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: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChapaevII
It is that agent smith again. In his job to obfuscate any thread of its meaning and content. He has moved this thread on debris at the Pentagon to something he is more comfortable with. That is how they work.


Ah having difficulty bothering to read the previous posts again I see, you'll notice ULTIMA1 starts talking about pods on Pae 7, 2nd post from bottom, here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



He has also produced an incredible link to a French site that shows how the wings will fold forward during impact to explain that lack of debris. A real physics major.


As I said, some points may be worth considering. And maybe the kinetic energy in the wings and the engines (which were also still on full power and producing thrust) would have enabled them to keep travelling even after the sudden deacceleration from the plane hitting the building. Those joins can only put up with so much stress and it would be designed for it to be in the opposite direction too, as there would normally only be pressure pushing back on the wing, not forward, this would have done just that.
As well as the eyewitness watching it from his apartment saying that's what happened, though as witnesses always confuse their stories that alone cannot be taken as evidence.
Do you not think that is possible? That the kinetic energy stored in the wings/engines - coupled with the continuing thrust generated by them - enabled them to carry on travelling forward when the plane hit the building, causing it instantly to lose some momentum?
Why is it we wear seatbelts again?

[edit on 9-3-2006 by AgentSmith]




posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChapaevII

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well maybe it was both, Missile and Plane,, Since witnesses at the Pentagon did say they heard what sounded like a missile.


"Military eyewitness at the pentagon being interviewed live on that day stated he saw a helicopter head for the pentagon, go up and over and then saw a fireball. The military eyewitness was then told by the NY radio reporter sitting in NY that the eyewitness was wrong and it was a plane that hit the pentagon." At that moment you can hear the first fighter jets arrive in NYC as both that city and Washington DC lay in flames because?


1010Wins NY Sept 11, 2001


There is a real problem that no real investigation into 2000+ murders in NYC that day, not even one murder investigation, but we are left with nothing but conjecture and missing evidence from those that would govern.


Where were the fighters that were across the street when all this happened? How many hours or cities must burn before a single fighter can respond? Where are the tapes that were confiscated from the surrounding businesses? Why wasn’t there one murder investigation?


Thier were also reports of a small twin engine business jet and a military C-130 was also reported in the area of the Pentagon.

From the reports i heard the fighters were told to go to a worng area.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by ChapaevII
It is that agent smith again. In his job to obfuscate any thread of its meaning and content. He has moved this thread on debris at the Pentagon to something he is more comfortable with. That is how they work.



Ah having difficulty bothering to read the previous posts again I see, you'll notice ULTIMA1 starts talking about pods on Pae 7, 2nd post from bottom, here:



Chapaevii says:
Then it is well you point it out and kept the thread on its course. Nice job?



He has also produced an incredible link to a French site that shows how the wings will fold forward during impact to explain that lack of debris. A real physics major.


As I said, some points may be worth considering. And maybe the kinetic energy in the wings and the engines (which were also still on full power and producing thrust) would have enabled them to keep travelling



You are ignoring all physics.?


Why don’t we just address your wing then and see if your mind can wrap around it? The wing hits the building and you think it will continue to slice through without any opposite direction or deviation in direction after hitting an object but will accelerate forward.


Are you licking those gators?



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Maybe you should have looked at the diagrams and read the actual article

It's when the nose of the aircraft hits the building, not the wings.
Again, why do we wear seatbelts?



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thier were also reports of a small twin engine business jet and a military C-130 was also reported in the area of the Pentagon.

From the reports i heard the fighters were told to go to a worng area.


"Area" being in itself not enough for much evidence. I found the 1010wins broadcast to be most interesting as it was a live on site and they were standing there with a military witness and the NY guy was telling him how to say it.


There is so much smell in this pond that I wonder why it has not been drained already and cleaned. I heard the "wrong way: too..


Excuses like "my dog ate it", "I forgot", "I was playing games" went out in lower school levels. In business they are not allowed. How is it acceptable in governance?


The system is the corruption there and the people allow this



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Maybe you should have looked at the diagrams and read the actual article

It's when the nose of the aircraft hits the building, not the wings.
Again, why do we wear seatbelts?


