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.

 

Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

page: 10
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic





This is how I said you should have engines and landing gear parts in the crash. Thanks for this picture.

That engine is the foward Fan and Combustion Cams. I also see outer Fan casings, and different parts of the landing gear.

To bad we can't get pictures of the accident invesigation for they will take every aircraft part they can find and lay them all out on a hanger floor in the place where they would have been on the aircraft to study.

Here is an old picture of a plane I use to fly. This plane was parked when the fuel tank caught fire. I am showing this because it is an example of how fast and easy an aircraft will burn up into almost all ash. That is why I suggest that about the only parts that could be seen would be the engines, gears and tail, but then this one was static and not moving 400 MPH, so I would think the tail would had been ash too for the 757. Most of everything else would need a broom and dust pan.




[edit on 3-10-2007 by Xtrozero]




posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   

To bad we can't get pictures of the accident investigation for they will take every aircraft part they can find and lay them all out on a hanger floor in the place where they would have been on the aircraft to study.


Isn't it a bit strange, that reporters from ZDF2, a big German state sponsored tv station, were lately going to Boeing to film the remains of flight 93 for a commemorative piece to be aired on 9/11/2007, but were sent by Boeing to the FBI, Boeing saying the FBI had it, and sent by the FBI back again to Boeing.
They wanted to investigate the crime scene investigation setup of the remains of that flight, and intended to find the same for the other 3 flights.

Boeing then said at last they possessed those remains.
They were refused however to even know where they were or film the remains.

You can't find any photographs of such a setup anywhere.
However every other plane crash from the last 30 years is meticulously documented that way. And filmed for Discovery Channel documentaries.

Ain't that a tad bit strange, to say the least?



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
@seanm: I'm still undecided - wading through everything. I'm a tough cookie when it comes to proof. I'm also a skeptic - why hide perfectly good evidence if it corroborates the official story? Governments lie for a living.



We can see by your own posts that you are anything but undecided. So putting me on your ignore list is consistent.

In the meantime, I will continue to fight ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

Dream onwards, mirageofdeceit.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Disinformation

The Pentagon Crash: Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself

www.pehi.eu...



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I watched a documentary a few months ago talking about a secure government facility in the mountains near DC - they claimed that Flight 93 was stored there, but they never showed it. They alleged that anything of historical value etc.. was stored there for future generations (including pieces of art, master tapes for music throughout the decades etc). It was located inside a mountain.

I must say that the apparent lack of a reconstruction of any of the aircraft is odd.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
That facility is under lockdown. Whatever remains that are there are in a vault. Cant find any links. Bah. I remember seeing it not too long ago.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

agreed, signed, sealed, and delivered.

it was moving at 500mph at a slight downward angle (according to the official story). and yet no damage to the ground?

the picture you posted is consistant with your story.

the pictures i have seen (every one of them) is inconsistant with the story.

the only commonality is that fire would likely have destroyed most of the plane. the damage from the plane to the building however is NOT consistant with the story.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by seanm
 


Hmm, craig didn't write the official story. he points out the inconsistancies in the official story proving it wrong. failure to answer questions beyond that does not make the story 'better again'. it doesent 'undebunk' it.

if it is wrong through malice or or negligence remains to be seen.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Before I forget - the official story said it had knocked down 4 or 5 lamp posts?? Here is what happens at taxiing speed:

www.b3ta.com...

Debunk that!

It is interesting to note that at no time did any of the crash reports or investigations allow for a heavily damaged wing. Like an F1 car, aircraft are strong in the planes that they take normal flying loads. Outside of that, they're built to be light.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
This argument is beyond old. Putting everything in perspective, this building is 77 feet high, and the tail of the 757 tops out at 33 feet. Unless you saw this damage in person, you have NO idea how immense it was. I know individuals who were there and saw the plane hit, so this debate is moot. I have seen the damage firsthand, and it was so much larger and gaping that these photos could ever leave you to believe.

I am an open minded person, and I love nothing more than to investigate situations in search of the truth. This however WAS an airplane hit, and those of you who wish to believe otherwise may be my guest, but I know what I saw, and what acquaintenances of mine saw as well.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by seanm
 


Hmm, craig didn't write the official story. he points out the inconsistancies in the official story proving it wrong. failure to answer questions beyond that does not make the story 'better again'. it doesent 'undebunk' it.

if it is wrong through malice or or negligence remains to be seen.



Uh.... You haven't been paying attention. There is no "official story." There is only the factual evidence - the evidence Craig has already declared he will not address under any circumstances.

Do catch up.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Before I forget - the official story said it had knocked down 4 or 5 lamp posts?? Here is what happens at taxiing speed:

www.b3ta.com...

Debunk that!

It is interesting to note that at no time did any of the crash reports or investigations allow for a heavily damaged wing. Like an F1 car, aircraft are strong in the planes that they take normal flying loads. Outside of that, they're built to be light.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]


We already know your need to imagine "evidence" as you think it "should" be rather than acknowledge evidence as it was.

Nothing new there.

The fact remains: you can't go around making assertions and claims without evidence. And the massive evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon hasn't even been touched by your wild assertions.

Wake up to reality. For your own sake.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
This argument is beyond old. Putting everything in perspective, this building is 77 feet high, and the tail of the 757 tops out at 33 feet. Unless you saw this damage in person, you have NO idea how immense it was. I know individuals who were there and saw the plane hit, so this debate is moot. I have seen the damage firsthand, and it was so much larger and gaping that these photos could ever leave you to believe.

I am an open minded person, and I love nothing more than to investigate situations in search of the truth. This however WAS an airplane hit, and those of you who wish to believe otherwise may be my guest, but I know what I saw, and what acquaintenances of mine saw as well.



Well put.

It is frustrating to see fellow human beings give up reason and their minds for a cause, without rational thinking, without care for the truth.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
(Yes, I took you out of my ignore list).

Answer me this - if the jet hit the light poles, why are ONLY the light poles downed, ad don't appear to have any scrap of jet attached to them?? Please show me a single pole with any hint of a wing or scrap of metal that got left behind as the 757 hit it.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
never mind
not worth it

[edit on 4-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


You've been ignoring me lately.

Any chance of getting you to respond to this post?



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Craig, if you're so sure this is a small pile of rubble, where's that rebar sticking out from? Please explain this if you can.


I haven't read the entire thread yet but I just wanted to point out that what appears to be rebar looks too close together in my opinion. I could be wrong about the pentagon but a slab usually has the rebar at the bottom tension side. It could be close to a column (which needs rebar on the tension top side) but it still looks too closely bundled to me to look like rebar.

Disclaimer: I am not saying one way or another that I believe this or that about the pentagon. I haven't researched the pentagon as much as I should.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
(Yes, I took you out of my ignore list).

Answer me this - if the jet hit the light poles, why are ONLY the light poles downed, ad don't appear to have any scrap of jet attached to them?? Please show me a single pole with any hint of a wing or scrap of metal that got left behind as the 757 hit it.


Why do you assume there must be a "scrap of jet" attached to the light poles?

Why do you resort to the fallacy that unless you can see a photo, it didn't happen.

Let's see some integrity in your answer, the kind that shows you are interested in truth and not one trying to push a conclusion you hope to be true.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


You've been ignoring me lately.


LOL! Your silly, contradictory, irrational scenarios were debunked, Craig. Get over yourself.

Any questions?



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Disclaimer: I am not saying one way or another that I believe this or that about the pentagon. I haven't researched the pentagon as much as I should.


Where and whom would you go for your research?



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join