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: 19
22
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


It would put it (being the left engine, not wing as a whole) at ground level or damn close. There was a ground level vent structure that was torn up, right on the left engine path. concrete and metal damage just a couple inches above the lawn. (some pictures available here.) And here we are back on subject, because it's this confluece of facts - plus the ASCE's apparently WRONG graphic (see page 1) - is what is supposed to ensure the foundation would be smashed. Neither the foundation was seriously damaged nor the lawn scraped up, yet these can both be reconciled with a plane even one inch too high.

BTW Jprophet - the fence was not cleared but rather torn out, and that was by the high-banking right engine.




posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I agree, it would cause the engine to go into the ground, or if you were very lucky skim it, since the wing itself, while the aircraft is banked could be horizontal since there is a slight upward curve to it.


Yes, the wing would be about level with the ground, app. one engine's-width above it.


I'm not sure of the particulars, but on impact of the engine, it could have come off from the wing. Of course, since it would have hit the building before having a chance to move very far from it, it is fairly inconsequential, but since this could force it upwards, it would address your questions later on, since it would be above the ground. Unfortunately, unless it were pushed upwards around the wing by it's impact with the building, it would still leave foundation/grass damage at the start of the impact.


Good observations. The exact measurement are down to inches here and we can't say for sure - if a 757 impacted, the lawn and foundation perhaps should be torn up or perhaps not. Since it didn't happen, this is proof there was no plane?



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 



Why are you continuing with this deceptive charade?

Fact: Damage from the "plane" was limited to the bottom two floors.

Fact: Space between foundation and roof of 2nd floor is finite.

Fact: Measurements of boeing 757 are finite.

Fact: Physical damage REQUIRES the reported tilt of left engine downwards.

Fact: Finite space allotted for damage and tilted boeing requires engine to burrow into foundation.


There is no way around it.

There are not "inches" of leeway. There is zero leeway.

Your only out is to suggest that somehow the foundation was impervious to the engine or that somehow absolutely all damage was concealed.

Both of these desperate excuses are yet another way for you to wiggle out of the physical evidence that proves your dogmatic 757 impact conspiracy theory false.

You are being forced to do this in response to all the evidence yet you faithfully defend the official story.

Why?



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


then the damage to the right side would be higher up due to the tilt. you cant have it both ways. the damage on the right side is not higher up, its no more than 10 feet above ground.



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


then the damage to the right side would be higher up due to the tilt. you cant have it both ways. the damage on the right side is not higher up, its no more than 10 feet above ground.





ten feet? I can so have it both ways, since there were two wings, and nothing indicates they were level.



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

ten feet? I can so have it both ways, since there were two wings, and nothing indicates they were level.


No you can not have it both ways because if the tilted up right wing really caused the damage that you conveniently zoom in on there then the left engine would burrow into the foundation.
No tilt:


tilt:


But how could the wing cause this damage here:


Yet leave this part undamaged?


There is no continuity to the alleged right wing damage and in fact the facade was initially still intact over one of the severed columns before the collapse.

Why would it damage just those two columns and leave so much of the facade closer to the wing root (which is much stronger) completely intact?

Basically you can ONLY reconcile this if you suggest that the entire wing completely disintegrated outside of the building.

Is that what happened or did it "fold" and go into the center hole as Mike Walter claims he "saw" happen?



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


Everyone knows that your "wing tilt" damage was first pointed out by catherder years ago in this forum.

The fact that you are still pushing that disinfo today would actually be comical if it weren't so damaging to the truth.

The column on the left was clearly NOT damaged from the "plane" and has been proven to have been damaged from the collapse and subsequent clean up.

This image is from during the clean up (notice temporary support added):


But here are close-ups of the damage pre-collapse and immediately after:


Clearly no wing created the damage that you indicate in the image from days or weeks later after they had cleaned out the rubble and installed temporary supports.

What ENRAGES me is the fact that you play act like you are the "physical evidence" expert and that everything "fits perfectly" with a 757.

I have demonstrated how you are merely regurgitating catherder's disinfo and have PROVEN how the very "physical evidence" that you think proves the official story correct does just the opposite.

Please put yourself out of your misery and concede this debate as it is clear you are falling further into the abyss with each point you try to make.

Don't forget.....the offer is always open!



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   
As opposed to you pretending to be an expert or even an investigator and pretending to know what wing damage would look like? As opposed to making a theory based on conjecture and using eyewitness testimony to dismiss physical evidence?

