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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros

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


And what kind of warhead punches a hole. explodes, then punches an exit hole?

Also, what kind of warhead burns the insides bu leaves many of the support columns in the path between the netrance and exit hols intact?




posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Hi Small:


Small >> 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.


The facts in this case do not match the testimony of your witness. You quoted my references to witnesses to the ‘shockwave’ and ‘cordite,’ which are not characteristic of the typical plane crash. If your military officer’s testimony is correct, then why are we having difficulty finding 100 tons of Jetliner anywhere near the Pentagon? While we can be confident that he is giving details of what he thinks he saw, there is still nothing in the evidence to corroborate his testimony with the facts in this case. Quite frankly I am amazed you are willing to take eyewitness testimony, which directly contradicts the evidence. If your guy had a camera, he would be the only soul with a picture of Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon.


Small >> What about all the other witnesses who say the saw a plane impacting the pentagon, including the Virginia State Trooper . . .


You can parade all the ‘eyewitness’ testimony you like, but none of it means one thing to this case; unless you can connect that with some ‘tangible’ evidence. We have photos and video of events taking place at the Pentagon on 9/11 and NONE of them show any 100 ton jetliner. Right? Right. If you had that kind of evidence, then you would not be showering us with this “he said, she said hearsay” balony that does not match the facts at all.


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


This is the best part of your presentation by far, even if the site is filled with disinformation to mold opinion in favor of the Official DoD Cover Story. The evidence on this site proves that no 757-200 Jetliner could have possibly caused the damage to those poles, because of unaffected poles standing in the same flight path shaded in yellow. Pole #1 ( www.geoffmetcalf.com... ) to the right side has no damage at all and the glass lens appears to have broken upon impacting the ground. In other words, all the component parts are right here in the picture, which is consistent with the bow shock phenomena associated with a supersonic Missile.

If we click on Pole 2 from pictures the on the right side ( www.pentagonresearch.com... ) and go to the bottom of the page, we can see that all the poles are within feet of the flight path. However, the disinformation aspect of this photo is that other poles standing just outside the tiny blue line, but still within the 125 feet wingspan are not highlighted at all. Move up one picture to Pole #2 and note it is lying between two untouched poles and the one of the left is very high indeed, so the top is outside the picture.

Clicking on Pole #5 ( www.pentagonresearch.com... ) we see the fire coming out of a single hole in the West Wedge wall, but no sign of any Jetliner.


Small >> 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.


First of all, let’s not pretend that ‘all five’ of anything was knocked down. We have evidence that five of many poles being picked straight up and deposited back down with hardly a mark on the poles themselves. I know a bow shock waves form around bodies moving in water, air and even space, as a gigantic bow shock wave protects the earth ( www.altair.org... ) from solar radiation. Airplanes approaching Mack 1 experience a great loss in power due to energy transferred to their respective bow shock waves: www.hq.nasa.gov...


”In the calibration of the airspeed system, the assumption is made that the sole error at Mach numbers below 1 is in the measurement of the static pressure. This error results from the influence of the airplane pressure field on the measured pressure. At Mach numbers above 1 there is an additional error resulting from the energy loss in the bow shock wave.


The loss in power is due to the transferal of power from the propelled object to the bow shock wave itself, which grows and shrinks in size relative to the speed and altitude of the missile/plane. The force of the bow shock wave from the Tomahawk Missile transferred energy to the light poles in the direct flight path that were designed to snap off from impact by a VW Rabbit going 20 MPH. In other words, none of these poles were actually impacted by anything, except the very fast moving bow shock wave extending in all directions around the Missile. However, those light poles beyond the range of the shock wave remained standing and unaffected by the Missile passing by at supersonic speed.

Your ‘spools’ question is absurd, because 100 tons of Jetliner exploding over the top of them should have left some sign of melted aluminum or something. However, the Missile exploded inside the Pentagon and left the plastic covered spools intact. My view is that the spools did move, but remember the bow shock wave causes force to be transferred to the obstruction, then that object is returned to its original position. The spools did not have the ‘break away’ technology allowing them to snap with so little force.

GL,

Terral



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Hi ResinLA:

Now that’s what I’m talking about! Welcome to the “Tomahawk Missile Struck the Pentagon” Thread.


Resin >> 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.


