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: 15
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.


No..thats your question because it better fit your idea. Correct me if I'm wrong but the point..or question was about the hole punched in the last (2nd?) wall.

I simply asked why you thought it had to be part of the plane?




posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
what you forget, is that if you cut an airliner horizontally from nose to tail, you will see that the passenger section is less sturdy than the luggage/avionics/wing box etc structure underneath. So yes, the top part (where the people are) would get ripped apart...much easier than that bottom of the jet. Thats one reason why you find chunks of the aircraft upper, outer skin, all over the pentagon lawn, and why you find nose landing gear and whats left of avionics boxes 2-3 rings inside the pentagon. (and yes, bodies of the passengers which were strapped into seats bolted to the much sturdier "floor")



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.


Well i am just stating from the official story. The officail story contradicts itsef alot.

First they say a 757 was sturdy enough to go through the building then they turn around and say it was fragile and all burnt up.

they shuold make up thier minds.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
What about a drinking straw? Would you say that's sturdy or pretty weak? I've seen drinking straws driven completely through a tree during a tornado. I just love how 80 tons isn't going to be strong enough to puncture a concrete wall.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Hey I've read much of the did not and did pentagon posts and I admit I am having a VERY hard time believing that a plane crashed into the pentagon.

Now I believe 2 planes did crash into the WTC buildings. Did they let it happen,IDK? Were there explosives set in the WTC buildings to help them collapse, maybe.

I must ask though, if a plane did not crash into the WTC buildings was it the plane that crashed in PA? I don't think it is, so if it was is there any evidence backing that it was or any evidence as to where it went (any collisions that day or anything?)?

Also I know it was said the black boxes from the WTC planes wernt found but what about the one from the pentagon or from PA?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
here's proof for you: i saw the plane. my middle school was incredibly close to the pentagon (like less than .5 a mile... i was in eighth grade), and i was late for school that day. i saw how close that plane was to the ground and saw where it was headed.... and felt the vibration when it hit the pentagon

why is this being debated, anyway??? why do people search for conspiracy so much??? it really cheapens the entire event, and i find it incredibly disrespectful to the many people that died that day, including many people that i happened to know.

a boeing 757 hit the pentagon. i saw it, and i happened to trust my own eyes, thank you.

you people have way too much time on your hands....



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
They had already planned the pentagon 'attack' as an excuse to war with iraq (cause they wanted oil) but had not yet carried it out. After the towers were destroyed just days before the planned pentagon attack, they decided perfect timing and let rip within an hour or so at dubyas command.
Previous to 9/11 trucks were seen going into the pentagon to the side where
fake construction work was going on. What was really going on was they were setting up to look like the result of a plane going in, weakening the stucture, only they didnt do it too well, hence the apparent lack of damage.
These covered (construction) trucks carried the debris from a real 757 that was secretly destroyed at area 51 (or the nevada desert where they shot the fake moon landing) for the purpous. Under cover of darkness on 9/10
they scattered the debris seen in photos around inside and planted incendentary devices ready for the big day. A fake flight number an itinery were made up over drinks in the oval office.
They also made sure cameras were inoperable. An hour after the towers were destroyed they remote detonated the incendentary devices causing a loud explosion and fires.
Hired actors ran around in panic and fake firefighters arrived at the scene.


Ill have to work on the towers, I think the reptilian overlords the rule the world did that by using their spacecraft disguised as aircraft.


What about a drinking straw? Would you say that's sturdy or pretty weak? I've seen drinking straws driven completely through a tree during a tornado


Sorry thats BS. be plastic or paper straws its not physically possible! might've been shards of wood i think.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Torn]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Torn, I see you're getting into the conspiracy business seriously

Great theory


Now let's see who takes it seriously



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
but i read it on the internet, it must be true!


I should've left the smileys out of it, someone would've said 'yeah i bet thats how they did it".

I have a spare tin foil hat if you need one!


