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: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
they have missle defense in the ground a military plane with a transponder turned them off is what I saw on one video.
They identified the plane as a older jet modfied and flown...sorry with my post concussion I forgot which video that was, but it was a conspiracy video

plus where was the airforce?
man the system crashed so hard if it was not an inside job you got think that complete morons are running the defenseive line
and we know thats BS
so we are back to where we started????




posted on May, 19 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
think i figured it out, our leaders, are in cahoots with some other leaders who are all part of the group that seeks this New world order. They recruit high level military who our schools have trained to think like morons, then they tell the troops a half-truth, only certain commanders likely were in on any conspiracy to commit 9-11. Its likely that the nazis from world war two, got into our backyard and dug a hole under the house, dig enough holes, eventually the house will collapse. That is part of what happened. Making the powerful wealthy, and the servants and lesser beings slaves. Happy slaves. But the spell had a curse that came with it i think, and is why they failed at the deception.



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
MOST of the US military bases in the US have NO defenses against attack. Not missile launchers or guns anyway. The planning was to have a large number of fighters to defend the United States against incoming bombers. There wasn't any point in having something like a Stinger, or Patriot against an ICBM.



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 05:08 AM
link   
You know, I've seen videos on how to strafe the air with a service rifle. Got pretty good chances of hitting, too. If you can see your target. But, to say there's no defense at a Military post. I mean, come on. It ain't all noodles, gravy, and beer in the eve.



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
So now you're saying I'm either blind or stupid? A Patriot or Avenger launcher is quite noticeable and I never saw ANY sort of fixed, or mobile defenses on ANY base that I have EVER been on, and the only places I haven't been to on most of them are inside weapons lockers (where they'd be stored and not doing a damn bit of good), or inside Intel offices (where there's no way in hell they'd fit). The fighters that were standing alert until the late 90s WERE the defenses. There were a very large number of fighters armed and ready to launch until the fall of the Soviet Union, when they started standing them down.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Keep the focus on the eywitnesses Craig.
You know this is your weak spot.


Originally posted by Jack Tripper
You need to understand.......the physical damage IS the crime.

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

You started looking at the damage and decided it shows a plane didn't hit and then the witnesses just confirmed that?

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

Our brains are obviously wired very differently.


The damage is anomalous.

Problem 1 - not having factored this in. A plane crahing into the Pentagon IS anomolous. How many points of comparison for planes of that type ploying full speed into buildings of that type do you have access to for comparison to decide this is anomolous?


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.


Got me there. It is indeed possible. You think they pushed # around just to fake us out like a plane hit? Do you find guys pushing it or some high-tech method more likely for the generator warping and pushing op? They wanna mess with our minds that bad that they'll just do random stuff like that?

Here's another way to make it look like a plane hit the building... hit the building with a plane. Take that fool-people flyover plane, fly it in at 70 degrees, and bam. Light poles, generator, building, 50 columns, etc.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   
[edit on 8-6-2007 by DaRAGE]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:30 PM
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.


Sorry, your brother's office would have had nothing to do with this planning...



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Have you ever seen what happens when an aircraft, with fuel, hits a solid, steel-reinforced, concrete building?

First, the aircraft is completely disintegrated; any pieces of the plane would be but scraps (hence only scraps were found). This includes the engine and turbines, although it may be likely that parts of the engine or turbine may remain intact, however unlikely (whereas, if a missile hit a building, there would be no recoverable part of the missile remaining).

Secondly, there would be a shockwave so large, it would shatter glass (not the Pentagon’s shatter-proof glass, though), and even knock over fences. If it were a missile, the force of the shockwave would tip cars completely over, probably throwing them a few feet, if close enough to point zero.

Thirdly, the building itself would be damaged only slightly (almost how it was damaged, amazing coincidence, don’t you think?). There would be a hole a large as the main body of the aircraft (which there was), not too deep, as the plane is made of a weak metal called… aluminum, and the wings would make almost no mark, as the wings are just about the weakest part of the aircraft (amazing that that is all true!).

