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.

 

Pentagon Light Poles (theory)

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I can't see any possible way it's from the tail unless the plane was laying over at 90 degrees. However, there are a lot of white portions on the wings and engines of American Airlines planes. The portion that she ran over, IF IT WAS FROM THE PLANE, could ONLY have come from the cargo bay, which isn't possible.

I find it very odd that the story was accepted so easily. I can see the part going to the Smithsonian, just because it WAS part of the plane, and this was a major event.


I'm gonna see what I can find out about the possible location for the piece, and I'm also waiting to hear back from the Smithsonian about any research that was conducted to validate this woman's claims. I'll let you all know if & when I find out anything. Thanx for the input Zaphod-




posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
This is just a model someone did, but the paintjob is accurate. It'll give you an idea of where the white portions are on the AA paintscheme.





posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
This is just a model someone did, but the paintjob is accurate. It'll give you an idea of where the white portions are on the AA paintscheme.




Thanx for the pic. Are there composite sections of the tail that would match this piece? Or is the tail section still made of aluminum like the wings?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
The majority of the 757 was aluminum, but there were graphite sections. The rudder and elevators would have been too high to have hit the poles, but the engine cowling, or aerodynamic fairings would have been at the right height.


Lightweight materials contribute to the overall efficiency of the 757 models. Improved aluminum alloys, primarily in the wing skins, save 610 pounds (276 kg). Advanced composites such as graphite/epoxy are used in control surfaces (including rudder, elevators and ailerons), aerodynamic fairings, engine cowlings and landing gear doors for a weight savings of 1,100 pounds (500 kg). Another 650 pounds (295 kg) of weight savings is attributable to carbon brakes, which have the added advantage of longer service life than conventional steel brakes.

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 9/13/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The majority of the 757 was aluminum, but there were graphite sections. The rudder and elevators would have been too high to have hit the poles, but the engine cowling, or aerodynamic fairings would have been at the right height.


Lightweight materials contribute to the overall efficiency of the 757 models. Improved aluminum alloys, primarily in the wing skins, save 610 pounds (276 kg). Advanced composites such as graphite/epoxy are used in control surfaces (including rudder, elevators and ailerons), aerodynamic fairings, engine cowlings and landing gear doors for a weight savings of 1,100 pounds (500 kg). Another 650 pounds (295 kg) of weight savings is attributable to carbon brakes, which have the added advantage of longer service life than conventional steel brakes.

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 9/13/2006 by Zaphod58]


Thanx again for the info. I'm gonna get to the bottom of this because it just seems to me like it's a great propaganda tool, w/o being validated as a true artifact.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

I post from a position that we have been repeatedly lied to. IT IS FACT. The lies are on record. From the DoD, FAA, NORAD, POTUS, CHENEY, RICE, TENET, CIA... The list goes on and on yet posters here still give credence to the reports THEY funded and chose the contractors for?



Ok, so we were lied to.

What were we lied to about. It doesnt make a whole lot of sense to poke holes in the official story if you have nothing better to present. What's the point?

If you don't believe in any of the arternate theories what purpose do your questions serve? Your stance is basically that you don't believe the government, thats great, but what does that have to do with a plane hitting the pentagon?

Are you saying that you believe none of the stories about the pentagon? Or just the ones given by the government and news. If you have no stance on this issue, why don't you ever attack the other theories? Or do you find any alternative theory valid simply because the government is not a source? Would you back me up if I said leprechauns planted bombs and then flew a holographic plane into the pentagon?

You see the problem with constant criticism with no alternate solution is that it really accomplishes nothing.

When people believed that flight was impossible, consider what someone might think when they saw their first aircraft.

No matter how many issues they raise claiming flying impossible, the data overwhelms theory.

The majority of evidence points to a Boeing Jet hitting the pentagon. Criticism of this story just for the sake of criticism is an exercise in futility if you have nothing better to present.

What theory do you think fits the evidence better and why?



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Ok, so we were lied to.


So, uou are OK with this?


Originally posted by LeftBehind
What were we lied to about.


I have awhole thread about this.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
It doesnt make a whole lot of sense to poke holes in the official story if you have nothing better to present. What's the point?


Just because I can show A is not true, does not mena there is a "perfect B" that I am going to support. FOR THE LAST TIEM.. THE POINT IS A RELEASE OF THE EVIDECNE and a NEW INVESTIGATION.

