Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Possible reason for no debris at pentagon.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
There might be a point there but since of course the lawn was flawless and the video released by the pentagon shows something completely different this particular eyewitness and this particular conclusion don't hold very much weight.

Look.......no bounce!



What did it "bounce" off of? That lawn looks pretty clean to me!



Show me an aerial shot of the area on the 11th or 12th and lets see what the grass looks like from that shot.




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Show me an aerial shot of the area on the 11th or 12th and lets see what the grass looks like from that shot.


it's back there...




behind the plane debris



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   
That's your job.

You have to show the skid marks if you claim the plane bounced even though the video released by the pentagon shows no such thing.

So if it did bounce.....what does that say about the video OR the impact hole which is very low to the ground?

Anyway......if it bounced or skid on the ground you could expect to see something like this.....




or this:






But instead we go this......





posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by kmrod

it's back there...



behind the plane debris


Huh?

Sorry man but I don't see any skid marks behind that suspiciously uncharred most likely planted piece that could have actually been from any type of aircraft.


I believe there was a craft of some sort that hit the pentagon.......just not the 757 you were told it was.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
That's your job.


my quote... "*SOME*EYEWITNESSES* believe the plane hit the ground"

I didn't say it did, I said *SOME*EYEWITNESSES* believe the plane hit the ground. Please read carefully, but you've already demonstrated you can't becuase you're ignoring questions.




how did the generator move TOWARD a missile explosion?

what sheared light poles?

if it was a missle, why is there landing gear IN the pentagon?

how did engine parts and wheels from a 757 get in the pentagon?



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

I believe there was a craft of some sort that hit the pentagon.......just not the 757 you were told it was.


important question here..........


..........because that's what you *want* to believe, or because that's what the evidence is showing you?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kmrod

my quote... "*SOME*EYEWITNESSES* believe the plane hit the ground"

I didn't say it did, I said *SOME*EYEWITNESSES* believe the plane hit the ground. Please read carefully, but you've already demonstrated you can't becuase you're ignoring questions.



Psssh. Then what's your point? If you aren't claiming it happened that way then there is ZERO reason to bring it up. Unless of course you mean to confuse the discussion or the real point which obviously should be WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.



how did the generator move TOWARD a missile explosion?


I don't undersatand. I believe a remote controlled drone craft shot an air to ground missle just before impact and may have also been planted with explosives and/or there were additional explosives planted in the pentagon.




what sheared light poles?


The drone craft some and perhaps others were timed to pop out.



if it was a missle, why is there landing gear IN the pentatgon?


Could be from the drone aircraft or perhaps planted or even planted IN the drone craft. Very few parts were found. All plantable and none of the internal pictures of parts found are sourced with photographers.



how did engine parts and wheels from a 757 get in the pentagon?


Could be from the drone aircraft or perhaps planted.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by kmrod

I believe there was a craft of some sort that hit the pentagon.......just not the 757 you were told it was.


important question here..........


..........because that's what you *want* to believe, or because that's what the evidence is showing you?


Very much so the evidence.

The evidence does not support the fact that it was a 757 in the least.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by kmrod

my quote... "*SOME*EYEWITNESSES* believe the plane hit the ground"

I didn't say it did, I said *SOME*EYEWITNESSES* believe the plane hit the ground. Please read carefully, but you've already demonstrated you can't becuase you're ignoring questions.



Psssh. Then what's your point? If you aren't claiming it happened that way then there is ZERO reason to bring it up. Unless of course you mean to confuse the discussion or the real point which obviously should be WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.



how did the generator move TOWARD a missile explosion?


I don't undersatand. I believe a remote controlled drone craft shot an air to ground missle just before impact and may have also been planted with explosives and/or there were additional explosives planted in the pentagon.




what sheared light poles?


The drone craft some and perhaps others were timed to pop out.



if it was a missle, why is there landing gear IN the pentatgon?


Could be from the drone aircraft or perhaps planted or even planted IN the drone craft. Very few parts were found. All plantable and none of the internal pictures of parts found are sourced with photographers.



how did engine parts and wheels from a 757 get in the pentagon?


Could be from the drone aircraft or perhaps planted.



Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by kmrod

I believe there was a craft of some sort that hit the pentagon.......just not the 757 you were told it was.


important question here..........


..........because that's what you *want* to believe, or because that's what the evidence is showing you?


Very much so the evidence.

The evidence does not support the fact that it was a 757 in the least.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Jack Tripper]



I PMed the moderator to delete my account. If you can make this # up as you go then there's no reason to discuss anything. There's no evidence of a missile, there's no evidence of a drone, there's no evidence it was anything but a 757.

I'm knew I shouldn't have started reading this site. My friend's niece died in one of the 9/11 plane crashes.......... or should I say "was killed by the govt" if she's even really dead



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by kmrod

I'm knew I shouldn't have started reading this site. My friend's niece died in one of the 9/11 plane crashes.......... or should I say "was killed by the govt" if she's even really dead


Listen man......

I know this is hard to take.

I felt the exact same way when I started realizing it.

I'm sure it would be worse if I had a personal connection.

I am not making this up as we go. These are theories that have been discussed by plenty of intellectuals, experts, and scholars.

Do I think every theory I assert is 100% correct?

No.

But do I know that the official theory has more holes than swiss cheese?

You better believe it.

This # sucks man.

There is no question we have been lied to in regards to 9/11.

Forget about this site if you want to but do NOT forget about researching 9/11.

It's a lie bro.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Kmrod:

respectfully the turbines are special alloys and very hard, this I know.

there is a gas station across from the pentagon because I have been there and seen it.

Go to infowars.com/prisonplanet.com if you want info on it because they talk extensively about it.

In regards engines, a large turbine that a person can walk into is a lot different than an engine that would power a VW beetle (for the person that did the salvage work on a two engine 9 seater). Oh, you mentioned all the parts imbedded in the ground, which makes sense but didn't happen here.

When the truth comes out about WHO is really behind 911 there is going to be a massive shift in power in this world. Not necessarily from one region or country to annother but from one group to annother. I'm looking forward to it myself.

I still fail to see how a rookie pilot could in effect land a passenger jet without autopilot or the following: a runway, runway markings, autoglide assistance, radio assistance and assitance from the tower. The best and most experienced pilots would have had difficult doing the maneouvers that took place that day and those guys were not capable of that. Unless of course, they were not even the pilots of the planes. Which is also quite possible.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Even if it was your global hawk or whatever you want it to be, then where are it's wings, tailfin, etc? You seem to have the same problem as with the 757?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Even if it was your global hawk or whatever you want it to be, then where are it's wings, tailfin, etc? You seem to have the same problem as with the 757?


Are you really this clueless or are you actually one of those truth movement guys that like to play devils advocate to get the truth out there?

I swear it's like you keep posting the DUMBEST stuff as if you're "on to something"!


I kind of like it though.



Just as Merc's gorgeous composite photos demonstrate the sheer massive size of a 757 that you people LOVE to underestimate..............it works in reverse dude.

A global hawk or an A-3 skywarrior are quite small compared to a 757.

That is why we believe they used additional explosives and/or a missle to create more damage so it would be more believable that a 757 hit.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by manta

Click here to watch the video



Where's the wing on the plane?

I don't trust that video anyways.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   

A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon
by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:

I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757.

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.

If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.

This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)


EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole.


It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.

I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials.

I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release.

You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.

Sincerely,
Michael Meyer

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
So point is.......it's infinitely more believable that most of a smaller craft entered the building (espcially if the hole was opened up with a missle shot just before impact).........and they quickly disposed of any additional debris or the much smaller vertical stabilizer while taking tons of pictures of the planted parts.

Plus the drone was probably packed with explosives so the entire thing would blow to smitherines.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Wassup Merc my "Associate Member" homie?

Scholars for 9/11 Truth in the HIZZY!




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
You could also 'dress-up' certain ordinance or missiles to make them look like something else and you would want to do this since the pentagon is ringed by major highways in DC. There would be witnesses in their vehicles to what happened... oh where are they now anyways???



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   
So your saying a missile could be made to look like a 757?
Just stick some livery on a tomahawk or something?
When you say loaded with explosives to make the plane vapourise, do you mean like gallons of fuel?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Stop trying get people to tell you what it WAS and just realize what it WASN'T.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join