Your picture showed the bottom level seriously damaged; I am not sure what you were looking at. The bottom floor was so damaged, emergency teams placed large wooden crates to try to keep the fortress from collapsing on the weakened base. Did you not see those crates?

In response to the following question “Why are columns 15-20 blown *up and out*, or not damaged at all?” The columns were not damaged that badly because the Pentagon was not hit by a missile, if it were hit by a missile, the columns, along with that entire wall, would not be there!

“Why is there no continuity to the "wing damage" when it tilted up [its] right wing [?] It looks as if the facade simply fell off in this section.” Oh, that is funny; sort of… the façade DID simply fall off in that section!

“Why is the floor undamaged, if a 757 just tilted [its] left wing, dropped down on the ground, and skidded under the first floor?” The ground it not damaged because the plane skid across it. That floor is made up of… concrete, just like the building, except not as nice looking. The plane did not hit the ground nose first, it skidded across it; if the plane hit the ground nose first, you would see a mark on the ground similar to what the picture of the Pentagon looks like.

“How did the generator get turned in direction that would require a plane on the SOUTH SIDE of the Citgo [?]” Shockwave… “Who damaged the interior of the cab driver's car?” Who? Maybe the terrorist flying the plane that smashed into the Pentagon and caused a shockwave, maybe that’s who damaged the car…

Does that help you at all? It sure as hell was a stress reliever for me. Any more questions can be directed to me through a private message.

Thank you… and good night.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Okay: no time for a full explanation, but here is my take on the undamaged foundation. This didn't take me months to figure out, just months to look at it close and thenn minutes to figure it out.

1) The ASCE graphic is clearly a bit wrong. No way was the engine this low.


It would've been buried like this, and also the wing would be too low to bend column 9aa as seen. Here's theire wing placement (red) relative to a position that makes more sense on both fronts (green).

The right wing could even have hit as said with only the left wrong. To see why, it's too complex to explain but has to with the crash process, in which the right wing would be gone by the time the left hit and so via either explosive disintegration or a slight roll of the one-winged plane could come out higher than anticipated. Does that make sense? Anyway...

It wasn't as low as they show, but may well have been low enough to hit the foundation - yet we see no foundation damage in this photo, not that I’d expect any there.


Only one spot really matters to me, at column line 11 where the engine would've passed, and it’s piled with debris here. Three of your four photos are inconclusive on damage at this precise spot in fact. Besides the obfuscation in the photo above, it's off-frame in another, and too far away to see clearly in another.

But the best photo for seeing the smoothness of the undamaged foundation also shows us the clearest shot of the area in question - another pile of rubble just above – no wait, at - ground level. A small pile of broken concrete, curved rebar, at the edge of the otherwise cleared floor – how did that get there? (magnified and enhanced)


Is that the foundation, damaged? This is roughly where that low engine is said to have passed. Hmmm…



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
CL,

Why are you an authority greater than the American Society of Civil Engineers in regards to the wing tilt of the plane?

Because this is what you are claiming in order for your hypothesis to be remotely relevant.

If you maintain that this is the case..........your graphics depict a plane that is perfectly level.

How can you reconcile a perfectly level plane with the anomalous damage to the generator trailer as well as the dubious FDR which depicts otherwise?



[edit on 31-8-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
CL,

Why are you an authority greater than the American Society of Civil Engineers in regards to the wing tilt of the plane?

Because this is what you are claiming in order for your hypothesis to be remotely relevant.


Since when do you give a rat's ass about authority? Fact is they weren't trying to explain column 9's bend, and they just laid a cross-section of the plane like in a spec manualover the building, based apparently on getting the right wing correct. Did they notice the left one was off? That the engine was too low and it didn't match 9aa's bow? Who knows... But if authority and expertise are what you require, then by all means ignore me.