I'm sure all those light poles fell on their own. No wait, don't tell me, people ran around planting light poles in front of everyone and no one happened to notice all the light poles all over the place. And I am sure they used a magic bomb to magically make things like the generators damage inwards instead of outwards. Or perhaps they pre-planted all that as well and the many people out there that morning working in that area just didn't notice all the extensive damage.

And then of course they planted all of flight 77's plane parts there at the scene and again no one happened to notice. of course they had to crash the actual plane and truck in the parts and the remains of people an their belongings between the time it took off and the impact. And then of course they just got everyone to fake all the DNA evidence and fake the black boxes and the RADAR and the paper trails, and the confessions, and all the witnesses who don't help out your theory.

It's a big long list of pure conjecture to back up the weakest form of evidence and to dismiss all the more legitimate evidence. And you get enraged? lol.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Berate me if you will for going a little off topic, but I think this video is one of the smoking guns to 9/11. I post it because it supports the theory postulated for this thread, which is that it was in fact not an airplane that hit the Pentagon.

"But what about everybody who saw it??"

Well, here are the REAL people who saw it:

video.google.com...

I give this video an A+ for actual 9/11 investigative reporting.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by drannno
 


Thanks dranno.

Since I created this thread and that video you won't get berated!




posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

I'm sure all those light poles fell on their own. No wait, don't tell me, people ran around planting light poles in front of everyone and no one happened to notice all the light poles all over the place.


You inspired me to create this thread with your sarcasm snoop.

Thanks a lot because now I can reference it forever and spread it around because a lot of people like you are confused about the poles.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 



Great post, but you forgot one of the most important questions?

Why plant the light poles? Especially pole #1?

According to this theory that Craig has come up with,

* the plane parts were already planted in the Pentagon
* A REAL 757 flew over the Pentagon that everybody saw
* bombs were set to make it look like the 757 hit the Pentagon
* fake witnesses were planted to SAY they saw the plane hit, and
* faked DNA records were produced to match the passenger list.

So with such an elaborate plan, why take a chance having some 60-year old cab driver drag a light pole out from the bushes where people could be taking photos, videos, etc.?

This theory fails to pass the laugh test. Can you imagine the planning that would have gone on? The government is allegedly trying to pull off the mass murder of thousands of people, and somebody comes up with the idea to drag a one light pole from the bushes for added effect?

Craig, you might want to go back and re-think some of your assumptions and conclusions.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by robert z
 


The light poles were child's play compared to what they accomplished in downtown Manhattan.

But I understand that you are a government apologist who swallows the official conspiracy theory hook line and sinker.

Your arguments from incredulity do nothing to refute the evidence and merely demonstrate your propensity towards logical fallacies.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by robert z
 


The light poles were child's play compared to what they accomplished in downtown Manhattan.

But I understand that you are a government apologist who swallows the official conspiracy theory hook line and sinker.

Your arguments from incredulity do nothing to refute the evidence and merely demonstrate your propensity towards logical fallacies.



No, I am not a government apologist, and I do not buy the government story hook, line, and sinker.

I sincerely think you are self-projecting, Craig. It is you who argue from a position of incredulity (Lloyd and conflicting witness accounts). Your logical fallacy is extrapolating what MUST have happened based on weak underlying assumptions.

FACT: Three witnesses saw the plane fly north of Citgo, AND hit the Pentagon.

FACT: North of Citgo flight path does not match the downed poles.

THEREFORE, your conclusions: poles must be planted and witnesses must be mistaken about seeing the plane hit the Pentagon, and Lloyd must be lying, plane parts must have been planted, DNA evidence must be faked, explosives must have been planted, etc.

My Conclusion: Witnesses were correct in seeing plane hit Pentagon and are confused, mistaken, or misleading you intentionally about north of Citgo flight path.

Just humor me for a second...

What logic is there to planting the light poles and then turning over a doctored FDR that shows the plane flew above the poles?

Your implying on one hand a sophisticated conspiracy beyond anything even seen in a movie, and on the other hand bumbling fools too stupid to make the FDR match the poles.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by robert z

My Conclusion: Witnesses were correct in seeing plane hit Pentagon and are confused, mistaken, or misleading you intentionally about north of Citgo flight path.


