It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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?

Ah, Craig asks questions but, strangely, he can never answer questions.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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

Sorry, Craig, you know "could have" doesn't count for anything. You must tell us HOW.

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!

And you have yet to demonstrate any evidence that you know how and where the port engine hit exactly. You don't get to make assumptions and claim it is evidence.

Sorry, you have to live in the real world, Craig.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 02:25 PM

Been debunking since 2002, huh? Looks like you need more practice.

From your GeoCiites link. First up - Steve Anderson:

I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.

The lawn as you can see in numerous photos (the very evidence you claim we ignore) shows the lawn in IMMACULATE condition. No damage AT ALL!!
Amazing, huh?

Second Lt. Col. Stuart Artman:

I saw the plane that hit the Pentagon. It went behind some trees.

Now you could expect me to twist this, so that's exactly what I'll do. Examining it word for word, here we go...

I saw the plane that hit the Pentagon.

Very true in itself, however, he did NOT say he saw it hit the Pentagon. See the subtle difference? He then goes on to say it went behind some trees. Useful.

Third: Ralf Banton

It sounded like it was jetting instead of slowing down.

Doesn't mean anything. Useless.

Fourth: David Battle

It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking.

He was stood outside the Pentagon waiting to go in - if you are on any side but the side the aircraft if you're stood close to the Pentagon YOU WILL NOT SEE THE AIRCRAFT. I question the accuracy of this testimony. I'd also like a drawing of where he was at the time.

Fifth: Gary Bauer

And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.

He was on 395. He says the aircraft was COMING FROM BEHIND then it VEERED TO THE RIGHT. We know this not to be the case. The last minute or two of the flight, it was in a level descent.

Sixth: Richard Benedetto (USA TODAY)

Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast. That plane is going to crash ....

Aircraft do go awfully fast. Right over his head at what altitude? That plane was going to crash? How could he be so sure? This guy is also a reporter, so could be making the story more exciting as he tells it. I wouldn't consider him to be a reliable witness.

I heard the airplane coming from behind me. ... So I looked up, and I saw this airplane coming, heading straight down toward the ground. It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly. ... The plane went down and for a split second it was out of my line of vision because there was a bridge there and a hill. ... I didn't actually see the impact... I didn't see any flaps, it looked like the plane was just in a normal flying mode but heading straight down, sharply down. It was straight. No flopping. It was going pretty straight. ... The only thing we saw on the ground outside there was a piece of a - the tail of a lamp post."

He went from his first report, to this?? This looks scripted, otherwise he would have said this first time around. To categorically state it was an AA plane when the first time he was so vague - suspect.

Seventh: Sean Boger (Pentagon ATC Chief)

I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building

This guy is credible as he is a trained ATC. However, he works at the Pentagon and could have been told what to say.

Eighth: Donald R. Bouchoux

when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit. I had what must have been an emergency oxygen bottle from the airplane go flying down across the front of my Explorer and then a second piece of jagged metal come down on the right side of the car.

He was credible up to the point of the feeling of the blast. Debris was thrown out, but not that far. The extend of the explosion os about the only thing that can be clearly seen in the videos. Are there photos of debris on the highway??

Ninth: Mark Bright (Defense Protective Officer)

I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." The plane would have been seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon. He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon. "As soon as it struck the building I just called in an attack, because I knew it couldn't be accidental

A trained observer I presume - he should have integrity but his account smacks of official story. Key points of the official story are reiterated in his statement like clockwork. Physical evidence of the Pentagon damage betrays his account. Likely told to tow the official line. Pentagon worker.

He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon.

We know from the FDR the engines were at full power for 28 seconds, having taken a further 4 seconds to spool up. 316 kts at the start of the spool-up it was traveling at 316 kts = 364 MPH. In 30 seconds = 3 miles. How far out is that? This far:
It was before it even past the Annex that he was at full power. Debunked!

Tenth: Lisa Burgess (Reporter for Stars and Stripes)

I heard two loud booms - one large, one small.

Interesting description. No mention of an aircraft.

I think that's sufficient. There are hundreds on that site, and I don't have time to debunk or question them all.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 02:45 PM
Please keep this thread on topic in regards to the lack of foundation damage and do not succumb to seanm's blatant attempts to derail the discussion and antagonize people with empty rhetoric.