Me neither; not for one second. I believe the Missile Thesis of the Opening Posts offers the best explanation for all the facts I have yet to see for this Pentagon Case. One obvious problem we face is the lack of evidence, because Crime Scene Investigators never gathered any evidence, but DoD Operatives ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ) ran around and picked up ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ) - errr - I mean covered up all the evidence. They confiscated video from neighboring gas stations and hotels ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ) and “We The People” can just go to hell. The internet is filled with so much disinformation (like Catherder’s thread in this room) that opinions have been molded to the point that Americans are having difficulty accepting the truth that this is an ‘inside job.’ Anytime ATS Investigators even suspect that evidence tampering and a cover up have taken place, then all the established methods of evidence gathering go right out the window. Everyone is a suspect and we track down the true terrorists by carefully analyzing all the evidence to establish the true facts in the case.

One problem we have at ATS is so that many members are beating the Official DoD Cover Story drum and chanting their Smokescreen Mantra to beat the band. We can hardly hear ourselves think over their “The PLANE, The PLANE, The PLANE did it.” What Plane? These guys are talking about 100 tons of massive Boeing 757-200 Jetliner designed not to come part easily from crashing into anything. This bad boy has 60 tons of aluminum and twin Rolls Royce engines that weigh tons all by themselves. Here is one of the most damning pictures taken on 9/11 before the second floor collapsed:

www.worldnewsstand.net...

How did 100 tons of Jetliner 125 feet wide and 155 feet long and almost 50 feet tall fit between the tops of those spools without touching the windows on the second floor? There is simply no room to accommodate 100 tons of Jetliner in any of these pictures. Look at the three columns bent back in our direction. How is this possible if 100 tons of Jetliner took them out going 500 miles per hour into the building?? IMPOSSIBLE. Here is the wall behind the spools, before the second floor collapsed close up:

www.worldnewsstand.net...

The West Wedge wall behind the spools is ablaze from the inside like a furnace, but the plastic on the spools is untouched. The Missile exploded on the far side of the E-Ring wall, which threw the debris back in our direction. These guys are cleaning up after a Missile Attack.


Resin >> 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.


Good luck getting a straight answer to the simplest questions. I am in the position of having never researched the Pentagon Attack until just recently, so the “PLANE” Theory Propaganda never had a chance to sink in with me. I honestly had no formed opinion either way, before beginning this current ATS Investigation. I am just like you: “Show me the PLANE.” Even if the thing weighed ten tons, I would still want to see the plane; twenty tons or thirty tons; certainly! However, this 100 Ton Boeing 757-200 Pig definitely requires the PLANE Theorists to head out there somewhere and cough us up 100 Tons of evidence. Every time I go out to investigate someone’s evidence, none of the pictures show even a sign of TONS of Jetliner.


Resin >> 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?


Again, GL getting a straight answer from the PLANE Theorists. They turn around and ask me, “Yea, so where is the Missile?” My missile is 1 ton and designed to blow up into tiny pieces, but their PLANE is 100 tons and designed for the opposite worst-case scenario.

GL in the debate and keep asking them to show you the PLANE,

Terral



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terral
Greetings:

I was hoping someone would come along and debunk my “Pentagon Struck By Enhanced SLCM/BGM-109A Tomahawk Missile” proposal by citing evidence on how this cannot be true. Since nobody here has offered anything against this explanation, then I am inclined to believe the Defense Department, Bush Administration, FBI, CIA, ETC. have been lying to us all along. The “Missile” explanations speak to the evidence of no Boeing 757-200 debris found anywhere near the Pentagon and also the mystery hole on the far side on the flight path.

Do you still believe 60 tons of aluminum simply vanished into thin air?

Terral


Please show or tell me what happened to the planes that DID NOT hit the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania. When someone can show me what happened to these two planes and the PEOPLE that were on them then there is NO conspiracy. Its very easy to sit back and overthink an unbelievable event. Its the American way to question things. We have always been a nation of conspiracy theories. We take statistics and curve them to our own beliefs.
Lets face it, Americans LOVE anything we can try and make a conspiracy out of. I myself never believed that Oswald acted alone and I was only 4 when it happened. When I grew older I smelled a fish and eventually the govt admitted that was a conspiracy of some kind. But to even think that the US Govt perpetrated this on the American people is ludicrous at best!



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

Originally posted by Terral
Greetings:

I was hoping someone would come along and debunk my “Pentagon Struck By Enhanced SLCM/BGM-109A Tomahawk Missile” proposal by citing evidence on how this cannot be true. Since nobody here has offered anything against this explanation, then I am inclined to believe the Defense Department, Bush Administration, FBI, CIA, ETC. have been lying to us all along.


