Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

page: 43
20
<< 40  41  42    44  45 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Are we looking at the same photo? blue arrows - yes, supports 18+19 intact. Red arrow: something that looks kinda like column 16 but isn't (facade paneling from above). Yellow points to bits of something dangling down NEAR where columns 15 + 17 are gone. (gravity) The no arrows over the entire left hand side point point to what? Where's column 14? 13? It gets a bit smoky left of that admittedly, but go find other photos of intact columns 10, 11, and 12. Bring them here.


Where exactly is a hole big enough to take in an entire 757? There are vertical parts to the rear of the plane, which deifintely indicates no 757 impacted and penetrated any Pentagon wall. That hole has to be directly above any fully open horizontal hole, in the center, of where the end of a fuselage should exist perpedicular to that vertical extension of a fuselage.

If those vertical supports were missing, the lateral load bearers would have immediately badly sag or completely collapsed long before they did. So sayeth the laws and principles of physics and quantum mechanics, when vertical load bearing support is compeletely lost under the lateral load bearing support.




posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Ah jeez, quantum structural physics and whatnot. Alright, you win. That's pretty scientifical.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


So sayeth the laws and principles of physics and quantum mechanics


Which ones?

Are they the same ones that say that it is impossible for an aircraft, particularly a commercial aircraft, to crash at an angle that is perpendicular to the ground?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870


Which ones?

Are they the same ones that say that it is impossible for an aircraft, particularly a commercial aircraft, to crash at an angle that is perpendicular to the ground?


Why don't you show us the possiblity of a 90 degree perpendicular angle, with a real plane at 90 degree vertical leg impacting real ground at 90 degree horizontal leg?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Well that and the majority of the exterior wreckage ended up around the control tower area....which that picture does not show. Its like David Copperfield, he shows you one pic and claims no wreckage, but just off to stage left...a lot of pics and plenty of wreckage. Just another cherry pick



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
For posterities sake, and because it has been mentioned in the many threads of this same and related subject. My opinion, which is a highly educated one for this field, is that the Pentagon was hit by an improved bunker buster. What way would be better to prove it's efficiency than by strikeing the most hardened military facility on the earths surface.

Only my opinion though.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

Why don't you show us the possiblity of a 90 degree perpendicular angle, with a real plane at 90 degree vertical leg impacting real ground at 90 degree horizontal leg?



Because I never claimed that they could. You, on the other hand, claimed that it was impossible using the laws of nature and quantum physics.

I can show you that Flight 93 crashed at a 40° angle. Can you tell me what laws of quantum physics prevents an aircraft from crashing at a 90° angle but not at a 40° angle? How about 80°? 75°? 10°?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars
 

Why don't you show us the possiblity of a 90 degree perpendicular angle, with a real plane at 90 degree vertical leg impacting real ground at 90 degree horizontal leg?



Because I never claimed that they could. You, on the other hand, claimed that it was impossible using the laws of nature and quantum physics.

I can show you that Flight 93 crashed at a 40° angle. Can you tell me what laws of quantum physics prevents an aircraft from crashing at a 90° angle but not at a 40° angle? How about 80°? 75°? 10°?


This topic is the Pentagon not Shanksville.

However, if a 90 degree angle could happen, that definitely would have made recorded history, complete with photos, but only if there were a plane to prove it. Unfortunately, at Shanksville, PA, there was no plane, or evidence a plane, to prove it. A hole, in the ground without a plane at 90 degrees to the ground, is not proof it is possible.

Back to the topic of the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Thank you for the answer. Sorry for the derail. If anyone is going to convince me that 9/11 was an inside job, I need to be sure that the person trying to convince me is a reliable source. Thanks for clearing that up.


originally posted by OrionStars
If those vertical supports were missing, the lateral load bearers would have immediately badly sag or completely collapsed long before they did. So sayeth the laws and principles of physics and quantum mechanics, when vertical load bearing support is compeletely lost under the lateral load bearing support.


