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: 16
22
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Is that the best you could come up with, some unofficial conspiracy sites? Those are just reports on the FDRs. Where do they state any facts about the planes hitting the builidngs and what happnened to them?

Where are the actual facts and reports that stated the planes hit the buildings and the parts found match those planes.

Please try to do some better research before posting so you do not makes yourself look bad.


Ultima: there is no way for me to express how I feel about that post and the thiinking behind it that is acceptable under ATS T&C. You clearly did not click on the links. The first one brings up an official NTSB document, the most official reading ever from 77's FDR (also available from their own site as you well know) that shows its speed, direction, altitude, weight, technical things, etc. all over a timeline that ends at the crash time. I didn't even click on the others, man, and there is facts, reports, the aircraft number, and all you have in response is ...this?

I will give you an easy challenge I know you're up to: present at least one good reason to doubt the validity and content of this single report, the NTSB's Factual Report of Investigation. Let's see how you brush this one off in search of the ever-elusive mirage of 'proof.'




posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
seanm

I've been watching this conversation now and I think Ultima is asking whether you can show where in these reports do they match the recovered pieces of the plane with the said plane in question?

Is it in these reports or not?

[edit on 14-10-2007 by talisman]


To my knowledge, such a matching does not happen in the available reports, which is the problem.

In essence they're both talking past each other. Sean's isued a challenge for Ultima to address existing reports, Ultima's asking for proof of a report that wasn't done, doesn't exist, and perhaps would have had no reason to be done. Sean cannot possibly fulfill Ultima's challenge, Ultima has no interest in the evidence that HAS been forthcoming, and so I offer a trimmed challenge to help Ultima show us the kind of dismissal awaiting his much-sought crime scene investigation if it ever SHOULD materialize.

If someone ever finds there was one, and post it online, it'll be another link in the list the intrepid investigator ignores as he tries to figure out what else he can really really never get and keep harping on about why he hasn't seen THAT yet.

skip - skip - skip

And that is the score here. SeanM +1 Ultima -1.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by seanm
I'll point out for the record that I wrote: "Get back to us with your detailed evidence against the above, Ultima1."

This would be a good time to let others respond to your post. I'll ask readers here to state whether they think your response is correct and appropriate or not.


All i am asking for is some official reports of the planes hitting the towers and the invesitagions on the crash scenes. I did not ask for reports on the FDRs that are not evidence of the planes hititng the towers or the Pentagon and the crash scene investigations.

If you or anyone can show any official crime scene reports about the crash sites. I can show reports on other crash sites, but we do not have any reports on the 9/11 crash sites.

We have the FBI not taking over the Pentagon crime scene for 10 days and then only taking 5 days on the crash scene after stating it would take 30. We still do not have any of the reports on the crash sites after 6 years.

www.defenselink.mil...

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24, 2001 -- The FBI assumed crime-scene jurisdiction at the Pentagon terrorist attack site Sept. 21 from the Arlington County (Va.) Fire Department, officials said.

FBI officials estimate the crime scene investigation would last about a month, Arlington Fire Chief Edward P. Plaugher said. He said he expects "additional remains will be discovered during the course of the FBI investigation" and mortuary specialists will remain on site to process them.



WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2001 -- The FBI handed over Pentagon crash site management to the Army Military District of Washington at 7 a.m. today.

The transfer of responsibility marks the end of the FBI's crime scene investigation following the Sept. 11 terrorist attack against the Pentagon. MDW will oversee ongoing security operations around the damaged area of the building. FBI investigators will move their operations to the Pentagon's north parking lot and continue to sift through debris for more evidence.




911research.wtc7.net...

The Pentagon BPS is the only government investigation of the crash of Flight 77 that admits to existing, but it was defined as and limited to an investigation of the performance of the building. There was no investigation into the crash by the National Transportation and Safety Board.




[edit on 15-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

911research.wtc7.net...