Well are you suggesting, whilst hundreds of people gathered to watch, someone dismantled and bent the light poles without anyone noticing? How on EARTH do you explain this? That one point debunks your whole theory imo. Could you please give me your explaination or any possible theory on this.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
This is the source www.worldnewsstand.net... that Terral provides many times in his posts. It is, of course, the table of contents of all the pages that many have been linked throughout this thread as evidence that "the plane" is BS.

My questions are:

Who created this? What is his/her experience and/or credentials? Is he/she an expert on this subject?

These links are put throughout this website. I have looked at these links in efforts to find the author of this piece to see if he/she is credible or not. I can't even find the author. (I might be missing it, but I can't for the life of me find it.) If there is no way to check who created this piece, for all we know it could have been created by a 9th grader in Delware.

Let me do your retort now so you don't have to. Where is my evidence and when I link it, what are their credentials? It doesn't matter yet, (going childish here....) I asked you first. I am not going to answer that until I get an answer from you. The amount of questions answered by asking others to provide their evidence is garbage. If your argument is so sound, then you should be able to answer this question easily without asking for my evidence.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Hi ThinkTooMuch:


Think >> Please show or tell me what happened to the planes that DID NOT hit the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania. When someone can show me what happened to these two planes and the PEOPLE that were on them then there is NO conspiracy.


Your questions are beyond the boundaries of my “Missile” Thesis from the Opening Post, which offers the Tomahawk Missile Explanation over the Official DoD B/A Flight 77 Cover Story. We are examining the physical evidence actually on display at the Pentagon on 9/11 and comparing that to a 1 Ton Missile VERSUS the 100 Ton Jetliner explanation.


Think >> Its very easy to sit back and over think an unbelievable event. It’s the American way to question things. We have always been a nation of conspiracy theories. We take statistics and curve them to our own beliefs.


The simple truth is that the ‘facts’ seen through the ‘evidence’ of events taking place at the Pentagon on 9/11 do NOT match the Official Cover Story; NOT even close. Do you believe 100 Tons of Jetliner debris are present outside the Pentagon OR inside the Pentagon on 9/11?? Every picture I have seen thus far looks exactly like the Pentagon was struck by a well placed “Missile,” which would leave a big hole like this ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ), but no 100 Tons of Jetliner.

Do you have an explanation of how 100 Tons of Jetliner flew over these cable spools ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ) AND under the bottom of the second floor highlighted in red? Well? Do these firefighters appear concerned about any 100 Ton Jetliner? No, because they are mopping up after a Missile Attack.


Think >> Lets face it, Americans LOVE anything we can try and make a conspiracy out of. I myself never believed that Oswald acted alone and I was only 4 when it happened. When I grew older I smelled a fish and eventually the govt admitted that was a conspiracy of some kind. But to even think that the US Govt perpetrated this on the American people is ludicrous at best!


This debate and the presentation of opposing views has nothing to do with Americans loving anything. The Official DoD LIE that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon does NOT fit the evidence in this case! This is about matching the physical evidence with the most likely cause based upon this crime being perpetuated from ‘inside’ the Department of Defense. They are obviously lying about the Cover Story, which leads us to ‘what’ they are truly trying to ‘cover up.’ Go ahead and give us your commentary on the evidence contained within these few pictures and show everyone here how 100 tons of Jetliner somehow crashed and vaporized inside the building. GL.

The fact is the Americans are some of the most naïve and easily duped people on the planet and the DoD is certainly trying to pull the wool over our collective eyes. Next time, please bring evidence to support your assertion that believing the US Government perpetuated this is indeed ludicrous. I would love to give comment on your evidence, but you failed to present anything but mere opinion. How could your 100 Ton Jetliner fly over these cable spools ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ) and pass straight through the wall behind them???

Please point out the PLANE,

GL,

Terral



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Hi Snoopy:

Well, at least you are beginning to ask the right kinds of questions in this debate.


Snoopy >> And what kind of warhead punches a hole. explodes, then punches an exit hole?


Obviously you did not read my Opening Post.


Terral Original >> “The Tomahawk Missile punched a hole through the exterior wall of the Pentagon going about 550 mph, until the warhead detonated and propelled the nose section forward at an even higher velocity. The nose section of the missile tumbled through the Pentagon to punch another hole in the interior wall directly in the flight path of the missile. At about half way down the page ( bedoper.com... ) note the location of the “Hole in wall” in the ASCE report (diagram 3rd pic from the bottom). The columns near the exterior (original impact zone) were taken out by the initial blast of the warhead, while the two (on column line k) near the rear of the building were casualties of the impact from the nose section debris tumbling along in the aftermath of the explosion (see Fig. 6.2 below that one). The hole in the wall was created by the nose section of the missile that remained intact, which had to be removed by those instigating the cover-up. Look at the width of the Jetliner (125 feet) and compare that to the damage inside the building. The columns directly in front of the starboard (right) wing are not even touched (Fig. 6.2).”


