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: 8
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Forgive me if it is a language-barrier thing, but I don't entirely understand what you're saying.


Is there GPS data in the black boxes? or radar? Those are the things that prove trajectory. Or film from a camera that was mounted in a known location. That would prove how the plane traveled.

The FDR provides all the data we require. It (the FDR) directly contradicts the physical damage as its final heading is away from the physical evidence (downed light poles).

The issue is that the official flight path vs. what the witnesses saw are quite different.

FYI - it isn't failed memory - there is CCTV footage of Lagasse confirming what he said he remembered about his location on the forecourt. You must watch the entire video, if you didn't already. When Lagasse is talking about where he was stood, and where he is trying to remember where he was, CIT inlay a CCTV clip of Lagasse on 9/11, standing where he said he was, and showing his vehicle where he said it was. Irrefutable evidence.

The issue now is:

* What was the aircraft (Craig states he has additional details on that)

* If it wasn't FLight 77, then where is the real Flight 77, and did they pull off a Northwoods on 9/11 (apparently the Captain of Flight 77 had something to do with the planning of that operation - too coincidental IMHO)

* Did it hit, or did it fly over?

The official videos can't be trusted as they appear to have been tampered with. The FDR further betrays the videos by showing the aircraft should be visible 200 ft above the roof of the Pentagon on its approach, and therefore visible on the videos, whilst further, the Citgo witnesses put the aircraft at a very low level following the terrain, so we have 3 versions right there.

As posted above - if the aircraft flew over, this is not clear in the video (the aircraft would be visible), but it is not. If it hit the building as alleged, why then do we have what appears to be fabricated evidence in the form of light poles, and 80+ videos still waiting to be released for general review?

No... nothing to hide here.


[edit on 2-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]




posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by me262
Sorry, I watch your whole video.
This video proves beyond any doubt the failure and limitations of human memory. Very useful in a psychology class.

Is there GPS data in the black boxes? or radar? Those are the things that prove trajectory. Or film from a camera that was mounted in a known location. That would prove how the plane traveled.

Film of light poles that were broken the day before would do it. Film taken before the crash that is.

Film of a still existing plane after the crash.

Eyewitness of still existing plane.

eyewitness of broken light poles.

Some evidence of an actual coverup, explosives, not just a crash that in your opinion should have been bigger?

But it must be, since the govt has "so much riding" on the war on terror?
Not even enough here to cast reasonable doubt, let alone the "end of debate proof" you claim.






I think it is quite clear that Craig Ranke, alias Lyte Trip, cannot and will not deal with the evidence.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by me262

This video proves beyond any doubt the failure and limitations of human memory. Very useful in a psychology class.



Heh.

Sorry but corroboration proves otherwise.

The notion that any one of them would make such a drastic mistake about such a simple right or left claim is a stretch but for all of their memories to "fail" in the exact same way is a statistical impossibility.

Especially when you consider that not a single other witness directly contradicts them AND that we have 2 more accounts that we haven't released yet directly corroborating the north side claim.

Any claim can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by eyewitness testimony if it is independently corroborated enough times.

The plane was on the north side of the station.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

The issue is that the official flight path vs. what the witnesses saw are quite different.


Actually, there is no issue there at all. It is irrelevant. AA77 crashed into the Pentagon and it is irrelevant if a post-analysis of data recorder data disagrees slightly with eyewitness accounts. The facts are clear and no one has yet refuted that evidence.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The plane was on the north side of the station.



AA77 hit the Pentagon. Eventually, you will have to admit it, since you cannot refute the massive evidence that it hit the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The lack of shadow is secondary.



And you pointed out that the lack of shadow puts the doubt that no object was there in the first place as you have emphasized. You considered it important and later on decided its not really important as you believed.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The lack of shadow is secondary.



And you pointed out that the lack of shadow puts the doubt that no object was there in the first place as you have emphasized. You considered it important and later on decided its not really important as you believed.


It's certainly still true but it is simply secondary and I even mentioned it SECOND in tandem with the descent angle discrepancy to begin with.

You can effectively spin the lack of shadow fact by saying "maybe" it's not visible (which is not a debunk but merely a cop-out way to cast doubt) but you can not change the fact that there is no descent angle visible which contradicts the government's own data and the REALITY of what we should expect due to the topography.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The lack of shadow is secondary.



