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.

 

737 Wheel recovered at the Pentagon on 9/11

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
the alleged Boeing


So this means you are not sure that a Boeing hit the Pentagon?


Just trying to display a hint of skepticism because I knew you'd be watching




posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Just trying to display a hint of skepticism because I knew you'd be watching


Sounds more like you do not have proof of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, I'd really like to know, then, what actually happened to AA77.

Some have said that Capt. Burlingame is still alive....I think his 'nick' was 'Chip' The FO was David, I went to his memorial.

What about the four F/As?

Finally, besides other passengers, there was a group of school children on board....let's go tell their parents that our OWN Gov't killed them.

NOT a mission I would sign up for, not a mission that I think any normal, feeling human being could keep silent about.

Either ALL involved in an alleged 'cover-up' are terribly sub-human, or perhaps the 'official' story is more correct than the CT stories.

I have a hard time understanding why a reasonable, normal human being, even if in the Military, would let this be a 'false-flag'....

When it is infinitly more understandable that five crazed religious extremists, who are now dead, could be brainwashed or co-erced into this sort of 'Jihad', based on a terrible religion....no, not a terrible religion....a manipulation by people who can twist a religion, and the religious, to further a political act of atrocity....

Simple....a massive cover-up, with thousands of potential 'whistle-blowers'??? Yeah, maybe. But it wouldn't have been MY plan, snce there are too many ways to get found out, after the fact......

Keep digging, perhaps I'm wrong. If so, logic is wrong, and we're all doomed!!!

WW



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

NOT a mission I would sign up for, not a mission that I think any normal, feeling human being could keep silent about.

I have a hard time understanding why a reasonable, normal human being, even if in the Military, would let this be a 'false-flag'....



So here is the tipping point for anyone venturing down the 911 conspiracy rabbit whole.

75% success ratio, with Flt. 93 having a passenger revolt otherwise it would have been 100% success. Why?

After all we all saw the interviews with family members who were on the phone while there loved ones said "lets roll".

So when you start to ponder whether "normal human beings" could do this, ask yourself "what is a normal human being?".

Someone whose been taught money and power are the most important things here on mother earth. That the world eats you or you eat it.

I'm past the point where I feel I can go back to where your at weedwacker.

Doomsday predictions aside, there's still great people to meet and moments to be had and witnessed in the days to come.

That being said I know through my experiences that seemingly "normal" humans can be monsters in disguise.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by mlmijyd
Lets see you debunk the photo that has windows intact above the impact point!


Is there a definite conspiracy surrounding windows that didn't get hit by anything not breaking?
Those were extra strong toughened glass windows (I don't have the specs on hand but it's been covered numerous times) and plenty of them in the impact zone below failed to survive when struck by parts of the alleged Boeing as shown in the same picture.


With respect a plane (757, a small jet or otherwise) didn’t touch this building if this was the initial damage (see photo link below), before the 'fixers' moved in to plant plane parts?, bodies, oh, and demolish the building to make gullible people spout dribble!

A very intact pentagon building

Are you employed by the government propaganda department or what?

What? you think your government are above planting evidence or just simply lying to further their aims? WOMD remember that one, pearl harbour, Vietnam, 9/11 …….

Government lies

It doesn’t matter how often a lie is told its still a lie!



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, I'd really like to know, then, what actually happened to AA77.


Well thats why i am doing research. But its hard when the agencies involved do not want to release information.

As far as flight 77 the FAA registration record shows it being destroyed but not how, when or where.

If the governemt is not behind something or covering something why wont they simply release all the information?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


How do you think a plane hit this building?
Did i have to wast my 5 min to make this img to point out... No wing damage!
No firetruck spray!



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I do have a suspition of what happened, but its only a suspition. Actually 2 now.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Just trying to display a hint of skepticism because I knew you'd be watching


Sounds more like you do not have proof of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.


You’re correct.

Except, of course, for the thousands of eyewitness, dead bodies, airplane debris scattered over acres of land, flight data recorders, cell phone calls from loved ones actually on the plane as it impacted, radar returns, the missing plane as reported by the airline and FAA flight path recordings.

Yeah other than those minor things, there isn't any proof what-so-ever.

Sounds to me like you don’t have anything other than a rain-man’ish like, repetitive statement of opinion, presented as fact, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by shiman
 

Yep, Google something, open MS paint, form an opinion and state it as fact. Of course, you have no idea what you’re actually talking about, but what does actual knowledge matter? This is the internet and I made a post, so it must be true and 9-11 was an inside job!

Thank you so much for highlighting, again, the ridiculous nature of the so-called "truth" movement.

No fire truck spray? You mean the fire-resistant, white foam that is all over the wall and windows?

