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.

 

Flight77.info - Pentagon video release imminent?

page: 14
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Well I just saw on Fox News that there was a "Black Box" that was retrieved from the 757 that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon. I wonder why they never released or played those audio recordings to the Public? I for one would sure like to hear them!!! Hmmm... very interesting!




posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Obviously, the logics of physics escaped you when you made the above commentary?
Whether it was a Cessna, F-4, B-1A, B-2, B-52, or a 757 commercial airliner, the principle of physics applies. The F-4 video is simply an example of that, something you failed to grasp.


Yet when we have planes of different designs to those that hit the twin towers, and supposedly the Pentagon, hitting other buildings (which stay standing), anything that happened there must be discarded as irrelevant because "Oranges aren't Apples". If it wasn't so stupid, it would be funny how you people selectively use examples to back your evidence, and expect anyone not to notice.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   


If these wings can rip through a "nuclear power station" wall, how come they didn't rip through the Pentagon's and were "bent back" so to speak, as was said in the "debunk" of why the hole was so much smaller than the wingspan.

Actually, there was some pentration of the wings upon the Pentagon reinforced walls. I believe Catherder's topic shows the slight imprint of wings upon the Pentagon's surface walls around the main fuselage pentration.
seekerof

Shouldn't there have been more than a small imprint. First, keep in mind the Pentagon is NOT a nuclear power plant. Even with its renovations prior to 9/11, the center body of the plane easily made the large central hole. In the video, you can see that the wings at least get fairly far into the concrete wall; so they probably would of made it further through a lesser wall.


The U.S. aircraft engine tests, conducted by Sandia National Laboratories, slammed a 4,000-pound jet engine into a 24-inch-thick concrete wall at 240 mph, resulting in extensive cracking and spallation (concrete pieces on the inside of the wall become dislodged and airborne), but no penetration.


That was a test that the ASME has conducted since 9/11. If a 4,000 pound object managed to extensively crack and spallate the 24 inch thick concrete walls, why weren't these wings able to cause more damage. In this article, they give no information about anything "disentegrating", or at least none that I see. I couldn't find any information regarding the thickness of the Pentagon's walls, but the weight of a Boeing 757 is 128,730 pounds. This is an empty 757; they can carry as much as 255,000 pounds. Assuming that it weighed between 129,000 and 255,000 pounds, and was traveling at the "cruise speed" of the 757, which is 540 mph, AND the fact that the Pentagon walls, at least to my knowledge aren't as reinforced as a nuclear power plant's, it seems likely that the wings would have caused more than "small imprints". Even the F4 Phantom, travelling at 500 mph, weighing 30,000 pounds, managed to get its wings to at least rip through part of the wall before "dissapearing".

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.memagazine.org...


SMR

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Your right Seekerof , I failed to graps the fact that all planes do the same thing upon an impact.No matter the design or size.
Get real man.Telling peole to use that F-4 footage as an example is wrong.If they had done that same test once more or even 5 times more, all results would have been different.Now take into account that a larger, differently designed plane hits a differently build structure...........

I really hope members are not subscribing to your blabber



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
Shouldn't there have been more than a small imprint.

The wings were mainly fuel housing, which means that they probably exploded on impact. Further, the wings are thin and less structured of the aircraft. Thus, to me, imprinting in a situation such as this, would be the norm, being they would have disintergrated, not pentrated as say as the fuselage.





First, keep in mind the Pentagon is NOT a nuclear power plant.

You are correct, but both had somewhat something in common: reinforced concrete walls, though undoubtedly, the Pentagon did not have the depth of reinforcement as a nuclear power plant.





Even with its renovations prior to 9/11, the center body of the plane easily made the large central hole. In the video, you can see that the wings at least get fairly far into the concrete wall; so they probably would of made it further through a lesser wall.

Structural integrity of the fuselage and physics (ie: velocity, energy, etc.).



The U.S. aircraft engine tests, conducted by Sandia National Laboratories, slammed a 4,000-pound jet engine into a 24-inch-thick concrete wall at 240 mph, resulting in extensive cracking and spallation (concrete pieces on the inside of the wall become dislodged and airborne), but no penetration.

Not sure what the thickness was at the Pentagon, though I know what thickness there was was reinforced, but certainly not reinforced enough. The problem I see with the Sandia National lab. test is that there was no first or leading pentrator, ie: the leading fuselage.




That was a test that the ASME has conducted since 9/11. If a 4,000 pound object managed to extensively crack and spallate the 24 inch thick concrete walls, why weren't these wings able to cause more damage.

