspiracy websites"

I just don't get why you bother even coming here. You all post with this attitude of frustration yet you're all still here. Just LEAVE, it really is that easy and this forum might actually be productive for once.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join