[

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If you don't believe in any of the arternate theories what purpose do your questions serve? Your stance is basically that you don't believe the government, thats great, but what does that have to do with a plane hitting the pentagon?


Do I really need to answer this question?


Originally posted by LeftBehind If you have no stance on this issue, why don't you ever attack the other theories?


Because they are NOT being presented AS FACT by our TOP GOVERNEMENT OFFICIALS... They are just people talking... BIG DIFFERENCE.


Originally posted by LeftBehind Would you back me up if I said leprechauns planted bombs and then flew a holographic plane into the pentagon?


No, but if the government said it I would be all over it, you are just some guy... they are the ELECTED LEADERS OF THE "FREE" WORLD.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
You see the problem with constant criticism with no alternate solution is that it really accomplishes nothing.


Wrong.

Step 1. Show the problems with the official story.
Step 2. Build momentum for the release of evidence.
Step 3. a VALID INVESTIGATIOn can occur.
Step 4. FACTS can be rendered.

Quite simple actually.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
What theory do you think fits the evidence better and why?


Bait, bait, bait.... I think the governemt has been proven to lie, conceal evidence and control information re: the Pentagon, this in and of itself makes their story suspect and calls for a new investigation. THEN, I will decide who to believe.

You just want me to say "IT WAS A MISSILE" so you can argue against me... I will not do that. I will continue to attack the shady/criminal nature of the governmetns actions involving th Pentagon.

Sorry... Learn it, Love it, Live it.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
I suppose you are a physics expert?


CLose, I have a BS in ME with a minor in Applied Mathematics from UM AA and am a project lead at a fortune 100 engineering firm for a decade...

More qualified than most here to speak re: Physics, Energy, Fluids, Materials...



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
It's not baiting slap nuts. It's an attempt to have a valid debate.

It's a little ridiculous to debate with someone who takes no position.

You seem to imply that you believe no plane hit the pentagon, and that bombs were used at WTC, but quickly evade as soon as someone calls you on it and say you have no position.

Please if you really have no position to advance, stop advanceing them.

If you have nothing better with which to replace the "government" theories, why criticize them? It's not like the US government are the only ones who believe there were no bombs and that there were no bombs at the trade center.

And no I don't want you to say it was a missile. I want you to present an alternative case that you think fits the evidence better so we can discuss it. Negative proof will never prove anything.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
It's a little ridiculous to debate with someone who takes no position.


I have a position... the governmet story is BS. They lie, supress evidence and use propaganda to convince the retarded masses.

Why do you not argue in support of their story instead of looking for me to post something that allows you to go on the offensive? Is it too hard to defend?


Originally posted by LeftBehind
You seem to imply that you believe no plane hit the pentagon,


Wrong... I clearly state MANY, MANY times I do not know what did or did not hit the Pentagon... THEN I look at photos, etc. (re: EVIDENCE) and try to pick it apart to form an opinion. So far the only opinion I have give is that a 757 colliding with light poles should rip the plane to shreds and that there is a SEVERE lack of parts and pieces in the available evidence at the Pentagon... < .1% of the plane as far as I can guess-timate.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
and that bombs were used at WTC, but quickly evade as soon as someone calls you on it and say you have no position.


I do beleive that the WTC 1, 2 and 7 had some sort of "assistance" to collapse beyond that of an impacting jet liner and ensuing fire. I do not claim to know EXACTLY the nature of this assistance and since the EVIDENCE IS SUPPRESSED, how can I support any particular theory? Again, you just want to put me on the defensive. Too bad.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please if you really have no position to advance, stop advanceing them.


My position is CLEAR... the governmet reports are full of BS, the evidence is bsing supressed, we are being lied to, a new investigatio is needed... I will post about anything I want, anywhere, anytime wether you enjoy it or not... you can always put me on "ignore". Grow up.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
If you have nothing better with which to replace the "government" theories, why criticize them?


Because they are fabrications... evne a chimp can see that.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
And no I don't want you to say it was a missile. I want you to present an alternative case that you think fits the evidence better so we can discuss it. Negative proof will never prove anything.


Sure it will... show evidence that the gov't is LYING, MANUFACTURING EVIDENE, SUPRESSING EVIDENCE, violating laws and that their reports are BS. Hopefully, with the end result being a RELEASE OF THE EVIDENCE and a NEW IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION.

How many times do you want me to tell you this?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join