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.

 

757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

page: 37
20
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
You know, its amazing how many times these pictures have been posted at ATS...and yet there are still people that have appearantly never seen them.

www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...


Lets see...other shots....

This picture shows a couple bodies inside the Pentagon, one of which is supposedly a passenger from Flight 77 due to the appearant remains of a seat belt (I didnt take the picture I can only relay what was said by the people who were there when the picture was taken) This was used as evidence in the Moussie trial.


Broken link removed

I will be back later with more......


Mod Edit - remove Broken link.



[edit on 1/2/2008 by Sauron]




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
And before someone complains that the last link doesnt work...

www.rcfp.org...

And another...

www.rcfp.org...



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


LOL you think we haven't seen the same pics you have? Or are privy to the same information?

Sry but my opinion doesn't come from not seeing the same stuff you have. I guess somehow you see a 757 in that small amount of rubble? Sry but I don't, and you can huff and puff and jump up and down all you want it's not going to change my opinion.

Can you explain how the engine shrouds managed to not hit the ground before the whole plane was supposedly swallowed by the pentagoon. And can you do it without the attitude...
Thanx mate...



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


LOL you think we haven't seen the same pics you have? Or are privy to the same information?

Sry but my opinion doesn't come from not seeing the same stuff you have. I guess somehow you see a 757 in that small amount of rubble? Sry but I don't, and you can huff and puff and jump up and down all you want it's not going to change my opinion.

Can you explain how the engine shrouds managed to not hit the ground before the whole plane was supposedly swallowed by the pentagoon. And can you do it without the attitude...
Thanx mate...


First question, and an obvious one, do you know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the engine pods DID NOT skim across the concrete before hitting the Pentagon?

I dont need to huff and puff or jump up and down. I could post every picture of every piece of wreckage that was recovered (including the photos locked up) and you still wouldnt believe it. For that matter, if I could break into the storage area where all the videos that the FBI has and post them (of which, I highly doubt any of them had the vantage point to show Flight 77), and you wouldnt believe those either.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I can actually feel myself getting dumber everytime I look at those pictures, but not dumb enough to believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Peace



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



Can you explain how the engine shrouds managed to not hit the ground before the whole plane was supposedly swallowed by the pentagoon. And can you do it without the attitude...
Thanx mate...


Anok,

I posted an animation on the previous page that very clearly shows how this could be done. Also in that video, are actual photographs...one which very cleary shows how one of the engines (port I think) gouged out an almost perfect semi-circle from a short concrete retaining wall just tens of feet from the outside wall of the Pentagon. Please take a look and let me know what you think. As Orion pointed out, the video is mostly a modeled animation, but I believe it expalins how what your asking about could happen.

Here is a still of the gouged concrete. What do you think caused this?




If not an airliner, what do you think caused this damage pattern?



One last picture. I'm posting this as one more piece of evidence to counter the statements that others on this thread, and many websites have made. That statement is that 9 feet of reinforced concrete walls would had to have been breached to get all the way through the C ring. This statement is untrue.

This picture shows the first floor floorplan all the way from the facade to AE drive. An open plan with many reinforced columns, which as the Purdue and ITAP models show, essentially shredded the aircraft.







posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I can actually feel myself getting dumber everytime I look at those pictures, but not dumb enough to believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Peace




I don't recall any 757 believers recently calling any 757 non-believers dumb. So what's with the insult?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Gouged concrete could have been caused by the force of the explosion from the missle, the global hawk that had only ONE engine, thus the pics of ONE part of ONE engine.

The cable spools sitting there where the engines and fuselage would have knocked them all over the place tell a tale.

The BIG fact is this: There were TWO massive sin tons ( each ) engines that supposedly slammed into the wall: WHERE are the hols and damage from those engines? There is none! It does not exist! you believe that the NOSE of an aircraft could cause one huge hole and that the engines would cause NO damage? See how silly it is to believe a large jet hit there?

There are NO SUITCASES and NO clothing and NO airplane debris...just shards and pieces of the thing that blew up.The perfectly round hole deeper inside the Pentagon could NOT, in any way, shape or form have caused the holes we see; but a missle could. Explosives were used to simulate an aircraft crash: No airliner was found; The FBI will NOT confirm or release any serial numbers of perts. Why? Because if the came out and said: Hey, it doesn't match", the entire nation would go bonkers.

While seeing Bush and Cheney being frog marched out of the White House in handcuffs charged with high treaosn, muder and conspiracy would thrill me beyond words. it will not happen just like the JFK murder had to be covered up: For the ' good of the nation '. and all that crap.


There is NO evidence whatsoever that an aircraft hit the Pentagon. AOO the photos shown depict only the damage caused by the perps, the Neocons and their explosives, NOT an airliner that somehow disappeared along with the wings simply disappearing and the taol also...on and on. The official story is a total lie and a bad joke. ONLY the careless and uninformed could believe the fairy tale that is the official story.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


Could you please give us a plausible explanation of your hypothesis as to how an alleged 757 did not do the following at the Pentagon?:

1. Did not touch any of those huge spools of construction material or construction trailers.

2. Did not appear to break many, if any, vertical supports in the Pentagon wall.

3. Did not do any trenching across the Pentagon campus lawn to allegedly impact at belly ground level.

4. Left so many unbroken windows at the site of the highest carbon residue concencentration, which is the point of alleged entry of a 757.