We are talking the wings hit the building. You can talk about the nose, but is of no interest when you have to discuss the wing. The nose is pretty far from the wings and you can deal with that later. You like to change things too much Smitty. Let's deal with the wings collapsing forward.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChapaevII

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thier were also reports of a small twin engine business jet and a military C-130 was also reported in the area of the Pentagon.

From the reports i heard the fighters were told to go to a worng area.


"Area" being in itself not enough for much evidence. I found the 1010wins broadcast to be most interesting as it was a live on site and they were standing there with a military witness and the NY guy was telling him how to say it.


There is so much smell in this pond that I wonder why it has not been drained already and cleaned. I heard the "wrong way: too..


Excuses like "my dog ate it", "I forgot", "I was playing games" went out in lower school levels. In business they are not allowed. How is it acceptable in governance?


The system is the corruption there and the people allow this



Here are some relevant questions to ponder:

The Pentagon, Capitol Hill and the White House are restricted airspace. Having worked at an Airforce base in the US, I know that there are fighter pilots on standby that have to be able to be in their plane and off the ground within 60 secs. Air Traffic Control should have seen them flying in, so should the Airforce, so what happened?

Also, the same thing for NY, if you're flying east to west or west to east you have to be at either an even 500' like 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 etc. and if in the opposite direction you have to fly at an odd 500' like 3,500 or 4,500 etc.

Their transponder blips on the radar screen. If there's an emergency, then they hit the emergency button. I find it hard to believe that all 4 flights didn't hit the emergency button for the transponder to notify ATC. I don't believe that they took out all the transponders with a Swiss Army Knife. Any ideas?

[edit on 9-3-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Not anymore they don't It wasn't 60 seconds, it was 5, or 15 minutes. You CAN'T launch a fighter in 60 seconds unless the engines are already running. It takes longer than that just to start the engines. In the 90s the fighters at Andrews were taken off alert, along with most of the ones throughout the US. There were only 21 TOTAL on alert for the entire US.

And they didn't just "hit a button" to scramble fighters. The FAA has steps to follow, and a list to go through. They have to notify NORAD, and NORAD has steps to follow, THEN the fighters are launched.

[edit on 3/9/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ChapaevII

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thier were also reports of a small twin engine business jet and a military C-130 was also reported in the area of the Pentagon.

From the reports i heard the fighters were told to go to a worng area.


"Area" being in itself not enough for much evidence. I found the 1010wins broadcast to be most interesting as it was a live on site and they were standing there with a military witness and the NY guy was telling him how to say it.


There is so much smell in this pond that I wonder why it has not been drained already and cleaned. I heard the "wrong way: too..


Excuses like "my dog ate it", "I forgot", "I was playing games" went out in lower school levels. In business they are not allowed. How is it acceptable in governance?


The system is the corruption there and the people allow this



Here are some relevant questions to ponder:

The Pentagon, Capitol Hill and the White House are restricted airspace. Having worked at an Airforce base in the US, I know that there are fighter pilots on standby that have to be able to be in their plane and off the ground within 60 secs. Air Traffic Control should have seen them flying in, so should the Airforce, so what happened?

Also, the same thing for NY, if you're flying east to west or west to east you have to be at either an even 500' like 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 etc. and if in the opposite direction you have to fly at an odd 500' like 3,500 or 4,500 etc.

Their transponder blips on the radar screen. If there's an emergency, then they hit the emergency button. I find it hard to believe that all 4 flights didn't hit the emergency button for the transponder to notify ATC. I don't believe that they took out all the transponders with a Swiss Army Knife. Any ideas?

[edit on 9-3-2006 by ULTIMA1]


Treason, traitors and government sponsored terror.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Then you better go after Clinton if it was treason to cut the alert force. He is the one that was responsible for the budget cuts that forced it to happen. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it was determined that there was no need for a large alert force anymore, so they cut down to 7 bases, and 21 fighters. That started happening in the early 90s, LONG before 9/11.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChapaevII
We are talking the wings hit the building. You can talk about the nose, but is of no interest when you have to discuss the wing. The nose is pretty far from the wings and you can deal with that later. You like to change things too much Smitty. Let's deal with the wings collapsing forward.


