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.

 

Physical evidence showing the plane did NOT hit.

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
In response to The PentaCon....people usually say something like:

"But physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony."

Well the anomalous physical evidence is what started all the questions to begin with. That's what inspired us to go to Arlington and find out what people saw in the first place.

The eyewitness testimony simply confirmed our suspicions beyond our wildest imaginations.

Here is a nice breakdown in regards to the physical evidence PARTICULARLY in light of the groundbreaking north of the citgo testimony presented in The PentaCon.

You must account for the following:

Where is the tail section damage to the third floor? Why is column 14AA still intact?




Why are columns 15-20 blown *up and out*, or not damaged at all?




Why is there no continuity to the "wing damage" when it tilted up it's right wing?. It looks as if the facade simply fell off in this section.




Why is the floor undamaged, if a 757 just tilted it's left wing, dropped down on the ground, and skidded under the first floor?




If the left wing/engine allegedly tilted and went through/under the first floor. Why is the foundation, the shoring is resting upon, still intact????




Here is the RB211 for scale reference...



How did the generator get turned in direction that would require a plane on the SOUTH SIDE of the Citgo





Who damaged the interior of the cab driver's car?






posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
You know I have a few thoughts on all this...

I'll share them if I have time.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   
this has all been discussed a million times and there are reasons for everything you just pointed out. why don't you go read the giant thread titled "a 757 hit the pentagon", and actually do some research.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Too late lizzie. Jack's a vet, been there, done that, Cat Herder is disinfo.

How did the generator get turned in direction that would require a plane on the SOUTH SIDE of the Citgo

How indeed? What on earth could do that? ...

Other than the cab, which I haven't looked closely at, all my answers to about anything you can throwcan be found here:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... sterlist.html
Call it what you will Jack, it's like Cat herder 2.0. I'm sure you disagree with me so don't even bother.
Column 14 on floor two as you pictured, and 15-17 thought intact on floor one are covered specifically here, something you maybe haven't seen yet:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... ns-taking-stand-against.html. not 100% certain, but about 90% sure these aren't even columns.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   
More of this stuff? You know it's jumped the shark when you see your hundredth photo with arrows and text being pushed as 'proof' of [insert popular conspiracy theory here]. These are even more absurd than most though, gotta give the poster points for that.


FOUNDATION UNDAMAGED ---> picture of total destruction, multiple missing columns, BUT a few square feet of concrete floor that's still intact is proof of a conspiracy!!




posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
You need to understand.......the physical damage IS the crime.

This is what tipped everyone off to the fact that something isn't right.

The damage is anomalous.

So we went to find out what the witnesses saw and it confirmed our suspicions beyond our wildest imaginations.

It doesn't match.

To suggest that the richest most powerful defense agency on earth couldn't have moved a mobile generator trailer in their own backyard during a worldwide psychological operation is simply not logical.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   
So even though the crime can be explained it doesn't matter? Testimonies have no merit because no one says the same thing, who do you believe? It's not logical to think the government would go out of their way to move a generator and knock down the lightpoles for no reason at all. Even if the poles and generator hadn't been damaged that wouldn't change my, and probably everyone elses opinion that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon.

Yeah, Cat Herders the disinfo.



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Whats funny is on the WTC's, the 2nd plane attack went in and the explosion went forward and not back out through the tail end... would that same rule apply here IF it struck the Pentagon?



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I really hate these threads.

That was my brother's office that was hit (long range tactical planning offices.) It WAS a plane. The government didn't do it, because if they had, the office of tactical planning would have had to plan it, and they wouldn't kill off their officers and staff.

Nor would their officers and staff have agreed to die for Bush.

In any case...


Originally posted by BigMoser
Whats funny is on the WTC's, the 2nd plane attack went in and the explosion went forward and not back out through the tail end... would that same rule apply here IF it struck the Pentagon?


Not necessarily. As anyone who has worked with explosives can tell you, that depends on what's around the charge and where it is.

Nor can you assume a set of parameters. The building was not new, had been sitting there and subject to normal stresses (slight shifts in the earth, changes in weight and composition as materials aged), and had undergone some internal remodeling to keep it updated. Then you have to know what the explosive is, how it was delivered, velocity, how tightly it was packed, and what its spray pattern on explosion is along with the force calculations. The building is not a solid lump, but is offices and cubicles of different materials, all of which react and act differently to explosions. Some office doors were open and others were not.

You can't begin to make an accurate model until you have floor plans, materials, details of where things like desks are, etc, etc. You need some knowledge of materials (from an engineering standpoint).


Here's a series of podcasts on bioengineering that will give you some of the basics of engineering problems. Can't find a good podcast on materials engineering (the plain old civil engineering) but if you listen to a few of these you begin to understand the details involved) :
webcast.berkeley.edu...



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I really hate these threads.

That was my brother's office that was hit (long range tactical planning offices.) It WAS a plane. The government didn't do it, because if they had, the office of tactical planning would have had to plan it, and they wouldn't kill off their officers and staff.

Nor would their officers and staff have agreed to die for Bush.

In any case...





Sorry to hear about your brother.

