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 Struck By Enhanced SLCM/BGM-109A Tomahawk Missile

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
If 2000 pounds equals one ton, and the plane weighed 300,000 pounds, Would that not make the plane weigh 150 ton?




posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Snoopy:


Snoopy >> I forgot to add: fire.nist.gov... Thaqt should put the "not a shred ov evidence" claim to bed between those two links. Even if you choose not to believe it (your entitled) you cannot continue to claim there isn't a shred of evidence.


LOL. The junk you post here just keeps getting more and more funny all the time. I looked at your pictures from the official report and none of them show any 100 ton Jetliner anywhere. The second and subsequent floors did not even fall, until 45 minutes after the original Missile Attack, according to CNN News standing on the scene in front of the Pentagon on 9/11: thewebfairy.com... .

We are not talking about little pieces of debris you can pick up with your hands ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ), we are talking about tons and tons and tons of aluminum, engines, fuselage, tails sections, baggage, etc. that accompanies the typical Jetliner crash ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ).

Go ahead and give us Snoopy’s thoughtful commentary on how the Missile Explanation is IMPOSSIBLE and your “100 Ton PLANE” Explanation is proven by the evidence in this case. Heh . . . GL.

What did this ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ) without even moving the spools or melting the plastic covering from the cables ( www.worldnewsstand.net... )? What explanation creates a red hot fire 'inside' the Pentagon, but leaves the plactic on these spools untouched? There are only two possibilities: 1. Missile. 2. Detonated Charges. The second option is ruled out, because the trajectory of the Missile coming apart inside Ring E AND D Ring caused a the hole ( www.davesweb.cnchost.com... ) in the C Ring along the same flight path.

Come one Snoopy, where is the 100 Ton PLANE? How did your PLANE produce the scenario that finds our hole along the Missile's flight path, without taking the entire E and D and C Rings down??? You fail to realize that 100 tons (200,000 pounds) times 500 Miles Per Hour equals far more Newtons of force than we see damage at the Pentagon. The cable spools and all the debris falling outside on the lawn of the Pentagon should have been pushed into the D and C Ring Sections of the Pentagon, that do NOT show that kind of damage at all.

Good Luck in the debate, because you need it,

Terral



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Great post
Well put research but unfortunatley it's all wrong. That's not your fault but the sources. So good work in collecting it all.

First of all the video 'evidence' that shows the object of the frames released of the pentagon attack cannot possibly be any missile short of an ICBM. An unmanned drone is more of a possibility but that theory has been accuratley debunked.

The scale of the object in the video has been proven to be equal to that of a 757 jet produced by Boeing. Not a Global Hawk or a Tomohawk cruise missile.

For a missile to be that big it would have to be an ICBM. We are all fully aware the pentagon wasn't nuked on 9/11 so there goes that idea.

I still have no idea how you CT'ers can still say in a clear frame of a mind that no trace of a 757 was found at the Pentagon. There are peices of the engine (no it's not a global hawk engine), peices of the shell and the landing gear on photographic evidence.

rense.com...


III. Conclusion

Despite the destructive fire that raged inside the impact area on 9/11, pieces of debris were visible on 9/13 and 9/14, and were photographed by recovery workers. These photos clearly show pieces of landing gears, a large turbofan engine, and fuselage. The evidence inside the building is consistent with the evidence of plane wreckage outside -- indicating that a commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon on September 11th.


Explain to me how a cruise missile can manage to knock down 5 traffic poles on its inbound flight. It's not possible unless said cruise missile is 70-90ft wide.

Not to mention the sheer fact that not one single person at the pentagon that day, or even anywhere near the pentagon for that matter, has come out and said they saw a missile.

That includes the security staff at the hotel near the pentagon who watched the video "over and over" before the FBI confiscated it and talked about an American Airlines jet slamming into the building.

The Pentagon theory is damaging the credibility of the whole 9/11 movement. You guys should just drop it. It shows the mentality of a Conspiracy Theorist. Even when the evidence is overwhelming that a plane hit the pentagon you refuse to believe it.

Who would believe you if you, yourself, would believe anything and never admit defeat regardless of the evidence?

[edit on 8/10/2006 by doctorfungi]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Hi SpittinCobra:


Cobra >> If 2000 pounds equals one ton, and the plane weighed 300,000 pounds, Would that not make the plane weigh 150 ton?