The anatomy of our Tomahawk Missile ( www.designation-systems.net... = last diagram at bottom of page) shows three distinct sections with the “Thermal Guidance Section” including the “Imaging Infrared Thermal Seeker” and the “Data Link” Retargeting Hardware located in the nose. The “Payload Section” of the Missile is the ‘thorax’ (in insects) or middle section designed to carry any number of different warheads.


The AGM-109H was a USAF version also known as TAAM (Tactical Anti-Airfield Missile), and was to carry 28 BLU-106/B BKEP (Boosted Kinetic-Energy Penetrator) runway-cratering submunitions.


The DoD operatives perpetuating the Flight 77 Hoax selected the optimal warhead to simulate an actual plane crash, which would obviously include the kinds of ‘submunitions’ described above. When the center of the Missile exploded just inside the West Wedge wall, the nose section was catapulted forward ahead of the blast and the ‘shockwave’ created by the explosion. This allowed the nose section (with submunitions close behind) to travel along the same flight path through the D-Ring and C-Ring to create the 8’X8’ hole in the rear C-Ring wall. The size of the hole was dependent upon the distance from the Missile detonation, as the debris was scattered like the blast from a shotgun. If the rear C-Ring wall had been twenty feet farther along the trajectory heading, the hole would have been a foot or two larger.

The question back to you is this: How does a 100 Ton Jetliner going 500 MPH make a single hole in the far E-Ring wall (exterior of Pentagon = www.worldnewsstand.net... = round white circle) AND fly over the untouched cable spools ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ), without creating two holes on either side for the massive Rolls Royce Engines AND punch a single hole in the rear C-Ring wall THROUGH the D-Ring, without carrying all this debris inside the building??? GL.


Snoopy >> Also, what kind of warhead burns the insides, but leaves many of the support columns in the path between the entrance and exit holes intact?


This question reveals the ridiculous nature of the PLANE Theory completely exposed! The explanation requires us to visit the site from my Opening Post: bedoper.com...

Picture 1 shows a tiny object approaching the Pentagon at a very low altitude. Compare the height of the blurred image to the height of the windows on the front of the West Wedge wall. If the camera is positioned at the same height as the column between our position and the object, the thing cannot be more than five feet off the ground; because the top of the column lines up with the center of the object. If that flying object is anywhere near 5 feet off the ground, then the height of the object is almost half that distance; judging by the clearance below the object.

The Tomahawk Missile from my explanation is just under two feet high. By contrast, the distance from the runway to the tip of the Boeing 757-200 tail is almost 50’ high. The height from the bottom to the top of the cabin is 13’-6” (Catherder’s info on Page 1) or about 15 feet from the bottom of the engines to the top of the cabin. Fifteen feet in this first picture is from the ground to just about half way up the second story windows. Does this object look tall enough to fit the PLANE Theory? Absolutely NOT! Blurred objects in photos appear larger than if we had a clear shot of the object, which points us into the direction of the “Missile” explanation.

Picture 2 >> I see an explosion and the telltale sign of a Missile by the white smoke leading into the blast zone. We also see a bright colored white explosion, rather than a red one with black smoke indicative of a ‘plane’ crashing with kerosene. Does anyone here see 155 feet of 100 Ton Jetliner anywhere? No.

Picture 3 shows the first floor has damage all the way to Column line 8, while the second floor damage is limited to Column line 14; as even the Upgraded windows are still in place to the right of Column line 11. Remember the 100 Ton Jetliner is about 20 feet high from the bottom of the engines to the top of the cabin, and the cable spools under the hole are untouched.

Picture 4 shows the West Wedge wall straight through along the trajectory heading to the 8’x8’ hole in back wall of Ring C. The Missile detonated approximately ten to fifteen feet inside the exterior wall, by the evidence of the right hand columns leaning back in our direction and to the right. The Columns in direct proximity to the blast were taken out instantly, then the tumbling debris continued along the flight path to take out the ones between the blast and the rear C-Ring wall.

