757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 20 times


reply posted on 16-3-2007 @ 05:39 PM by Caustic Logic
Sorry guys, I slept in. zzzz.... I am doing damage control on the exellent new thots on why I'm wrong and a 757 did not hit. A couple minutes...

Did Realtruth read my earlier posts by chance? The first one on page 2 lays out the points in IPS pretty well... IPS in particular is famous for being ridiculously wrong, probably a pardoy IMO.

WTC vs. Pentagon comparisons:
Originally posted by darkbluesky
They are two very different structures. No fire fighting activity was performed on WTC towers. Firefighters were on the Pentagon within 30 minutes.


Exactly. The fire did smolder for about two days I hear from eyewitnesses, but that's about it. Very, verydifferent situtation, also simpler to understand, simpler to prove (within a REASONABLE doubt anyway) a 757 without video, which is why SOMEONE keeps attention focused there and the certainty of NO 757 is harped on over and over…

Originally posted by kozmo
It was NOT a 757 that hit the Pentagon... period! Again, NO 757 hit the Pentagon!

I have sold very high end engineering software for 20 years...


20 year program owner? Well that certainly gives your missile theory weight. Esp. considering
Rumsfeld has admitted to this himself! Ooops!

Originally posted by observe50
Well, I think logic and common sense can answer many questions but it is up to each weather they want to believe or deny.
[...]
This to me is just another example how our government gets away with everything. I believe they just keep the people busy, lie, and deny.


Quite observant, Observe.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]


reply posted on 16-3-2007 @ 06:21 PM by Caustic Logic
It seems it was missed entirely, so here is my coverage of IPS evidence again, sarcastic I must note, since I hear sarcasm doesn't come thru so well on the internet.
---
Yes, that's certainly shocking new proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. I can't say what did the damage, only that it was def. not a Boeing 757 as reported. How could you argue against that after seeing In plane Site? I wouldn’t even try.

I mean just look at the building damage. A 757 has a penetrating core of 50 feet (engine-fuselage-engine). hitting at 45 degrees, it's be 75 feet wide. Compare to bldg damage:

That’s only like maybe 20 feet of damage, tops. Okay maybe a little more. on each side. and the middle.

But still, not near enough room for a 757. and the talifin should've sliced a nice raxor line in halfway up the building.
(note: IPS does sort of admit this, at one point telling us a 757 can't fit in a 16-foot hole, another not in 65 foot hole or damage area. This is all in all about 100 feet.)

And the support columns! If an engine entered on the right, banked high as they say, it’d hit the top part of the big square column in the middle here. Yet the column is still there, bigger even than the others and at a weird angle. No way this is something else, lie a chunk of the second floor slab that fall after the column beneath it was wiped out by the right engine. That’d be silly…
(see graphic above: note: this graphic is slightly wrong; the right engine should be right on the upper half of this big column, and it clearly is clearly a column, just tilted by a bomb, or something.)

It pierced three rings with inner and outer walls people! How could an aluminum 757 built like a missile do that? The walls are each 18” of steel reinforced concrete! Considering the layout, in cross-section below, each dark gray line represents a heavy outer wall of this type. Just add them up. One, two… well, that’s 36” anyway, and only part of the landing gear made it through the second one. But still, it had to hit columns and take out chairs, drywall and some very heavy file cabinets.

And where did all that jet fuel go? With a wingspan of 125 feet, you’d expect like 150 feet-wide of fire AT LEAST. Instead what we get is this:


The fires would have burned for days and cooked the building like a pancake or whatever scientific phrase he used. But then how do we explain that unburnt stool on the first floo? The fires never touched the third floor, we’re told, but covered floors one and two. but that stool on floor one was untouched!

(note: first floor of the five-floor bldg is cropped off here)

And the planted parts that really do look like maybe a 757, or not: Here’s the movers and their mystery blue tarp box trying to sneak away:

And top secret stuff here, a photo of the box’s final location, stored with others, in true Raiders of the Lost Ark style, in a secret warehouse.


Are there any other points from this fine film you’d like me to address?
Some others covered here:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...
And right here on ATS:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]



reply posted on 16-3-2007 @ 06:23 PM by Realtruth
Caustic Logic,

I didn't read your posts but I will for sure.

About burning for days...what I meant is more than a week. I have seen buildings here in Detroit build in the same time frame and the Pentagon with multi-layered tar roofs burn for more than two weeks and that was with the fire department there for 2 days straight.

If you have an old flat tar roof that has been redone once every 15 to 20 years then many layers of tar and tar paper build up, in fact a normal person couldn't even lift a 3 foot by 3 foot section because it would weigh over 150 pounds.