[edit on 19-7-2006 by Torn]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What about a drinking straw? Would you say that's sturdy or pretty weak? I've seen drinking straws driven completely through a tree during a tornado. I just love how 80 tons isn't going to be strong enough to puncture a concrete wall.


When is a 757 like a drinking straw ??,, i did not realize both ends on the plane were open !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Way to take what I said completely out of context.


It's possible for a tiny drinking straw that you can crumple with your hand, without even trying, to go completely through a TREE under certain conditions. So why is that believable, but it's so hard to believe that an 80+ ton airplane, made out of much stronger materials, could penetrate concrete.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   

It's possible for a tiny drinking straw that you can crumple with your hand, without even trying, to go completely through a TREE under certain conditions. So why is that believable


No it cant and its not! It dosent matter how much velocity you apply, it simply dosent have enough mass. And ass you increase velocity mass decreases.

Its impossible within the laws of physics for a straw to to go completely througgh a tree. At best it MIGHT stick in the tree if the bark was soft.


The plane did penetrate the first wall, but the impact was so violent it tore the plane appart, hence what hit the 2nd wall was not the full 80 tonnes, the impact on the 2nd wall was greatly reduced because the force was redirected by the explosion and only rubble/debris hit it.
quoting the impossible dosent make the plausible so.


[edit on 21-7-2006 by Torn]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I admit that I'm going off memory here, and it might be wrong. But I KNOW that a drinking straw HAS gone at least INTO a tree. Even if it doesn't go through, it still proves the point I'm trying to make. If a plastic drinking straw can penetrate into a tree, why is it so hard to believe that 80+ tons can penetrate concrete.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   
please read my edit above. its a basic idea but im sure anyone with a better understanding ofphysics than myself would back the idea or explain better.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
What second wall? The exit into the courtyard? I know that the full 80 tons didn't hit that. All it took was the landing gear, or some other large piece of the aircraft to make the initial hole, then the rescue crews expanded it to get into the building to look for people. Those were the only two walls that were in the way on the lower floors. Contrary to popular belief there were not 5 walls or whatever.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Right, whatever it was that the plane didnt penetrate, the force was already nullified by the initial explosion. The plane was totally destroyed and was no 80 tonne missile with enough momentum to keep penatrating .



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Except what I'm talking about is the people claiming that the plane couldn't have penetrated the OUTER wall, when it was intact.

However, it didn't NEED to be 80 tons to penetrate that wall into the courtyard. That was a non-reinforced concrete wall, and the PARTS of the plane were STILL moving at a high rate of speed. We don't know how big the hole in the inner courtyard was at the impact, it could have been barely bigger than the parts that went through it. Everything inside the building was just pillars supporting the rest of the building, with some very thin masonry walls between them.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Except what I'm talking about is the people claiming that the plane couldn't have penetrated the OUTER wall, when it was intact.



Oh I see, well thats just bloody silly an illogical isnt it! It not only could but did, infact you could get a truck up to speed and have it penetrate a concrete wall, it may not penetrate far depending on the strength or reinforcement but it will penetrate with enough velocity because it has enough mass, certainly 80 tonnes at the alledged speed is more than enough mass. Its a building not a nuclear bunker!



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I think there is more behind the conspiracy then what we have found. I think you will need to look into it further we dont know what the AQ does and doesnt have there could be many people providing others with things.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by codenemisis
I think there is more behind the conspiracy then what we have found. I think you will need to look into it further we dont know what the AQ does and doesnt have there could be many people providing others with things.


Further?That I would enjoy to see.The CTers have allready made enough BS out of simili,out of context nothing,and baaaaad science.Would love to see them find more rabbid crazy fiction!!!! I'm keeping track!My new paper,The Fine Line Between Questions,and Crazy! I'm am have'n it reviewed in Arts and Crafts Monthly.Pick up a copy ,let me know what ya think.IT IS PEER REVIEWED!!WELL, SOME PEOPLES IDEA OF "PEER"LOL LOL LOUDER!!!!!!!!

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Duhh]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join