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.

 

FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

page: 116
24
<< 113  114  115    117  118  119 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


It would probably require a miracle from above to be able to find any information on the North Korean Mig.

The photo I posted is from a South African Air Force Mig 23 that was shot down by a Mirage in September 1987.




posted on May, 22 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


I agree, that it certainly looks like a plane crashed there. In fact, that's probably the most reasonable explanation. However, I've been told that even if it looks like a plane crash, and wreckage is found, it doesn't mean a plane actually crashed. In fact, somebody could have easily planted the evidence on the hill or someone could have photoshopped the picture to try to legitimize their theory. Since we don't know when the alleged accident took place and how soon afterward the picture was taken, I think it's only fair that we disregard the evidence until a proper source is shown for the photo along with any documents that link it to an actual aircraft that crashed.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
And additional photographic evidence. Ivan has alread been caught posting fake pictures in this thread.


Well i could say the same thing about people posting the photos of parts at the Pentagon.

I mean those photos have no source, no information with them.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'd like to see proper citation for the photo as well. What time it took place, where it was taken and by whom before I can say that it isn't just photoshop.


Well i have been asking for proper citation of the Pentagon photos since i have been on this site. No one has posted any infomration on them.

The photos of plane parts at the Pentagon have no name of photographer, no date and time taken and no loctation.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Like I said above - the patterns where the debris was located ... "Looks like someone pushed it out of an aircraft - or shot it down with a nuclear weapon to get rid of the plane... wheres the tail...?



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 888LetsRoll
. wheres the tail...?


Thats one question no one has been able to answer.

If you look at most crash sites, there are usually 3 things that survive.

1. Wings (usually shear off)

2. Engines (they can survive heat and impact)

3. Tail (usually survives, why they put the black boxes and beacons in the tail)



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA.....wings usually will break apart in a LOW SPEED crash!!!!!!!

What else did you say?.....I didn't take notes....the 'tail', or the entire aft empannage....again, the kinetics involved allowed those components to carry forward.....a jet will not 'bounce' like in a cartoon!!!

We all saw the video of the F-4 impactining a barrier, at a very high speed. The entire bloody airplane, and the engines in the tail, collapsed into virtual nothingness....almost obliterated...that is the force of kinetic evergy!!!


Why is this so hard to comprehend???



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Why is this so hard to comprehend???


Why is so hard to understand that you cannot really compare the F-4 test with a 757. The wall the F-4 hit was nothing like the wall of the Pentagon.

Why is it so hard to understand that the itmes i listed will survive if you look at the majority of crash sites.



[edit on 23-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
i changed my mind.. sorry








[edit on 23-5-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA...the F-4 test was into re-enforced concrete, to simulate a Nuclear dome....true.

The Pentagon was built, of concrete....with windows!!! Gee, I wonder if any of the windows were broken by the incredible forces of the airplane parts and their kinetic energy.....hmmmmmm......



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The Pentagon was built, of concrete....with windows!!! Gee, I wonder if any of the windows were broken by the incredible forces of the airplane parts and their kinetic energy.....hmmmmmm......


As stated before the side of the Pentagon that was hit by the 757 was reinforced with steel and had a layer of Kevlar and extra thick blast proof windows.

If you look at photos, there are photos that show some of the windows survived the impact and blast.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Well....ULTIMA.....your contention is that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, instead of a real B757....so, some kevlar could be strong enough to survive a Cruise Missile????

Really, you have to get your story straight.....



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well....ULTIMA.....your contention is that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, instead of a real B757....so, some kevlar could be strong enough to survive a Cruise Missile????..


Why must you lie?

I have never stated anyhting about a cruse missile.

Please be adult enough to stop the lies.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA.....pot calling kettle!!!!

Did I misunderstand??? You have been claiming that no Boeing 757 ever hit the pentagon.....haven't you?

Did I lie? No, because I simply repeated what you claim....that it was a 'false op'....not a real B757....this has been your claim, from the beginning!!!

So, if NOT AAL77, then what was it??? Your turn.....you, yourself, suggested something else.....what do you propose?????

many of us are waiting, anxiously, to hear your theories....please continue!!!!



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well....ULTIMA.....your contention is that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, instead of a real B757....so, some kevlar could be strong enough to survive a Cruise Missile????..


Why must you lie?

I have never stated anyhting about a cruse missile.

Please be adult enough to stop the lies.



Wait a minute.....transparent Kevlar????

Do you really think that windows can be impregnated with Kevlar, and still be transparent????

They could be acrylic, I suppose.....but in any case, these alleged 'windows' would be designed to repel bullets, or bomb blasts.....not a piece of an airplane with kinetic evergy and mass behind it....

A bullet weighs, what? A few grams? It has kinetic energy, of course, but it is very focused. Compare that to a hundred kilograms of mass, at 660 KPH.....in a wide dispersion pattern.....do some math!!



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Did I misunderstand??? You have been claiming that no Boeing 757 ever hit the pentagon.....haven't you?


Yes you did misunderstand. I never cliamed that no 757 ever hit the Pentagon.

I have stated and keep on stating that there is no evidence to show that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Unless the FAA, FBI, or NTSB release more infomration we do not really know what hit the Pentagon.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
[Wait a minute.....transparent Kevlar????

Do you really think that windows can be impregnated with Kevlar, and still be transparent????


Again with the lies. I never stated the windows were Kevlar.

I stated a layer of Kevlar was added to the wall. This information is very easy to find.

I stated the windows were bast proof. This information is very easy to find.

Please be adult enough to read post and do not misquote me.



[edit on 23-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Did I misunderstand??? You have been claiming that no Boeing 757 ever hit the pentagon.....haven't you?


Yes you did misunderstand. I never cliamed that no 757 ever hit the Pentagon.

I have stated and keep on stating that there is no evidence to show that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Unless the FAA, FBI, or NTSB release more infomration we do not really know what hit the Pentagon.



Your quote, for all to read....

ULTIMA..."I never claimed that no 757 ever hit the pentagon"

BUT what you haven't said, or written, is what you think actually hit the Pentagon.....you are hiding behind the FAA, FBI and NTSB....but you also say that the NTSB was taken out of the loop, by the FBI.....please try to get your story straight!!!!

ULTIMA....one story, please....no more dissembling!!!!!



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
BUT what you haven't said, or written, is what you think actually hit the Pentagon


For the 100th time, I do not know what hit the Pentagon since like most people i was not there.

Thats why i am doing research, filing FOIA reports and e-mailing companies trying to find out what really happened that dayand what did hit the Pentagon.

Sorry if i do not just post a theory with nothing to support it like most others on here.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Thank you, ULTIMA....!!!

Will you, please, entertain the idea that maybe AAL77 was intentionally flown into the Pentagon? By suicider hi-jackers???

We can find a common ground, eventually, I hope....as a starting point....maybe at 18000 feet???? Trying to find common ground....??



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 113  114  115    117  118  119 >>

log in

join