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.

 

Pentagon fireball

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Originally posted by ULTIMA1




But he states the plane did not go all the way into the Pentagon, only the nose section and to the wings, then the fireball came out of the builidng and destroyed the tail section.



Thanks for the post ULTIMA1. First, what caused a fireball to come out in the opposite direction that the alleged airplane was headed? Second there is no fireball, fueled only by jet fuel, that could annihilate a vertical and horizontal tail of a Boeing 757.

There are huge forgings which hold those assemblies together not to mention the vertical and horiztonal spars of the tail section and extend (from the vertical tail section) into the empennage; hydraulic cylinders, hinges all kinds of subassemblies which are impossible to annihilate. Not to mention that there was not one single solitary piece remaining on the grass from any of these assemblies.

The tail on a Boeing 757, or any aircraft, is a huge assembly. The rudder moves the airplane left or right. The elevators pitch it up and down. They take tremendous loads. There is no possible way that these parts can just go up in flames.

And there is no possible way that "a fireball' could make these parts disappear. You would have us believe in 2/5ths of a second that the fireball first stopped the tail from going 500 mph forward, then pushed it back out of the Pentagon? No. That cannot happen and it did not happen.

But thanks for the post.




posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post ULTIMA1. First, what caused a fireball to come out in the opposite direction that the alleged airplane was headed? Second there is no fireball, fueled only by jet fuel, that could annihilate a vertical and horizontal tail of a Boeing 757.



John,

The only way the fireball could have come out in the opposite direction is if there was an explosion inside the building.

Yes, i know all of this. I do konw someting about aircraft, i was a crew chief in the Air Force.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by John Lear
First, what caused a fireball to come out in the opposite direction that the alleged airplane was headed?


I would guess the same thing that caused the fireballs to come out in the opposite direction of impact at World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870 I would guess the same thing that caused the fireballs to come out in the opposite direction of impact at World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2.


No, the fireballs at the towers mostly came out the other side of the buildings becasue of momentum.

If the witness was correct that i posted, he stated the fireball came out of the Pentagon and destroyed the plane when the video shows the fireball going into and over the Pentagon.

So what did the witness see?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
i would like to add that if you take the same frame rate as the pentagon video and compare to the planes hitting the twin towers, you would still clearly be able to see the plane hitting the towers in at least one frame. This is because planes can only travel so fast. The fact that no one can see a plane in any frame of the pentagon video is because whatever hit was going entirely too fast.

Im sure most of you know this already, i just wanted to state it because i would say that is the strongest piece of evidence to claim that a plane did not hit the pentagon on 911...

but seriously... why does the video say 912?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The fireballs at the World Trade Center still came out of the buildings in the opposite direction of the impact. You can't deny that. Why would you expect it to be any different at the Pentagon?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
The fireballs at the World Trade Center still came out of the buildings in the opposite direction of the impact. You can't deny that. Why would you expect it to be any different at the Pentagon?


PLease read my post carfully. Yes, the fireballs at the WTC went away from the planes and out the other sides of the buildings in the oppisite direction.

The witness at the Pentagon stated the fireball did not go in the oppisite direction, he states the fireball came from the building and destroyed the plane, instead of going away from the plane.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
When the Oficial story is so lame and pathetic that they have to claim that the entire tail and wing assemblies just disappeared..or even more laughable, followed the main section into the 10 x 12 hole!! They actually say that on Tv..that somehow the wings ' folded up' and instead of breaking off and reamining outside the Pentagon, they just stayed attached at the body of the plane and folded inward and slid into the hole..where temps in the thousands must have remained for a while to destroy all of the titanium and heavy metal parts !! Imagine that!!

How can anyone with critical thinking abilities and common sense believe the official lie? How? It staggers the sound mind, does it not?

The wings just are not there..the tail section..not there. The remains of a 100,00 plus pound aircraft, are where? Not outside..and no pictures so far show enough material inside to account for it all. Where are the TWO 6 tons ( each ) engines? Why were they not shown being hauled out of there? Why was there not enough scrap on the outside to fill a dumpster? Why were the spools untouched if a huge jet had been there? Why were the windows unbroken where the wings would have hit? Why? Why are there so many damned WHY's about the Pentagon....and the Towers..and Bush..and NOP answers that are not either stupid, a lie, or unproven.

It is OBVIOUS, patently, plainly obvious to anyone that sees the whole picture here to comprehend exactly what happened that day. We may not know all of the details as to the technologies used, and we may not know whose hand was at the controls..but we do know who profited from it, and thats enough for a start. After years of investigations, there is enough evidence to convince any fair minded jury that 9-11 was indeed an inside job, and the key players are quite identifiable.