And you pointed out that the lack of shadow puts the doubt that no object was there in the first place as you have emphasized. You considered it important and later on decided its not really important as you believed.


It's certainly still true but it is simply secondary and I even mentioned it SECOND in tandem with the descent angle discrepancy to begin with.

You can effectively spin the lack of shadow fact by saying "maybe" it's not visible (which is not a debunk but merely a cop-out way to cast doubt) but you can not change the fact that there is no descent angle visible which contradicts the government's own data and the REALITY of what we should expect due to the topography.




Physical evidence trumps all. Give it up, Craig, you've got no case.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Looks like a cruise missile from the pictures. Global Hawk flies too slow and would not make that big of an explosion. Whatever it was it looks like it is flying 5 or so feet above the ground with a rooster tail from the speed. It also looks as if it is more of a fuel bomb than explosives.

I also find the lack of burnt marks on the building from the outer wing odd, but then the wings could have been swept back and then burnt to ash as what most planes do from the internal fuel in them. The lack of engines other than a turbine wheel strikes me as kind of weird too, also the lack of landing gears other than one wheel for both of these can withstand a lot of heat and force.

In majority of airplane crashes the tail section tends to take the least amount of damage because most of the time it breaks away first and lacks fuel in it to burn up. Another tell tell sign are seats all over the place for they also tend to break away and fly in many different directions too avoiding being burnt to nothing, also add luggage and cargo that tends to do the same thing, and I see not a single item any there.

I do not find a lack of fuselage and wings metal odd since this tends to burn up rather easily, but it also looks dam clean for something the size of a 757 to hit a building.

All that said I’m not saying it wasn’t a plane for I really do not know what a plane would do hitting a reinforced building like the pentagon at 350 miles per hour, but the way the damage ended up is not what I would expect at all.

If it wasn't a plane I would also follow that it is a cover-up and not a conspiracy since I truly believe that the planes that hit the towers were genuine.



[edit on 2-10-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

The issue is that the official flight path vs. what the witnesses saw are quite different.


Actually, there is no issue there at all. It is irrelevant. AA77 crashed into the Pentagon and it is irrelevant if a post-analysis of data recorder data disagrees slightly with eyewitness accounts. The facts are clear and no one has yet refuted that evidence.

It is far from irrelevant. Official story says it was to the South and hit 4 or 5 light poles before hitting the Pentagon, whilst all the witnesses state it flew to the North (and this is corroborated not only by multiple witnesses, but by CCTV from the Citgo gas station on the day that confirms what the witnesses were saying about their locations on the Citgo gas station site).

PROBLEM: BOTH CAN NOT BE TRUE.

There is something to the order or 87 videos at least of the Pentagon crash. So far, only 2 have been released. One shows something inconclusive, the other, shows nothing at all. Both are supposed to categorically show Flight 77 hitting the building, but at best, we have a clear picture of an explosion. In the first video, there is a strange object entering from the RHS of the frame, producing what appears to be a white smoke trail. Last time I looked, jet aircraft don't do this. We also know there are far better camera angles - why haven't theses been released?

EDIT: I see you are new to ATS. If you are going to write something off as "irrelevant" at least back it up with something. Thanks.


[edit on 2-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

The issue is that the official flight path vs. what the witnesses saw are quite different.


Actually, there is no issue there at all. It is irrelevant. AA77 crashed into the Pentagon and it is irrelevant if a post-analysis of data recorder data disagrees slightly with eyewitness accounts. The facts are clear and no one has yet refuted that evidence.


It is far from irrelevant. Official story says it was to the South and hit 4 or 5 light poles before hitting the Pentagon, whilst all the witnesses state it flew to the North (and this is corroborated not only by multiple witnesses, but by CCTV from the Citgo gas station on the day that confirms what the witnesses were saying about their locations on the Citgo gas station site).


The strawman argument that there is some "official story" of some sort was squashed years ago. You do realize, I hope, that there is only evidence and that all of that evidence comes from numerous independent sources and NOT from the government. Nor did the government have the ability to control that evidence right from the beginning.

I wish people would think more critically before accepting such canards that the 9/11 Truth Movement has adopted as religious belief without foundation.


PROBLEM: BOTH CAN NOT BE TRUE.