5. Did not leave any evidence, on the campus lawn, of any 757 at the time of explosion as shown in the US bureaucracy's own photo frames from video.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
If the alleged 757 was supposed to have Pratt and Whitney engines, but they stuck Rolls Royce parts as "debris", they best have a plausible explanation for that one. According to what I have read, that "debris" was parts of a Rolls Royce engine.

Plus, the wrong color primer was on part of the "debris" metal stated to be their alleged 757. The year of the plane, alleged to have done the damge, did not have that color primer used in the year it was manufacturered. I cite Peter Tiradera's book 9-11 Coup Against America The Pentagon Analysis.

With debris being violently flung, something like parts of an engine would definitely be partially buried in the Pentagon campus lawn. That is a given for heavy metal flung violently towards the ground.

What is also amazing is a RR high pressure stage rotor, alleged to be 757 plane "debris", became detached from a Rolls Royce engine, and was in pristine condition from what was alleged to have violently detached from the rest of the engine. It sits mid-way inside the encased engine tightly packed in with other large parts of the engine. The part is approximately 2-2 1/2' in diameter.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86 The BIG fact is this: There were TWO massive sin tons ( each ) engines that supposedly slammed into the wall: WHERE are the hols and damage from those engines? There is none! It does not exist! you believe that the NOSE of an aircraft could cause one huge hole and that the engines would cause NO damage? See how silly it is to believe a large jet hit there?



No offense, but I think you need to do some more research.

First the engines were 7,300 lbs each (3.65 tons), not 6 tons each. The actual diameter of the engine (less the nacelle) is 74". With the nacelle let's call it 96" (8 ft.).

I've shown the picture of the entry damage. Could you please show me a picture of this "one huge hole" caused by the nose?

This panel with photos and illustrations shows the size of the breach in the
wall compared to a 757 including engines.




There are NO SUITCASES and NO clothing


Burnt.


and NO airplane debris...just shards and pieces of the thing that blew up.


You can't be serious after all the photos of AA aircraft debris that have been posted?? You can go on saying that amount of debris doesn't constitute a whole 757 and I'd agree with you, but you can't say there was NO airplane debris..thats just silly.



The perfectly round hole deeper inside the Pentagon could NOT, in any way, shape or form have caused the holes we see; but a missle could.


This sentance doesnt even make sense.


There is NO evidence whatsoever that an aircraft hit the Pentagon.


There is an ovewhelming amount of evidence that shows this. You and others refuse to see/admit it. I'll tell you this, there's a hell of alot more evidence for a 757 than for a global hawk or exlposives. See, in your post you've mentioned both of these mechanisims. You can't even decide on which it is because of the lackof eveidence, all you have is speculation. You offer any theory you want to counter the 757 scenario. The only shred of evidence you provide is the very same picture I posted of a gouge in the concrete. Well I guess a global hawk could also have caused that gouge, but the rest of the evidence doesn't support that theory.



ONLY the careless and uninformed could believe the fairy tale that is the official story.


Whatever dude.

Show me the picture of the hole caused by the nose, through which the 96" diameter engine nacelles could not fit.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Whatever dude.

Show me the picture of the hole caused by the nose, through which the 96" diameter engine nacelles could not fit.


With all due respect, isn't that what people have repeatedly requested you to do in order to substantiate your hypothesis?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Sometimes I enjoy the back and forth on these threads, but today I'm sick of banging my head against the wall trying to eductae a bunch of college kids who have watched "Loose Change" and not bothered to do any other research on their own.

I mean really, they just keep parroting the same ridiculous questions over and over again, and I and others keep providing the pictures and explanations, which they in turn dismiss as "fake" or ignore completely and then ask the same questions all over again.

Maybe I'll be back later if anyone has any new ideas or thoughts.

It's admirable to be skeptical, even suspicious of the government, but you guys need to look at both sides of the issue. Read articles and websites that support both arguments, not just Rense and Prison Planet. You're doing yourselves a great disservice.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Whatever dude.

Show me the picture of the hole caused by the nose, through which the 96" diameter engine nacelles could not fit.


With all due respect, isn't that what people have repeatedly requested you to do in order to substantiate your hypothesis?


With all due respect, do you have some reading comprehension or visual processing problems?

I have shown pictures over and over again that show an opening in the facade of the pentagon proportional to a 757.

Eyewitness apparently has seen a picture of an opening in the facade of the Pentagon that is too small for the "6 ton" engines to fit through. I haven't seen this one so I was asking him to share it. Get it now?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I mean really, they just keep parroting the same ridiculous questions over and over again, and I and others keep providing the pictures and explanations, which they in turn dismiss as "fake" or ignore completely and then ask the same questions all over again.


Those in glass houses.........

It's obvious you buy the "official" story, you're not alone. They're not going to change your mind and you're not going to change theirs. It would seem pointless for you to continue arguing with these "college kids".