Like I said - it is just another theory that can be considered, not my definitive answer to the whole puzzle - are you having difficulty understanding this?
If you have any problems with any of the individual words then you may find this site useful in helping you:

www.dictionary.com...

You really don't do much good for the image of the 9/11 Lies Movement with your tactics my friend.

Here are a couple of the crucial parts of the site in question which you seem to be having difficuly understanding, emphasis mine:


The roots of the wings stayed probably attached to the plane, at least because the main structural beam, located approximately at the first third on the wing depth, was deformed and not sheared. We can consider that the translation energy of the wing was transformed into a movement of rotation around a pivot which can be located approximately at the junction of the wing with the fuselage, at the first third of wing's depth. If we "detach" graphically the wings from the body of the plane, and plot on successive sketches what the movement could have been, we get :



The body is shifted, the nose towards the port side, by the shock against the front of the building. The wings, taken forward by their inertia, fold along the axis of the body. The port engine impacts the low cement blocks which had been put there to protect the ventilation structure.



The body is shifted a little more. The wings keep on folding along the body. The two engines are near to touch the belly of the plane. The starboard wing is drawn according to the hypothesis that it broke against the building. The wing tip has probably bounced against the building and, due to this shock, did not fold as much as the port wing.
perso.wanadoo.fr...


I assume you know about inertia, kinetic energy, etc? You seem to think you know all about physics. It's the same effect that sends you through your windscreen if you don't wear a seatbelt.

And as I've KEPT SAYING - THIS IS NOT MY IDEA OF A DEFINITIVE ANSWER - SIMPLY ANOTHER THEORY WE CAN ADD TO THE POT.

That's if it's all right with you, font of all knowledge?

Check out this video, the plane comes down harder veritically, but look what happens to the wings without them even having to hit anything!!


www.alexisparkinn.com...

As it hits the ground the wings/engine keep going and snap the wing!! Amazing. Breaks all the laws of physics - according to you

Funnily enough, in this video the plane incidently also ends up with the wings neatly folded back, gee it looks like it could fit into a tight place.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 03:13 AM
link   
that's a pretty reasonable physics argument.

except for one thing that i notice right away.

his pictures show solid plane parts travelling through solid walls and pillars.


the (right side, if you're facing forward in the plane)engine is already in the building, yet, still attached to the wing. not possible. unless it repaired the wall after it passed through.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Obviously they would break up more than he is showing for the purpose of explaining it. You have to use your own brain too rather than keep relying on other people for 100% of what should be your own opinion.
As said, for the millionth time, no definitive answer - but still points worth considering.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   
i am using my own head.

that's why it's easy for me to see that these drawings from bird's eye view do not match the pictures of the damage from people's eye view. therefore, they are mostly worthless.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i am using my own head.

that's why it's easy for me to see that these drawings from bird's eye view do not match the pictures of the damage from people's eye view. therefore, they are mostly worthless.


Gee whizz your right! You wouldn't be able to see the plane once it was in the building either! The whole thing is like x-ray vision! It's a sham!
What you really mean to say is that you think anything which entertains the idea of a 757 in any way is worthless.
Aspects of it may very well be correct, obviously the wings themselves will have broken up more than he is suggesting, but the general break up aspect of it on impact may be correct. Unless someone set up a very high frame rate camera like they use for crash tests, we'll frnakly never know for sure.
I'm not sure why you or anyone else keep talking like I've said it's the definitive answer when I have repeatedly said it is not a definitive answer. It just contains aspects worth considering.. *yawn* I'll just set a tape up on repeat


Did you look at this video?

www.alexisparkinn.com...

I know it's a different aircraft and it hits the ground harder vertically, but on impact the wings continue to travel in the direction of the impact, shearing off - then end up folded neatly along the fuselage of the plane! Interesting don't you think? More information we can consider and apply when trying to figure out what happened.

A few stills, though you really need to see the video to appreciate it:



As you can see in the 720 crash video as well, the wing travels forward on impact, though the aircraft does not actually hit a wall - it is shredded by objects on the ground. This is where one might consider the effects of the aircraft hitting objects like the generator unit.

www.alexisparkinn.com...