There is something to the order or 87 videos at least of the Pentagon crash. So far, only 2 have been released. One shows something inconclusive, the other, shows nothing at all. Both are supposed to categorically show Flight 77 hitting the building, but at best, we have a clear picture of an explosion. In the first video, there is a strange object entering from the RHS of the frame, producing what appears to be a white smoke trail. Last time I looked, jet aircraft don't do this. We also know there are far better camera angles - why haven't theses been released?


That's actually not a legitimate "problem.' It's only a problem for those not willing to think fully of the conditions, implications, and premises of such a statement.

You can easily acknowledge what Craig desperately refuses to admit: NO ONE needs any video whatsoever to determine whether a 757 hit the Pentagon or not. Do you understand that and why?

Doesn't it strike you as weird that Craig Ranke limits the "evidence" to photographs and with HIS interpretation to boot, and both discards consideration of ALL of the evidence, and uses photos when it serves him and claims others are "suspect" when it doesn't serve him?


EDIT: I see you are new to ATS. If you are going to write something off as "irrelevant" at least back it up with something. Thanks.


I am a veteran at this, taking on 9/11 deniers since 2002. A little thinking goes a long way at understanding what is relevant and what is not. We have a choice to follow the truth wherever it leads.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Here is an interesting point. What part of the plane hit all those poles?
If it was a wing then the poles would have ripped the wing off very easily, and the plane would had lost control most likely cart wheeled as planes do when they loose a wing like that. At the speed it was going a light pole would be much like a knife cutting through it.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by seanm

The strawman argument that there is some "official story" of some sort was squashed years ago.


With all due respect, there is an official story here, which happens to be true - a 757 impacted the building. The 'official story' might be more wiggly in general, but on this point it's unequivocal. Unless of course you buy the theory that the perps themselve are behind much of the no-plane-impact disinfo, which means in a way TWO official stories.

So I suggest for "official story," insert "757 impact" if that helps you stay less confused.

Also here is a photo no one is probably familiar with:



piled in the A-E Drive - several possible engine parts and probably other things, and a landing gear strut is in there too (perhaps the same one aso seen inside). All plantable by hand(s), truck, helicopter, or Boeing 757 impact. Just in case that adds anything for anyone.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Here is an interesting point. What part of the plane hit all those poles?
If it was a wing then the poles would have ripped the wing off very easily, and the plane would had lost control most likely cart wheeled as planes do when they loose a wing like that. At the speed it was going a light pole would be much like a knife cutting through it.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by Xtrozero]


This thing wasn't a kite. 757 have a lot of momentum which their bodies would retain until stopped. Even if it was blowing up too, the explosion would move forward, as it seems to from the video.



And these are the "knives" after meeting said wings - OR psyop FX crews with giant metal crimpers and curlers, depending.




posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Reason I doubt a 757: if there had been one, they would have released clear footage of it. They haven't, so - what don't they want us to see? 80+ videos not released - why not? They want us to believe a 757 hit - show us the aircraft! Simple.

Reason I think there was a 757: initial damage, evident from pre-collapse photos. Witnesses saying they saw an aircraft.

I'm in conflict here as you can see.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Reason I doubt a 757: if there had been one, they would have released clear footage of it. They haven't, so - what don't they want us to see? 80+ videos not released - why not? They want us to believe a 757 hit - show us the aircraft! Simple.

Reason I think there was a 757: initial damage, evident from pre-collapse photos. Witnesses saying they saw an aircraft.

I'm in conflict here as you can see.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]


You are making the assumption that there is clear video of it. How would you know?

And if the other evidence still demonstrates a 757 hit the Pentagon, why would we even need a video?



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
piled in the A-E Drive - several possible engine parts and probably other things, and a landing gear strut is in there too (perhaps the same one aso seen inside). All plantable by hand(s), truck, helicopter, or Boeing 757 impact. Just in case that adds anything for anyone.


When was the photo taken and who is the photographer?

You're damn right they're "plantable" in fact they could all have been locked in the same vacant office for all we know.

One thing we know for sure is that none of it so much as scratched the foundation as it allegedly hurled into the building under the first two floors connected to a 90 ton aircraft traveling over 500 mph!



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 
...we also see the wheels and the hub they're connected to - but what of the other side? Where too are the main oleos? These are some solid pieces of metal.


reply to post by seanm
 

And if the other evidence still demonstrates a 757 hit the Pentagon, why would we even need a video?