The Pentagon BPS is the only government investigation of the crash of Flight 77 that admits to existing, but it was defined as and limited to an investigation of the performance of the building. There was no investigation into the crash by the National Transportation and Safety Board.



For the crime scene, yes, they turned it over to FBI. It seems they never did such a report. Point proven, But this citation is a bit wrong, as the NTSB did officially release it Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation based on the FDR, which minus some glitches uts the plane at the Pentagon at the time the FDR stopped recording.

Perhaps not proof, but is this a good clue or not?

And back on subject:
I've found a new photo of the region of engine impact:
high resolution full





Still not sure what this says re: foundation - clearly not much damage if any. The wooden bea is what I thought was a concrete 'lip' in these photos where I'd noticed a 'gap'.



Analyzing interior photos provided for location relative to 'alleged' impact. They mostly show water and mud and so are inconclusive. Will be back.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Would a bomb effect the foundation? Just curious.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]


It depends on the placement, size and type of the charge. A shaped or an embedded charge would certainly damage concrete of it was in the right position and powerful enough. Any other type or placement above the surface of the concrete might only chip it.

It would seem that a few tons of metal moving at ~500mph would leave a bit of a scrape though. I would look at photo's from where the fuselage or engines were supposed to have impacted to confirm this.

I might point out that on hitting at a shallow angle the wreckage could bounce leaving scrapes further inside.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
seanm

I've been watching this conversation now and I think Ultima is asking whether you can show where in these reports do they match the recovered pieces of the plane with the said plane in question?

Is it in these reports or not?

[edit on 14-10-2007 by talisman]


Let's review. The issue is did AA77 hit the Pentagon or not? Ultmia1 states:

"I have not seen any facts that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. None of the parts found have ever been matched to Flight 77."

"No, its my background and experience in aviation along with some common sense that tells me you cannot show any real evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. No official reports or photos or videos to prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."

"..like most people that believe the offiical story you would not accept it, like you cannot accept people with intelligence actually doing research and proving your media fed theories wrong. ...All talk and no evidence, just like a person who believes the offical story. Your so called multiple independent sources are just something made up."

"My evidence for the Pentagon is that we have no official reports, actual videos or photos of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. No reports of the parts found matching flight 77."

It should be clear that Ultima1 is trying to limit the evidence, a classic question-begging ploy. He is stating that, by definition, without "official reports, actual videos or photos" one cannot be sure that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You'll note that I have consistently pushed people like Ultima 1 and Ranke to deal with evidence necessary to support their position - like what did the recovery crews remove from the Pentagon - and that they try to shift the burden of proof from themselves to me. I have asked them to to support their position with actual evidence, and they commit a logical fallacy by resorting to an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

If there is any more evidence one needs that Ultima 1, like Craig Ranke, refuses to deal with evidence inconvenient to his "theory", let me know.

I'll leave it to you all to decide what Ultmia 1 and Ranke are trying to achieve.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
what anyone is trying to achieve has nothing to do with the fact that although there may be evidence that supports that flight 77 hit the pentagon, there is evidence that disproves that flight 77 hit the pentagon.
the hole in the pentagon is not large enough for a 757 to have entered. as i've mentioned before not one person has been able to cite either physics or case history to disprove this anomaly.

look at the literally hundreds of cases in history where people were sentenced to death due to evidence that supported the prosecutions case, only to proven incorrect after the advent of dna testing.

supporting evidence doesent prove anything.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

the hole in the pentagon is not large enough for a 757 to have entered.


Here is a very simple question for you:

What size hole would a 757 have made upon entering the Pentagon?

I think even Craig has already conceded that the hole and damage, other than the foundation, are consistent with the officially reported flight path.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
seanm

Ask Ultima if the usual protocol is to match plane parts in cases of terrorist attacks and so forth. IF It is the standard, then he has a point.

