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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Hi Xeros:


Xeros >> This is the third time I've posted the same question. Please don't ignore it. John Lear, Terral, anybody!


I have answered your question twice and you refuse to either read them or believe.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The two links from that post send you back to Page 3. Read up on the ‘Fluid Mechanics’ subject ( www.fluidmech.net... ) on ‘bow shock waves’ and how energy was transferred to the poles designed to ‘break away’ with very little force. Everyone here should realize that the wings of a one to two ton missile can be manipulated to create a smaller OR larger ‘bow shock wave.’ The DoD was obviously trying to simulate a much larger Jetliner with their smaller Tomahawk Missile. Your boat moves all kinds of things with the ‘waves’ going in both directions without ever coming in direct contact with anything.

A supersonic Missile sends these shock waves in every direction and with greater force when approaching and exceeding the speed of sound at sea level. A VW Rabbit knocks one of these poles down going 20 miles per hour ( www.pentagonresearch.com... ) just 23 inches off the ground. The Missile is doing supersonic speeds at just 4 or 5 feet off the ground ( bedoper.com... = top picture). The bow shock wave from the Missile knocked down the poles flying along this flight path ( www.pentagonresearch.com... = last picture).

Please stop posting that I have not answered this “pole” subject, as it gets very annoying. : 0 )

GL,

Terral




posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Originally posted by snoopy






In both cases the plane liquified upon impact.



Liquefy means to change into a fluid. I didn't see the F-4 change into a fluid and no post crash pictures were shown so I don't really know what remained. They probably didn't show that for a reason. Probably the liquid was too deep. Something was too deep, at any rate.

As to a Boeing 757 liquefying at the Pentagon you should understand that physically and scientifically that cannot happen. A 250,000 pounds airplane cannot change into a fluid no matter how fast is it going and no matter what it hit. Even if it hit the ocean going straight down, the airplane is not going to liquefy. It will be wet. But it will not liquefy.

It is my humble, but scientifically and experience based opinion that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Furthermore you seem to be exaggerating how many people 'saw a Boeing 757' 'crash into the Pentagon'. We have a few that saw an airplane and a few that saw the explosion but as far as any that 'saw a Boeing 757 crash into the Pentagon' a very small number.

The freeways may have been crowded with rush hour traffic but most drivers and passengers are not looking for an alleged Boeing 757 allegedly travelling at 400 miles per hour at 5 feet off of the ground. The first thing that they would have been aware of is a crash and explosion. This does not amount to 'seeing a Boeing 757 crash into the Pentagon.

If you took the time to plot a line of sight which would include the final few hundred feet of the alleged Boeing 757 and the wall to which it allegedly impacted very few drivers would have had that complete view. Probably less than 20. If that. (You should understand that visibility out of a vehicle is limited to a general direction of 'straight ahead' unless you have reason to turn your head. Your vision out of a vehicle is blocked by windshield posts, window posts and the roof of the vehicle).

Of those drivers maybe half would have even been looking for an alleged Boeing 757 travelling allegedly at 400 mph. Out of the 10 remaining, less than half would have been able to instantly identify the alleged Boeing 757. I honestly don't recall 5 people that specifically said, "Yes, I a saw a Boeing 757 travelling at a high rate of speed impact the Pentagon." I believe that some said "aircraft" or "small airliner" which does not constitute A Boeing 757 and could describe a missile.

Hundreds or thousands of witnesses? No, that satement is without substance or foundation. Much less fact.

As far as military personnel I said 'many' not 'most'. And 'many' of the military or ex-military described exactly what the government would like you to believe. Thats because they value their careers. And the 'career' issue is why you don't see very many, if any, military personnel arguing against the 911 government propaganda.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terral
Hi Xeros:


Xeros >> This is the third time I've posted the same question. Please don't ignore it. John Lear, Terral, anybody!


I have answered your question twice and you refuse to either read them or believe.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The two links from that post send you back to Page 3. Read up on the ‘Fluid Mechanics’ subject ( www.fluidmech.net... ) on ‘bow shock waves’ and how energy was transferred to the poles designed to ‘break away’ with very little force. Everyone here should realize that the wings of a one to two ton missile can be manipulated to create a smaller OR larger ‘bow shock wave.’ The DoD was obviously trying to simulate a much larger Jetliner with their smaller Tomahawk Missile. Your boat moves all kinds of things with the ‘waves’ going in both directions without ever coming in direct contact with anything.