[edit on 10-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
To make it worse. The FAA registry show Flight 175, tail number N612UA registered as Assigned/Registered Aircraft"..."Status: Valid" until 9/28/05, despite numerous inquiries about it.


Hell man! That is weird.. By the way, like any good analyst did you compare other known crashes with the database to see how accurate those records are to determine if it's a reliable source of information?

Obviously not..... Surprise, surprise..


From Plane crash info site:

ACCIDENT DETAILS

Date: January 01, 2002
Time: 18:02
Location: Hollywood, Florida
Operator: Air Taxi - Air Taxi Inc.
Flight #: -
Route: ?
AC Type: Piper PA-31-250
Registration: N3525Y
cn / ln: 31-7952127
Aboard: 5 (passengers:4 crew:1)
Fatalities: 1 (passengers:4 crew:1)
Ground: 0
Summary: The pilot declared an emergency and ditched into Atlantic Ocean, 300 yards off Dania Beach in 15 feet of water. Fuel exhaustion.

----------------------

ACCIDENT DETAILS

Date: January 04, 2002
Time: 12:07
Location: Birmingham, England
Operator: Agco Corp
Flight #: ?
Route: Birmingham, England - Bangor, MA
AC Type: Canadair CL-604
Registration: N90AG
cn / ln: 5414
Aboard: 5 (passengers:3 crew:2)
Fatalities: 5 (passengers:3 crew:2)
Ground: 0
Summary: After taking off, banked to the left, wing contacted ground, a fire erupted and the aircraft broke up. Failure of the crew to de-ice the wings before takeoff. Possible impairment of crew performance by the combined effects of a non-prescription drug, jet-lag and fatigue were also considered factors.
www.planecrashinfo.com...





N3525Y is Assigned


Assigned/Registered Aircraft

Aircraft Description

Serial Number 31-7952127 Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name PIPER Certificate Issue Date 08/08/2000
Model PA-31-350 Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Type Engine Reciprocating
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 50767531
MFR Year 1979 Fractional Owner NO
registry.faa.gov...




N90AG has multiple records


Assigned/Registered Aircraft

Aircraft Description

Serial Number 11066C Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name MAULE Certificate Issue Date 01/27/2006
Model MX-7-180 Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine Type Engine Reciprocating
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 53066332
MFR Year None Fractional Owner NO
registry.faa.gov...


And more:


From Plane crash info site:
ACCIDENT DETAILS

Date: September 25, 1999
Time: c 17:25
Location: Mt. Mauna Loa, Hawaii
Operator: Big Island Airlines
Flight #: 58
Route: Sightseeing
AC Type: Piper PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftain
Registration: N411WL
cn / ln: 31-8352039
Aboard: 10 (passengers:9 crew:1)
Fatalities: 10 (passengers:9 crew:1)
Ground: 0
Summary: The sightseeing plane crashed on the northeast slopes of Mauna Loa volcano on the island of Hawaii at an altitude of about 10,500 feet. The pilot's decision to continue visual flight into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) in an area of cloud-covered mountainous terrain. Contributing to the accident were the pilot's failure to properly navigate and his disregard for standard operating procedures, including flying into IMC while on a visual flight rules flight plan and failure to obtain a current preflight weather briefing.
www.planecrashinfo.com...



N411WL is Deregistered

Deregistered Aircraft 1 of 1

Aircraft Description
Serial Number 31-8352039 Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name PIPER Certificate Issue Date 02/11/1998
Model PA-31-350 Mode S Code 51154726
Year Manufacturer None Cancel Date 08/10/2000
Reason for Cancellation Cancelled Exported To
registry.faa.gov...


Note how that one is also 'Cancelled' not 'Destroyed', also note the time lapse between the incident and cancellation of about a year.

Well done, you've uncovered a massive clerical conspiracy! Seeing as a lot of the data is incorrect or not updated correctly when there obivously is not a conspiracy involved means that your point is worthless, sorry.. Well I say sorry but I'm not actually.


I wouldn't be surprised if the same sort of errors apply for your mysterious changing departure times - because here's the scoop kiddo - large databases are usually inaccurate as you have to rely on people to keep them up to date



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by billybob
i am using my own head.

that's why it's easy for me to see that these drawings from bird's eye view do not match the pictures of the damage from people's eye view. therefore, they are mostly worthless.