Fragile nature of the wings coupled with the fuel in them causing them to explode, disrupting the inertia they would have had in penetrating? I am not sure, but I would think penetration would be influenced by a variety of factors.





In this article, they give no information about anything "disentegrating", or at least none that I see. I couldn't find any information regarding the thickness of the Pentagon's walls, but the weight of a Boeing 757 is 128,730 pounds. This is an empty 757; they can carry as much as 255,000 pounds. Assuming that it weighed between 129,000 and 255,000 pounds, and was traveling at the "cruise speed" of the 757, which is 540 mph, AND the fact that the Pentagon walls, at least to my knowledge aren't as reinforced as a nuclear power plant's, it seems likely that the wings would have caused more than "small imprints". Even the F4 Phantom, travelling at 500 mph, weighing 30,000 pounds, managed to get its wings to at least rip through part of the wall before "dissapearing".

The "rip" in this case would be the slight imprint and penetration. The F-4 was not carrying fuel, the 757 was?





en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.memagazine.org...

Appreciate the links.





seekerof



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Your right Seekerof , I failed to graps the fact that all planes do the same thing upon an impact.No matter the design or size.
Get real man.Telling peole to use that F-4 footage as an example is wrong.If they had done that same test once more or even 5 times more, all results would have been different.Now take into account that a larger, differently designed plane hits a differently build structure...........

I really hope members are not subscribing to your blabber

If the above is the best you can refute with, you my dear liberal Californian friend, need to do better. Rhetoric and/or "blabber" is cheap, as is your above quoted commentary. But, please, believe as you see fit, just as I will do likewise.





seekerof



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
There is a ´simple´ and perfectly legal way to put this to rest. Just needs a member with a few weeks on his/her hands and some cojones.

1) Apply for a job at Sheraton National Hotel, any job.
2) Become friendly with security. Infiltrate using trust and discretion.
3) Find out who worked security there on September 11, 2001
4) Learn what they know
5) Quit

Sheraton security on duty that day all watched the footage over and over in awe until the FBI stormed in, confiscated all tapes, and swore everyone to secrecy.

If you find that the original security crew is no longer at the Sheraton, or even on this earth, do not be disappointed nor surprised.



Official website

Sheraton National Hotel
900 South Orme Street
Arlington, Virginia 22204
Phone (703) 521-1900
Fax (703) 271-6626


EDIT: My opinion after seeing the footage is a cruise missile, probably fired from a mobile pack which can be executed by as little as two individuals; one tracker and one carrier. A Global Hawk or Boeing does not leave a smoke or condensation trail below 14.000 feet.

[edit on 16-5-2006 by HardToGet]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I believe there were only something like 2 witnesses at that hotel that either witnessed the crash and/or saw the hotel video footage caught by the hotel cameras. I'm pretty sure they got a gag order on these witnesses too; they might not even work there anymore.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
also ive heard that it was conflicting reports of 747 and/ or757 jets which one, for the record, is it?


Maybe it has been answered but AA does not now (and did not) have 747's in 2001. A 747 is a bigger plane actually than a 757. I'm not sure why the references to a 747 in this thread.


SMR

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
All you have to do Seekerof is show me the plane.It's that simple.
Members such as yourself I am sure waited just as we 'nuts' did for this video to put it all to rest.Only problem is, when it was released, it showed all of us nothing new.

The new video not only shows nothing, but not it shows that it was edited.
Funny how the first video shows the smoke, but in the new video, it skips that smoke and goes right to impact.

However many cheap cams they have in that spot, they are worth crap!
They have to be the cheapest pieces of junk I have ever seen.The video results looked to be altered and thus I will not believe any of it.As I have said, with the quality of that video, I can make it look even better by adding in a 757 to scale and release it.A little Photoshop and some free video tools like VdubMOD and some avs scripts, I can have something much better.So if I can do it and I am sure others can as well, you can bet that the Pentagon can.

Show me the hotel video.Show me the gas station video, but keep this cheap garbage they call proof to themselves!
This is a slap in the face to the family of the victims if you ask me.They too wanted to see the proof and all they got was this junk.Some are now saying they want to see the other cameras footage because this one sucks!



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Just have a look a what a cruise missile looks like when it hits a building, look familiar to anyone?

video 1

Also some cruise missiles can look very similar to planes,

video 2

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Tommio]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tommio
Just have a look a what a cruise missile looks like when it hits a building, look familiar to anyone?

video 1

Also some cruise missiles can look very similar to planes,

video 2

Cruise missiles don't just appear out of no where. If you believe it was a missile, where did it come from? And what happened to the plane that was hijacked?



