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: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Well, Purdue's CGI modeling appears to have been correct after all--the plane had no engines.

Who'da thunk?

Pentagram indeed. That place is the home of the devil.




posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex

But why would they be so stupid as to not cover this aspect of it? Surely they had access to people who could simulate it beforehand, so they would know how to make it look exactly right for their purposes.


It is not my responsibility to explain WHY there are fatal anomalies proving the official story false. This was a complex operation and they made many mistakes. Think about what you are saying! You are literally suggesting that their mistakes are too obvious so therefore they must be innocent and the evidence should be dismissed.

Talk about backwards logic!



And also how come it isn't damaged from the rest of the building collapsing onto it? Surely that would do something to the rest of the concrete too, in this image?


The fact that you can compare a partial and relatively slow collapse straight on to the foundation to a 100 ton jet airliner scraping across it at over 500mph doesn't even really deserve a response.

Take physics 101 and get back with me on that.




Clearly this evidence is not all that "obvious" since CIT is the first to talk about it.


So how come you make it look so obvious?


Because we are ruthless investigators/researchers who leave no stone unturned and tirelessly fight to uncover this heinous crime of mass murder that is being used for a permanent global war and justification for virtually all policy decisions foreign and domestic.

You can help too by making sure people understand the serious implications of the rock solid evidence we have uncovered for you.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


There were many contractors used during the "renovation". If you feel this is relevant to this discussion than go ahead and research it and report back why.


The assumption that this covert operation was done during renovation is relevant to this discussion. I don't know anything about the exploding monkey's, but I do know they would have to get planted DURING the construction and not bee seen by the contractors. Kind of the same way the light poles were planted and Lloyds car was damaged.


You asked the names of the contracting companies.

If you think you can determine evidence that proves or disproves the use of explosives with that information then by all means....research away.

Real people had to have been involved with this operation.

We don't doubt this.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


"REAL" people as in civilians? Or not ones made up in someones mind?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Heres a question...how much damage can a plane cause when doing a hard landing on a runway or some asphalt type runway?



It seems to me that the engine took most of the punish than concrete did in return.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

"REAL" people as in civilians? Or not ones made up in someones mind?


No doubt both.

CIA assets, mercenaries, and assassins are used throughout the world for covert operations on many levels.

It's well known that extraordinary rendition or torture by proxy goes on under the U.S. dime.

Is it really such a stretch to suggest that covert illegal activity happens on our soil or that operatives with the proper mentality exist to carry out these tasks?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Hmm. This looks interesting, thanks for posting this.

Craig, are you positive that there we no inbetween repairs between impact and the time these pictures were taken?

The only thing which might be an issue is that you compare damage to a parking lot to a possibly re-enforced foundation of the Pentagon. (possibly)

Did that section of the Pentagon have a specially re-enforced foundation?

If so, what effects would an engine have had on that?

In any case I sure do not need more convincing, it seems plausible that the demo team could have had orders just to place the directional charges and not worry about the foundation. I still think a global hawk flew in there at the time of detonation; either that or the sec-cam footage is fake.

To complete the scene a real airliner under control by the conspiritors could have flown in or around the area to confuse real witnesses.

Pulling up low over the scene at detonation and pulling up hard and making its getaway cleanly while covered by the mayhem and smoke on the ground.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by Truth4hire]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Here is another example showing how a real plane would damage real concrete.



I'm curious to find out how you know that is concrete? Looks like asphalt scrapes to me with the little black piles of rubble and all. I've seen similar damage from simply towing a car with a broken axle into my dad's shop on a warm day. Concrete doesn't look like that. That looks like a soft black topped surface to me, and all the little black pebbles give it away.

Saying that this is how it should have looked, etc is a very incorrect way of explaining things. You can have all the models in the world, but I would be willing to wager that if you took a full scale mockup of the Pentagon, flew the exact same type of aircraft into it at the same angle you would get different results everytime. The explosion of the craft would not occur most likely at the exact same time, it's just too random of an event.

One final thing, on the subject of conspiracy, since this event was so well "planned out" and whatnot, why didn't the government fake some video footage like they did for the towers? I mean if you're going to go through all this trouble to make the biggest hoax known to man, why skip that very huge detail?

Think about it.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Heres a question...how much damage can a plane cause when doing a hard landing on a runway or some asphalt type runway?



It seems to me that the engine took most of the punish than concrete did in return.