Which laws and principles of physics and quantum mechanics state that the lateral load bearers would have badly sagged or completely collapsed long before they did?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Which laws and principles of physics and quantum mechanics state that the lateral load bearers would have badly sagged or completely collapsed long before they did?


The very well known one that states, if lateral load of weight and mass loses support from vertical load bearers, gravity will pull mass and weight down the path of least resistance toward the earth. That would the part with no vertical load bearing supports to hold up that part of the building weight and mass.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
For posterities sake, and because it has been mentioned in the many threads of this same and related subject. My opinion, which is a highly educated one for this field, is that the Pentagon was hit by an improved bunker buster. What way would be better to prove it's efficiency than by strikeing the most hardened military facility on the earths surface.

Only my opinion though.



Advisor,

I am leaning to your assumption here. I am not buying a plane at all, to much damage that penetrated 3 rings and multiple feet of steel re-enforced concrete.

Again to the Pentagon.

Let's see all the camera footage from every angle since there were multiple cameras at the Pentagon. We only saw one angle, which can easily be edited.

But now that time has past they have probably had enough time to edit all angles.......



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth

Advisor,

I am leaning to your assumption here. I am not buying a plane at all, to much damage that penetrated 3 rings and multiple feet of steel re-enforced concrete.


Realtruth,

Were you not paying attention sevral pages back when I detailed the construction of the Pentagon?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Darkblue,

You still didn't answer my question about the spools.




Originally posted by Realtruth
Darkblue,

Please tell me you don't believe the spools were actually hit by a megaton Boeing at 500pmh and the spools were thrown to the final upright position.





Originally posted by darkbluesky

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.




here is the full resolution image:

i128.photobucket.com...




[edit on 5-2-2008 by Realtruth]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
Darkblue,

Please tell me you don't believe the spools were actually hit by a megaton Boeing at 500pmh and the spools were thrown to the final upright position.


Real,

First, a fully loaded 757 wieghs approx 127 tons, not a megaton.
Specs from Boeing

Second, I dont know where all of those spools were prior to the event. They may have been sitting right where they are in the picture and were missed by the airplane, or maybe they we against the wall of the building and were blown backwards by the expanding shockwave and fireball from the fuel explosion. At least one looks to have been knocked around pretty good.

Third, please tell me you don't believe they were moved to the locations shown in the picture by cospiracy insiders only moments after the event before the fire depts arrived, and without being seen by anyone???

Real, your post is a perfect example of the deflection method. Do you agree or disagree that I previously demonstrated, with sourced facts, that your assertions regarding the piercing of "three rings of reinforced concrete" were untrue?

If you want to disagree about whether there was a plane or not ...fine, if the spools could, or could not have been moved by an airplane...fine, if there are very few pictures of airplan parts....hell I agree with you, but it seems foolish to keep saying there was 9 feet of reinforced concrete walls between the outer wall and AE drive when there was not.

Debunkers will concede certain issues. Difficult flying parameters, puzzling lack of release of evidence by the Gov, contradictory FDR data.... I'm even on record saying I don't discount before hand government knowledge of the attacks, or even some level of complicity, but in my opinion, the evidence that real airplanes (flown by who knows who) actually hit the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11 is overwhelming.

Why can't you, and many of those on your side of this debate, concede to simple indisputable facts like the construction specifications of a building?



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Debunkers will concede certain issues. Difficult flying parameters, puzzling lack of release of evidence by the Gov, contradictory FDR data.... I'm even on record saying I don't discount before hand government knowledge of the attacks, or even some level of complicity, but in my opinion, the evidence that real airplanes (flown by who knows who) actually hit the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11 is overwhelming.

Why can't you, and many of those on your side of this debate, concede to simple indisputable facts like the construction specifications of a building?


That's an insanely reasonable statement from a 'debunker,' just a few degrees off from my own take as a 'fake truther.' There is a certain Orwellian character to (much/most of) the
"911 Truth movement." Is it doubly doublespeak when someone claims not just 'truth' but 'real truth?' By their fruits ye shall judge them...



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
New information from an ATS member concerning the lightpoles at the Pentagon.