For those who would defend the official story, there can only be a few reasons why: Either you are a partisan and have some reason to deny the obvious...OR you are in a state of morbid and chronic denial: You are unable to fathom a reality so frightening and dangerous in daily life and cannot operate and thrive if you were to admit that we are being held by members of a cabal that is treacherous and traitorous and will kill.murder, to advance their grand designs for world domination and global financial supremacy, at least for the few fortunates. Some people could not go to work and lead a ' normal ' life if they KNEW that we are in the midst of a coup, a Constitutional crisis unrivaled in history.

So denial sets in and any crazy odd becomes likley...any far out excuse becomes sensible..any government lackey that spews out proven lies is just ' misunderstood ' and Fox news drones keep repeating it over and overn that the Bush cabal is really Ok..and the liberals are wrong..and no conspiracies exist..its all in your minds...the evidence just SEEMS to look like something is wrong...take our word for it..TRUST US..!! Yeah, right. Not me.

How else to explain people not adding up all of the HUNDREDS of glaring ' anomalies ' and see the truth?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Can you post a link for the external quote? I'm having a hard time finding it.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Can you post a link for the external quote? I'm having a hard time finding it.


www.puertorico-herald.org...


Sepulveda said the wings disintegrated, and then disappeared. "For a brief second, you could see the fuselage sticking out of the side of the Pentagon," Sepulveda recalls. "Then, all of a sudden, this ball of fire comes out from inside. It looked like it was just coming from inside the building, engulfing the fuselage. And then the fuselage was all gone."



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Holy mackerel cakes! I really don't know what to think of that guys testimony. He was all over the place!


"Then he dropped his landing gear and started coming down even faster and lower.

"Then the right wheel hit a light pole and the plane popped into a 45-degree angle. The pilot tried to recover -- go back vertical - but he hit some more light poles.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Holy mackerel cakes! I really don't know what to think of that guys testimony. He was all over the place!


So maybe now you can see why i do not take much credit in the witnesses that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Some interesting things.

1. Why would the pilot drop the landing gear at that speed and height? (plus i might have to ask john lear if the computer warning system would let you drop the gear at that speed)

2. Doesn't it sound like the pilot has either lost control of the plane or maybe never had control of the plane?










[edit on 23-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by ULTIMA1
So maybe now you can see why i do not take much credit in the witnesses that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Some interesting things.

1. Why would the pilot drop the landing gear at that speed and height? ( plus i might have to ask john lear if the computer warning system would let you drop the gear at that speed)

2. Doesn't it sound like the pilot has either lost control of the plane or maybe never had control of the plane?


I can understand completely. That's usually how it works with anything involving aviation and people who are unfamiliar with it.

This particular person's testimony is very strange considering he was in the Air Force. If I'm not mistaken, he is the only person that claimed to have seen the landing gear extended.

To answer your second question, yes, it does sound like the aircraft was out of control. Again, his testimony doesn't match up with what other people saw. Maybe he hit his head a little harder than he thought!



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
To answer your second question, yes, it does sound like the aircraft was out of control.


Well the thing is if he was closer then anyone else so maybe thats why he was the only one to see the landing gear.

So if the aircraft was out of control is that a sign that the pilot lost control or maybe never had control in the first place?




[edit on 23-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


He probably was the closest witness to the impact site.

There would have been plenty of time for other people to be able to see the landing gear come down. It probably takes the landing gear on a 757 four to five seconds to cycle down, so it's not like it happened in the last couple of hundred feet.

His testimony is a little sketchy at best. The 45° comment is unbelievable and not backed up by other people.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by johnnyrobbo
 


Many people have captured stills from this video and it shows nothing absolute.
I have my own which have been posted in another thread ( I forget which) and it doesn't look like a 757.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
There would have been plenty of time for other people to be able to see the landing gear come down. It probably takes the landing gear on a 757 four to five seconds to cycle down, so it's not like it happened in the last couple of hundred feet.


If the plane was at the poles, and travelling about 500 mph it would have been the last few hundred feet the landing gear were down.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


That's kind of what I'm saying. If the landing gear were down, other people would have seen them down well before they hit the light poles.

I don't remember anyone else stating that the gear were down.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reading this thread and just watched the pentagon videos again.

Does anybody know where there any eye witness reporting a plane flying this way !?



Strange path I know but there is an anomaly in the second video that makes me serious wonder this.



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

Originally posted by Boone 870
That's kind of what I'm saying. If the landing gear were down, other people would have seen them down well before they hit the light poles.


No, the witness stated the landing was put down after hitting the poles, so that would have been just a few hundred yards from the buiding.

So other people that were farther away might not have seen the gear down.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join