No sir. The maximum takeoff weight of the Boeing 757-200 Jetliner is 255,000 pounds, according to Catherder’s ‘disinformation’ atop his (PLANE Theory) thread. That maximum weight is too high, because that includes a maximum amount of kerosene in both wings and a full belly of cargo and passengers. I believe the weight of a typical Jetliner of that class, when in flight for a hour or two with a below average number of passengers is closer to 200,000 pounds or 100 tons. The PLANE Theorist’s biggest problem is locating the 60 tons of aluminum and massive engines somewhere on the scene at the Pentagon. They have no evidence like that, because there was NEVER ANY PLANE. Do not allow their smokescreen tactics to steer you away from ‘the evidence’ that is on full display in the pictures on file.

Look at the fire blazing behind the cable spools. www.worldnewsstand.net...

Do you see any space for 100 tons of Jetliner to fly over them and through the building? No. Why is the debris thrown back towards the spools, instead of being carried into the Pentagon with 100 tons of Jetliner? D’oh! The evidence does not even begin to support any PLANE Theory at all! Loot at the single round hole and the escaping fire from ‘in’ the Pentagon:

www.worldnewsstand.net...

Where do you see evidence of two massive engines impacting the Pentagon on either side of the single hole? Wings? Where is any sign of 100 tons of Jetliner? NOWHERE. It is not inside the building, because the Boeing Pig is 125 feet wide and 155 feet long and almost 50 feet tall. What makes the fire ball image of the Pentagon look like anything but the aftermath of a Missile Attack?? This Tomahawk explanation answers all the questions and points to all the evidence in every photo I have seen concerning the 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon. There is not a single picture of the Pentagon on 9/11 or the aftermath that leads me to believe any other answer but the Missile Explanation.

The truth is presented on this thread over and over again. All you have to do is simply believe it. If you believe otherwise, then simply paste the link to your evidence that proves something different and I am more than happy to look it over and give you a thoughtful reply. After all, if I were closed minded on this topic, then I would be pushing the PLANE Theory with no evidence at all.

GL,

Terral



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I looked it up, you are right. The range is between 200 thousand and 250 thousand take off weigh.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Loot at the single round hole and the escaping fire from ‘in’ the Pentagon:

www.worldnewsstand.net...


BS ALERT!
Once again, after being shown pictures depicting otherwise, you still claim the hole to be round and small, using almost single photo from the Pentagon site publicly available where all but top part of the hole is covered with the firefighting mist.
Why won't you show pics taken BEFORE this one, with no firefighting obstructing view on the hole size and shape? Why won't you show pics taken while the foam is already away, again showing the width and shape of the hole?
Why don't you show pics of the chunks of aluminium on Pentagon lawn, btw?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terral
How do you explain the fact that our CNN reporter standing in front of the Pentagon on 9/11 ( thewebfairy.com... ) says,


“From my close up inspection, there is NO evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon . . .”

Read the whole transcript and you'll see the reporter is responding to Judy Woodruff in the studio, who mentions a report that the plane landed short of the Pentagon. McIntyre responds saying there's no evidence of the plane landing near the Pentagon, meaning it just crashed into the side of it, didn't hit the lawn first. He certainly isn't saying there's no evidence of a plane crash, in fact he talks of wreckage, just in tiny pieces. What I think needs explaining is why McIntyre's quote is used on sites without context, and in a misleading way. Do the people who write these pages want to find the truth, or conceal it?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
As I said, any evidence is pointless since Teral will simply pick and choose what he or she wants to hear. If he disagrees then it's simply dismissed. And the reasons for it being dismissed are overlooked on his theories.

He expects us to believe that a plane impacint solid concrete walls at 500mph is supposed to remain intact and leave large remains. Right. Maybe in fantasy land. but in the real world those expectations are simply impossible.

So I have provided pictures of much of the remains of the 757. I have provided documents presenting scientific backing of the events that present the phsyics involved right down to the mathmatical equations.

Terral has provided no picrtures of any missle, and has presented no scientific evidence what so ever. He also has yet to answer any of my questions. The reason he has refused to ansr them is becaus ehe knows it will deflate his claims. He has every right to censor the information he uses, but the rest of us cannot do that. We have to use all of it, and cannot simply make up our own.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   


Explain to me how a cruise missile can manage to knock down 5 traffic poles on its inbound flight. It's not possible unless said cruise missile is 70-90ft wide.


You forgot to mention that it hit a generator on one side and a vent shaft on the other side of the impact hole. This means that the missle did a 90 degree turn after hiting the generator, then did a 180 degree turn after hitting the vent shaft, then did another 90 degree turn and went into the Pentagon.