Gee whizz your right! You wouldn't be able to see the plane once it was in the building either! The whole thing is like x-ray vision! It's a sham!
What you really mean to say is that you think anything which entertains the idea of a 757 in any way is worthless.
Aspects of it may very well be correct, obviously the wings themselves will have broken up more than he is suggesting, but the general break up aspect of it on impact may be correct. Unless someone set up a very high frame rate camera like they use for crash tests, we'll frnakly never know for sure.
I'm not sure why you or anyone else keep talking like I've said it's the definitive answer when I have repeatedly said it is not a definitive answer. It just contains aspects worth considering.. *yawn* I'll just set a tape up on repeat



i know you didn't say it was definitive. i didn't say you said it was. i think my 'mostly worthless' is accurate, although i might modify it to 'moderately worthless' just for you, and i admit, it puts a diffent spin on my personal visualisation of the breakup.
the thing is, if you're going to go to all the trouble that this guy did to make a sim, you might want to make sure that you're drawings accurately represent the thing you're simulating. if the wings broke up more, then his drawing should reflect this. otherwise, it is deceptive. he has the wings passing through walls like they don't exist. therefore, it is deceptive. not everyone who sees it will be able to 'see' what i see, as not everyone has the same spatial recognition abilities(ie. the ability to 'build' 3D models in their head.), nor the same physics education, nor do most people have the time or motivation to wade through the mountain of info and disinfo that brings other elements to bear on the equation. like the bizarre taxi incident, and the confiscated videos, etc, etc, etc.....

i'm not sure, but i think maybe scholars for truth think flight 77 hit the pentagon. that puts me against my 'own team'. do i care? no. truth doesn't have a team. i'm not married to any scenario, i am only divorced from some. the pentagon issue is pending for me.

the plane in the video is getting hit from the bottom, and not the front.

by the way, when i read you're posts, now, you're talking in that whacky, over enthusiastic, australian accent. you might want to grab that avatar by the 'beck a the neck'.
the agent smith avatar was much more intellectually intimidating.



this was a hard post to write.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i know you didn't say it was definitive. i didn't say you said it was. i think my 'mostly worthless' is accurate, although i might modify it to 'moderately worthless' just for you, and i admit, it puts a diffent spin on my personal visualisation of the breakup.
[.......]


Fair enough, you do have a point. We should consider the wings starting to break up before they hit the building though in my opinon, maybe as early as when the starboard wing hit the generator and certainly when the nose impacted.



i'm not sure, but i think maybe scholars for truth think flight 77 hit the pentagon. that puts me against my 'own team'. do i care? no. truth doesn't have a team. i'm not married to any scenario, i am only divorced from some. the pentagon issue is pending for me.


I know what you're saying...



the plane in the video is getting hit from the bottom, and not the front.


I know, but there is a shortage of crash videos and this one was the closest thing I could find which demonstrated the principle of the wings attempting to continue travelling in their original direction when the main body of the plane impacted, causing them to sheer off. It was for Chapeav's benefit to be honest as he finds those fundamental laws of physics difficult to understand, so I though it would help him visualise.



by the way, when i read you're posts, now, you're talking in that whacky, over enthusiastic, australian accent. you might want to grab that avatar by the 'beck a the neck'.
the agent smith avatar was much more intellectually intimidating.



this was a hard post to write.


The old avatar sucked, I started to become more like the sort of dark character it portrayed every day and I'm still recovering now, it was an interesting expermiment but it was having more of an effect on me than I'd like to admit!

If you check out one of the other threads I even apologise to you by the way!


[edit on 10-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
WOW. I just read throught 9 pages of this (okay I didn't read 6 and part of eight) And I am confuesd about the WHOLE issue and have to go read those other 911 threads.

I do like the bickering and personal atacks and squabbles about semantics though


Lots of great pictures and diagrams... wow...gotto go read more



Tommorow

Thanks gang

steve



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Apparantly they wanted to use it for his current sentancing trial. I imagine their hope is/was to show it to the jury when they have to decide if he gets to die or not (or whatever the procedure is) to ensure they get the result they want. Anything which gets caught up in legal proceedings seems to become ridiculously tied up in red tape.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join