A great thread to discuss the mainstream media previously published witness accounts is available here.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 02:53 PM
Sorry - that wasn't my intention. seanm put forward a reason for a 757 to have struck the building (and I felt relevant to whether a 757 existed to damage to the foundation).

I apologize if that particular source was covered before, but it appears that they are not credible witnesses to a 757 hitting the building. One witness claimed they saw it dig into the ground before hitting the building which clearly isn't the case due to the lack of damage to the grass. Another said it veered to the right and crashed. That would mean it hit it right wing low, which the physical evidence doesn't agree with.

There is a report of hearing a large explosion then a small explosion, but no mention of an aircraft. Curious deviation from the other accounts.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 02:58 PM
Yeah, good job on your part but seanm is clearly on a obfuscation/neutralization mission and I simply prefer that we don't feed the trolls.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 03:14 PM

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.

Apparently they don't need too since the official explanation seems to be believed without question. Most average Americans aren't online looking into this, they just accept the story as told so in that sense if it was not what they claimed and the damage to the pentagon was oddly suspicious (which it is to me) but few take the time to look it up and even among them there is disagreement then there wouldn't be a need to be too exacting.

A hole, an official explanation and damage is good enough.

People keep going on about bombs and the way I feel is that even if it may not have been planted explosives, judging from the damage/debris I serious doubt it was a plane. I don't know what hit the pentagon but I just don't think "plane wreck" when I see those photos.

If someone showed them to me and I knew nothing of the official 9/11 explanation I would think an "explosion" had happened.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 04:14 PM

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?

Damn you're esy to convinve of stupid things. Have you seen a video of my birth? No? Then I must be a test-tube baby, or a hologram!

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
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.

Such a short post and I didn't even read the whole thing

Yes, in abseence of video proof so necessary to the teletubbies generation (but still never free from doubts of doctoring, which is fair I guess) we would look at physical evidence matching a 757, and witnesses of that plane. Problem is, CIT looks at those two and divorces them. Plase, be careful citing witnesses of a plane without noting that ALL of them who were close enough to saw it IMPACT the building.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Plase, be careful citing witnesses of a plane without noting that ALL of them who were close enough to saw it IMPACT the building.

As if you know which ones those would be. If I recall you have admitted that you have never even been there. Right?

Hint: it's virtually none due to the complex topography and large amount of obstacles in the area.

Most of the route 27 witnesses wouldn't have been able to see it due to the trees.

I'm sure you've probably seen our recent short regarding that here .

Of course I will admit that this guy would have had one of the best possible views.

I wonder why he didn't see the poles get hit.


McGraw's POV:

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 05:10 PM
Well.... getting back on topic...

Again, I come back to this image of the outline of the engine relative to the building. If the drawing really is accurate, then I find it very difficult to believe the concrete would remain intact.

I'm rubbish at drawing so I'll talk you through my thoughts.

Take the aircraft to be in a 5 degree nose-down pitch attitude, with 5 degrees of left roll (I think that's pretty close). Forgetting energies for the moment.... slowly run the aircraft through a vertical wall. What do you think happens to the parts of the aircraft?

The nose will get crumpled up a bit initially but then it will eventually break through the wall as the wall is pounded by the aircraft. It breaks through.

The fuselage follows behind with the rest of the aircraft. What is the next part to hit the building? The starboard engine nacelle, closely followed by the right wing tip.

At this point the aircraft would have lost a bit of energy in the initial impact, but will still be shifting. The cowling will crumple until we get to the fan that is rotating at something like 10,000 RPM. The initial bits of debris will be ingested into the engine. The fan contacts the wall. It would be ripped to pieces in an instant, whilst at the same time cutting through the wall. This is closely followed by the rest of the engine and the right wing. At this point, the left engine nacelle will be close to contacting the wall.

The right engine is a large mass of motion, with the core running at something like 35,000 RPM. It's going ot take a bit to slow it down. I would expect it break away from the wing at this point, but keep on moving due to its mass.

The left engine hits the wall. Again, it will initially ingest bits of debris, closely followed by the fan going through the way followed by the rest of the engine. Note that at this point, the fan will have been destroyed, but the core will still be turning. Again, I would expect it to break away from the wing at this point.

An important note here: the fan is a bit larger in diameter than the rest of the engine. Second, the whole engine is in a cowling. This is not thin. Based on the above, I would suggest it is quite possible to put an engine through the wall, and it fold up and become smaller in diameter due to damage and thus not make the kind of damage we are expecting.

