Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Possible reason for no debris at pentagon.

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Uh Ultima? There are NO planes made mostly of steel. They're all made of either aluminum or composites. Steel is *WAY* too heavy to even get airborne.




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
It could have been from anything in the impact. You can't even tell from that pic where on the facade this was taken from.


It was from here, outlined in red:



I thought you'd studied these images to come to your conclusions? Anyone that has knows where that picture was taken. If you have barely glanced at them, how come you are so certain?

Do you:

a) Copy other people's ideas and repeat them as your own
b) Allow others to form your opinons
c) Not know what you are talking about
d) All of the above?

Do you want to :

Phone a friend?
Ask the Audience?
Take 50/50?


Screw off.

I figured it was from there but it's so obvious that it couldn't have been wing damage if it was that I figured I'd make you point it out first.

Again: How could this "wing damage" be limited to those 2 columns??? That is ludicrous.

If the plane was tilted and hit the helipad first like you said then the video is ABSOLUTELY faked.

So which is it?




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Screw off.

I figured it was from there but it's so obvious that it couldn't have been wing damage if it was that I figured I'd make you point it out first.




I think my friends in England can appreciate the above joke

Your incredible man... Maybe you should stop smoking that stuff you rap about in your band.



Again: How could this "wing damage" be limited to those 2 columns??? That is ludicrous.


It's not, did you see all the other damage?




If the plane was tilted and hit the helipad first like you said then the video is ABSOLUTELY faked.


But I thought we could hardly make anything out from the video? How can you tell what orientation the aircraft is that precisely? I thought we couldn't even make out the aircraft! To produce what was seen, the tilt would be barely visible from that angle.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
You can see a clear "vapor trail" and outline of the craft going perfectly straight and it is quite clear that whatever it is does not hit the ground or helipad.

But I believe it's a fake anyway.

I just want you admit it since it obviously destroys your explanation about this supposed "wing" damage.

Keep on diggin that hole.



And I have no idea what you are talking about.

I don't rap nor am I in a rap band.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Reggae, Hip-Hop whatever - same sort of thing to me.

Reggae / Dub / Hip Hop

Hip Hop is like Rap, right? Probably not - not really something I'm interested in being educated in if it's all the same. Raggae's OK though. I guess being a drummer isn't singing so you are right no matter what. Oh no, I don't think I'm smart or anything before you come out with your detective wisecracks
Just saying..


You can see a clear "vapor trail" and outline of the craft going perfectly straight and it is quite clear that whatever it is does not hit the ground or helipad.

But I believe it's a fake anyway.


How's it clear it didn't hit the ground or was tilted? We can't even make out the aircraft, let alone what it's doing properly


Why is it adequate evidence to say that a 757 did not hit, but you believe it's fake? Do you know what you are saying?


Just because you fill your head with facts and other people's ideas doesn't make you smart, son. It's like trying to run Battlefield 2 on a VIC-20.
Same way that just because the software is lacking doesn't mean the computer is crap. You can load better software into a decent computer and it'll do much more. You can't upgrade a VIC-20 to run Battlefield 2 though


[edit on 6-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Now that you have demonstrated once again how researching the people you debate with (find anything else good about the unibomber?
:lol
is such a concern for you I will give you a big high five!


It's reggae and yes I'm the drummer not the vocalist.

Adding hip-hop to the classification helps searches.

Since you went through all of the trouble to figure that out the least you could have done is listen to the music so you don't falsely call me out!





I can't fathom doing such I thing because I couldn't give a flying you know what about whatever any of you freaks do or who you are.


What a sad lonely stalker.

Get a life dude.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I dunno, stalking warrants more than 5 minutes research surely? You see I'm quite interested in psychology, not an expert or anything, and I like to build profiles of people, so I do a little research to enable me to get a better snapshot of their persona. Know what I mean?

You seem to be avoiding the statements to the issue - perhaps you should take a few hours off to get your head back together - then when your ready you can address the points!



[edit on 6-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Why is it adequate evidence to say that a 757 did not hit, but you believe it's fake? Do you know what you are saying?





It is good to use against the official story because it was released BY THE PENTAGON. (although they are too afraid to even admit it)

Plus THE FACT THAT IT IS FAKE ALSO INDICTS THEM IN A COVER-UP AND THEREFORE INSIDE JOB!

There is no reason to fake evidence that is supposed to prove truth.

You would be better off using someone elses research because so far you have only demonstrated your ability to find out personal information about your debate partners and crack the code of the mysterious unibomber avatar!



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I dunno, stalking warrants more than 5 minutes research surely? You see I'm quite interested in psychology, not an expert or anything, and I like to build profiles of people, so I do a little research to enable me to get a better snapshot of their persona. Know what I mean?