But what makes you think his entire department would have "had" to been involved?

You are a "conspiracy master". Surely you understand that there is a "shadow government" no?



"There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself."— Senator Daniel K. Inouye at the Iran Contra Hearings



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
You stated that your brothers OFFICE was hit. May I assume then, that your brother was absent? I hope so.

Did you see Jack Tripper's video, The PentaCon ?

If so, did you notice the total confusion of the last interviewed police officer, William Lagosse, when he suddenly realized that HIS testimony totally nullified the official flightpath south of Citgo, and ridiculed the downed light poles?

He started realizing that, after Jack started to ask him if he saw light poles go down. He stated himself that he had some experience with air planes and flying them, and directly realized that a huge 757 as seen by him, with that speed, could NOT have made a sharp S-turn to hit those 5 light poles.

He also realized at last that the whole goal of his interview was, to proof that the downed light poles were a set-up operation, and that the whole official story THUS was a set up.

And STILL, he stated again, that he was 100 % sure, just as his colleague police sergeant, that that plane flew past the Citgo gas station on a NORTHERLY flight path.
Luckily we still have honest government officials at the lower ranks.

Do you understand now what Jack is pointing at?



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Byrd I really hope that your brother was not in there, if so I am truly sorry for your loss. I couldn't imagine losing a brother.

Sincerely,

RT




Originally posted by Byrd
I really hate these threads.

That was my brother's office that was hit (long range tactical planning offices.) It WAS a plane. The government didn't do it, because if they had, the office of tactical planning would have had to plan it, and they wouldn't kill off their officers and staff.

Nor would their officers and staff have agreed to die for Bush.




posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Byrd, apologies also.

Did your brother see the plane?
See evidence of a plane?
was he in the office? abset? killed?

I just dont see how your brother being in the office makes a plane being the object that hit it.

If he saw it, ill take that.
If he saw the plane in pieces, ill take that.

But I agree with Jack Tripper, the damage on the pentagon itself means the plane must of been low enough, so low infact that it should of left major marks on the ground, either through scraping it, or through the force the engines created...

either way, the damage does not add up to a boeing plane.

Just because there's a HUGE thread means absolutley NOTHING,
because everyone has an opinion, and if you believe an opinion, doesnt mean others cant post theres.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper





HOW did that tree in front survive if a plane flew through?
Surely it would of been cut down by the wings, or by the sheer velocity of such a fast moving large object?

How is it still standing?



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Agit8dChop,

What is very suspicious to me is that there is the construction site directly adjacent to the impact, thus allow for manipulation of the crime scene.

And that construction just happen to be going on at that particular area of the Pentagon.

Wouldn't you agree with that statement?



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Definately,

The key question that needs to be asked is why?
IF you can find out, WHY that particular part of the pentagon was better of ruined during 911, you'd have a major piece of the puzzle.

There's more evidence saying a commercial boeing DIDNT hit, simply for the lack of debri's, the conflicting witness statements, the damage caused and the sheer difficulty of performing such a task, for novice pilots.

I like the way the plane did a 360 circle ABOVE before it hit...

Surely, some sort of defenses would of picked up the plane, being the towers were already hit.

Boy oh Boy, i would of LOVED to have been a tourist gawking at the pentagon from the sidelines while this thing hit...



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Amazing that on september 12th, 2001 eyewtinesses were already stating


"It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon," Mike Walter, an eyewitness, told CNN. "Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards."


archives.cnn.com...



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Boy oh Boy, i would of LOVED to have been a tourist gawking at the pentagon from the sidelines while this thing hit...


You would have taken pleasure in watching people die??????



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
It would be important to release a video that you took so all this particular piece of the puzzle was fitted into place properly, one way or another

but nooooo

they claim to have video but will not release it.
why is that?
why oh why oh why?
Riddle me that?
if I was that hypothetical tourist I would have had my camara on and that would be important.
sad but important
of course they may have taken my tape too and then what proof would I have>>>>

you know what i am saying, they took all the video evidence.
you cannot have it
they carted away the twin towers to china...they took all the evidence...but hey we have nothing to hide
so go fly a kite
thats the bush doctrine




[edit on 17-5-2007 by junglelord]



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
You know, there's always the obvious. At the time the Pentagon was hit, it was a recognized attack. Last I checked, and I could be wrong (people say this all the time, bunch of meanies), the Pentagon is a [drum roll] Military structure. One would think there would be some level of defense that could be employed. Rather than tracking a plane all the way in, and watching it drop like a piece of well aimed lead at the heart-center of the DOD.

Seriously, why wouldn't they at least evacuate. This plane, later said to have been tracked along such and such air space, had to have required some flight time to achieve it's target.

I'm more up for a satchel charge having been used. Which would be more consistent with the injuries to the unfortunate fellow they showed (who was not evacuated). The burns and type of treatment required were for refined, chemical, and very fast burning explosives. Jet fuel does not sear the flesh off, but rather chars it.

I'd think it more of an embarrassment for them to stagger the belief this air craft lumbered in on a center of War embodiment, and they stared out the windows, thinking no one would dare during a time of attack.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join