A supersonic Missile sends these shock waves in every direction and with greater force when approaching and exceeding the speed of sound at sea level. A VW Rabbit knocks one of these poles down going 20 miles per hour ( www.pentagonresearch.com... ) just 23 inches off the ground. The Missile is doing supersonic speeds at just 4 or 5 feet off the ground ( bedoper.com... = top picture). The bow shock wave from the Missile knocked down the poles flying along this flight path ( www.pentagonresearch.com... = last picture).

Please stop posting that I have not answered this “pole” subject, as it gets very annoying. : 0 )

GL,

Terral


Hey thanks, I'm sorry, I missed that, Doh:bnghd: (and I thought I wasn't being listened to
) I'm only looking for the truth and am not taking sides here so I wont do any of this refusal/denial BS. That is very interesting and I haven't heard that before. I consider the missile theory to be more plausible now. So good job


[edit on 12-10-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Hi Xeros:


Xeros >> Hey thanks, I'm sorry, I missed that, Doh (and I thought I wasn't being listened to ) I'm only looking for the truth and am not taking sides here so I wont do any of this refusal/denial BS. That is very interesting and I haven't heard that before. I consider the missile theory to be more plausible now. So good job


No problem at all, Xeros. I have posts with many questions on Catherder’s thread that nobody will ever answer, so I know it feels to be left out in the cold. I am glad to see you are working through the evidence with eyes wide open in search of the facts leading to the truth. The ‘pole’ evidence is perhaps the most difficult aspect of the Missile OR PLANE Theories to adequately explain to anyone, because the bow shock waves are invisible to the naked eye. This is the same principle that protects the earth from solar radiation, as the naturally occurring bow shock wave ( pluto.space.swri.edu... ) deflects the harmful rays. We can gather a basic understanding of this phenomena from the online encyclopedia ( en.wikipedia.org... ).

GL,

Terral



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Terral.... Of course I have a picture of the Missile approaching the Pentagon: bedoper.com... .


So I looked at the first picture and now if you look at my pictures you can clearly see that the thing you are pointing at is still at the right side of the screen well after the explosion.

www.twf.org...

As you click through each slide on the right hand side the object you point to as a missile is still there in every frame.

Besides your mathematical answers, since you are plane wreckage expert.....tell me the "logical" explanation of what happened to flight 77 and the people who boarded it.

When people are trying to prove something they should have an explanation for every "what about this" that comes up. You have not stated once what happened to those people or what your "theory" is. You can not say it wasn't a plane until you can back up every part of the story. Including like JAB said...plane tickets, expenses, deaths of everyday people who when you Google them are actually "real".

So once again your picture is incorrect - so I see no missile
And two until you can tell me your theory on the people you are no closer to being correct or being able to convince anyone.




[edit on 12-10-2006 by emulsion6]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Originally posted by emulsion6




When people are trying to prove something they should have an explanation for every "what about this" that comes up. You have not stated once what happened to those people or what your "theory" is. You can not say it wasn't a plane until you can back up every part of the story. Including like JAB said...plane tickets, expenses, deaths of everyday people who when you Google them are actually "real".

So once again your picture is incorrect - so I see no missile
And two until you can tell me your theory on the people you are no closer to being correct or being able to convince anyone.


Apparently you don't read previous posts, it was only one page back but here it is again:

Where the Pentagon B-757 went? Where the Shanksville B-757 went, I haven't got a clue. What did they do with the passengers? I haven't got a clue. But I will tell you this. No Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon and no Boeing 757 was in that smoking hole in Shanksville.

Peoples inability to grasp the reality that there where no Boeing 757's at either the Pentagon or Shanksville is tempered by mystery of what happened to the passengers. In the back of their minds they are thinking, "Well if there were no airplanes, where are the passengers?" That mystery, "What happened to the passengers" is the diabolical mystery that prevents people from accepting the truth. People want answers, they need to connect things. And if they can't connect a plausible story as to what happened to the passengers then they aren't going to buy into "No Boeing 757 at the Pentagon or Shanksville. Thats just the way people are. They will not buy into a loose end. And they think thats 'logical' no matter how strong the evidence is for no Boeing 757 at the Pentagon or Shanksville.