1. The official reports have the plane tilted with the left engine burrowing into the foundation like this:

(image from ASCE report)

2. The plane in that video isn't going anywhere near 535 mph.

3. There are no clear images of the damage to the asphalt in that youtube video yet I can STILL see visible scrapes. But not a single scratch is visible on the Pentagon concrete in this very clear close-up image exactly where the left engine would have entered:



So basically you helped to prove my point despite the fact that your analogy is irrelevant.

Thanks!



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Here's my respone to Terrorcell's re-post at LCF addressing the rebbar - maybe I am wrong on that:
Rebar sticking out - I thought this was from the foundation, but Craig says column remnants, since they're "vertical." They do seem too long maybe for the foundation and six or so on the right are clustered like a column's rebar, but they are stripped to the bottom, where they seem to emerge horizontal from the damaged horizontal concrete. Right?



Or are these blown outward? Some would jump on that, but I must add that would be THE FIRST evidence of columns blown out that I have seen. All other evidence indicates inwards action. And of course this is after cleanup, so it can only tell us so much about what initially happened.

Plus, except at the edge, damage to the floor in general would be glancing, and when made wet, as in most of these photos, all you'd see is smoothness, mostly of puddle surfaces. There is a big crack in one photo, but that might've been there before, and otherwise we can't tell for sure there's no glancong damage, or if there is that it wasn't from the collapse or the cleanup.

So this is inconclusive - non-damage in the key spot unproven - damage there seems possible - and neither case proves anything. The engine could have cleared the floor at entry and left no mark, and the damage there, if real, could be faked just as easily as all the other alleged contrivances. So why are we looking at the floor instead of the columns and walls and 90-foot hole?
---


[edit on 28-9-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


1. The official reports have the plane tilted with the left engine burrowing into the foundation like this:

(image from ASCE report)


So the engine was that strong that it went through concrete floor as well as hard dirt underneath the Pentagon? I mean I don't see the plane's engine in the video I posted do similar thing like the image you posted. In fact the engine was squashed.



3. There are no clear images of the damage to the asphalt in that youtube video yet I can STILL see visible scrapes. But not a single scratch is visible on the Pentagon concrete in this very clear close-up image exactly where the left engine would have entered:


Could be scrapes or could be paint or fluids. Have no close up shots.



So basically you helped to prove my point despite the fact that your analogy is irrelevant.


Not really.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire
Hmm. This looks interesting, thanks for posting this.

Craig, are you positive that there we no in between repairs between impact and the time these pictures were taken?


Yes. It is clearly during the clean up process. The notion that they repaired all noticeable damage to the foundation even before finishing the clean up isn't very logical.



The only thing which might be an issue is that you compare damage to a parking lot to a possibly re-enforced foundation of the Pentagon. (possibly)


Nah. It's not an issue. Even if there would be less there would clearly be some damage.



Did that section of the Pentagon have a specially re-enforced foundation?

If so, what effects would an engine have had on that?


Super-duper Pentagon concrete? Kind of like the Pentalawn?

I've never heard of concrete that is impervious to titanium. Please provide evidence that this exists and I will entertain this notion.




In any case I sure do not need more convincing, it seems plausible that the demo team could have had orders just to place the directional charges and not worry about the foundation. I still think a global hawk flew in there at the time of detonation; either that or the sec-cam footage is fake.

To complete the scene a real airliner under control by the conspiritors could have flown in or around the area to confuse real witnesses.

Pulling up low over the scene at detonation and pulling up hard and making its getaway cleanly while covered by the mayhem and smoke on the ground.


Right on.

But there is no real evidence for a Global Hawk or any other type of projectile.

Talk to the people of Arlington as much as we have and this will be evident.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


That is not really the foundation but the ceiling of the floors that are contained below ground level. (there are two levels below)



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Here's my respone to Terrorcell's re-post at LCF addressing the rebbar - maybe I am wrong on that:
Rebar sticking out - I thought this was from the foundation, but Craig says column remnants, since they're "vertical." They do seem too long maybe for the foundation and six or so on the right are clustered like a column's rebar, but they are stripped to the bottom, where they seem to emerge horizontal from the damaged horizontal concrete. Right?



Or are these blown outward? Some would jump on that, but I must add that would be THE FIRST evidence of columns blown out that I have seen. All other evidence indicates inwards action. And of course this is after cleanup, so it can only tell us so much about what initially happened.


Blown outward of course. Or in the very least pushed that way during the clean up. Why did you crop out the other set?


This rebar was obviously not laying horizontally within the foundation.