This is simply not physically plausible considering ALL of the witnesses had an infinitely better vantage point of the plane as it passed by the station and ADMITTED that what they really saw was the "fireball" and NOT the plane enter the building.

You are choosing what fits the official story regardless of how infeasible, implausible, and illogical with the circumstance it is.



Just humor me for a second...

What logic is there to planting the light poles and then turning over a doctored FDR that shows the plane flew above the poles?


No. I will not humor your argument from incredulity. Why should I? The "logic" to it has no bearing on the fact that this is what the evidence is.

The FDR DOESN'T match the physical evidence.

All of the witnesses DID report seeing the plane on the north side.

It is not my responsibility to explain why the evidence is what it is. The answer to your question does not preclude the evidence therefore it is irrelevant.



Your implying on one hand a sophisticated conspiracy beyond anything even seen in a movie, and on the other hand bumbling fools too stupid to make the FDR match the poles.


Your exaggerated rhetoric is STILL arguing from incredulity.

Seriously....cut the logical fallacy and adhere to critical thinking principles or get out of the discussion.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Seriously....cut the logical fallacy and adhere to critical thinking principles or get out of the discussion.


As if you have a monopoly on critical thinking principles and logic?

Ok, back on topic:

Logical fallacy #1: You conclude there was no damage to the foundation of the Pentagon where you believe there should have been damage based on two or three photos. You do not know that there was no foundation damage. It is a logical fallacy to base conclusions on a small or incomplete data set.

Logical fallacy #2: You theorize that bombs caused the fireball and the damage to the Pentagon. These same bombs that you theorized simulated a plane crash also failed to damage the foundation. Therefore, using your logic, the lack of foundation damage also puts an end to your bomb theory. Or do you think that bombs would taken out the entire first floor while not damaging the foundation?

Logical fallacy #3: Based on your limited data, and on your flawed logic, you conclude that your argument about the alleged lack of foundation damage trumps all other evidence that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon, thus ending the debate. Conclusions based on limited evidence and flawed logic do not outweigh all the other evidence.

Craig, time to wake up, buddy. There IS no debate about the Pentagon, except in the tiny little online world that you live in. You are already part of a marginalized group that you helped create with your knee-jerk conclusions.

Your alleged evidence is not even enough to START a real debate, let alone end the debate. When are you going to face that reality, Craig?

Or did I miss something? Is there a real world debate going on about the Pentagon? Even after all your ahem.... what did you call it... ground-breaking research that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official story was a lie, do you think average people really care?

Why?

Because your arguments are so weak.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by robert z

Logical fallacy #1: You conclude there was no damage to the foundation of the Pentagon where you believe there should have been damage based on two or three photos. You do not know that there was no foundation damage. It is a logical fallacy to base conclusions on a small or incomplete data set.


Incorrect. We base our conclusions on evidence we have obtained via our independent investigation and 100's of images.

The lack of evidence of foundation damage and multitude of evidence for a lack of foundation damage merely supports our conclusions. You have incorrectly characterized our position and the evidence and not identified a logical fallacy.




Logical fallacy #2: You theorize that bombs caused the fireball and the damage to the Pentagon. These same bombs that you theorized simulated a plane crash also failed to damage the foundation. Therefore, using your logic, the lack of foundation damage also puts an end to your bomb theory. Or do you think that bombs would taken out the entire first floor while not damaging the foundation?


Bombs would not have been placed in or on the foundation so yes. A 90 ton jet would have to damage the foundation if it entered the building as reported.

You have still failed to identify a logical fallacy.



Logical fallacy #3: Based on your limited data, and on your flawed logic, you conclude that your argument about the alleged lack of foundation damage trumps all other evidence that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon, thus ending the debate. Conclusions based on limited evidence and flawed logic do not outweigh all the other evidence.


Once again you incorrectly represent our position and the evidence and have failed to identify a logical fallacy.



Craig, time to wake up, buddy. There IS no debate about the Pentagon, except in the tiny little online world that you live in. You are already part of a marginalized group that you helped create with your knee-jerk conclusions.

Your alleged evidence is not even enough to START a real debate, let alone end the debate. When are you going to face that reality, Craig?
Or did I miss something? Is there a real world debate going on about the Pentagon? Even after all your ahem.... what did you call it... ground-breaking research that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official story was a lie, do you think average people really care?



This is what critical thinkers call an appeal to belief as well as an appeal to ridicule.