So it's easy to see how this kind of missle manuever could be confused for a 100 ton commercial jet.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
What about all the witnesses around the pentagon in Arlington, VA ... who recall seeing a plant, not a missile impact the pentagon. How do we dismiss these peoples recollection of events.



Not far from the Pentagon, Virginia State Trooper Mike Middleton was on patrol, covering the Route 267 Corridor when Trooper Myrlin Wimbish called him over to tell him that an airplane had just crashed into the World Trade Center.

Middleton was writing a ticket at a traffic stop, 800 yards from the Pentagon when he heard Wimbish screaming on the radio that he had “just witnessed a plane slam into the Pentagon."


Alexandria Times Article quoted above

Both these men were working very close to the Pentagon during the attack, 1 witnessed the plane impacting. Both were seriously injured, 1 almost critically. Are we sayin the the VA State Police is in cohoots in this conspiracy with the rest of the federal agencies? If they are why did they rush into the pentagon and end up in the ICU and unable to work for months??

About.com handful of eyewitness accounts to Pentagon attack

What about the photo's someone else posted here showing a portion of the engine, and the landing gear and possibly the nose cone out the back.

Yes the hole looks small compared to what we would think it would be ... but what is the perspective in the picture? The pentagon is a huge structure ... look how it dwarfs the large fire truck fighting the fire. Look how compact the five stories of the pentagon look. We're talking about a structure that covers 29 acres .. in comparison both of the WTC towers and all five other WTC buildings were all within one 16 acre block.

Here's a picture of the pentagon from a top side view ... do we really think a cruise missile could punch through the entire width of the structure?



What about the 125 people who died inside the Pentagon? If there is a conspiracy/coverup going on why are so many people willing to forget their brothers who died inside?

[edit on 10/8/2006 by SmallMindsBigIdeas]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Hi Amfirst:


Amfirst >> God..it never ends...a plane hit the pentagon...there are photos of airplanes seats and engine the size of a truch near the hole.


Really? Please be sure to include those pictures in your next reply.


Amfirst >> it has already been proven that a plane hit the petagon the exact match as a bowing. Good grief, whoever thinks a missle hit the pentagon is seriously delussionally crazy or on drugs.


An unsupported opinion and a quarter does not buy very much here. Surely you realize that a Boeing 757-200 Jetliner weighs more than 100 tons with 60 tons of aluminum alone. We are all waiting to see your pictures of 100 tons of Jetliner Debris with great anticipation.


Amfirst >> A missile will do serious damage, not weak stuff like the pentagon.


Tomahawk Missiles ( www.globalsecurity.org... ) like the one used on the Pentagon ( www.designation-systems.net... ) come with different kinds of warheads with different capabilities. Your statement is like saying all guns inflict the same kind of damage, when there are small caliber pistols and large caliber cannons. The “Fight 77 Hoax” is an inside job and the DoD boys know just how much warhead is enough for any given task. What they could not predict is that part of the missile would remain intact long enough to create the hole in the rear of Ring C.

Missile Trajectory Heading >> www.davesweb.cnchost.com...

Look at the first picture on the left and note the red arrow highlighting the precise direction the Tomahawk Missile was heading upon exploding just inside Ring E (outside section) of the West Wedge wall. Remember that even the far Ring E second and subsequent floors (including the roof) fell sometime after the original Missile Attack Therefore, your view of these three roofs finds the far one (E Ring) in the condition after the fire spread. However, the trajectory line shows how the nose section of the Missile remained intact long enough to tumble through the D Ring and C Ring sections to create the ‘hole’ found in the second picture.

Your statement above is exactly the opposite of the truth, as 100 tons of Jetliner going 500 miles per hour would create sufficient force to not only move these cable spools ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ), but also the walls on fire behind them. Look at the spool picture and note the red hot fire burning just inside the West Wedge E-Ring Wall AND the debris thrown back in the direction of the spools. However, the plastic covering on the cable is not even melted. How?! If a Boeing 757 Pig flopped down right here in front of the Pentagon, then why are these spools still sitting here untouched? Look at the green grass around them. D’oh! You might be thinking, “Well, the Jetliner flew over them.” How? The wall is solid all the way across, except for the 16’ X 20’ hole to the left of the spools. How is your 125 feet wide Jetliner going to get inside? Examine this picture carefully and the hole with relationship to the spools:

www.worldnewsstand.net...