All you have to do Seekerof is show me the plane.It's that simple.

If you don't believe the dozens if not hundreds of eyewitnesses or the C 130 that was tracking and following the plane then why would you believe anything anyone says on here?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Though I can't really claim to like much about David Icke, if his belief in the use of Divide and Rule is correct, you all have performed quite well in my absence. This heavy drama inside fighting is not helping anyone. Just my 2 cents...

I feel that the videos were bull#. No one got any vindication, because nothing really changed. No one will ever convince me that anything in that video indicated a plane. What I really love is how people are saying that the theorists are wrong. Well, not really, because no one has yet to offer true proof. Sure there have been theories backing the 757, but um... they are just what they are, theories.


But what I love even more are all the anti-conspiracy people on here worshipping this blur like its a golden calf, when I am betting we can find some of the same people on other threads telling someone that their blurry sasquatch is the most ludicrous thing they've ever seen.


Hoped for more, we didn't get it. That's the bottom line, I think almost all of us that are actively participating in this thread have seen those original 5 clips... nothing has changed.



Except of course that after 5 years our government still has not been able to show substantial hard evidence that this was in fact a plane, or otherwise. 5 years. We can fight wars in less than 5 years, but we can't get a simple video clip of a plane hitting that building? Oh yes, of course, all those cameras were synchronized to the point of taking each still at the same exact time, therefore giving all 75+/- cameras the same exact video imagery.....

Walt Disney would be impressed.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   


I still don't know where the bodies went from that crash either and that is the one topic that nobody talks about.


"They" said that the Plane & all of the Bodies (the Bones as well I guess) were just "Vaporized" or "Disintegrated" by the blast - 350 MPH impact & factor in the Jet Fuel, does anyone know if that is even possible?

Also for arguments sake - how hard would it be to alter or modify the exterior of a Plane to make it LOOK as if it were a Commercial Airliner. Perhaps take some 757 spare parts along for the ride. Yeah, I think that it is DEFINITELY possible to pull off!



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Cruise missiles don't just appear out of no where. If you believe it was a missile, where did it come from? And what happened to the plane that was hijacked?


If you watched the second video you would have seen that that missile was launched from a plane...is it so hard to believe that the same thing happened here too? Surely the American government has a way of making planes dissappear if it needs to. I mean come on you've only got 9,161,923 sq km to hide something.


SMR

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
If you don't believe the dozens if not hundreds of eyewitnesses or the C 130 that was tracking and following the plane then why would you believe anything anyone says on here?

Really? First I have heard of this. So this C-130 tracked it, followed it, and I assume watched it crash into the Pentagon? ............ Why do I have trouble seeing this happening?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente



I still don't know where the bodies went from that crash either and that is the one topic that nobody talks about.


"They" said that the Plane & all of the Bodies (the Bones as well I guess) were just "Vaporized" or "Disintegrated" by the blast - 350 MPH impact & factor in the Jet Fuel, does anyone know if that is even possible?


I think it's possible; however, why did enough DNA survive to identify the passengers when the plane itself disentegrated?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tommio
If you watched the second video you would have seen that that missile was launched from a plane...is it so hard to believe that the same thing happened here too? Surely the American government has a way of making planes dissappear if it needs to. I mean come on you've only got 9,161,923 sq km to hide something.


So a plane appears out of the blue, fires a missile, then dissapears into the blue...

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

What happened to the hijacked plane?

__

SS
There's another thread with the link below where it shows a few of the bodies (evidence from the trial). Plane crashes and fragile human bodies don't mix....
Yes what you said is possible....












****some Graphic images******






www.rcfp.org...



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
why did enough DNA survive to identify the passengers when the plane itself disentegrated?


Wouldnt a jet fuel fire be so hot it would destroy any DNA?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
It took me a while to find a picture of a Global Hawk from the right angle.

OK, so I have second thoughts about the missile. What I did was grab the contour of the plane from a frame from the second movie and compared that to an actual picture of a Global Hawk.

There is a resemblance you must admit. However, this still does not explain the trailing smoke though.

Hump-Hump-Tail


Hump-Hump-Tail


What the first capture does show without a doubt is that this was by no means a Boeing 757. No way, no how. If 757 it would have been fuselage-tail, not hump-hump-tail. Same goes for Cruise Missile, no humps should have been present.



new topics




 
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join