[Continued]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Picture 5 is of Column line 14 where the Missile created the ‘entry hole,’ just above the cable spools. What we do not see is evidence that 100 Ton Jetliner with the tail almost 50 feet high struck the Pentagon at all. Do the PLANE Theorists actually believe a massive 100 Ton Jetliner flew through that tiny hole? The location of the cable spools under the hole proves that PLANE Theory is A MYTH! There is simply no room for their theory to ever get off the ground. Do you see holes on either side where the massive engines should have impacted the building? No. Therefore, anyone with pictures of a bogus engine inside the Pentagon has no basis for offering that evidence as one of the ‘facts’ in this case. For their engine to somehow be found inside the building, they must first provide the access location from these photos making that quite impossible.

Picture 6 shows the most damage in the E-Ring (exterior wing) and the D-Ring with columns taken out in the direct flight path of the exploding Missile. However, only two columns (on column line K) were taken out beyond the D-Ring with cracking evident in the adjacent columns, “but no significant impairment in function.” Another telltale sign of our Missile is seen in the orange area directly in the center of the diagram (entering D-Ring) where the disintegrating and tumbling nose section struck the concrete and the “Slab deflected upward.” All of the columns (save 1 = on column line G) within that impact zone were “Impacted – Missing deformation, with significant impairment in function.” The debris field then careened through the C-Ring to create the “Hole” in the rear wall. Since the Missile was traveling just about the speed of sound at impact, the elapsed time from the original blast to the creation of the hole in the rear wall was faster than you can say “Scat!”

Picture 7 shows the futility of the PLANE Theory, as the columns in the path of the starboard engine are not even touched. If we delete the PLANE from the picture and visualize our Missile detonating just inside the Ring E wall, that explains why the three red columns to the right of the hole are bent back in our direction. The Missile debris followed the precise trajectory angel and took out the majority of columns directly in the flight path in Ring E and D. However, the columns of Ring C remained standing, as the Missile debris found daylight between them. If a Boeing 757-200 Pig actually found itself inside the Pentagon (IMPOSSIBLE), it would be found wedged in the network of these standing columns.

Picture 8 shows the hole created by the tumbling Missile debris and “Boosted Kinetic-Energy Penetrator” submunitions part of this ‘Enhanced Tomahawk Missile.’

GL seeing it,

Terral



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jab712
This is the source www.worldnewsstand.net... that Terral provides many times in his posts. It is, of course, the table of contents of all the pages that many have been linked throughout this thread as evidence that "the plane" is BS.


I posted just a couple posts above asking who created this www.worldnewsstand.net... which is posted all over these threads. Then I noticed at the bottom of each slide they show this:

Copyright 2003 911research.wtc7.net

I went to 911research.wtc7.net. I found the original slide show (hence the copyright). This is the original source of quite a bit of Terral's information. (do I need to say copyright again?)


Originally posted by Terral

Please point out the PLANE,

GL,

Terral


You ask for the plane...here are a couple pics.

911research.wtc7.net... (yes, I known we have shown you this before. However, I haven't seen it shown this way before.)

911research.wtc7.net...

Other subject matter

On approach maneuvers:

911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...

Implications of No Plane Theory:

911research.wtc7.net...

Some other stuff

I like this one a lot....jetline pics compared to missle pics

911research.wtc7.net...
(hmmm....looks pretty different to me.)

Now look at this....other crash sites from worldnewsstand's site and from 911research site: (seems like there are other crash sites that left small pieces of planes instead of large ones) I should note that I am not saying worldnewsstand's pics of crash sites aren't real.

www.worldnewsstand.net...
911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Hi Xeros:

Nice ‘get up.’ You are not reading the thread partner. This question has been answered twice now:


Terral Original >> I was hoping someone would come along and debunk my “Pentagon Struck By Enhanced SLCM/BGM-109A Tomahawk Missile” proposal by citing evidence on how this cannot be true. Since nobody here has offered anything against this explanation, then I am inclined to believe the Defense Department, Bush Administration, FBI, CIA, ETC. have been lying to us all along.

Xeros >> Well are you suggesting, whilst hundreds of people gathered to watch, someone dismantled and bent the light poles without anyone noticing? How on EARTH do you explain this? That one point debunks your whole theory imo. Could you please give me your explanation or any possible theory on this.


Page 3 >> www.abovetopsecret.com...