The three orange columns behind the spools are bent back in our direction. How?! The runway to the tip of the Boeing Pigs tail is almost 50 feet. How did your Plane make it above the spools and under the bottom of the second floor highlighted in red??? What you are saying is quite IMPOSSIBLE in light of the evidence. However, a Tomahawk Missile detonating just inside the wall and inside the white circle would indeed cause this precise damage. The three columns should be bent backwards in our direction, because the explosion was just beyond them. That explains why the debris is coming out of the building to be scattered around the untouched spools from the picture above, because the wall itself shielded the spools and their plastic covering from the initial blast. There is no sufficient room for your Boeing Pig to fit, because the Pentagon was struck by a Tomahawk Missile. Do you see any evidence of any Jetliner in any of these pictures? No. Hit all the “Previous” and “Next” buttons you like to see my point.

The next time you write on this thread with another theory, please bring this kind of ‘evidence’ to support your opinions. TY.

GL,

Terral



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Still waiting for you to show a single pic of a missile debris in Pentagon. Or any other. Not these "hey the Army and Navy and Airforce has these missiles so it's sure it was one of them."

Also waiting to get info which warhead causes a hole 75ft wide but much lower. Esp. in the strange pattern the Pentagon hole has.

Also waiting to get info how come all the witnesses reported a plane.

Also waiting for info where did the Flight 77 go then.

Also waiting for explanation who, when and how managed to dump there Flight 77 luggage, body remains, aircraft parts without anybody noticing a thing.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I don't believe for a second that a plane hit the Pentagon. If you are gonna base your opinions on a few pieces of debris that could have been easily planted, you should focus your time on a different subject.
I am still not convinced after 5 years that a plane hit the Pentagon. A few pieces of planted wreckage, ok fine. Where the heck is the the REST of this plane. Let me guys. Small fires easily weakened the core columns and steel beams inside this plane which disintegrated the plane into mere rubble, just like the WTC? Also, no signs of bodies or luggage? How? Why?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ResinLA
I don't believe for a second that a plane hit the Pentagon. If you are gonna base your opinions on a few pieces of debris that could have been easily planted, you should focus your time on a different subject.
I am still not convinced after 5 years that a plane hit the Pentagon. A few pieces of planted wreckage, ok fine. Where the heck is the the REST of this plane. Let me guys. Small fires easily weakened the core columns and steel beams inside this plane which disintegrated the plane into mere rubble, just like the WTC? Also, no signs of bodies or luggage? How? Why?



If you had followed the thread and followed the links in the thread you would see the pictures of many man plane parts. If you read the scientific findsins linked in the thread which shows the physics involved right down to the calculations you would see why there are no large plane parts and why it would be impossible for their to be large plane parts. Simply saying there are only a couple is completely unfounded claim. And saying they could be planted is as well. How do you propose they planted these parts infront of 1000s of witnesses that day who were all there watching as a plane hit the building? How did they plant this debree infront of all those people who saw the impact and the debre flying from that impact and land in front of them? How did they plant an entire 757's worht of remains, including the bodies of the victoms and their belongings there without being seen by the 1000s of bystanders?

How do you propose they went and destroyed the original plane, brought all the parts and bodies to the pentagon and planted them without it being seen? How can you say there are no signs of bodies when there are so many pictures of bodies, luggage, and everything else. Clearly you did not follow these threads.

You ahve every right to the opinion that it was not a plane. Nothing wrong with that. but if you are going to make claims as to why you feel that way in a thread, you might want to read the thread which addresses those issues first.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ResinLA
I don't believe for a second that a plane hit the Pentagon. If you are gonna base your opinions on a few pieces of debris that could have been easily planted, you should focus your time on a different subject.
I am still not convinced after 5 years that a plane hit the Pentagon. A few pieces of planted wreckage, ok fine. Where the heck is the the REST of this plane. Let me guys. Small fires easily weakened the core columns and steel beams inside this plane which disintegrated the plane into mere rubble, just like the WTC? Also, no signs of bodies or luggage? How? Why?


Explain to me how you plant anything in these photos:
www.rense.com...

I have a photo that proves signs of passenger bodies but I'm not posting it here. Look into the Moussoui evidence and you'll find it.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Hi drfungi:


Drfungi > Great post Well put research but unfortunatley it's all wrong. That's not your fault but the sources. So good work in collecting it all.


Please offer evidence for something else, before drawing your own conclusions.