You do realize this picture isn't centered on the impact area, right? You do realize that the outer windows were specifically designed to resist explosions; that were specifically designed to be hardened to external forces? You do realize that the Pentagon is a HUGE building and you don't have a grasp of scale? You do realize the Pentagon’s very design (the walls) were designed with resisting (not impervious) outside attack?

Of course you don't understand - nor care - about those facts. As a member of the so-called "truth" movement you don't concern yourself with "irrelevant details".

After all, you're not concerned with the truth, nor 9-11.



[edit on 5-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Except, of course, for the thousands of eyewitness, dead bodies, airplane debris scattered over acres of land, flight data recorders, radar returns,


Oh you mean witnesses who cound not agree on what they saw and their testimony would not hold up in court?

The dead bodies that thier is no evidence they were in the buildings.

Airplane debris that can not be matched to Flight 77.

The FDR from Flight 77 questions the official story.

Flight 77 was off radar for several minutes.



[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
that were specifically designed to be hardened to external forces? You do realize that the Pentagon is a HUGE building and you don't have a grasp of scale?


So if the building was so huge and hardened how did a airframe made of thin aluminum get through the wall, hardened collumns and internal walls?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by shiman
 

Yep, Google something, open MS paint, form an opinion and state it as fact. Of course, you have no idea what you’re actually talking about, but what does actual knowledge matter? This is the internet and I made a post, so it must be true and 9-11 was an inside job!

Thank you so much for highlighting, again, the ridiculous nature of the so-called "truth" movement.

No fire truck spray? You mean the fire-resistant, white foam that is all over the wall and windows?

You do realize this picture isn't centered on the impact area, right? You do realize that the outer windows were specifically designed to resist explosions; that were specifically designed to be hardened to external forces? You do realize that the Pentagon is a HUGE building and you don't have a grasp of scale? You do realize the Pentagon’s very design (the walls) were designed with resisting (not impervious) outside attack?

Of course you don't understand - nor care - about those facts. As a member of the so-called "truth" movement you don't concern yourself with "irrelevant details".

After all, you're not concerned with the truth, nor 9-11.



[edit on 5-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]


im sorry, but that was unnessesary. Calm down and stop assuming.
and stop being so bias.

First, i am not part of any "truth" movement, or i wold boast about it in my signature.

Second, "fire truck spray" if your talking about a still picture is stating that there is a stream of spray coming out of the truck when the pic was taken.

Third, the pic is stating there is NO WING DAMAGE FROM THE PLANE. it is a fact that there is no damage created by the invisible wings.

Fourth, dont pretend you know everything in the world. Quit that darn knowitall additude. PLEASE.

The way it works on ats is if you think something is wrong, then state calmly and without insulting someone that that is wrong. Then state your facts that contradict or prove that the said info was wrong.

Please do not try to intimidate me. Its like throwing a tennis ball at a brick wall.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I'd like to know, from ULTIMA and shiman, if you've ever physically visited Washington DC and seen the Pentagon with your own eyes?

I see ULTIMA lives in PA...and shiman in CA.

No intent here, other than to ask....because I live here, have since 1997.

At the risk of being repetitive...I personally attended the funeral of the AA77 FO, David Charlebois...for personal reasons...because I happened to exist in an outer circle of his friends....friends of friends, so to speak.

A former esteemed member of ATS has, repeatedly, claimed personal knowledge that the Capt, 'Chip' Burlingame, is still alive and well...fuel on the fire, so to speak? I can't talk to that point, except to repeat what I've read.....

Back to the Pentagon....I also have, and I admit it is 'hearsay' since it was told to me, by an acquaintance, knowledge of seeing a jet flying low down Columbia Pike (please GoogleMap the area, you will see it's a Main Highway in Arlington County). This acquaintance (not a pilot) saw the airplane from his balcony....that morning...from the building where he lived at the time...on Columbia Pike.

Not every eyewitness came forward, and likely never will, not this late in the game.

SO, I come into this debate with....well, I came in with a certain bias, in the beginning. There are very compelling arguments, though...and they need to be examined. BTW, my bias was based on my experience as a pilot...and what we have endured in the Airline Industry ever since.

As to the ever-present single photo, one shiman offered earlier....I saw live, local news feeds that morning, and the damage was VERY extensive, even before the collapse at around 1000...which I felt in my house! Felt like a minor tremor...one jolt, slight shake, but very noticable. Upstairs at the time, lo and behold, go down to see what's on TV....reports of the upper floors caving in, collapsing down onto the damage below.

Folks, I was there. I DO NOT work for the Government, I didn't then either. Just a citizen, with some knowledge to impart. No disinfo here...but when I see obvious bad info, I have to point it out, lest it get spread like manure in the crop field....