Page 5 >> www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Pole Explanation is probably the most difficult to explain, because it requires some knowledge of astrophysics and/or fluid mechanics ( www.fluidmech.net... ). Basically a ‘bow shock wave’ is created around any object traveling through the air, water or even space. A Missile traveling at supersonic speeds far above the earth creates a much smaller and more streamlined bow shock wave than one traveling at sea level. Missiles approaching a speed Mach 1 and beyond transfer great force from the propulsion system to the bow shock wave enlarging in every direction. The light poles were designed to break away with a small amount of impact pressure, which caused ONLY those in the direct flight path of the Missile to be affected. If you remember seeing the movie “Fire Fox” with Clint Eastwood as the pilot, when he flew right down on the ocean the water was picked up violently and sprayed in every direction, but the actual plane never touched anything.

GL,

Terral



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Hi Jab:


Jab >> This is the source www.worldnewsstand.net... that Terral provides many times in his posts. It is, of course, the table of contents of all the pages that many have been linked throughout this thread as evidence that "the plane" is BS. My questions are: Who created this?


What is “this?” The website? All the pictures you see are provided by 9-11 Research = 911research.wtc7.net... They were selected for their clarity and timing before the second floor collapsed some 45 minutes after the initial attack.


Jab >> What is his/her experience and/or credentials? Is he/she an expert on this subject?


I would think they have more experience investigating this and related topics than anyone here. I am interested in their ‘pictures’ of the evidence to gather the ‘facts’ in this case totally independent of their commentary. In fact, I am not sure they even hold the “Missile” Explanation as a probability. Thus far I have no reason to believe any of their pictures are forgeries or edited versions distorting the facts in this case.


Jab >> These links are put throughout this website. I have looked at these links in efforts to find the author of this piece to see if he/she is credible or not. I can't even find the author. (I might be missing it, but I can't for the life of me find it.) If there is no way to check who created this piece, for all we know it could have been created by a 9th grader in Delware.


Heh . . .No offense to our ATS members in Delaware. : 0 ). These look like the good guys to me.


Jab >> Let me do your retort now so you don't have to. Where is my evidence and when I link it, what are their credentials?


Heh . . .No sir. There is no animosity here. Just present anything that makes your case and I will do the research on your third party references. You seem to believe 100 Tons of Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon. Great! Show me the reason why you believe that way. GL.


Jab >> It doesn't matter yet, (going childish here....) I asked you first. I am not going to answer that until I get an answer from you. The amount of questions answered by asking others to provide their evidence is garbage. If your argument is so sound, then you should be able to answer this question easily without asking for my evidence.


The bottom of every page on the WorldNewStand site shows “911research.wtc7.net.” Just go there and do all the investigating you like. Since nobody on earth has a picture of Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon before or after the Missile Attack on 9/11, you can bring all the evidence you like to prop up your “PLANE” Theory.

GL in the debate,

Terral



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terral
Heh . . .No sir.


For the record...ma'am....but don't say that....makes me feel old



Originally posted by Terral
The bottom of every page on the WorldNewStand site shows “911research.wtc7.net.” Just go there and do all the investigating you like.


Yeah, I figured that out in between our posts....kind of like payments/bills crossing in the mail.

Anyway, now that I figured out where did the pictures on those slides comes from, who was the person who did the other slide presentation. The slide presentation provided in worldnewsstand is different from 911research.wtc7.net (see below)

911research.wtc7.net...
www.worldnewsstand.net...

I know who created the information provided in the 911research slideshow...that was Jim Hoffman. Who was the one who changed it for worldnewsstand? Simple question.

Jim Hoffman does a very good job convincing me that it is plane. Heck, he even has me considering that the whole thing is just to provide disinformation to make the "no plane" theorists looks nuts. Because that is how it looks.

You are basing the no plane theory and actually introducing a missle theory based on the following:

1) Lack of debris. (Despite the pictures of air crashes that do show tiny pieces rather than large pieces 911research.wtc7.net...)

2) Smell of cordite (I really don't even want to touch that one...not even sure I am spelling right.)

3) No good pictures of a plane hitting the Pentagon. (although many things do happen without being caught on film. I did a lot of things yesterday that I did not get on film. That doesn't mean I didn't do them.)

4) You believe there is a possibility that a missle could have had the same impact that actually happened that day, as do some others.

I know you have more, but I am touching the some of the big ones.

You completely ignore:

1) No eyewitness testimony to the missle. (Don't even try to say they won't come forward. You can't tell me that it is a small # of people. The amount of people would have to be numerous. How are they going to keep them all quiet? Kill them? You can't prove those people exisit...yet we can prove the eye witnesses exist.)