Drfungi >> First of all the video 'evidence' that shows the object of the frames released of the pentagon attack cannot possibly be any missile short of an ICBM. An unmanned drone is more of a possibility but that theory has been accuratley debunked.


Your opinion here does not match the facts in this case. Tomahawk Missiles carry many different kinds and sizes of warheads. millat.com...


The two conventional warheads used in the August 20, 1998 attacks on the Sudan and Afghanistan were the conventional 1,000 pound high explosive and the 1,000 pound cluster bomblet warhead which showers a target with a rain of softball sized bombs. The heavy warheads were used mainly against the factory in Sudan and caves or hardened bunkers in Afghanistan. The bomblet versions were deployed directly against "soft" targets such as people, trucks, buildings and light armored vehicles.


Nothing we can cite from the internet will bring our readers up to date on the ‘current’ status of Tomahawk warheads, guidance and jamming systems or even the latest propulsion advances. The data says the maximum missile speed is 550 MPH, because they do not want us to know they went ‘supersonic’ many years ago. ICBM missiles are not even a remote possibility for this kind of hoax, because they are far too large and cumbersome to fly over, under and between airspace guarded by primary and secondary radar systems. To pull this off the DoD’s Tomahawk Missile had to be launched from a submarine off the eastern coast of the USA with sufficient booster reserves to allow deployment above military and civil radar detection. The preplanned and timed flight of the missile was coordinated to coincide with Flight 77’s westbound flight path, which included the transponder being turned off at the right time. http:// www. cassiopaea. org /cass /boeing .htm (enter and remove spaces)


Laura Knight-Jadczyk >> “The pilot had his last routine communication with the control tower at 8:50 a.m. "At 9:09 a.m., being unable to reach the plane by radar, the Indianapolis air controllers warned of a possible crash," the Washington Post reported. Vice-President Dick Cheney would later explain that the terrorists had "turned off the transponder, which led to a later report that a plane had gone down over Ohio, but it really hadn't." [Meet the Press, NBC, 16 Sept 2001]

This marks the moment that the DoD’s own Tomahawk Missile began its descent straight down from an altitude of over 37,000 feet were any kind of ‘enhanced’ (see Topic Title again) transponder or beacon would be activated to simulate Flight 77's nonexistent ‘eastbound’ return flight to the Pentagon. This is where the DoD did not think their plan through very well, even though on the surface this looks like a good plan. Mr. Cheney let the cat out of the bag in his statement above that the transponder had been turned off. How? Because,


Laura Knight-Jadczyk >> The interruption of a transponder also directly sets off an alert with the military body responsible for air defenses of the United States and Canada, NORAD.


What many ATS members fail to realize is this:


Laura Knight-Jadczyk >> “There are five extremely sophisticated anti-missile batteries in place to protect the Pentagon from an airborne attack. These anti-missile batteries operate automatically.

Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Vic Warzinski claimed the military had not been expecting such an attack. This is not credible. Because the transponder had been turned off, the Pentagon knew full well where that aircraft was. Communications between civilian air traffic controllers and the various federal authorities functioned perfectly.”


The only way these five anti-missile batteries would all fail to engage and deploy is if someone from the DoD turned them off! Why would anyone do that when the Twin Towers had just been attacked? This Flight 77 Pentagon Hoax has all the classic markings of an ‘inside job,’ and quite frankly I am surprised they have evaded scrutiny and even legal prosecution for this long.


drfungi >> The scale of the object in the video has been proven to be equal to that of a 757 jet produced by Boeing. Not a Global Hawk or a Tomohawk cruise missile.


What Video? Your post includes no links to any videos. Please forgive, but fungi saying so means nothing here. Please gather up any evidence you like and present your case ASAP. Your bold assertions are not going to produce one pound of the sixty tons of aluminum supposedly hiding somewhere in all these pictures of the Pentagon. What does this picture show?

www.worldnewsstand.net...

Okay Dr. Video Magic, please offer us your expert commentary on how 100 tons of Jetliner squeezed between the tops of the cable spools and under the second floor highlighted in red above them. That gives you about six feet for your almost 50 feet high Boeing 757-200 Jetliner. Also, please feel free to explain why the three columns above the spools are leaning back in our direction. Do you see any Jetliner in the picture? Neither do I. Here is another:

www.worldnewsstand.net...