You might need to read that a couple of times, but hopefully it is clear.

The above is why I'm surprised at no debris on the lawn (bits of engine or cowling, tail section etc).

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 05:47 PM
Exactly MOD.

What people aren't realizing (and CL simply dismisses even though he admitted it) is that the entire plane would have been scraping against that concrete in an incredible 90 ton fiery mass of destructive kinetic force.

To suggest the only thing that would damage the concrete would be the left engine is simply absurd.

Check this out:

Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives.

There is just no avoiding the fact that this incredibly massive craft would have left visible damage to the foundation.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 06:54 PM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Been debunking since 2002, huh? Looks like you need more practice.

Hardly, my experience with 9/11 Deniers told me you would respond as you did, just like Gerard Holmgren did in 2002. You illustrated my point exactly, mirrorofdeceit. And it demonstrates the lengths to which you will go to deny the truth.

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Exactly MOD.

What people aren't realizing (and CL simply dismisses even though he admitted it) is that the entire plane would have been scraping against that concrete in an incredible 90 ton fiery mass of destructive kinetic force.


It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 07:15 PM
Soooo many experts seem to be just wasting there time posting thier findings here on ATS when they should be in Virginia investigating the site, or in New York investigating ground zero. Then they could go public and prove to the world what really happened. How thier government has deceived all of us. Whats that you say, you have no time to do that. You can't take time out of your lives to do such a thing. You are afraid for your life because surely the government would kill you before they would let you go public with your findings. Well I am glad that you could be so courageous for our sake and for your family. For the good of the American people you wouldn't be willing to make that sacrafice. Such cowards are made of just words.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 07:31 PM
reply to post by bull12scr

Who was that aimed at??

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 08:18 PM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by bull12scr

Who was that aimed at??

You and Craig. It should be obvious.

He's saying that neither of you have the courage to file charges against the U.S. Government even though you claim to have massive evidence that NO 757 hit the Pentagon.

Funny that, NO one in the 9/11 "Truth" Movement has ever had the courage to file charges against the U.S. Government for the "obvious" plot it concocted to attack itself on 9/11.

Gosh. Are you ALL such chickens?

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 08:25 PM
It's one thing to show the official story isn't true, it's another entirely to go try and pin it on someone without irrefutable facts that that person/group/organization did it.

Why don't you lead the way by example?

If that comment was direct at me/us, then I'd like a reality check for a moment - the sites you mention are approximately 10,000 miles away from where I reside. I know the WWW makes the world smaller, but there are certain limitations to that.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 09:26 PM
Ah, no-planers...

You guys always crack me up.

Do you cloak yourself with difficult physics, murky international relationships, or obscure fine points of law? No! You guys take the four most obvious, unambiguous, and widely witnessed parts of the whole event -- ruddy plane crashes in broad daylight -- and claim they didn't happen.

Plane crashes witnessed by dozens to hundreds of thousands, leaving tons and tons of debris (yes, with serial numbers), tracked and recorded on radar, chased or observed or nearly hit by other aircraft, bearing personal effects and DNA of their passengers, two of the four even yielding the emergency recorders.

Why stop there? Why not go straight to nihilism? Can you prove that you exist?

There's a reason why not even the Truth Movement wants to be associated with you "no-planers," you know. I'll let you figure out what that is.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 10:13 PM
@seanm: I'm still undecided - wading through everything. I'm a tough cookie when it comes to proof. I'm also a skeptic - why hide perfectly good evidence if it corroborates the official story? Governments lie for a living.

Only a few months ago people said that the maneuver pulled by the alleged 757 couldn't be done. Being around the aviation profession, I know that it could. I have copies of the FDR data that I've examined, and interesting things fall out of it. The altitudes for one thing. Whoever screwed the figures forgot the FDR recorded the raw altitude relative standard pressure. There is a whole thread on that subject alone. Radio Altimeters are showing 250 ft altitudes (Above Ground Level). Last time I checked the Pentagon was only 75 ft tall. You do the math. In other news - the RA is shown as INOP. Can't be - it was working fine as witnessed by the takeoff in the same data set.

I'll leave you to examine the finer points of the FDR data. I've already done the analysis and drawn my own conclusions, keeping an open mind on the matter at the same time. I'm now bored with you - welcome to my ignore list. Good day.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in