Plus, except at the edge, damage to the floor in general would be glancing, and when made wet, as in most of these photos, all you'd see is smoothness, mostly of puddle surfaces. There is a big crack in one photo, but that might've been there before, and otherwise we can't tell for sure there's no glancong damage, or if there is that it wasn't from the collapse or the cleanup.


My GOD you are desperate. First it was debris but now WATER hides the all of the damage?

The "crack" is clearly not fresh damage and doesn't even run in the proper direction. Did you even read my reply to you before posting this?



So this is inconclusive - non-damage in the key spot unproven - damage there seems possible - and neither case proves anything. The engine could have cleared the floor at entry and left no mark, and the damage there, if real, could be faked just as easily as all the other alleged contrivances. So why are we looking at the floor instead of the columns and walls and 90-foot hole?



The engine could NOT have cleared the floor according to the official reports and matching the plane with the initial damage to the facade before collapse.

The damage REQUIRES the wing tilt and it was all limited to the first two floors. You are caught in the official story circular lie yet you tirelessly defend them. Why?

The fact that they failed to "fake" damage to the foundation is not the least bit of a legitimate reason to dismiss this fatal anomaly in the physical evidence.

But it's clear the Frustrated Fraud will support the official story at all costs regardless of the facts.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I've never heard of concrete that is impervious to titanium. Please provide evidence that this exists and I will entertain this notion.



No need. The titanium parts were almost certainly above the slab, encased inside the engine and spinning fast. What would have hit would be the outer casing and/or the turbofan blades. Solid block of titanium my ass. And also remember the left engine would have hit after the right wing was gone, and much of the fuselage. It would've slowed down and lost force even before hitting. I am seeing smooth puddles of water on a slab that might be scarred and scraped pretty bad for all I can tell.



[edit on 28-9-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


That is not really the foundation but the ceiling of the floors that are contained below ground level. (there are two levels below)


Oh really?

Prove it.

So are you Mr. Herbert over at jref or another one of the other Gravy worshipers?

However.....EVEN IF this were true how does this mean the concrete would sustain less damage?

Hmmmmmm?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
No need. The titanium parts were almost certainly above the slab, encased inside the engine and spinning fast. What would have hit would be the outer casing and/or the turbofan blades. Solid block of titanium my ass. And also remember the left engine would have hit after the right wing was gone, and much of the fuselage. It would've slowed down and lost force even before hitting. I am seeing smooth puddles of water on a slab that might be scarred and scraped pretty bad for all I can tell.




When did I say it was "solid titanium"?

Why are you misrepresenting my claims and using obscenities while doing so?

Please prove to me that there is no titanium this far into the engine:


It really doesn't matter anyway since it's clear that a 6 ton mass traveling at 535mph would damage concrete regardless of what it is made of.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But it's clear the Frustrated Fraud will support the official story at all costs regardless of the facts



Folks, what can I say? This is all the time I have for your aggressive, harassing, distracting BS. I'm sorry your thread here ain't going so well, nor the re-post put up at LCF. All I've tried to do at easch is clarify what you had distorted from my opinions. Argue with yourself now or others if you like, or try to gig up more dirt o me and keep with te personal attacks and questions of motive if you like. Write a whole screenplay if you want, have fun. that's it for today.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Super-duper Pentagon concrete? Kind of like the Pentalawn?

Actually the concrete columns were spirally reinforced. This meant that they were stronger than your average reinforced concrete column.


I've never heard of concrete that is impervious to titanium. Please provide evidence that this exists and I will entertain this notion.

You do realize that jet engine mounts ARE designed to break away before the wing does right?

Oh, and what makes you think the plane was going over 500mph? Did you clock the speed with radar?
The plane was NOT going over 500 mph.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Folks, what can I say? This is all the time I have for your aggressive, harassing, distracting BS. I'm sorry your thread here ain't going so well, nor the re-post put up at LCF. All I've tried to do at easch is clarify what you had distorted from my opinions. Argue with yourself now or others if you like, or try to gig up more dirt o me and keep with te personal attacks and questions of motive if you like. Write a whole screenplay if you want, have fun. that's it for today.



Uh huh.

As usual you tuck tail and run when confronted with the facts and retreat back to your safe little blog haven where you can obfuscate and neutralize unhindered.

None of this is fun.

Dealing with people like you who tirelessly fight to defend the official story while putting out convoluted information to obscure our hard work and faking like they support 9/11 truth is not my idea of a good time.

Goodnight Frustrated Fraud.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join