Do you see our spools in front of the fireball coming out of the hole? Okay, where are the two holes on either side to accommodate your massive Rolls Royce Engines? Wings? Since they OBVIOUSLY did not enter the Pentagon, then your theory must include them vaporizing into thin air! Right? Otherwise the area above the spools and to the right and left would be damaged to allow your Jet engines to pass on through. Did the Jetliner explode above the cable spools? IMPOSSIBLE. Why?

www.worldnewsstand.net...

The black insulation around the cable is untouched by any flames at all. How?! Why is the debris ejected in our direction outside the building, instead of being carried by 100 tons of Jetliner going 500 miles per hour in the opposite direction? I look forward to your explanations of how these pictures tell your “100 Ton Jetliner Did It" Story.

[Cont]

[edit on 9-10-2006 by Terral]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Drfungi >> For a missile to be that big it would have to be an ICBM. We are all fully aware the pentagon wasn't nuked on 9/11 so there goes that idea.


No. Your limited knowledge and resources in this area are inhibiting your ability to accurately interpret facts from the evidence in this case. Tomahawk Missiles carry all kinds of warheads from conventional to nuclear and everything in between.


drfungi >> I still have no idea how you CT'ers can still say in a clear frame of a mind that no trace of a 757 was found at the Pentagon.


Your limited knowledge on the composition of 100 TONS (60 tons of aluminum, massive jet engines, fuselage, seats, cargo, etc. = www.worldnewsstand.net... ), of Jetliner apparently match your timid understanding of Tomahawk Missiles.


drfungi >> There are peices of the engine (no it's not a global hawk engine), peices of the shell and the landing gear on photographic evidence. rense.com...


Ha! What a joke. We see piles of debris and no sign of TONS of Jetliner Debris. We have already seen from above that no holes were present on either side of the single 16’x20’ hole in the West Wedge wall. How did your bogus engine get inside without making a hole on the outside? Your source says,


Most FEMA photos in the public domain were taken on 9/14/01, after much of the debris was cleared out of the building . . .


Therefore, by their own claims, they have no clue about what might have appeared in these photos three days earlier! My pictures from www.worldnewstand are of the SAME DAY and some within the first 45 minutes BEFORE the second floor collapsed. Since my premise says this is an ‘inside job,’ then evidence you drum up from three days later is not even admissible IMHO. Where are your pictures of events taking place within 1 hour of the Missile detonating behind the West Wedge wall? Show us a tail section or two of the sixty tons of aluminum or something; throw us a bone . . . Your pictures look like a Missile exploded inside the Pentagon.


drfungi >> III. Conclusion: Despite the destructive fire that raged inside the impact area on 9/11, pieces of debris were visible on 9/13 and 9/14, and were photographed by recovery workers. These photos clearly show pieces of landing gears, a large turbofan engine, and fuselage. The evidence inside the building is consistent with the evidence of plane wreckage outside -- indicating that a commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon on September 11th.


Except you are minus about 99.9 tons of Jetliner there partner. We are not talking about bits and pieces you can pick up with your hand ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ). We are looking for evidence of a 100 Ton Jetliner, apart from the cockamamie bull story.


drfungi >> Explain to me how a cruise missile can manage to knock down 5 traffic poles on its inbound flight. It's not possible unless said cruise missile is 70-90ft wide.


Please bring evidence that five poles were knocked down. I answered the pole question here ( www.abovetopsecret.com... )


Terral Original >> My personal analysis of this phenomena is answered by the presence of the “shock wave” generated by the missile itself ( www.fluidmech.net... ). You guys should knock yourselves out ( www.fluidmech.net... ) educating yourself on the realities of “Shock Wave Diffraction” associated with “Fluid Mechanics” at Cambridge. This phenomena of severing light poles at the base and selectively dispensing the accumulated debris into a single pile is connected to the ‘bow shock’ around the Missile and the ‘reattachment shock’ ( www.fluidmech.net... ) created by the obstacle itself. Note how M. S. Cramer’s diagram shows the little circle spiraling on itself adjacent to the obstacle, as the ‘reattachment shock’ is created by the obstacle itself.



drfungi >> Not to mention the sheer fact that not one single person at the pentagon that day, or even anywhere near the pentagon for that matter, has come out and said they saw a missile.


Witnesses inside and around the Pentagon report the presence of a ‘shockwave’ and the smell of ‘cordite’ connected to the detonation of explosives. 911review.org... . Please explain that in light of a plane crash.


drfungi >> That includes the security staff at the hotel near the pentagon who watched the video "over and over" before the FBI confiscated it and talked about an American Airlines jet slamming into the building.