2) Too many eyewitness testimony that it was a plane. (You can try all you like to say they are lying or were made to believe otherwise. The likelihood of that is so incredibly low that it isn't even worth arguing.)

3) The actual pictures of plane debris. (We can rehash this until I am old enough to be called ma'am, it just isn't a valid argument for you. You cannot prove that they were planted pieces. I can't prove they weren't planted. However, we have pictures of plane pieces. do you have pictures of someone planting the plane pieces?)

The other thing that stikes me as extremely comical. The source you provide and then tell me is actually 911research.wt7.net. The person who created the original information that you are saying is your source, is saying the EXACT OPPOSITE. Am I the only one who is seeing the comedy in this or what?

Now mind you, Jim Hoffman, is a conspiracy theorist. He believes that a plane hit the Pentagon. He did an entire essay on it. 911research.wtc7.net...

From what I have read from him, he seems far from gullible. He has done his homework and I give him HUGE props for what he has studied and his credibility is much more than a 9th grader from Delaware.

And that by no means is an insult. Hoffman's expertise and education are much more than a 9th grader. It isn't an insult...it is a fact. If I said the 9th grader was stupid that would be an insult.

Read this....I think you may have fallen into the pentagon booby trap.
911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Terral

There has been presented no scientific backing that concludes a tomahawk missle made the hole. Simply saying it was is pure conjecture. Saying the initial columns were taken out is not proof since the plane took those out. And the plane theory has been backed up by scientific evidence that has been posted in the thread. You offer no scientific evidence at all.

In fact the damage disproves your theory because if you wer to look at the damage of all the support beams you would see that it in no way could have been a missle. What ever hit there did not explode, it liquified. You explain that a missle went through and caused the exit hole. Yet there is no direct path that is not blocked by support columns that were still standing after the impact. Again, your claims ae pure conjecture and have no scientific basis.

The questions you keep asking have been answered scientifically on the links I provided. right down to the mathmatical equations. You are unable to do the same with the missle theory. You keep repsenting conjecture with no scientific evidence to back it up. And more importantly you keep citing unreliable web sites that have been known to lie and mislead people. It's no wonder you have been mislead because these sites are designed just to do that. They have no expertise what so ever and have on goal which is not to find truth, but to try to pin things on the government to create sensationalism. The link you use that tries to debunk the perdue findings is simply wrong. it says it tries to explain the standing columns, but it only covers one. it says the grpah is deceptive, but it clearly is not. The author also clearly did not read anything and just looked at the picture, else he would see how the langing gear managed to make it to the exit hole. Something a missle could not have done.

Picture 1, if that is a missle, it would have to be a ICBM. It's exactly proportionate to the size of a 757. Go figure.

Pictrue 2 An explosion is a telltale sign of anything hitting the building at that speed. Not a missle. The white smoke is from the engine that hit the light poles and a generator. And you are tring to mislead people by asking them if they see the 757. it's too blurry, but the argument works against your own. Does anyone see a tomahawk missle? of course not. So your smoke and mirrors technique is not going to fool everyone.

Picture 3 The cable spools wer not untouched, they were hit by the plane as was the generator. Now you have been asked over and over yet refuse to anseer this question. how did you missle hit several light poles as well as the generator and the vent shaft? both of those on the far sides of the impact hole. So did the missle hit the generator, make a 90 degree turn, hit the vent shaft, make a 180 degree turn back, then another 90 degee turn bac and continue through?

picture 4. You have no evidence of where the missle detonated and are making pure conjecture. There was no explosion 15 ft inside the exterior wall because the support columns there are still standing. Not to mention a missle simply does not work that way. You and that site are simply making this stuff up with no expertise what so ever.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Picture 5, once again this notion taht because the spools are there disproves a plane was there is unfounded. you claim the plane is 50 feet tall, but that is only the tail, which flew over the top of the building. And again you are using the bugs bunny thoery to disprove it. And yes a 757 did fly through that hole no matter how many adjectives you use to maek that sound impossible. Because this is not bugs bunny. The scientific explinations have been given to you that show the physics behind it and how it works. And unfortauntely for your theory, it does not work like in the cartoons. You are simply making uneducated claims with no expertise what so ever to dispute scientific findings taht you haven't bothered to read or research because you have no desire to find out what happened.

Picture 6. Once again pure conjecture by someone who has no expertise. you are simply making up a story here and have no expertise what so ever to base your conclusion on. Simply saying it's an exploding missle does not make it so. youy so called tell tale missle signs are tell tale NO missle signs. This is because you do not understand the physics involved and still revert to the bugs bunny theory.

