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: 38
20
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky






What's good about your image is that you correctly depicted a descent angle as reported in the FDR.

These images from Pilots for 9/11 Truth demonstrate the true descent angle as reported in the FDR.




Of course this not only contradicts the manipulated security video that shows the "object" approaching perfectly level but it is also irreconcilable with the physical damage.

Don't forget about my thread regarding the lack of foundation damage




This is not only irreconcilable with the FDR reported descent angle which has the entire plane smashing directly into it but it is also irreconcilable with the impossible perfectly low and level approach reported by the ASCE.

The required wing tilt that they report would force the left engine to burrow right into the foundation.


Clearly no plane skidded across that 1st floor slab as the ASCE and Purdue University report:





posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Now consider for a moment the generator trailer and fence damage.

It makes no sense at all.

The want you to believe that the tilted up right engine caused this damage and even made a perfectly round cartoon cut out of the fence to convince you.



Some have even claimed that the flap track of the wing caused this "gouge":




But here is a 757 to scale with the ASCE reported wing tilt:


There is no way a flap track of the wing could have touched the generator.....PLUS...

If the engine was high enough to only clip the top of the generator then why is the damage to the fence all the way to the ground with all of those other fence poles still standing on the other side?


full image: i40.photobucket.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


The damage to the rt column is consistent(sp). Agreed pre-collapse photo does not show damage to left column but not unreasonable to speculate damage to reinforced column behind limestone facia was damaged but covered by faom coated limestone which was later removed or fell.

Also, your red circle is not consistent(sp) with where left column damage occured. Close inspection shows left column damage is precisely at 2nd floor level. You placed red circle 2-3 feet above actual damage location in last pic. Fact that damage on left column is exactly at 2nd floor slab, which is re-barred, also explains why limestone facia remained bonded until post collapse.

Nice to see you here Craig.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Oh and did I ever mention how all the witnesses place the plane on the north side of the citgo?






Including the Air Traffic Controller who was in the heliport tower!



Sean Boger


This is the best image of his POV:





Here is what he said about where the plane was:


"It would be on my right or the gas station's left. If I'm looking out my window cause I'm looking toward the gas station.....it would be on my right hand side."


He says he did not see it hit any light poles but strangely he thought it hit a highway sign.

He also claims he saw the plane bank over the Navy Annex which completely contradicts the FDR, physical damage path, and matches perfectly with Edward Paik and all of the witnesses who were at the citgo station.


As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting he aircraft to his right. It was almost like....not really going in nose first...it's just like almost like at an angle.


Now we know why the physical damage is so anomalous and questionable yet cookie cutter in many ways.

Now we know why even the DoD said it was "counter-intuitive".

Now we know why the security video is so dubious and doesn't even match the FDR.


The new evidence we will be presenting this month proves the plane flew over DC and actually came from EAST of the Potomac.

This completely destroys the official story and proves the recently released NTSB and 84 RADES data completely fraudulent.

Stay tuned.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
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:


OK, what do you think caused the damage clearly visible in these "post collapse plus 2-3 day" photos?

Conspiritors?








[edit on 2/1/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


The damage to the rt column is consistent(sp). Agreed pre-collapse photo does not show damage to left column but not unreasonable to speculate damage to reinforced column behind limestone facia was damaged but covered by faom coated limestone which was later removed or fell.

Also, your red circle is not consistent(sp) with where left column damage occured. Close inspection shows left column damage is precisely at 2nd floor level. You placed red circle 2-3 feet above actual damage location in last pic. Fact that damage on left column is exactly at 2nd floor slab, which is re-barred, also explains why limestone facia remained bonded until post collapse.

Nice to see you here Craig.



Consistent is properly spelled.

Why did you put (sp) after it every time?

Go ahead and look under the circle then.

Doesn't matter......the left column is clearly still intact.

It makes no sense to suggest that limestone facade would take the hit from the wing, stay undamaged, but the column behind it would be destroyed.

Plus you are forgetting if there really was a wing tilt that low as you claim then the left engine would have burrowed into the first floor slab.

Did not happen.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

OK, what do you think caused the damage clearly visible in these "post collapse plus 2-3 day" photos?

Conspiritors?



Obviously not a plane because the damage did not exist like that on 9/11.

The entire area was gutted and rebuilt.



I don't understand what you don't get or why you are being sarcastic about this.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


OK, I take it back.

Thread readers, you are instructed to disregard my last post.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Obviously not a plane because the damage did not exist like that on 9/11.

The entire area was gutted and rebuilt.



I don't understand what you don't get or why you are being sarcastic about this.


Why do use these "fish eye lense" shots?

This shot does not even show the area we've been discussing.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Consistent is properly spelled.

Why did you put (sp) after it every time?


I'm a poor speller and sometimes words don't look right to me.

Just like some people have difficulty with right/left...north/south.

You know...this pump island or that one...white/silver...grey/black...
737/757....United/American.

Get it?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky


Why do use these "fish eye lense" shots?

This shot does not even show the area we've been discussing.


I use them because that is what FEMA provided.

That image was merely meant to show you how they "gutted" the area, or in other words, had to create more damage before they could rebuild.

It has nothing to do with "conspirators".



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky


I'm a poor speller and sometimes words don't look right to me.

Get it?



Oh I see.

Well if you had the inspiration to repeat the word and put (sp) in front of it multiple times one would think you would have had the inspiration to look up the correct spelling.

What I "get" is that you are desperately searching for any angle possible to attack me and failing miserably.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I posted an animation on the previous page that very clearly shows how this could be done.


Sry this going to be a one liner, but I simply disagree.

Do have anything else?

OK so it wasn't a one liner, sue me...



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
And just to underscore it even more.....






It's quite clear that even after the collapse the left column was not completely breeched as it was after supports were added days later.

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



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I posted an animation on the previous page that very clearly shows how this could be done.


Sry this going to be a one liner, but I simply disagree.

Do have anything else?

OK so it wasn't a one liner, sue me...


Sry, I disagree with your disagreement.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
And just to underscore it even more.....






It's quite clear that even after the collapse the left column was not completely breeched as it was after supports were added days later.


One could assume, not unreasonably, that the initially damaged masonry and steel reinforcing was intentionally separated and pulled away from the column during stabilization efforts, to accomodate the support cribbing.

Again, I ask you, what do you think caused the pre-collapse damage if not AA77?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:38 PM
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


How is this for a plausible explanation....757s HAD Rolls Royce engines.

BUT dont take my word for it....take Boeing's...



The demonstrated reliability of the 757 has approval for extended-range twin (engine) operation, or ETOPS. In July 1990, the Federal Aviation Administration granted 180-minute ETOPS certification for 757-200s equipped with both the Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4 and RB211-535C engines. Previously, the FAA had certified the 757-200 equipped with RB211-535E4 engines for 120-minute operation in 1986.


www.boeing.com...




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.


No, not even close to "pristine" condition...




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


Not according to Boeing....

Holy crap...this part is actually marked with AA identifying info....

www.debunk911myths.org...
entagon_serialnum.jpg

No personal effects?



During an interview earlier this week, Koch delicately handled eerie mementos of the crash found during cleanup: Whittington's battered driver's license. One granddaughters' luggage tag


onlineathens.com...

No bodies?



Rescue crews were able to pull Calley's body from Flight 77's wreckage. Now, after a long period of hesitation, Jensen plans to let the Pacific waters take her cremated remains


gilroydispatch.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Sucked to the ground...???? Under the reverse pressure ????? LOL .What on earth are you talking about ?



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join