People were running around in hysterics on 9/11 after the Twin Towers were attacked and claimed to see all kinds of things. Please offer us a theory that ‘does’ support all the evidence in this case.


drfungi >> The Pentagon theory is damaging the credibility of the whole 9/11 movement. You guys should just drop it. It shows the mentality of a Conspiracy Theorist. Even when the evidence is overwhelming that a plane hit the pentagon you refuse to believe it.


What you call ‘evidence’ is ridiculous. You offer one link to TRASH and call it quits. The ATS Investigator must be much more diligent and innovative than you are even pretending to be. If you examine all the evidence in my presentation, then perhaps you will see why this HOAX will never go away. The bad guys are still at large and they need to pay for shedding innocent American blood. You seem perfectly willing to roll over and go back to sleep, which would allow the ‘true terrorists’ to get away Scott Free!! No sir. The Official DoD Cover Story is calling us FOOLS. I do not mind being lied to, but at least make the cover story good enough to match the evidence.


drfungi >> Who would believe you if you, yourself, would believe anything and never admit defeat regardless of the evidence?


Catherder’s Disinformation thread currently has 3864 posts on 194 pages and he cannot place 100 tons of Jet debris anywhere near the Pentagon. The difference is I am here to answer your concerns, while my posts to him will continue to go unanswered. You should be asking that question to Catherder.

GL,

Terral



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terral

Witnesses inside and around the Pentagon report the presence of a ‘shockwave’ and the smell of ‘cordite’ connected to the detonation of explosives. 911review.org... . Please explain that in light of a plane crash.


Okay, here's a hole in your own evidence to support your claim, this quote is taken fromt the witness recollection you provided:



Donald R. Bouchoux, 53, a retired Naval officer, a Great Falls resident, a Vietnam veteran and former commanding officer of a Navy fighter squadron, was driving west from Tysons Corner to the Pentagon for a 10am meeting. He wrote: At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards (should be more than 150 yards from the impact) in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit. John Bowman, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and a contractor, was in his office in Corridor Two near the main entrance to the south parking lot. "Everything was calm,' Bowman said. "Most people knew it was a bomb. Everyone evacuated smartly. We have a good sprinkling of military people who have been shot at."


Here's a militarry official, a commanding officer of a Navy fighter squadron, who spent time in Vietnam. He says he saw an aircraft cross 200 yards in front of him and impact the side of the pentagon. He does talk about a shockwave but there was obviously an aircraft ... even if there was some sort of bomb/explosion ... this and several other witnesses say they saw an aircraft not a missile. Somehow I think this guy would know the differece.

What about all the other witnesses who say the saw a plane impacting the pentagon, including the Virginia State Trooper who not only witnessed it but raced inside the burning inferno and later was taken to the hospital and couldn't return to work for 4 months. Why he would fabricate a plane story, is he party of the conspiracy, if so why would he injure himself in a false rescue??



Originally posted by Terral




drfungi >> Explain to me how a cruise missile can manage to knock down 5 traffic poles on its inbound flight. It's not possible unless said cruise missile is 70-90ft wide.


Please bring evidence that five poles were knocked down. I answered the pole question here ( www.abovetopsecret.com... )



Here's a website detailing the damaged pole ... including a diagram show how far away some of the poles were from the pentagon.

Pentagon light poles

As for your shockwave theory ... look at the very top picture in that link and explain to me how a shockwave would knock down all 5 of those light poles but wouldn't do anything to the spools directly in front of the impact area ... you know the ones you complained weren't burned properly. A shockwave is most intense at its center ... certainly something strong enough to knock down light poles 1/4 mile away would toss around those spools. Let alone there's no evidence of any other "shockwave" damage of that magnitude.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
There are two Points I'd like to make.

a) How could a missile possibly bend and knock over the light poles? This blows the theory appart imo. Even if it was modified, do you really think that they would risk hittting them and possibly screwing up their whole 'planned strike'? They might as well of used a plane.

b) The 'missile hole' was actually punched out by firefighters to clear debris and smoke.



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

Originally posted by Terral

No. Your limited knowledge and resources in this area are inhibiting your ability to accurately interpret facts from the evidence in this case. Tomahawk Missiles carry all kinds of warheads from conventional to nuclear and everything in between.

Your limited knowledge on the composition of 100 TONS (60 tons of aluminum, massive jet engines, fuselage, seats, cargo, etc. = www.worldnewsstand.net... ), of Jetliner apparently match your timid understanding of Tomahawk Missiles.