There's plenty of other fun things to see and do here at ATS. Knock yourself out.

Peace



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I remember before the entire 9/11 incidents took place, I used to watch a Barbara Olson on the news channel, perhaps MSNBC or FOX. When 9/11 came about, specifically the Pentagon incident, I remember the news people being frantic that Barbara Olson was on the plane that was driven into the Pentagon. Her husband later stated that she made two phone calls from that plane before its impact upon the Pentagon.

I know I have read that Barbara Olson was later arrested in Europe, but this could never be proven. Here is an article I came across regarding that arrest:

www.redflagdeals.com...

www.rense.com...

I think the smoking gun on this entire subject would be Barbara Olson. If she shows up, you have your evidence that there was no plane. unfortunately, she has never shown up since the crash and, I think that pretty well substantiates that she was indeed on the plane that hit the Pentagon and is dead.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
One last time.

This picture shows the damage to the front of the building.

The yellow elipse represents the starboard engine in an oblique perspective. Notice the circular damage to the fencing right below where I've shown the theoretical engine position. What caused that damage to the fence?

The green circle and lines show the theoritical location of the starboard wing and engine a split second before impact with the wall. As you can see the engine easily fits through the opening. Someone asked why the wire spools werent hit by the engines. Well they were, they were originally inside the fenced in area. They were hit by the engines and thrown to thevfinal postions as seen in the picture.

The blue arrows show intact colums

The yellow arrows show interior columns, not exterior columns, the exterior columns are gone.

The red arrow shows collapsed limestone facing and reinforced concrete flooring that has collapsed from the second floor.

The white hatching shows the continuous unobstructed opening in the outer wall. Large enough to admit all of a 757 except the wing tips and vertical stabilizer.

The pink arrow shows the gouge in the concrete retaining wall.

The orange arrow shows wreckage that may, or may not be the engine shroud that was stripped off when the engine hit the wall.



here is the full resolution image:

i128.photobucket.com...


Here is a close up of the area near the tip of the right wing, it shows damage consistent with impact by the leading edge of the wing.




I know my lines are speculation and conjecture, They don't prove a 757 caused the damage but they illustrate that it is possible that a 757 caused the damage. I'm posting these for everyone that keeps saying it was impossible for a 757 to cause the damage seen.

ETA - I forgot to save the pic with the orange arrow. The wreckage I mentioned is right behind the firefighter on the right side the picture.

[edit on 2/1/2008 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 2/1/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
One last time.

This picture shows the damage to the front of the building.


We can concur on that.

What we have not been able to concur on is this.

Which one of those holes, with vertical support still intact, do you contend "swallowed" an entire 757, without breaking any of those many vertical supports?

How would a belly grounded 757 by-pass all that construction paraphenalia, and still go belly grounded to be entirely "swallowed" by the Pentagon?

If there are no plausible answers in your next response, I have no choice but to surmise we are not going to get any, because they are non-existent as implausible, impossible, and improbable.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdposey
I remember before the entire 9/11 incidents took place, I used to watch a Barbara Olson on the news channel, perhaps MSNBC or FOX. When 9/11 came about, specifically the Pentagon incident, I remember the news people being frantic that Barbara Olson was on the plane that was driven into the Pentagon. Her husband later stated that she made two phone calls from that plane before its impact upon the Pentagon.

I know I have read that Barbara Olson was later arrested in Europe, but this could never be proven. Here is an article I came across regarding that arrest:

www.redflagdeals.com...


Barbara Olson never made any calls from any plane. The FBI testified in the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui that there were two ' attempted calls ' from the plane, but the only one that was connected registered ZERO seconds. So the FBI says there were no calls from Barb to Ted. Ted lied or was fooled by voice morph, or is a player. No other way. The calls never happened.

Barbara I am afraid is with all the others, the guys from Rayethon and all the other special people that died that day: At the bottom of the sea somewhere. The perps could not allow one person to be found alive and blow the whole thing wide open....no way. What are anopther hundred or so lives when you are that deep into mass murder?



www.rense.com...

I think the smoking gun on this entire subject would be Barbara Olson. If she shows up, you have your evidence that there was no plane. unfortunately, she has never shown up since the crash and, I think that pretty well substantiates that she was indeed on the plane that hit the Pentagon and is dead.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Here is a close up of the area near the tip of the right wing, it shows damage consistent with impact by the leading edge of the wing.




I know my lines are speculation and conjecture, They don't prove a 757 caused the damage but they illustrate that it is possible that a 757 caused the damage. I'm posting these for everyone that keeps saying it was impossible for a 757 to cause the damage seen.



Your image is not only post collapse but it's many days later after clean-up had started.

In fact if you look closely in your image you can see how they even already added these supports:




The damage was NOT consistent.





You can't use a post collapse photo if you are trying to assert it was from the alleged impact.

catherder used the same image for the same reason and it's deceived many 10's of thousands of people.

Please don't help.

There is nothing possible about the damage to the Pentagon in relation to a 757 impact.






[edit on 1-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 1-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]




top topics



 
20
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join