See what I mean?



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Unfortunately, I don't see what you mean. It sounds to me like you are saying that my asking about the passengers is irrelevant. I'm sorry but I don't think it is.

When in a forum like this and debating topics, if you are going to insist that you are correct and someone else is wrong you have to have something plausible for all factors not just a few factors.

It's like comparing apples and oranges and saying well you can compare the color but not the taste ...taste has nothing to do with it. Come on.

You are right I will not see past the idea of it had to be a plane until you can tell me what happened to the passengers.




[edit on 12-10-2006 by emulsion6]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by emulsion6

Besides your mathematical answers, since you are plane wreckage expert.....tell me the "logical" explanation of what happened to flight 77 and the people who boarded it.

When people are trying to prove something they should have an explanation for every "what about this" that comes up. You have not stated once what happened to those people or what your "theory" is. You can not say it wasn't a plane until you can back up every part of the story. Including like JAB said...plane tickets, expenses, deaths of everyday people who when you Google them are actually "real".



Terral, Emulsion here has an excellent point here.

Let's just say, that you are right and it was a missile. I am going to pretend for a moment that the gray/white blob on the right is in fact a missile and that you have convinced me with all of your technical evidence of a missile.....

The official story says, along with at least a hundred witnesses, that it was a plane. (let's not argue what kind of plane and whatnot) Flight 77 is "supposedly" what hit the Pentagon. What happened to Flight 77 and the people on board?

While your technical evidence of a missile could very well make sense, you haven't explained what the heck happened to flight 77 and the people on board. Which would make this theory...half baked. You have only half of the issue covered. In order for your theory to be more concrete, you would require the other half of the equation explained in as much detail.

You discount the passengers aboard the "alleged" plane because your technical evidence shows to you (and others) a missile. However, you need to be able to dispute all of it, not just some of it. You may say that the evidence of a missile in itself disputes the existence of Flight 77. But it doesn't because there is a passenger list, there are eye witnesses to the plane, etc. (Yes, i will come back with some links).

I will admit, again, that there is something fishy going on. I just can't swallow the missile theory unless you have a good explanation for the rest of it. I am all ears (eyes)



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Posted by emulsion6
You are right I will not see past the idea of it had to be a plane until you can tell me what happened to the passengers.

Posted by jab712
just can't swallow the missile theory unless you have a good explanation for the rest of it. I am all ears (eyes).



Now do you see what I mean?



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by emulsion6
Unfortunately, I don't see what you mean. It sounds to me like you are saying that my asking about the passengers is irrelevant. I'm sorry but I don't think it is.

When in a forum like this and debating topics, if you are going to insist that you are correct and someone else is wrong you have to have something plausible for all factors not just a few factors.

It's like comparing apples and oranges and saying well you can compare the color but not the taste ...taste has nothing to do with it. Come on.

You are right I will not see past the idea of it had to be a plane until you can tell me what happened to the passengers.
[edit on 12-10-2006 by emulsion6]


Again, another excellent point. Great analogy Emulsion.


Originally posted by johnlear

Peoples inability to grasp the reality that there where no Boeing 757's at either the Pentagon or Shanksville is tempered by mystery of what happened to the passengers. In the back of their minds they are thinking, "Well if there were no airplanes, where are the passengers?" That mystery, "What happened to the passengers" is the diabolical mystery that prevents people from accepting the truth. People want answers, they need to connect things. And if they can't connect a plausible story as to what happened to the passengers then they aren't going to buy into "No Boeing 757 at the Pentagon or Shanksville. Thats just the way people are. They will not buy into a loose end. And they think thats 'logical' no matter how strong the evidence is for no Boeing 757 at the Pentagon or Shanksville.

See what I mean?



I cannot really see what you mean here John. So much so that I am having trouble coming up with a question to ask to even begin to understand it.

Yet I am going to try....