If you can't adhere to critical thinking principles and discuss the evidence directly then get out of the discussion.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Incorrect. We base our conclusions on evidence we have obtained via our independent investigation and 100's of images.




So where are the 100s of images you claim shows no foundation damage?




Bombs would not have been placed in or on the foundation so yes. A 90 ton jet would have to damage the foundation if it entered the building as reported.

You have still failed to identify a logical fallacy.



You almost made me spit out my iced tea with this one. First you make up a theory that bombs were placed in the Pentagon to simulate a plane crash with no evidence to support said theory. Then you expound on the theory by stating, as if you have inside information, that bombs would not have been placed in a way to damage the foundation.

This is what critical thinkers call being full of.... um... beans?. Sorry I have no link to explain what this means, but I think people will understand what I mean.




If you can't adhere to critical thinking principles and discuss the evidence directly then get out of the discussion.


And exactly how did you make your living before you became a self-proclaimed investigative journalist and arbiter of truth? I.e., what gives you the special authority to decide that only you understand critical thinking principles? Are you taking a class in college on it now?

Ok, the evidence...

How about something simple for you:

Prove there was no damage anywhere to the foundation.

Once you have done this, then we can proceed through your critical thinking and logical conclusions.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by robert z
 


Robert ~

Great job on your posts. Stars!

Craig has also claimed that the NON government contractors that were hired to do the Pentagon renovations are also "suspect."



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

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


Everyone knows that your "wing tilt" damage was first pointed out by catherder years ago in this forum.


Oh dear, Cat Herder saw it too? I must be copying from him and only him, a known disinfo agent? Or what exactly is your point here?


The fact that you are still pushing that disinfo today would actually be comical if it weren't so damaging to the truth.


So says Craig Ranke.


The column on the left was clearly NOT damaged from the "plane" and has been proven to have been damaged from the collapse and subsequent clean up.


Proven, huh? Got a link? Yes, the visible displacement comes into play post-collapse. But note that the panel damage is there before. Lemme guess: a small bomb at that corner, built into the wall during the shady rennovation. Well, I guess it's possible...


This image is from during the clean up (notice temporary support added):

Is it not possible the columns were broken up but remained intact via gravity/weight until the collapse, where the fracture line became the point of displacement? It's like getting a femur fracture that isn't noticeable till you run on it and it comes apart. Did the running cause the fracture?


But here are close-ups of the damage pre-collapse and immediately after:


Dead-on shots, so displacement back is not clear. The right-hand column, as well as panel damage, looks the same in both.


Clearly no wing created the damage that you indicate in the image from days or weeks later after they had cleaned out the rubble and installed temporary supports.


Clearly that's your opinion.


What ENRAGES me is the fact that you play act like you are the "physical evidence" expert and that everything "fits perfectly" with a 757.


Hey, buddy, you enrage me too sometimes but you don't hear me gong around whining about it. It's just a fact of life. It's not that I'm an expert, but that the evidence makes far more sense when you have the actual scenario in mind. When you're looking for 'inconsistencies' and 'anomalies,' yeah, you run out of steam quicker and start losing debates and getting enraged. It must suck that your holes in the story don't line up to tell their own consistent story. Just some 'oops' screw-ups.


I have demonstrated how you are merely regurgitating catherder's disinfo and have PROVEN how the very "physical evidence" that you think proves the official story correct does just the opposite.


You've demonstrated no such thing. I didn't even remember that point being made in that thread, which I consider seriously flawed. He had the impact hole on the upper floor only for God's sake, like Meyssan, Killtown, and Loose Change did! Seriously, you think I'm gonna plaigarize THAT? I was going off ASCE, eyewitness reports, my own graphic analyses, and other sources.


Please put yourself out of your misery and concede this debate as it is clear you are falling further into the abyss with each point you try to make.


What the hell are you talking about? I've made my point, and its up to others to get it or not. It's a free world that way. I know your job is to never agree with something like this, so should I be all shocked and discouraged now that you have more harsh words for my findings?

And As mentioned elsewhere to stump me, Lack of damage continuity = difference between the part of wing attached to engine and barrelling plane below the slab vs. outer wing attached to noting above the slab. One causes some damage but otherwise stops there (the tinsel on the lawn afterwards I'd venture) while the other fully removes walls and columns and enters the building. That intact lower left corner there, where column and slab meet? Very strong point, the divider between upper and lower wing impact, the point of discontinuity.

[edit on 19-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join