Ha! What a joke. We see piles of debris and no sign of TONS of Jetliner Debris. We have already seen from above that no holes were present on either side of the single 16’x20’ hole in the West Wedge wall. How did your bogus engine get inside without making a hole on the outside? Your source says,

Therefore, by their own claims, they have no clue about what might have appeared in these photos three days earlier! My pictures from www.worldnewstand are of the SAME DAY and some within the first 45 minutes BEFORE the second floor collapsed. Since my premise says this is an ‘inside job,’ then evidence you drum up from three days later is not even admissible IMHO. Where are your pictures of events taking place within 1 hour of the Missile detonating behind the West Wedge wall? Show us a tail section or two of the sixty tons of aluminum or something; throw us a bone . . . Your pictures look like a Missile exploded inside the Pentagon.

Except you are minus about 99.9 tons of Jetliner there partner. We are not talking about bits and pieces you can pick up with your hand ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ). We are looking for evidence of a 100 Ton Jetliner, apart from the cockamamie bull story.

Please bring evidence that five poles were knocked down. I answered the pole question here ( www.abovetopsecret.com... )


Witnesses inside and around the Pentagon report the presence of a ‘shockwave’ and the smell of ‘cordite’ connected to the detonation of explosives. 911review.org... . Please explain that in light of a plane crash.

People were running around in hysterics on 9/11 after the Twin Towers were attacked and claimed to see all kinds of things. Please offer us a theory that ‘does’ support all the evidence in this case.

What you call ‘evidence’ is ridiculous. You offer one link to TRASH and call it quits. The ATS Investigator must be much more diligent and innovative than you are even pretending to be. If you examine all the evidence in my presentation, then perhaps you will see why this HOAX will never go away. The bad guys are still at large and they need to pay for shedding innocent American blood. You seem perfectly willing to roll over and go back to sleep, which would allow the ‘true terrorists’ to get away Scott Free!! No sir. The Official DoD Cover Story is calling us FOOLS. I do not mind being lied to, but at least make the cover story good enough to match the evidence.

Catherder’s Disinformation thread currently has 3864 posts on 194 pages and he cannot place 100 tons of Jet debris anywhere near the Pentagon. The difference is I am here to answer your concerns, while my posts to him will continue to go unanswered. You should be asking that question to Catherder.

GL,

Terral


Your "feacts" are not really facts. Or at least they don't prove a missle hit the Pentagon. It's pure conjecture with no evidencial backing. I mean come on, you are linking to the worldnews. It's a tabloid site. It's the same quality as those tabloids at the grocery checkout that talk about elvis and what not.

Simply they take pictures from conventional plane crashs which were at lower speeds and not ling into concrete buildings at full speed and try to imply that the debre should be the same. Yet if one looks at test footage of aircraft being clown into concrete blocks there is no debre that isn't shredded to tiny peices. So saying that it couldnt be a plane becaus crashes that were in completely difference circumstances don't match is dishonest and misleading.

You have been showed hundreds of pictures of the airplane debre, how can you keep saying there is none? yet there are no pictures of any missle debre anywhere and you claim that to be true. You are clearly being hypocriticla here and dishonest.

It has been explained on this thread how the engines and wing parts got inside. Unfroatunely you seem to follow the bugs bunny theory where the plane should make a punchout the shape of the plane. In the real world it simply does not work that way. i suggest you read the scientific papers and research that explains how it happened. Unless of course you feel you have some credtntials that outrank those scientists. Please let us know.

You hand picked one photo that misleads people, big deal. There are man pictures from before the collapse and they show the stuff you want to ignore. But regardless the size of the hole before the collapse is not an issue. It's only an issue if you follow the bugs bunny theory. But this is reality. And again the debre has been shown time and again, you simply chose to ignore it because you feel it should be in bigger pieces. A notion that is not based on anything scientific but rather opinion based on your limited knowledge of what you THINK should have happened.

Of course there is going to be a shockwave formt he plane impacting the building. It's absurd to imply that only a missle would create one and not a plane.

You are being dishonest by dismissing evidence that doesn't support your pre determined conclusions. And you still haev yet to answer many questions to support your theory.

How does a missle zig zag to hit all the light poles and the generator and the air vent that were on opposite sides of the impact?

How do you fool 1000s of people watching that a missle is a commercial jet?

how did they plant all the bodies and 757 remains at the site without being seen and at the exact time of the impact, since th debre was there from the beginning?

How come no missle remains wer found?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join