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.

 

Eye Witness To Flight 77

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
killtown.911review.org...

Did someone say Skid?




posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Thanks thats the picture I was looking for (the top one). That is an awesome collection. I don't have the time to keep up with all of it.

So much for eyewitnesses huh?

It bounced, it cartwheled, it slid, wing tip plowed.... They ummm WERE all at the same place yes?

I read this on there....

"Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives." -CBS (9/21/01)



Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives

Am I really reading this??


[edit on 13-7-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   
SO know where i can get that grass at now??

In other words I am not keen on the pentagon crash, this and the whole vaporize thing dont go with me. I am more on the WTC/Flight 93 end of this for some reason. I havent really caught on with the pentagon, suprising its a big thing, a 16 ft section of that was there... The plane vaporized and now its aight...

As we see in the 2 images, The guy who took the images and the offical story are in question with just 2 images... Not including the other 9 million that are out there. Just the 2 I posted.

Anyway I am glad you have seen what I did.. This 9/11 thing is a whole big bag a wax if you ask me...

Altho I really want some of that grass..

[edit on 7/13/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomX

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Wow nobody wants to take on the offical story about the plane skidding on the ground and no marks???

By the way you think walmart of lowes or something might have grass that tough.. I was thinking about riding my dirtbike in the yard this summer.


Can you link me someone saying that the plan skidded on the lawn than hit the building?

Cause I think some individuals did say this as exaggeration to how low the plane was to the ground. Just my thought.



[edit on 13-7-2006 by DoomX]


How could it...

A) Be LOW enoguh to clip short light poles

BUT

B) be HIGH enough to have an angle of attack to hit the FIRST Floor and NOT touch the lawn.

And

C) If you say it was "level", barely off the ground the whole way, how was this possible if it was hitting poles and trailers?


A and B seem to be mutually exclusive unless some sort of violent "pop up" manuever was used.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
An ex-boyfriend of mine witnessed the entire event as well. He was jogging when it happened. He called me immediately told me how everything went down and was hysterical. I know that's not 'proof enough' for y'all, but hey it is for me.


Adding: Wanting you to know that I am speaking of the Pentagon crash.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by zenlover28]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
How are A and B mutually exclusive?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
"It bounced, it cartwheled, it slid, wing tip plowed.... They ummm WERE all at the same place yes? "



No not alll in same place.All witnesses saw a plane hit.No missle large enough to take out light poles, generator, fences etc..

Geeze,It must be tough to sleep,with all this paranoid thought.You might wanna cut down on the sedatives.Just trying to help.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Then show me in those images where the plane skidded into the ground, Cause I am sure missing something.

Hell you can even add the 9 million other images of the pentagon crash if you want.

[edit on 7/15/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
The problem here is that people are taking the word "skid" and assuming that it means the plane hit the ground LONG before the building and skid for a long period of time before hitting the building. but this is simply inccorect. Even from the pictures in the thread it is obvious the ground and some equipemtn before the pentagon was damaged. So badly that they had to pour sand just to get the trucks and equipment in there.

If you stop taking the word out of context and thinking of a cartoon, then it makes sense. it hit the ground jsut before the building, hence the impact hole being so low.

As to someone asking about DNA testing, yes DNA testing was done at the Pentagon too.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
If you stop taking the word out of context and thinking of a cartoon, then it makes sense. it hit the ground jsut before the building, hence the impact hole being so low.


HM.. I thought if a plane going 500 mph and somewhat hits the ground it would look something like this.





And to let you know the 2 images of the lawn in this thread are "Minutes" after the crash.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
It would depend on where it hit the ground. A bunch of eyewitnesses have it hitting the ground on the helipad, and others have it hitting the ground at the base of the building, or just before impacting the building.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Ohhhhhhhhh... Now that goes onto a new thing here...

WHERE TF IS THE REST OF THE PLANE!!!??!?!?!?!!


Ya see its like this.. Notice those images there is 2 of them with a tail section, I have noticed looking a those and more images that the tail area of the plane remains intact in most crashes...

Next,

The plane hit the helipad.. Was it the engines or was it the belly????

Next the 16ft hole should have been lower not in the middle of the floors.

Speaking of, since when does 142ft by 48ft equal a 16ft circle?



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Point 1. Those were LOW SPEED, LOW ANGLE crashes. The pilot was trying NOT to crash. In those type of crashes you DO have large pieces left. Flight 77 was a high speed impact directly into a reinforced building. You're NOT going to have a lot of big pieces left over after one of those.

Point 2. The wings flex significantly when a plane lands on the belly, so it would have been the fuselage.

Point 3. If it hit and was breaking up, or even bounced (which planes do) then it would have put the hole higher up in the building.

Point 4. ONLY the fuselage is strong enough to penetrate the building. The wings are NOT strong enough to go through the wall. The fuselage is about 14 feet in diameter so a 16 foot hole would be about the right size.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Point 4. ONLY the fuselage is strong enough to penetrate the building. The wings are NOT strong enough to go through the wall. The fuselage is about 14 feet in diameter so a 16 foot hole would be about the right size.


Ahh so a plane with is 14 ft??

So how about the 48ft hieght?? does that just dissapear?? kinda like the wings luggage and so on did??



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
48 feet is with the landing gear down. You raise the gear and you lose a good 8-10 feet right there. And yes, the tail is about as weak as the wings are. For what they're designed for, they're very strong. When you slam them into a building at 500 mph, they're not gonna survive long if at all.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Steve Riskus, steveriskus@aol.com wrote:
I took these pictures less then 1 minutes after I watched the american airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon on september 11 2001. I left shortly after the picture were taken in fear of further attacks.
Feel free to contact me anytime if you have questions about my pictures.
I did acctually see the plane impact the building.
www.criticalthrash.com...


You see the issue wit this guy is..

He actually has proof that the official story is BS.. and perhaps himself.



Original links for pics above,
www.criticalthrash.com...
www.criticalthrash.com...
Here we see the serious skid marks on the ground where the plane supposidly skilled into the ground. See the big groves there.. Look closely..

Ya thought so.
---------------------------
Mod edit-to resize pics

[edit on 12-7-2006 by asala]


Call me crazy but I have question here.

Where are the drivers to these vehicles? All of the cars are empty except the 2 guys in the first picture.


They're not by that guard rail or the median.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by 2smooth4ya]



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
They're not by that guard rail or the median.

Just wondering?Since you can't see them in the photo,has that led you to believe they don't exist? I can't understand where you are going with this?



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Ever seen a major accident scene? Everyone stops, gets out of their car, and congregates in a big group to watch the blood and gore flow. That's probably where the drivers were. They got out, went wherever the best view/biggest group was, and were standing there talking.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
They're not by that guard rail or the median.

Just wondering?Since you can't see them in the photo,has that led you to believe they don't exist? I can't understand where you are going with this?


I didn't say that they don't exist. I just found it odd that no one was in/near their vehicle.

Usually most people would be at least NEAR their vehicle, especially after an explosion. People just don't congregate that QUICKLY.

And remember this guy stated that he took the pictures RIGHT AFTER he saw the plane hit. I don't think that most people would've just got out their cars within that time frame and if they did, they would've been near them or at least by the guard rail trying to find out what happended.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by 2smooth4ya]



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
What does that mean "right after"? A second? Or a time that it takes to leave car, find a good place and start taking pictures?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join