Because the other evidence merely SUGGESTS a 757 hit the Pentagon. The videos PROVE it hit the Pentagon, because you would be able to actually see an identifiable AA 757 flying into shot then into the Pentagon. It doesn't get any more definitive than that, short of being stood there at the time.

The videos don't show anything that proves beyond reasonable doubt that a 757 hit. In the first video we have *something* that is producing a white smoke trail - but 757s don't produce white smoke trails. Because we can't actually see what it was, it is not DEFINITIVE.

Please show some evidence to back up your claims that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a 757 did actually crash there. Why do we have a bit of an engine Rolls Royce say isn't part of an RB211? Why do we have only the wheels from a 757, and only one side at that? Where are the main gear struts? They are 8 ft long and are solid - you can't miss them.

You are claiming things that as yet, you've yet to substantiate. Please, enlighten us. If you want evidence of my side of the argument, please search the forums.

As I said in another thread - I'm on the fence, but leaning towards no 757, despite the best efforts of CL (and I am taking his research seriously).

[edit on 3-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 3-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


This thing wasn't a kite. 757 have a lot of momentum which their bodies would retain until stopped. Even if it was blowing up too, the explosion would move forward, as it seems to from the video.




Why would you cite a video that is contradicted by the physical evidence (lack of foundation damage) and the FDR? How do you determine which part of the contradictory story to accept and why?



And these are the "knives" after meeting said wings - OR psyop FX crews with giant metal crimpers and curlers, depending.


I see from this thread that you believe the building 7 damage photo was faked.

Please answer these questions for the record:

1. Do you believe in controlled demolition of building 7 and/or the towers?
2. If so is it fair to suggest that they were rigged with explosives by "psyops crews"?
3. If so would you consider pre-fabricating the damage of the light poles by said "psyops crews" to be more or less believable?



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 
...we also see the wheels and the hub they're connected to - but what of the other side? Where too are the main oleos? These are some solid pieces of metal.


reply to post by seanm
 

And if the other evidence still demonstrates a 757 hit the Pentagon, why would we even need a video?

Because the other evidence merely SUGGESTS a 757 hit the Pentagon. The videos PROVE it hit the Pentagon, because you would be able to actually see an identifiable AA 757 flying into shot then into the Pentagon. It doesn't get any more definitive than that, short of being stood there at the time.


So numerous eyewitnesses to the crash just saw a "suggestion" of a 757 hitting the Pentagon?

And hundreds of firemen, rescue crews, and wreckage recovery workers just saw "suggestions" of airplane wreckage, passenger seats - some with dead bodies strapped in?


The videos don't show anything that proves beyond reasonable doubt that a 757 hit. In the first video we have *something* that is producing a white smoke trail - but 757s don't produce white smoke trails. Because we can't actually see what it was, it is not DEFINITIVE.


That's right. The video we have does not show anything discernible. But to claim that you need a video to PROVE a 757 hit is blatantly silly. It is just as ridiculous as claiming there is no proof that the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank because no photos or videos exist.


Please show some evidence to back up your claims that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a 757 did actually crash there. Why do we have a bit of an engine Rolls Royce say isn't part of an RB211? Why do we have only the wheels from a 757, and only one side at that? Where are the main gear struts? They are 8 ft long and are solid - you can't miss them.


How can you claim that they are not there? You can't be so blind as to suggest that the absence pf photos on the internet is absence of evidence, like Craig, can you?


You are claiming things that as yet, you've yet to substantiate. Please, enlighten us. If you want evidence of my side of the argument, please search the forums.


You don't have the evidence. Neither does Craig. None of you bothered to interview the recovery workers. ALL of you dismiss the eyewitness accounts from disconnected people who witnessed the crash:

www.geocities.com...

None of you can explain what happened to the plane and the passengers if it didn't hit the Pentagon. In fact, ever since Gerard Holmgren tried to claim no plane back in 2002, you all claim that you don't have to explain what happened to the plane and passengers!

No one saw a 757 fly OVER the Pentagon.

None of you have ever interviewed ANYONE who would have direct knowledge of the existence of AA77: the airport workers: baggage handlers, cleaning crews, dispatchers, gate check-in, people, fuelers, ground control, ATC.

Nope, no-planers have nothing at all but unsupported claims and assertions.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join