If you maintain that this is the case..........your graphics depict a plane that is perfectly level.

How can you reconcile a perfectly level plane with the anomalous damage to the generator trailer as well as the dubious FDR which depicts otherwise?


I don't. I guess you didn't get what I was saying about wing angles, so lemme try again. It isn't gonna hit like a spec manual, intact and proportionale at each spot. It's 3D - that zone I have trouble with
It's gonna hit nose first, then right wing, then left, exploding in the process. There's still a rough correlation as the time frames for transformation are a split-second, but it would get more fluid. Things don't have to line up perfectly in that sitiation. It was an exploding one-wing plane by the time the left engine and wingroot hit. The right wing already left its mark and left the building by then. So they may not line up. I can't give you numbers and stuff, but do you get this concept?

sorry - here's one that shows the right columns too

And besides, these are side point now. No instant rebuttal, I notice, of the foundation damage (??) I found in your no foundation damage photo. Am I wrong here or what? Irrelevance via lack of accrediation again? Or are you practicing for the dodgeball team?

[edit on 1-9-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 1-9-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 1-9-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
The ASCE was forced to depict the wing tilt due to the generator trailer and lack of right wing damage.

Unfortunately for them the generator trailer damage STILL doesn't work and then other less obvious problems come into play like you mentioned and of course the lack of foundation damage.

But when you level out the plane like you did of course there are many more issues.

Now.....if your argument is that there really IS foundation damage but that it was simply covered by debris than you are simply not considering all the images.




And this pile of debris:



Is actually half outside of the building! As if the damage would be limited to a few feet past the facade from a 757 traveling over 500 mph.




You are not thinking logically.


So far the available evidence shows that there was no damage to the foundation. The ASCE did not report any damage to the foundation. You have not provided any evidence showing that there was damage to the foundation nor a plausible explanation as to how this could happen from a 757 in relation to all the other damage.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
blog post

It comes down to is that a convex form of rubble above floor level, or a concave form benath that? It's possible you could be right, but until I've seen something new I'm still leaning towards foundation damage.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Oh, and the main point I wanted to make:

If indeed this is a pile we're looking at and not a gouge, then that means the spot where there might be damage - what should be the crux of your case - is obscured in all four of your shots.

Since left engine (not "wing/engine") is the only thing reportedly or logically low enough to damage the foundation, the lack of clarity over the spot it's said to have gone past/through renders your own case inconclusive at best.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
You are "leaning towards" foundation damage because that is what fits your preconceived belief not because you have found any evidence to support it.

The evidence only shows that there is no damage.

I shouldn't have said that the debris pile is "half" outside of the building because it looks to be completely out of the building if you consider foreshortening and the angle of the photograph.

You are ignoring the incredible amount of kinetic energy a 90 ton jet at over 500mph would have!

Your explanation that the engine would have "bounced" and not caused obvious foundation damage beyond the facade is pretty silly.
(eta: especially if the plane came in low and level as depicted in the security camera. starting to see all the contradictions yet?)

Why don't you post these images on your blog demonstrating what a plane crash does to concrete?








[edit on 4-9-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Since left engine (not "wing/engine") is the only thing reportedly or logically low enough to damage the foundation, the lack of clarity over the spot it's said to have gone past/through renders your own case inconclusive at best.



What you don't get is that the damage to the building in general and the reported tilt of the plane REQUIRES the left wing to be below the first floor which by default means the engine would be burrowing into the foundation.

So yes the wing placement/damage is entirely relevant to this discussion.

There is no evidence for foundation damage and to think that a tiny debris pile that is arguably not even inside the building at all could possibly conceal ALL of the damage to the foundation is simply nonsense.

There is nothing inconclusive about this.

There is no visible damage and there most certainly WOULD BE if the plane hit as reported.

Once again you managed to put out yet another wishy washy blog that simply casts doubt without objectively analyzing the facts.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join