Nope. Translates to pseudointellectual LOSER with no life if you ask me!




You seem to be avoiding the statements to the issue - perhaps you should take a few hours off to get your head back together - then when your ready you can address the points!


Yeah right! You have yet to make a decent point! The only thing accurate you have cited is my band name.





posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Why does your friend have that avatar though? I read up about the bomber and he seemed to fit a similar mental profile to your friend. I wondered if he idolised him in some way, the avatar was not mocking to the character and it could not be seen as ironic seeing as your friend takes a similar stance.
You also seemed rather arrogant saying everyone would know who he was, you seem to forget that ATS, like me and many others here, is English, or rather was English in origin as ATS is truly an international venture. Still seems an odd choice, how is it funny again? Where's the joke?

Going back to the video, if they faked it why would they make it inconsistant to the official version of events as you claim?

If you believe it's fake how can you use it when it suits you as a reference to show that the aircraft didn't hit at an angle or strike the ground?

How can you tell this anyway when the images show no real detail?

If I have made no decent points, why the difficulty addressing them?

Do you know what pseudointellectual means? I think you'll find it doesn't apply to me. When you consider that I have a well above average IQ and whenever I post on here I am completely off my face, I think I'm fairly clever. Not the cleverest by far, but pretty clever. I reckon I could give you a run for your money if I applied myself, but I can never be bothered to try.. That's always been my problem. People like you are... An amusement, sometimes irritating.. A bit like some sort of pet. Interesting to study and toy with. Not one I feel like feeding, taking to the vet or being kind too though.. A rat maybe... You wouldn't expect me to put effort into communicating with a rat would you?

I'm going to bed now though for work tomorrow, and before I start saying anything horrible! Goodnight and God bless my friend - been good talking to you


[edit on 6-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Why does your friend have that avatar though? I read up about the bomber and he seemed to fit a similar mental profile to your friend. I wondered if he idolised him in some way, the avatar was not mocking to the character and it could not be seen as ironic seeing as your friend takes a similar stance.
You also seemed rather arrogant saying everyone would know who he was, you seem to forget that ATS, like me and many others here, is English, or rather was English in origin as ATS is truly an international venture. Still seems an odd choice, maybe I should have a picture of Atta for my avatar.


My god you are dense! You still "wonder" about that???


You are really a piece of work.

Did you "wonder" why his other profile has a fat dude with a mullet and a poodle? (you shoud get on that one!)

Did you ever think that he might have done it to throw over-zealous british austin powers wannabes in this forum for a loop?

hmmmmmmm........wow............guess what?

IT WORKED!









Going back to the video, if they faked it why would they make it inconsistant to the official version of events as you claim?

If you believe it's fake how can you use it when it suits you as a reference to show that the aircraft didn't hit at an angle or strike the ground?

How can you tell this anyway when the images show no real detail?


They made it consistent with the official story at that time.

You are the one making additional claims about tilted wings and wing damage above the impact hole and bouncing off the helipad. If any of that was claimed "officially" then source it.


I am using it because they use it. It is THEIR version of the event. If you want to contradict that then yes I will throw what THEY say back at YOU.

Understand now?

It's a lose lose situation for you official story defenders because both the video AND the official story are fake. This is only corroborated by the fake video.

There are some aspects of the video that are perfectly clear.....such as the fact that a low flying object hits the pentagon dead straight on and the tail end of the craft gets blown up and over the roof.

(but is then never to be found)



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
You are the one making additional claims about tilted wings and wing damage above the impact hole and bouncing off the helipad. If any of that was claimed "officially" then source it.


Do you know anytihng about 9/11?


You are right I spose, they do tend to conceal that sort of information in books..

Image from NIST report:


fire.nist.gov...

NIST report again:



Oh no wait, don't tell me, you were just testing me again


Witness statements, all from www.911research.com...



Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.




The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground. There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.



Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. Still gripping the wheel, I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact. An instant inferno blazed about 125 yards from me.



You could hear the engines being revved up even higher. The plane dipped its nose and crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon. The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low. For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it. An explosion followed.


This bit was good too:


And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building.


Someone's made a good crack at working out the sequence of events surrounding the break-up and trajectory of the aircraft on the site below, it's no definitive answer but it explains a lot:

perso.wanadoo.fr...

As for your trailer, if the aircraft rolled to the left just before hitting then the right engine will have been higher - which makes sense with the trailer being hit and where. It all fits with the damage to the building too, obviously.

One of the most interesting things about the site above is that as he points out the wings may have sheared off and gone forwards on impact, breaking into pieces, this would explain the odd configuration of damage and gives a good explanation, as his diagram shows, as to why the engine ended up going through the main hole to punch it's way through.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
A specially constructed craft/missile is designed to throw off on-lookers (highway nearby), while providing controlled destructive force. The area struck had been previously reinforced for the impact and was designed to withstand the impact experienced without major structual damage to surrounding areas.