1) The flights never existed?
2) The list of people aboard the alleged planes never existed?
3) The people claiming to have lost family members on that flight don't exist?
4) All the people who have given interviews about their family members being lost on those flights or told other people of their non-exisitant family members that were lost on those flights are lying?
5) if the answers to questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all yes, then you have hundreds of people lying?
6) If you answer to number 5 is yes, how on earth, could you possibly get that many people to lie and stick with it to this day? And can I have their names, cuz I would love to know someone who could actually keep my secrets that well.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
No still don't.

I mean basically your saying that you really don't need all the facts for something to be true.

So I could say

www.bbc.co.uk...

These are round and have seeds so they must be a tomato.

Then someone says no it is an orange because of color

and I say no color has nothing to do with it. Just the fact that they are round and have seeds makes them a tomato.

Or to Quote the above

"Well if there were no airplanes, where are the passengers?" That mystery, "What happened to the passengers" is the diabolical mystery that prevents people from accepting the truth.


"Well if there are seeds, who cares about the color?" That mystery, "What about the color" is the diabolical mystery that prevents people from accepting the truth.

You make no sense.



[edit on 12-10-2006 by emulsion6]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Posted by emulsion6
You are right I will not see past the idea of it had to be a plane until you can tell me what happened to the passengers.

Posted by jab712
just can't swallow the missile theory unless you have a good explanation for the rest of it. I am all ears (eyes).



Now do you see what I mean?



John, I really don't want to seem disrespectful, but that is a copout. It is an easy way for you to try to rationalize something that doesn't make sense.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Emulsion6 and jab712 I think you misunderstand the point I am trying to make.

The point I am trying to make is that while I don't need to know what happened to the plane or passengers to believe that no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon that most people, including yourselves are not going to buy into that without more proof. You are not going to buy into a conclusion with a loose end.

You keep asking me questions about what happened to the passengers etc etc. I have already stated on many occasions I don't know. What I am trying to tell you, but which you don't seem to understand, is that I don't need to know what happened to the passengers to be absolutely certain that no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

Whereas, as I pointed out in my post, people like yourselves, along with millions of other Americans (and foreigners) are not going to buy into what I am buying into without an explanation of what happened to the airplane and passengers.

See what I mean?



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I see your point. You believe it even though there is a huge loose end.

However, because I, Emulsion, as well as many others, do not accept the loose end, does not make us wrong in believing it was not a missile...correct?

Also, let me make sure I understand this as well, because YOU don't need to know what happened to the passengers does this no way mean that the discussion is no longer up for debate. Correct?



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Originally posted by jab712


I see your point. You believe it even though there is a huge loose end.


Thank you for your understanding.


However, because I, Emulsion, as well as many others, do not accept the loose end, does not make us wrong in believing it was not a missile...correct?


Correct.


Also, let me make sure I understand this as well, because YOU don't need to know what happened to the passengers does this no way mean that the discussion is no longer up for debate. Correct?


This discussion is always open for debate particularly with people llike yourself who are just interested in finding out the truth.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Too be honest if someone could tell me a "theory" on the where abouts of the passangers I would probably sway toward the missle idea based on everything that has been said up until this point.

Unfortunately, it does not get rid of the fact that 1) a plane took off that day - 2)"something" crashed into the pentagon -3) people abord that plane are gone.

it is loose end that ties into the "something" that hit the pentagon. It is a big loose end I mean think about it. If it were a missle that is a HUGE cover up of Flight 77 and its where abouts.

In the end you are right. I can not see past plane vs missle without the passanger explination.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
John

Liquify does not mean to change into a fluid. It's a term used to describe how the plane shatters into many small pieces and acts in a fluid manner. As you can see from the test crash the plane shatters into pieces mostly the size of dust. And those tiny pieces move in a fuild manner. In the case of the test plane, it hits an impenetrable object, so the debris flies outward, just as would happen if it were liquid. For teh Pentagon, it punctured the outer wall and continued through. Flowing through the building in and around support beams just like a liquid. Again, this isn't refering to actual liquid, just the properties of the debris.