I think he is not making an assertion that he knows categorically what happened rather he feels there is reason to suspect something. He worked for the law, and in law one doesn't have to have evidence to "suspect" something, or if you like full proof evidence.

So even though there was a removal of plane parts, were those parts ever matched to the said plane? Is that normal? Does plane parts usually get matched?



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


Your blatant neutralization/confusion effort is rather sad.

You have shown zero foundation damage and are STILL focusing on damage right at the facade.

It makes no sense to expect damage to be localized to this area and only where the left engine would have made impact.

The entire plane would cause damage all the way until it ummmm...."liquified" at the c-ring hole.











posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Thought this would be a cool video to add in here. Shows that planes CAN in fact fly very low and VERY fast.


Google Video Link


[edit on 15-10-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
This thread has nothing to do with ground effect which I have never cited as a factor.

Your point changes nothing in regards to the required descent angle due to the topography and the lack of damage to the foundation.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Plus none of those planes are a foot or two above the ground.

Nice straw man though.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


maybe not ....but it is a cool video! Sorry for derailing



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
has anyone who has been analizing these images stopped to consider that the pentagon is suposed to be built more like a bunker than a regular office building and lets not forget that the pentagon was built during the era when buildings were made to last. i'm not here trying to diproof anyone but i have yet to see anyone examine this angle



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
seanm

Ask Ultima if the usual protocol is to match plane parts in cases of terrorist attacks and so forth. IF It is the standard, then he has a point.

I think he is not making an assertion that he knows categorically what happened rather he feels there is reason to suspect something. He worked for the law, and in law one doesn't have to have evidence to "suspect" something, or if you like full proof evidence.

So even though there was a removal of plane parts, were those parts ever matched to the said plane? Is that normal? Does plane parts usually get matched?


We have Ultima1's statement: "I have not seen any facts that flight 77 hit the Pentagon."

When it comes to evidence AND the law, one is not allowed to ignore evidence one chooses to.

The claim that one has not "seen any facts that flight 77 hit the Pentagon" because Ultima1 has seen no official reports, nor videos or photos of AA77 hitting the Pentagon is fallacious reasoning. Not only is it fallacious since he has no way of knowing if they exist or not, it is entirely irrelevant to whether other evidence exists or not.

Ultima 1 and Craig Ranke are not the first to deny the existence of evidence they don't want to discuss.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This thread has nothing to do with ground effect which I have never cited as a factor.


It has everything to do with eyewitness reports.

We have 103 documented witnesses to AA77 hitting the Pentagon. Unless you have a vision problem, Craig, and can't see what we can see, it should be quite obvious that one would have absolutely no problem identifying a passenger aircraft as such when flying fast and low.

Indeed, that's just what those witnesses saw.


Your point changes nothing in regards to the required descent angle due to the topography and the lack of damage to the foundation.


As always, your assertions are up against the evidence. And the evidence wins hands down, Craig Ranke.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


maybe not ....but it is a cool video! Sorry for derailing


You didn't derail anything. You were right on message. Obviously, Craig saw the relevance in the video by responding in the manner he did.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm


We have 103 documented witnesses to AA77 hitting the Pentagon. Unless you have a vision problem, Craig, and can't see what we can see, it should be quite obvious that one would have absolutely no problem identifying a passenger aircraft as such when flying fast and low.

Indeed, that's just what those witnesses saw.


You are wrong.

Very few of those "103 witnesses" were in a position to even be physically able to see the alleged impact.

You are either demonstrating how little research you have done or how much of a liar you are.

Watch this to find out what the witnesses really describe.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by seanm


We have 103 documented witnesses to AA77 hitting the Pentagon. Unless you have a vision problem, Craig, and can't see what we can see, it should be quite obvious that one would have absolutely no problem identifying a passenger aircraft as such when flying fast and low.

Indeed, that's just what those witnesses saw.


You are wrong.


Craig, you mean I am right. Shall I start?

"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."
www.jmu.edu...

Will you dissemble badly, Craig?



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join