Saw this today if it matters:

911 spy ring

"These are the videos AIPAC lobbied FOX News to remove from their website. Since then,. AIPAC has found itself embroiled in yet another espionage case, this time involving an operative inside the very Pentagon office from which many of the now discredited claims abut Iraq's WMD.

FOX News threatened this website to force the removal of these videos, but they appear here at this outside website for those of you unaware that on 9-11, the largest foreign spy ring ever uncovered in the US was in the process of being rounded up, and that evidence linking these arrested Israeli spies to 9-11 has been classified by the US Government."



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Hahaha agent, i loved your joke. Not sure if anyone else gets it but im with you on that one.

On the subject of the wings only marking 2 colums. It seems possible to me that by the time the wings had made contact with the 2 columns they were just compleatly sheered off and no longer had the enery to mark the structure.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I’ve been on a sort of self impose break from this site, apart from the occasional lurk, I haven’t had much time to devote to dealing with the B.S. that passes for debate here.

Case in point.


Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp

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

To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:
- - -
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.
- - -
-
Sincerely,
Michael Meyer

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...



Right there this guy shows that he hasn’t the faintest clue as to what he is talking about.

9 feet of reinforced concrete? The punch-out was through a reinforced concrete wall?
What a maroon.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
9 feet of reinforced concrete? The punch-out was through a reinforced concrete wall?
What a maroon.



What exactly are you having a problem with?

The only typo or mistake I see was calling all 6 walls 'blast resistant walls'. He might be under that impression, only because Wedge 1 was the only wedge completed featuring the blast resistant walls and _ Wedge 1 being the only wedge that had 6 reinforced concrete walls plowed through by a supposed 757.

Remember. He is a mechanical engineer from the Aerospace industry. His point is the 6 walls. Don't you remember first it was the nose cone that made that hole. Then when they realized how stupid that was, it changed to the landing gear.




[edit on 7-3-2006 by Merc_the_Perp]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   


  1. Only the exterior wall of the building was renovated to be blast resistant, the back side of ring A and all of the other ring walls were simple masonry construction (i.e. common brick).

  2. Point 1, above, is actually moot anyway, since the first and second floors of the building were not divided into rings until the inner ring drive at ring E (where the puchout occurred). In other words, the light courts, or rings, started above the second floor. The plane hit and penetrated at the first floor and slid along the slab till it punched out into the inner drive.

  3. Once the plane penetrated into the building, the only walls it would have encountered until it punched out into the inner drive, would have been interior partition walls. (i.e. drywall installed in the various renovations and plaster lath as part of the original construction).



    This so-called “mechanical engineer” should have verified the data before he spouted off on what the plane could have or could not have done.

    He didn't say 6 feet, he said 9 feet. In either case the The “9 (or 6) feet of reinforced concrete” claim has been thoroughly debunked a number of times on ATS.






    [edit on 7-3-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith


Do you know anytihng about 9/11?



This is the point.

The NIST report and some of the eyewitness accounts contradict the evidence of the video and of course the observable physical results.

The plane could not have dragged across the ground without making a mark.

The 45 foot tail could not have "slipped" into the building without so much as scratching the building.

Why does the pentagons own video contradict this and show the tail going over the roof?

One thing that is quite clear about the NIST report around the board is that it was a big attempt to cut and past information to fit a pre-determined conclusion.

Unfortunately for them (and us) it contradicts the physical/observable evidence that exists.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


  1. Only the exterior wall of the building was renovated to be blast resistant, the back side of ring A and all of the other ring walls were simple masonry construction (i.e. common brick).

  2. Point 1, above, is actually moot anyway, since the first and second floors of the building were not divided into rings until the inner ring drive at ring E (where the puchout occurred). In other words, the light courts, or rings, started above the second floor. The plane hit and penetrated at the first floor and slid along the slab till it punched out into the inner drive.

  3. Once the plane penetrated into the building, the only walls it would have encountered until it punched out into the inner drive, would have been interior partition walls. (i.e. drywall installed in the various renovations and plaster lath as part of the original construction).



    This so-called “mechanical engineer” should have verified the data before he spouted off on what the plane could have or could not have done.

    He didn't say 6 feet, he said 9 feet. In either case the The “9 (or 6) feet of reinforced concrete” claim has been thoroughly debunked a number of times on ATS.

    [edit on 7-3-2006 by HowardRoark]



Can you point out a link that specifies this?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Yeah see the right wing tilited:

news.uns.purdue.edu...

Look ma! No Engines


www.cs.purdue.edu...





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join