The 757 scientifically can and did liquify. The links provided show in great detail exactly how this happens, right down to the mathematical equations used for the caluculations. But again, I think the problem is people misunderstanding the term and thinking that it turned into an actual liquid, which was not the case, and as you said is impossible. But this is just a misunderstanding of terminology.

I really don't think I am exagerating who was watching. No one can deny that in prime rush hour there were thousands if not 10's of thousands of people there. You are simply referring to the number of people who were interviewed. Clearly they are only going to interview a few hundred people (which they did). but had it been a missle, you can be sure that there would be people talking. But since it was a plane and reported as a plane, people would have no reason to speak up. People would have noticed the plane flying over since it was so low. And this accounts for so many people reporting such. I don't recall any reports of the plane being 5 ft off the ground.

As for the view, it can be seen clearly a great number of highways around the pentagon with a perfect view. not to mention again that the plane flying over the rest of the city was clearly visible, and cna be confirmed by eyewitness accounts. It's kind of like you are saying that if only 5 people at the JFK shooting were interviewed, then there were only 5 people there to see it. But clearly there were hundreds of people there.

There weren't many people saying it was specifically a 757, because most people don't know which model plane is which. They do however know the difference between a missle and a commercial jet. But they don't need to know the exact model number.

Again, I can back the claim of 1000s of witnesses simply by taking the amount of road space in view, and dividing it by the average car length. And take that for the surrounding mile or so. Clearly not everyone would be paying attention, but even to take maybe 10 percent of all of those people in the area would still easily be in the 1000s. Not to mention the 100s (lliterally) of actual witness reports, none of which claim to have seen a missle.

And again there are those remaining questions, such as how a missle would be able to hit all the light poles that are not in a direct path, as well as the objects to the sides of the impact hole. And how a missle reaches the exit hole whos path is completely blocked by support beams that were left in tact. And then how they managed to plant all of the 757's wreckage and passengers and belongings at the scene. Keep in mind this stuff, at least on the outside was there from the moment of impact.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
John

Liquify does not mean to change into a fluid.


WRONG:

liq·ue·fy also liq·ui·fy (lkw-f) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "liquify" [P]
v. liq·ue·fied, liq·ue·fy·ing, liq·ue·fies
v. tr.

To cause to become liquid, especially:

1. To melt (a solid) by heating.
2. To condense (a gas) by cooling.

WHY BOTHER WITH THE REST OF YOUR JUNK WHEN YOU ARE CLEARLY MAKING THINGS UP?

I call BS on EVERYTHING you post.

The term you are trying to substitute is SHATTER. MUCH... MUCH different.

YOU ARE DESCRIBING A "PARTICLE SYSTEM". again MUCH, MUCH different than LIQUIFY.

As to your "thousands" of witnesses... GIVE ME A SOURCE... wait, you NEVER do that.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by emulsion6
Too be honest if someone could tell me a "theory" on the where abouts of the passangers I would probably sway toward the missle idea based on everything that has been said up until this point.

Unfortunately, it does not get rid of the fact that 1) a plane took off that day - 2)"something" crashed into the pentagon -3) people abord that plane are gone.

it is loose end that ties into the "something" that hit the pentagon. It is a big loose end I mean think about it. If it were a missle that is a HUGE cover up of Flight 77 and its where abouts.

In the end you are right. I can not see past plane vs missle without the passanger explination.


The passengers were in the Pentagon. I don't understand why anyone would ask what happened to the passengers. The question to me is that if it was a missle, how did the passengers end up in the Pentagon?

One could argue they were plaanted. But there were far too many people watching for that to happen. And then you have a scenario of them having to go crash the real plane, take the passengers and all the plane parts (100s of tons as someone said) and plant thema all at the scene without anyone seeing.

This means they would have to crash a plane without anyone knowing, to cover up a missle hit and make people believe a plane crashed. Does this make much sense to anyone? And this whole big elaborate plot based simply on hoping that no one would happen to see the missle. And the missle was used to fool people into thinking its a plane instead of just using another remote controlled plane. Does this make sense?



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Snoopy: Because you are making outrageous claims here, please describe the difference between:

Impact, shattering and the resultant dynamic particle system

and

Liquification

Please cite a dictionary or other reference book of your choosing.


[edit on 12-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join