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.

 

Proof that the pentagon didn't get hit by a boeing 757

page: 14
4
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How do you know 80 cameras shot the impact? There were 80 cameras there, but how many were at an angle to even SEE the plane, let alone impact. Most cameras are set to watch a certain area along the building, BELOW them. They'd be looking down at sidewalks or roads under them.


There were cameras that recorded the crash such as hotel cameras, and convenience store cameras, but guess what... the government swept in and confiscated it all before it ever got public.




posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Common sense should prevail. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. Even if great people say it is a eagle, it is still a duck. 911 is not what we have been told it is, we will never know unless by chance we agree as one that the truth presented was inaccurate, and we unite as one and force the truth to be told.

This has very little chance of happening, most people dont have time to fight for the truth, they are to busy just trying to get by in life.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by Wolfpack 51]



Looks like a duck....

Initial impact hole was measured around 14 feet, which is just a tad larger than the diameter of a 757. Impact damage to the facade of the Pentagon from the wings and tail, is close to the span of a 757. Wreckage found in the Pentagon, identified by investigators and airline employees as belonging to an American Airlines 757. Bodies of the passengers witnessned to have boarded American Airlines Flight 77 recovered from the Pentagon.

Quacks like a duck....

Witnesses heard (and saw) an American Airlines jet either flying extremely low in the direction of, or slamming into, the Pentagon.


Gee must be a duck....

American Airlines, Flight 77, a Boeing 757 slammed into the Pentagon Sept. 11, 2001.


dude if u really looked into the evidence you'd be the quack with all the evidence that u stated has been proved to be highly suspicious and unrealiable.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Revelmonk

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How do you know 80 cameras shot the impact? There were 80 cameras there, but how many were at an angle to even SEE the plane, let alone impact. Most cameras are set to watch a certain area along the building, BELOW them. They'd be looking down at sidewalks or roads under them.


There were cameras that recorded the crash such as hotel cameras, and convenience store cameras, but guess what... the government swept in and confiscated it all before it ever got public.


You didn't read what I said. I said how do you KNOW that those cameras saw the impact? Just because they're THERE doesn't mean they're going to SEE the impact. How many security cameras do you know that look UP, or even OUT at an angle enough to see a plane flying in?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Revelmonk
Actually this plane is made mostly of steel and titanium, the kerosene in the plane did not have enough fuild to or enough temperture to disintergrate the entire plane in one strike.


Please tell me you're not serious. The ONLY plane in the US ever made of mostly titanium was the SR-71 because of the high heat involved in the flights. Commercial planes are made of ALUMINUM. The titanium portions are in the engines, and only a SMALL number of components.


Aluminium alloy two-spar fail-safe wing box; centre-section continuous through fuselage; ailerons, flaps and spoilers extensively of honeycomb, graphite composites and laminates; tailplane has full-span light alloy torque boxes; fin has three-spar, dual-cell light alloy torque box; elevators and rudder have graphite/epoxy honeycomb skins supported by honeycomb and laminated spar and rib assemblies; CFRP wing/fuselage and flap track fairings. All landing gear doors of CFRP/Kevlar.

www.janes.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revelmonk
dude if u really looked into the evidence you'd be the quack with all the evidence that u stated has been proved to be highly suspicious and unrealiable.


Care to share which points were proven to be highly suspicious and unreliable?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
Zenem,

That is exactly the kind of question that there is no answer to.

But if after you review the pictures and any coverage of the strike right after it happened and you come to the conclusion that a 757 did not hit the pentgone, then you can also sit and be amazed that we have been fooled and are unable to do anything about it.



I'm still gathering information before I make up my mind either way.

Just so that I'm up to speed - Are you suggesting that the plane was diverted elsewhere and then swallowed up by sky never to be seen again and then in the meantime fire a cruise missile at the pentagon?

I saw a picture of a landing wheel in the parking lot of the pentagon by an electric box. If I rememer correctly, it landed on car & squashed it. Thats why I remain skeptic.

The 14 ft hole might be explained by the diameter of the 757, which is 12ft 4in. Obviuosly the impact would make a bigger hole.

www.757.org.uk...