Interesting thread started here:


www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by budski

Official Account of 9/11 Flight Contradicted by Governments Own Data


www.opednews.com

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77", consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
2. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
3. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
4. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
5. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
What does it take for some people to wake up? The fact that there are scores of ' anomalies ' associated with this event means something, believe it or not. The fact that a very low smoke trail, exactly like a missle, is seen in the only 5 frames the scammers will release.

There is NO WAY that anyone can see a huge jet plane in that scenario....no way. The frames we do have, and they are crap, still would show the craft due to it's size, but all we see is a smoke trail and then a huge explosion. I agree that this is a missle strike, just like Rumsfeld slipped and confirmed.

There is NO wreckage on the outside that would account for what they claim hit. There are no wings...how do the official story people get around that? There are no upper tail pieces where the tail section would have hit...there is NO suitcases at all...no clothes flapping in the wind from 70 suitcases and various cargo they all carry...Where are the pictures of the suitcases? Same place they are keeping the pic's of the rest of the evidence they insist we all agree exists but will not show or prove?

It staggers the sound mind...it really does. To believe that a passenger jet crashed at the Pentagon is insane. The first CNN reporter on the scene said that there was NO wreckage of any plane there...no evidence of any plane crash..he was right there. Of course as the tales began to spin and the Bush cabal controlled the media reports, naturally the Neocon perps added to the confusion as they covered their guilt.

Recall that Bush and Cheney tried to get NO 9-11 investigation? They bullied and harrassed Senators and wanted NO accountability. Of course they didn't want any detective work...they are guilty as hell!! What perp WOULD want to be looked at closely?The only people that really accept the official story are those who want to ignore the truth for nefarious reasons, and those who are uneducated about the facts. No other way. Once an intelligent person see's the first hundred or so ' inexplicable anomalies ' go ignored by the government or answered with nonsense, it becomes obvious what the real deal is.

We have been taken in a coup, and it is beyond obvious now.Bush and the evil Cheney have succeeded beyond their handlers wildest expectations: The PNAC crowd has taken firm root of all systems and is in charge of allour computer networks, and can manipulate and control us at will. I bet the Mosad boys are having a good laugh at how trusting we were to buy and install all of their computer systems and they have back doors in all of them. How else to activate and use DEW weapons based in space? The average drone in the USA thinks that either the Towers fell from the ' planes and fire ' or they assume they were blown up with dynamite or other cdonventional explosives...but they were not.

Only DEW can explain the effects seen, and that can only come from the highest levels of our defense systems. We have been taken, and a firm message was sent to any military men willing to try and rescue the Constitution and get the bad guys out: We have total control, and you will fail to stop us. So far, the military is doing it;s best to ignore the danger so they can collect their pensions and get a fat paycheck from a defense contractor after retiring and get the really big bucks for using inside contacts to make vast money for the companies. Thats what they are about these days.

So next time some uneducated, or willing to side with the perps, observer of 9-11 tells you that the official story is true, rest assured that they cannot and do not have the ability to convince...only to obfuscate and cloud the truth..and some day, maybe too late, but someday, the truth will fully be known. Like with JFK though, it always comes too late to see justice done. And, the same cover up artists that did the JFK scam are still there doing this one!! God help America....our survival is at risk and things are going downhill fast...only a miracle can save us now.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
xcept for the fact that witnesses saw a plane. how in the hell would "anythingt but a plane (maybe a missle) knock over street lights and zig zag in their??



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
xcept for the fact that witnesses saw a plane. how in the hell would "anythingt but a plane (maybe a missle) knock over street lights and zig zag in their??


1. The FDR from the plane shows a different flight path, that it would not have hit the poles.

2. The security camera video shows an object flying straight and level, the FDR from the plane shows the plane was in a nose down atitude.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. The FDR from the plane shows a different flight path, that it would not have hit the poles.


But it seems that isn't the case at all, it's just caused by confusion over magnetic and true north. The necessary correction of 11 degrees to the DFDR magnetic bearing puts the plane on the right course to take out the poles and consequently south of the Citgo.






new topics




 
20
<< 40  41  42    44  45 >>

log in

join