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: 27
22
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Theorist
 


Remember the official manifest for all planes to this day have still not came up... Have you ever tought if there was a plane at all? did you know that all the planes were very light on passengers and that all passengers were either military, or military contractors? the pentagon was not hit by a plane period the damge is not consistant with an airliner crash... Please find where there is one seat,one piece of clothing, a tail, an engine(engines are made of steel and titanium)(most tails are made of composites which are impossible to destroy) anything that has the characteristics of an airliner crash... then you go to the foundation.. the foundation has no damage considering that in order for the plane to hit the pentagon at that level the left wing and engine should have been digging into the ground(remember titanium and steel) You have to stop look back forget about what the official story is and investigate this yourself...
archive.indymedia.be...

[edit on 11-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]




posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I see.. looking for more evidence and "official reports" Are you so brainwashed that you need a so called "official report" in order to see the truth? Can't you see with both of your eyes and that brain that the damage is not consistant with a Jet liner? Do you need an "official report" on everything in your life? Is this how you discern what is true and what is wrong? Pathetic.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


Thanks for bumping this important thread and for understanding the serious implications.

After this thread was created we eventually published this article about it:

The Lack of Foundation Damage at the Pentagon is Irreconcilable with the Official Reports and Data



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Since the physical evidence regarding the Pentagon attack has been being discussed lately in this thread about the generator trailer I figured it was a good time to bump this one regarding the lack of damage to the foundation or first floor slab.

The conclusion here is that while the eyewitness evidence definitively proves the plane did not hit the building, the physical evidence is also definitive in this regard.

We can't lose site of the fact that the anomalous physical damage is what got everyone questioning the event in the first place.

The witnesses prove why.

The physical damage IS the crime and when looked at closely there isn't a reason on earth to think it is reconcilable with the impact of a 90 ton Boeing.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Yeah, neither plane OR planted bombs caused damage to the pentagon foundation.

Good job exhuming this waste of bandwith.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Well most people with common sense will quickly understand how a 90 ton Boeing entering the building as reported by the ASCE with the left engine burrowed into the first floor would most definitely cause more random damage than something controlled like covertly planted explosives, shape charges, and incendiaries within the columns etc.

There is no reason to assume whatever combination of controlled weaponry they used would damage the foundation while the ASCE report, Purdue University, as well as the pre-collapse damage being limited to the bottom 2 floors give us every reason to REQUIRE to see damage to the foundation.






posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Well most people with common sense will quickly understand how a 90 ton Boeing entering the building as reported by the ASCE with the left engine burrowed into the first floor would most definitely cause more random damage than something controlled like covertly planted explosives, shape charges, and incendiaries within the columns etc.

There is no reason to assume whatever combination of controlled weaponry they used would damage the foundation while the ASCE report, Purdue University, as well as the pre-collapse damage being limited to the bottom 2 floors give us every reason to REQUIRE to see damage to the foundation.


Do you have proof or evidence of any of the scenerios regarding explosives?
You seem to be throwing around a lot of methods none of which would have produced the desired effect of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
Its almost as if you recently learned of these techniques and are just throwing them out there in a shotgun like manner hoping that people believe you.
Do you have formal training in explosive use?
Do you hold a degree in munitions?
Do you have experience in munitions?
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!
And please dont go off on wild tales of planted flight 77 parts, downed light poles, planted DNA, etc because again you have no EVIDENCE NOR PROOF of any of this.
This would be wild speculation and hearsay on your part.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by 654321]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke


Well most people with common sense...



Yes, like a person that believes that a multi-ton commercial airline flew over the Pentagon in the middle of rush hour traffic unseen by anyone.

This was done as a deception while bombs were going off at the exact same time... while people were running around with airplane parts scattering them around the lawn and around the burning offices. Oh, and per your partner Aldo..they were also running around planting frozen cadavers.

Yeah Craig.. common sense.




Do you have proof or evidence of any of the scenerios regarding explosives?


No, he doesn't. He refuses to interview any first responders or any of the civilian contractors that were working in Wedge 1 for years prior to 911.

Wonder why?

[edit on 25-1-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Well most people with common sense will quickly understand how a 90 ton Boeing entering the building as reported by the ASCE with the left engine burrowed into the first floor would most definitely cause more random damage than something controlled like covertly planted explosives, shape charges, and incendiaries within the columns etc.

There is no reason to assume whatever combination of controlled weaponry they used would damage the foundation while the ASCE report, Purdue University, as well as the pre-collapse damage being limited to the bottom 2 floors give us every reason to REQUIRE to see damage to the foundation.






The 6 ton Titanium engine hitting the foundation at 535 mph according to the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, would have been so likely to cause extensive damage to the 1st floor foundation, that Purdue University even left the engines off their propaganda model, didn't they? But sadly from the government loyalist perspective, there was NO visible damage done to the explosion area 1st floor building foundation whatsoever. There was no basement under that portion of the E-Ring Wedge 1 area.

Seeing there was no evidence of jet fuel out in the A&E Drive Exit Hole area, even though the latest reincarnation of the OFFICIAL STORY has a focused cone of explosive energy from the exploding jet fuel creating the Exit Hole (instead of the earlier bogus and later retracted claims of a nose cone, jet engine, or landing gear creating the Exit Hole), has reinforced the fact that the actual aircraft has been PROVEN Over the Naval Annex and that NO aircraft impacted the Pentagon at any time on 9-11.

No JET FUEL - no burning building debris






[edit on 1/25/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Why do you ignore the witnesses that smelled jet fuel?

The witness that smelled burning Jet fuel in the air handler weeks and months after 911?

Why do you ignore the first responders that smelled jet fuel?

Heck, your precious April Gallop received a settlement from AMERICAN AIRLINES.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Why do you ignore the witnesses that smelled jet fuel?


Because they HAVE to in order to maintain their fantasy. Its all part of the CIT Operational ROE - the cherrypicking of witnesses and their statementsand the associated gerrymandered story to fit the few mistaken "witnesses" they find.

I smelled jet fuel when I drove past the scene shortly after the impact of AA77. Many, many dozens of others smelled jet fuel in the aftermath. My neighbor, two doors down from where I lived in 2004 was severely burned by jet fuel.

They HAVE to ignore those who counter their isolated exceptions-to-the-rule/outliers.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   


Photos of Puncture in C-Ring Wall

Please show us the jet fuel or any sign of jet fuel you see in the above photo. Shouldn't that building debris be burning or burned if there was jet fuel out here in the A&E Drive? How could the cone of explosive energy in the once again revised edition of the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY blow the hole in the C-Ring wall without burning the building debris?



For some strange reason I do not see any sign of jet fuel out here in the A&E Drive. Shouldn't there be soot on the walls from the burning jet fuel? That burnable building debris doesn't look like it even got warm. Perhaps it is because I never received my personal pair of OFFICIAL STORY eyeglasses to help me see better?



I see the smoke coming out of the C-Ring interior where the explosives and fires were; but where is the jet fuel and fires from the cone of explosive energy out here in the A&E Drive? Can you see CameronFox? Do you have your special eyeglasses on?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

No JET FUEL - no burning building debris





Rosati was in a meeting when the plane hit. "I ran down the hallway and there was smoke everywhere. You could smell the jet fuel, it was unbearable," he said


source

You might want to read this article from Thomas Hawkins - Chief of Alexandria Fire Department.
www.dau.mil...

If you would like more witnesses to jet fuel, please let me know.

-Cam



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

posted by SPreston

there was no evidence of jet fuel out in the A&E Drive Exit Hole area, even though the latest reincarnation of the OFFICIAL STORY has a focused cone of explosive energy from the exploding jet fuel creating the Exit Hole (instead of the earlier bogus and later retracted claims of a nose cone, jet engine, or landing gear creating the Exit Hole),

No JET FUEL - no burning building debris

Please show us the jet fuel or any sign of jet fuel you see in the above photo.

but where is the jet fuel and fires from the cone of explosive energy out here in the A&E Drive? Can you see CameronFox? Do you have your special eyeglasses on?




posted by CameronFox

If you would like more witnesses to jet fuel, please let me know.



Did I ask for witnesses? No? I asked you to look at three photos of the Exit Hole and show me ANY sign of jet fuel and you could not. Your witness had nothing to do with these photos did he?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Spreston...how long after the commencement of the firefighting efforts were your pictures taken?

The link below shows the hole you are speaking of with a large amount of a liquid substance? Do you know for a fact what it is? I would have to guess and I mean GUESS it is water.

Besides April Gallop, do you have any witnesses that specifically stated that they could not smell jet fuel?

Many people smelled Jet fuel. The smell remained MONTHS after flight 77 was intentionally smashed into the Pentagon.

You just can't fathom the facts.

911review.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Did I ask for witnesses? No? I asked you to look at three photos of the Exit Hole and show me ANY sign of jet fuel and you could not. Your witness had nothing to do with these photos did he?



No you didn't ask for witnesses because you know there were many. You are asking for me to comment on pictures that were taken MANY hours after thousands upon thousands of gallons of water were dispensed in the impacted areas.

If you were a true thinker, you would know that for a fact jet fuel was present at the Pentagon at 911.... how did it get there? Well.. the rational world knows that it was from AA Flight 77. Some not so rational people may think it was planted with the frozen cadavers that Aldo from CIT pointed out.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

posted by CameronFox

Spreston...how long after the commencement of the firefighting efforts were your pictures taken?



Supposedly an aircraft filled with jet fuel smashed into the Pentagon 1st floor wall without damaging the foundation. Then officially a cone of energy from the burning jet fuel blasted the Exit Hole in the C-Ring wall. Where is it? Where is any sign of that exploding jet fuel out in the A&E Drive where we have photos to inspect? Mysteriously, most the earliest photos of the Wedge 1 interior have disappeared; but they did not show much sign of raging fires either.



CameronFox why can't you deal with a simple question? Do you see any fire hoses near the 1st and 3rd photo? These were the earliest photos taken of the Exit Hole. Smoke is still flowing out of the C-Ring interior from the explosions and fires. Why can't you simply show to us the signs of jet fuel out there you can see? Did you notice that the words punch out are not yet on the wall in these photos? These are early photos.



Do you see the building debris spilling out the Exit Hole into the A&E Drive? Do you see any sign that it was burned or even scorched? No? How can that be if burning jet fuel exploded through that wall officially creating the Exit Hole? Why wasn't the A&E Drive filled with fire and burning jet fuel? Where did the burning jet fuel mysteriously disappear to, without leaving any sign that it was ever there?





[edit on 1/25/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
What about the engine(s)?These were pulling the alleged aircraft into the foundation/header of the floor below,they must have pulled concrete and limestone debris into themselves at the instant of the alleged impact!!!Or at least shown damage,and not from somewhere else,if,say recovered from another plane crash and planted.The pictures don't look like the central shaft hit anything hard.Has anyone seen a description of the analysis of the take down?Did they even find the other engine?Or was it sold for sCRAP ASAP? (Like the steel from NY?)Kinda peripheral to plane-meets-pentagon,but I thought of it when the two birds took out that plane safely landed in the Hudson and they went through all that effort to recover those engines for analysis.To see for themselves what birds do to engines?Or maybe to be used as props for the next one...



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Hey Guys!

All I can do is laugh at the ENC's.

Sorry but your straw grasping is really pathetic.

How many witnesses say they saw a missle? zero

What happened to the plane that they SAY hit the pentagon and ALL the people on it? where are they? Are they being tortured in gitmo?

For me to say a plane with people (who apprently vanished into thin air)
really didnt hit the pentagon. I would have to be the most vile and distugusting person on the planet. How dare disgrace the memory of those who died with a thought. Keep them to yourself.

I would like to give the relatives of the people who died on the plane, STUN GUNS, and let the EXPERT NUT CASES stand in a group circled by the stun guns and then make their claims.

It would be VERY entertaining.

There is a mountain of evidence out there with less than a handful of discrepencies which can be resolved without magic.

I can GUARATEE you that if there was no video of the planes hitting the twin towers, there would be a MISSLE conspiracy. but since there are video's the conspriracy had to be preplaced explosives, or explosives built into the building when it was built, which is complete nonsense from someone who hasnt a grasp on reality.

So if there WERE preplaced explosives, WHY is our government accused of it? People hijacked planes, but couldn't put a bomb in the basement?

Did the government hijack the planes? no

I for one dont trust the government, but wont reliquish my common sense like many people do once they find out things are quite like they thought they were.

That would be like hating God, cuz someone who said they were a christian offended you, or stole from you.

That decision would lack common sense too.

Did a ufo crash in roswell? evidence shows the government is lying.

Did man land on the moon? NOT A CHANCE!

Did a missle hit the pentagon? no

Were explosives placed on all the floors of the WTC? Complete and utter nonsense!

Was the government aware of the plan to use planes as weapons? I believe they did, and did nothing in order to sell the IRAQ war and remove your rights.

They were successful on both accounts, the patriot act allows searches and seizures without a warrant signed by a judge, the investigator who has a GUT feeling you did something wrong, now WRITES HIS OWN WARRANT, just like the british soldiers used to do.

The government is crooked no doubt, but dont throw your common sense out with the trust you USED to have for the authorities.

I know this post covers a lot of areas, but I felt this needed to be said.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 

Anony mouse let the tapes be released,that will settle it.
You know the citgo tapes,the mariott tapes and the pentagon tapes.
The ones confiscated within minutes for national security reasons,of course.
If your arguments were all I could come up with I'd post anonymously too.-Waves hands in imitation-



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join