Picture 7 Once again you continue to make uneducated claims with no expertise. Your claims are again in the bugs bunny theory and not in physics. It simply does not work the way you seem to think it does. If you would go read the papers presented you could learn about the physics of impacts. You seem to think the object goes through as a solid object, which simply does not happen.

Picture 8. LOL!

So once again, please explain how a missle hits many light poles that are not in a continuous path as well as the generator and vent shaft on the far sides of the impact hole.

Explain how the 1000s of people watching were fooled into thinking a missle was a "masive 100 ton 50ft high jetline (!!!)" (as you put it).

Explain how they got the remains of the 757 into the pentagon at the exact moment of impact, as well as the bodies of the people on light 77 and their belongings.

You can't do it, becaus eyou kno it disporves your theory. not that the theory has any scientific basis to begin with. but since we are trying to turn it into laymens views of how physics works...



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terral

The bottom of every page on the WorldNewStand site shows “911research.wtc7.net.” Just go there and do all the investigating you like. Since nobody on earth has a picture of Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon before or after the Missile Attack on 9/11, you can bring all the evidence you like to prop up your “PLANE” Theory.

GL in the debate,

Terral


Stil waiting for those pictures of your tomahawk missle anywhere near the Pentagon before or after the plane attack. Once again, your own arguments work against your own claims.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I hate to poke a hole in your ballon but the white nose cone you see in right
hand corner of video is actually the white smoke which is following a blue object,
possibly an A-3 skywarrior?.go to you tube,type in pentagon attack and scroll for
Pentagon video"A CLOSER LOOK".



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Originally posted by snoopy



Picture 5, once again this notion taht because the spools are there disproves a plane was there is unfounded. you claim the plane is 50 feet tall, but that is only the tail, which flew over the top of the building.


The tail flew over the top of the Pentagon? The TOP of the Pentagon? Well that explains everything. That is why there is no marks of the tail on the top floors of the Pentagon! Wow!. You're kidding? I never heard that! Which part of the tail? The vertical stabilizer or the horizontal stabilzer? How much of the empennage went with it? If the tail went over the Pentagon then the tails of the WTC Boeings would have penetrated the WTC much higher than the videos show because both aircraft were about the same speed, both hitting buildings. And if the tail of the Pentagon 757 flew over the Pentagon then the tails of the WTC Boeings would have flown up into the WTC but several floors higher. This is amazing! Where did the tail land?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
The tail flew over the top of the Pentagon? The TOP of the Pentagon? Well that explains everything. That is why there is no marks of the tail on the top floors of the Pentagon! Wow!. You're kidding? I never heard that! Which part of the tail? The vertical stabilizer or the horizontal stabilzer? How much of the empennage went with it? If the tail went over the Pentagon then the tails of the WTC Boeings would have penetrated the WTC much higher than the videos show because both aircraft were about the same speed, both hitting buildings. And if the tail of the Pentagon 757 flew over the Pentagon then the tails of the WTC Boeings would have flown up into the WTC but several floors higher. This is amazing! Where did the tail land?


John,

I thought it was a hologram? Please clarify.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terral
Since nobody on earth has a picture of Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon before or after the Missile Attack on 9/11, you can bring all the evidence you like to prop up your “PLANE” Theory.

GL in the debate,

Terral


Okay, no one has a picture of flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon and no one can prove there is plane debris inside the pentagon. Even though we were shown pitcures of a nose cone and very clearly a landing gear ... were those planted?? If so, where is your proof for that? Did you expect a plane travelling at full speed, loaded with full to be completely intact and sitting inside the building?

Okay so if your saying that unless there is a picture of flight 77 that it can't be proved. I'll counter with where's your picture of a missile hitting the pentagon? The argument goes both ways.

The pentagon sits in a heavily traveled and populated area ... there are tons of witnesses who say they saw a plane impact the pentago. Not one has come forward saying they saw a missile. Eyewitness testimony is in fact evidence, allowed by courts as such, especially in instances such as this where many people can be found to give the same or similar statements. But I guess we can continue to discount their testimony since it doesn't support a conspiracy we've pre-determined has to exist.

The bottom line is that many, many people have investigated this .. the FBI, the DoD and the 911 Commission. They all came to the conclusion that a plane did indeed hit the pentagon. That is the standard, widely accepted account of events ... it would be on you to prove that a missile hit. Not for others to continue to prove what has already been proven but deemed by you to not have sufficient evidence to meet your criteria.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join