When those layers are ignited I have seen the a tar fire spread quickly, but what happens is the layers burn slowly as they fall down and get mixed with other debris. Demolition clean up crews have been burned badly due to stirring up hidden smoldering pockets of roof sections that ignite quickly because of the tar and tar paper.

You see if a plane struck the Pentagon the fuel would have ignited the roofing material with the fuel whether it atomized or not. I just don't see how the roof on the entire Pentagon didn't do up with all the fuel dispersed on top of it, doesn't make any sense.

I have seen a professional roofing contractor apply 3-55 gallon drums of silver rooftop coating in the fall when a roof was cold. Silver coating is to deflect the sun and help to prolong the roof. The ingredients are mainly aluminum powder in Kerosene tar mixture. This coating somehow ignited and the 20,000 ft rooftop went up in seconds and the workers barely got off the roof. Needless to say the building burned to the ground and burned for about 4 days straight.


reply posted on 16-3-2007 @ 06:32 PM by Caustic Logic
Originally posted by Realtruth
Caustic Logic,

I didn't read your posts but I will for sure.


Thank you, I think it's pivotal for your case to carefully consider as many of the points I made as possible.

About burning for days...what I meant is more than a week. I have seen buildings here in Detroit build in the same time frame and the Pentagon with multi-layered tar roofs burn for more than two weeks and that was with the fire department there for 2 days straight.

If you have an old flat tar roof that has been redone once every 15 to 20 years then many layers of tar and tar paper build up, in fact a normal person couldn't even lift a 3 foot by 3 foot section because it would weigh over 150 pounds.

When those layers are ignited I have seen the a tar fire spread quickly, but what happens is the layers burn slowly as they fall down and get mixed with other debris. Demolition clean up crews have been burned badly due to stirring up hidden smoldering pockets of roof sections that ignite quickly because of the tar and tar paper.

You see if a plane struck the Pentagon the fuel would have ignited the roofing material with the fuel whether it atomized or not. I just don't see how the roof on the entire Pentagon didn't do up with all the fuel dispersed on top of it, doesn't make any sense.


I'm not as sure on the roofing - it's got that tan gravel look... I see what yer saying, but the fuel "dispersing" over the top, which can be seen in the CCTV video, would leave it "disperesed," already ignited (it was a fireball that rolled over the roof) and would be done in minutes I'd think. But not sure.

I have seen a professional roofing contractor apply 3-55 gallon drums of silver rooftop coating in the fall when a roof was cold. Silver coating is to deflect the sun and help to prolong the roof. The ingredients are mainly aluminum powder in Kerosene tar mixture. This coating somehow ignited and the 20,000 ft rooftop went up in seconds and the workers barely got off the roof. Needless to say the building burned to the ground and burned for about 4 days straight.


That didn't SOUND like a good roofing substabce... yikes
Looking forward to your thots - is a 757 looking at least a bit plausible, despite IPS' firm claims? (as well as those of Painful Deceptions, Pentagon Strike, Loose Change, Pandora's Black Box, The PentaCon, etc..)?


reply posted on 17-3-2007 @ 12:18 AM by kix
This is for me the Proof that evidence was PLANTED, and therefore NO 757 was even there...


see the alleged part:
No burned, no soot, rivet holes and broken in the body of the metal not the rivets, can someone explain?
then the HOOK......
The part is painted GREY



LINE...... look how american airlines 757 have bare metal on top not painted grey...



SINKER...check this other 2 photos how american airlines have bare metal and NO GREY PAINT on the letters....



simply put the rivets do not adhere to the ones the 757 has, the broken part does not belong to an American airlines 757 and to top it off if this NON BURNED AND CHARRED PART was on the lawn unscated, were are the other parts (for example the slats made of composite? the engines that have titanium blades....

I am amazed that some zombies still believe the "official" version


reply posted on 17-3-2007 @ 02:37 AM by Caustic Logic
Originally posted by ShAuNmAn-X
If that's all you got kix then you can label me as a zombie. The lighting conditions aren't similar in the comparison photos, they're also not of the same quality. As for the AA paint scheme look at this

OMG! Gray paint! Who'd have thunk it? and on an AA Jet at that.
Swallow that hook, line, and sinker.

Huh! And I think that scrap I and Kix showed isn't even gray. It's just a certain face of it and a slight photoshop effect I didn't think would alter it informationally, since everyone's seen the silver scraps.
oops. It's gray now...
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 8 days ago with 13 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags