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: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

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


What does have to do with the foundation?




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.


That is what the FDR and the official story report.

However I agree with you.

It was not going that fast and did not hit the building.




posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 06:09 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?


The animation pictures are misleading in that they show a "clean" approach
in reality the front of the Pentagon was full of obstructions and construction
equipment. The portside (left) engine struck a steam vault pipe just
before impacting the building. The right side of the aircraft hit a
construction trailer before impacting the building. The damage to the
engine could account for lack of scrape/gouging of the concrete.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



I have never posted there. I use their forum as a great tool for information. I have noticed you are used a punching bag over there.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The bombs that were planted didn't cause any damage either? Let it go...it's over.


Let it go ...its over.... What kinda loser opinion is that? Yea let go that our government has committed war crimes against its own people. And there was never a theory of planted exsplosives in the pentagon. It's always been perpetuated that it was a balistic missile. So i would get my facts strait before you post anything....DURP



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
It has come to the point that it is futile to argue with anyone that doesnt see what 911 was by now. The chance of there being so MANY physical anomalies added to the amount of FAILURES of MASS proportion of our protective agencies then add in a DASH of experts and pilots that say no way... Why even argue anymore people. The people that dont want to see it WONT see it, even if they DID it wouldnt matter. Technology has made it so we can do nothing, even if we wanted to revolt 300 men with the technology of the military could put us all down. Pack it up and go home. Nice try though Craig. It was a valiant effort.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by shug7272]


Mod Note: Please Do Not Evade The Automatic Censors -- Please Review

[edit on 29-9-2007 by chissler]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by shug7272
Technology has made it so we can do nothing, even if we wanted to revolt 300 men with the technology of the military could put us all down. Pack it up and go home. Nice try though Craig. It was a valiant effort.


I get where you are coming from but that is why I am different from your average "truther" and get answers.

I refuse a defeatist attitude and will only accept justice.

I am not here for debate.

Sure I can debate with the best of them and I may come off as heavy handed or even arrogant at times but that is simply because I have done the work and came back with proof.

This is why people like the Frustrated Fraud have directed so much energy to spin and neutralization of the facts that we present as they continuously attack our credibility and attempt to cast doubt on our motives.

They have a vested interest in defending the official story just like I have a vested interest in truth and justice.

I'll will take your post as support and continue to uncover truth through our investigation regardless if it's futile.

Peace.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Osyris

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The bombs that were planted didn't cause any damage either? Let it go...it's over.


Let it go ...its over.... What kinda loser opinion is that? Yea let go that our government has committed war crimes against its own people. And there was never a theory of planted exsplosives in the pentagon. It's always been perpetuated that it was a balistic missile. So i would get my facts strait before you post anything....DURP


Ah... what an educated response. "Loser opinion"

And yes there have been CT's about explosives in the Pentagon for some time now.

Whats a DURP?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I get where you are coming from but that is why I am different from your average "truther" and get answers.

To bad they are the wrong answers.



I am not here for debate.

Thats obvious!


Sure I can debate with the best of them and I may come off as heavy handed or even arrogant at times but that is simply because I have done the work and came back with proof.

Proof!
Now thats funny.
All you have put forth is your misguided opinions using faulty logic which barely grasps the simplest engineering basics.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   
The Frustrated Fraud was very receptive to this post that powerhouse wrote over on LCF:


I've had this discussion with Craig before, and he was unable to explain himself: what would you expect, and why? He was saying something about seeing damage where the left engine hit, but we don't know that the left engine even would have hit the wall at that point, since it hit a concrete structure several feet before getting to the wall. The engine could have been tumbling upwards by that point.


But still, your penultimate photo looks like the edge of the slab is damaged at the point the engine would have hit. There's a black box drawn labeled "foundation intact," but the engine would have hit just to the right of that box. You can see in the other diagrams that the left engine hit right at the edge of the collapse point, which is just to the right of your black box.


ETA: here's what I'm referring to:


z10.invisionfree.com...


This post is so deceptive and incorrect that it's disgusting.

This model is TO SCALE and at the proper angle and it shows how the entire engine would be within the outlined black box in the image you referenced:


THIS is much closer to reality:


Tumbling upwards?

We certainly do know that the left engine would have hit the "wall" AND the foundation because it DIDN'T hit the lawn and there was no damage above the first floor of the building at the facade so the entire left engine HAD to have entered below the FIRST floor due to the reported wing tilt!



If you deny the wing tilt (not even depicted in image directly above) you open up an entirely different can of worms.

The notion that a 6 ton engine connected to a 90 ton aircraft with the incredible kinetic energy created from traveling over 500 mph tilted into the ground not completely obliterating the foundation is unfathomable so naturally we should at least expect a scrape or two.

But there is no foundation damage documented going into the entire building so where did this 6 ton engine "bounce" powerhouse?

Why would you think all foundation damage would be limited to where the engine would have met the facade?








If you are suggesting that the ASCE report is incorrect:


You contradict all of the initial physical damage to the facade pre-collapse.


So which contradiction are you willing to accept more?



Hint: They are all fatal to the official story.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The Frustrated Fraud was very receptive to this post that powerhouse wrote over on LCF:


'Cause he was right and had a good point. However you say:


This post is so deceptive and incorrect that it's disgusting.


So YOU wrote that one too? Ay least you have loyal surrogates there. And that's cool. But I ALMOST told Terrorcell too bad we don't have Craig around. At least then we'd get our facts straight.



Stick to the interviews, dude.

And I don't put one flung turd's worth of stock in your opinion of me and my motives. Call me a faker all you want. I'm just in for the truth, not the "9/11 Truth" whatever you or anyone defines it as. I do not mean to "support the official story." I'm perfectly willing to question any and all aspects of it, and I have. But just becuase something is part of the Official Story doen't mean it isn't true. You believe planes hit the WTC, right? So does the official story. What I argue is what I see based on the evidence and I've looked at LOTS. This here is just one small spot, and your case, even if there really is no visible damage for this -what, 50-fot span? is far from "fatal" to the evidence-based story. The foundation does look smoother than it shoud, I think, but I don't know what it should exactly look like. We got in-bowed columns, 100 feet of wall removed, witnesses of a plane IMPACT - every one at every angle - not the whole plane seen yet by us but quite a few photos of identifiable 757 wreckage - the "mechanical damage path" - the FDR - etc. Please recite again why all these are unreliable, knock yourself out.

I know a thrown game when I see it, and disinfo too, and I'm guided by common sense and intuition. And your few curiously wrong witnesses and twisting of the evidence does not do a damn bit of good to convince me. Wonder why? Which is why you rely on innuendo, insults, bully-like tactics (exploiting percieved weaknesses), ultimatums, and I'm pretty sure a lot of projection of your own guilt complex onto others. And casting yourself like some superhero here for "truth and justice," which really ticks me off considering how I try not to question your own motives, despite the obviousness of this whole charade, because I don't have the time to keep arguing with you. And I won't. That's just my opinion, rail if you like.

Seriously. I do not get paid for this, but I do pay with shirked duties, neglected friends, a messy house. That's my own fault, but it's why I do not always have time for this and I need to do even less in the future. More focussed. Less jib-jab. Cleaning up my case. You will not change my mind, I won't change yours. It's about the others and they are where they are. I will still consider you a disinformation artist (and I do admire your artistry) and you will consider me whatever you do.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   
For starters, 6 ton turbine engines at full power slamming into anything will do some serious damage. The evidence shown by "the official story" of the remains depicted the engine core to be 1/2 - 3/4 the size of the PW2037's core. With a PW2037's core rpm of 13200 (full power) hitting the foundation and not causing damage, give me a brake.


After 26 years of being and aircraft engineer, and the power-plant my area of expertize, I have seen plenty of what happens when one hits something or comes apart during operation. If you subscribe to the "official story" you will buy anything, want some ocean front property in Arizona?



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


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.


Unfortunately, you need to understand that being a "ruthless investigator" means dealing with all of the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. You just can't cherry pick things you think makes your case and ignore all the other evidence.

We've been dealing with this very subject at LCF and none of the no-757 "researchers" there have yet to support their "case."

How about addressing all of the evidence, Craig?



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   

PLEASE TAKE IMMEDIATE NOTICE


Due to member demand...

Any new posts from any member in this thread of an overtly aggressive nature that focuses on posters and not the subject matter will result in an immediate and permanent ban from ATS without warning.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
You should also note:

The plane should have been traveling at a downward angle, so the hole in the C ring shouldn't even be there. The hole indicates that the plane, or whatever hit, was traveling close (if not parallel) to the ground.

Nice research, I don't know how much the FEMA pictures show, but you may want to sift through their archives as well.

Try this out: Click Me



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Sorry, but I just don't buy what you are selling.
So what happened to flight 77 then? Are you that this flight never existed?
For your theory to be correct, all the people on flight 77 must in on the hoax which includes their families. Air traffic control which tracks the plane must in on it and American Airlines who owns the plane must be playing a part.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
While I firmly believe that 9/11 was an inside job to some degree, I can't accept that there was no plane at the Pentagon.
Firstly, it would have been a huge risk to set the whole thing up and then claim a 757 hit the building - when any Tom, Dick or Harry could have been filming near by and caught the whole thing on tape. Look how many "home movies" there are of the WTC attack. Now, of course, there are no such movies (that we know of) of the Pentagon attack, but I think that was down to pure luck.....there's no way the government could have risked it or thought it could run around and confiscate every tape. I'm even willing to accept the 757 was really a drone or modified missile - that's more likely to me that there being no plane at all.

As for the damage patterns at the Pentagon.....I think we can run simulations and copy/paste images to show what would have been where etc all day long - but I think when a large, complicated mechanical object hits a concrete building at 500mph there has got to be some degree of "chaos theory" involved. The fact there are no marks where you might expect them to be doesn't prove anything one way or another for me. Sure, I would expect the left engine to have left a mark......but the fact there isn't a mark doesn't prove 100% there was no plane.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by Curio]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Ok ok ok...

So a plane with 100's of people DIDNT hit the Pentagon...

So WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PLANE AND THE PEOPLE!!

Oops.


[edit on 29-9-2007 by donk_316]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic




Stick to the interviews, dude.


I don't get what your point is with this image. I only initially called it "collapsed" edge because powerhouse did in his graphic but clearly we were both pointing out where the left engine would be.

So.....please explain what is inaccurate about this image that shows you EXACTLY where the left engine would be in relation to this crystal clear shot of the very front of the undamaged foundation with virtually all the debris cleared away exactly where the engine would have impacted:



Because bottom line, these two images alone perfectly show how it's impossible for the 757 impact to be true.





And I don't put one flung turd's worth of stock in your opinion of me and my motives. Call me a faker all you want. I'm just in for the truth, not the "9/11 Truth" whatever you or anyone defines it as. I do not mean to "support the official story." I'm perfectly willing to question any and all aspects of it, and I have. But just becuase something is part of the Official Story doen't mean it isn't true. You believe planes hit the WTC, right? So does the official story. What I argue is what I see based on the evidence and I've looked at LOTS. This here is just one small spot, and your case, even if there really is no visible damage for this -what, 50-fot span? is far from "fatal" to the evidence-based story. The foundation does look smoother than it shoud, I think, but I don't know what it should exactly look like. We got in-bowed columns, 100 feet of wall removed, witnesses of a plane IMPACT - every one at every angle - not the whole plane seen yet by us but quite a few photos of identifiable 757 wreckage - the "mechanical damage path" - the FDR - etc. Please recite again why all these are unreliable, knock yourself out.

I know a thrown game when I see it, and disinfo too, and I'm guided by common sense and intuition. And your few curiously wrong witnesses and twisting of the evidence does not do a damn bit of good to convince me. Wonder why? Which is why you rely on innuendo, insults, bully-like tactics (exploiting percieved weaknesses), ultimatums, and I'm pretty sure a lot of projection of your own guilt complex onto others. And casting yourself like some superhero here for "truth and justice," which really ticks me off considering how I try not to question your own motives, despite the obviousness of this whole charade, because I don't have the time to keep arguing with you. And I won't. That's just my opinion, rail if you like.

Seriously. I do not get paid for this, but I do pay with shirked duties, neglected friends, a messy house. That's my own fault, but it's why I do not always have time for this and I need to do even less in the future. More focussed. Less jib-jab. Cleaning up my case. You will not change my mind, I won't change yours. It's about the others and they are where they are. I will still consider you a disinformation artist (and I do admire your artistry) and you will consider me whatever you do.



What's with the irrelevant emotional rant?

Please address the evidence directly.

Thanks.



[edit on 29-9-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Because bottom line, these two images alone perfectly show how it's impossible for the 757 impact to be true.



Photographs are ambiguous and do not make up the totality of the evidence. Please describe the wreckage removed by the hundreds of rescue and recovery workers in the days and weeks after the event at the Pentagon.



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

All you have put forth is your misguided opinions using faulty logic which barely grasps the simplest engineering basics.


Please cite a single source that embraces engineering and physics basics that shows the math where the math is both correct and does not use arbitrary numbers.

Please remember thet even if a million CT's have been debunked the score is still 0-0 becasue the official story is still a theory also.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join