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   
F415-WR-402 that powers the new Raytheon-built Tactical Tomahawk missile







posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   
When you have to post this in both threads, I'll reply here as well. Tomahawk body is only 21inch in diameter, to fit into torpedo tubes. No way that disc from the Pentagon would fit into Tomahawk turbofan engine.

[edit on 8-7-2006 by tuccy]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by Revelmonk
Actually this plane is made mostly of steel and titanium, the kerosene in the plane did not have enough fuild to or enough temperture to disintergrate the entire plane in one strike.


Please tell me you're not serious. The ONLY plane in the US ever made of mostly titanium was the SR-71 because of the high heat involved in the flights. Commercial planes are made of ALUMINUM. The titanium portions are in the engines, and only a SMALL number of components.


But you are forgetting other material that would not easily be be distroyed in the fire. Like magnesium alloy, hardened steel, tungsten.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Which again, are only SMALL parts of the structure of the plane. 90% of the plane or more is aluminum, graphite, and other composites.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Which again, are only SMALL parts of the structure of the plane. 90% of the plane or more is aluminum, graphite, and other composites.


But there are some parts,, wheels, landing gears, tungsten counterweights, etz. More then just a few small parts.

Yes 90% aluminum kind of makes it hard to believe that it would have gone through a reniforced concrete wall, steel reinforced collums and interior walls. Specially after hitting lampost, generator trailer, low wall, and ground.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
So you think that it should have just hit the wall and stopped? Or hit the lamp posts and been spun off course? Of the generator and exploded?
IF the plane weighed 100 tons (as claimed in loose change) then there's no way any of those objects would have stopped it. If it even weighed around 80 as I guesstimated in another thread, there's no way they would have stopped it either.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So you think that it should have just hit the wall and stopped? Or hit the lamp posts and been spun off course? Of the generator and exploded?
IF the plane weighed 100 tons (as claimed in loose change) then there's no way any of those objects would have stopped it. If it even weighed around 80 as I guesstimated in another thread, there's no way they would have stopped it either.


No, for 1 a 757 hitting lampost at that speed would have done severe damge to the wings and would have left debris 2. The engine hitting the generator would have casued more damage and left more debris. 3. The main aluminum body would have been crushed hitting the wall and not leave a nice clean hole. If you look at most crash sites thier is usually nothing left of the nose and front of an airliner, so how would have been able to travel that distance and cause the damage.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Who said the nose DID travel that far and do the damage? The plane came apart as it went into the building. What do you think the other pieces were going to do? They spread out and caused damage inside the building. Show me what was caused by the nose, by the wheels, by the engine parts...... As far as hitting the generator and light poles, exactly how long do you think it was between hitting them and hitting the building? The generator was RIGHT AT the wall almost. It wouldn't even have been noticable between hitting the generator and the wall. As for the light poles, how do you know it was the wings that hit them? If it was the engines it would have caused damage to the engines but not massively affected their course, and again, it would have only been a few seconds between the road and the wall.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Light poles are designed to "breakaway" on impact from vehicles. Thats at ground level.

The leverage that would be increased by striking them high up like the wings did could cause them to break away much eaiser.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Who said the nose DID travel that far and do the damage? The plane came apart as it went into the building. What do you think the other pieces were going to do? They spread out and caused damage inside the building.


Well what caused the exit hole if the plane all came apart inside the building. If the parts all spread out how come their is a straight line of damage from entry to exit ?

[edit on 8-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Why would it have to be part of the plane at all?

It could have been something the plane struck..or a chunk of a column..or something else.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Well Ultima, don't you think that those parts would KEEP going forward? Even if they spread out some? Or are the plane parts going to get inside the building, spread out, and magically change their inertia and take different trajectories?



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Well Ultima, don't you think that those parts would KEEP going forward? Even if they spread out some? Or are the plane parts going to get inside the building, spread out, and magically change their inertia and take different trajectories?


Well what i am asking is how could a aluminum airframe keep going and spread out when it would have been torn apart after the first several feet of builidng. Do you have prove that the airframe made it all the way through.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Why would it have to be part of the plane at all?

It could have been something the plane struck..or a chunk of a column..or something else.


Question is how could the airframe survive that long to even get close to the outer wall.




top topics



 
4
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join