Sorry about the last, but we're all adults here....

As to a posible 'inside' job? I like the onion analogy....if there are secrets, they are under many, many layers. I can entertain the possibility, but I am waiting for really good evidence.....

WW



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'd like to know, from ULTIMA and shiman, if you've ever physically visited Washington DC and seen the Pentagon with your own eyes?

I see ULTIMA lives in PA...and shiman in CA.


I live in PA but work in MD. and yes i have been to DC.

But i am still waiting for any official reports and real physical evidnece that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

I have the FDR data from flight 77 that i got from the NTSB and it questions the official story.



[edit on 6-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by shiman
 


I'm quite calm.

I don't claim to know it all and conversely, I don't make cursory Google searches and delude myself into thinking I am doing "research". All I did was expose your post for what it is. You might not like my characterization but, it's spot on.

I am absolutely biased. I think the so-called truth movement is an utter sham perpetuated by fear pimps who (critical to me) knowingly propagate miss-information in their own self interest. My admitted bias is used as a disqualifier by the “truth” movement because it’s easier to discuss me, than it is to discuss the issue at hand. Keep in mind, I freely admit my bias.

My beef isn't with you personally. It's with the nonsense that makes up the so-called "truth" movement. IMO, your post is a classic representation of truther thinking. That is, a cursory knowledge of the factors involved, a dismissive view towards details and representing opinions as facts.

For the life of me I can't fathom how the "truth" movement claims to be after so-called truth when their own pet theories require an absolute dismissal of the massive evidence that does not support 9-11 being an inside job. Is there some evidence that supports a conspiracy? Of course there is! There is always going to be the “unexplained”. If this evidence was all there was, they would have a strong case.

The problem is, it isn’t. In order to “buy into” the so-called truth movement, one must selectively look at very fine data points. Why? Because if you (the royal you) look at all of the evidence, the idea of a conspiracy becomes (IMO) completely absurd.

That factor is critical in my dismissal of the so-called ‘truth’ movement. Their own attitude precludes any understanding of actual truth. Anyone being intellectually honest has to give ground somewhere. Truthers never give ground on anything. No matter how ridiculous the idea, they will support it, discuss it, promote it and call you a debunker for being skeptical. Mini-nukes? Holographic illusions? Off-loading three planes worth of people and presumably marching them off to their deaths? Doppler sound effects to mask missile sounds? Explosive “pods” attached to the undersides of the airliners? A staged crash site in Pennsylvania? A world-wide fake feed of live events to presumably to “cover-up” what was really happening. And these are but a few of the ridiculous assertions discussed in all sincerity by so-called ‘truthers’.

Ultima:
The answer to your question is widely available and easily disseminated – if you’re at all interested in knowing what that answer is. Most truthers aren’t because it’s another piece of the massive pie that indicates 9-11 was not an inside job.

The answer to your question: mass, velocity & rigidity. Basically, the wings folded back into/onto the main body of the aircraft as it entered the building. The walls are very strong, the aircraft was moving very quickly and the wing root simply did not have enough structural rigidity to overcome the superior strength of the building itself. That is, the wings snapped backwards and folded into the main body of the aircraft as the wing roots started to penetrate the building. The body of the aircraft became more of a liquid (in so far as the two materials relate to each other during the impact) made up of fuel, aircraft pieces, bodies, office furniture, etc. which “flowed” more than it ‘punched’ through. This liquid-like state was produced by the massive forces involved. The mass contained the energy of the impact and transferred that energy to the structure. I am not an engineer and I relay this to you as a laymen. Don’t believe me. Do your own research. Read the actual reports. Study them in your free time and form opinions based on all of the research that has gone on.

This is corroborated by eyewitnesses, structural engineers, aerospace engineers and exhaustive research all publicly available for review.

[edit on 6-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So if the building was so huge and hardened how did a airframe made of thin aluminum get through the wall, hardened collumns and internal walls?


As you know from your experience as a crew dog, aircraft are very strong, very durable and fairly resilient under normal operating conditions. Add lots of speed, a massive, solid structure, huge impact forces and viola!

An interesting article

Washington Post Graphic



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


If you arent going to even read my post thouroghly, then dont reply.

No you arent calm, or you wouldnt be making blank insults.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by shiman
 


I'm quite calm.

I don't claim to know it all and conversely, I don't make cursory Google searches and delude myself into thinking I am doing "research". All I did was expose your post for what it is. You might not like my characterization but, it's spot on.

I am absolutely biased. I think the so-called truth movement is an utter sham perpetuated by fear pimps who (critical to me) knowingly propagate miss-information in their own self interest. My admitted bias is used as a disqualifier by the “truth” movement because it’s easier to discuss me, than it is to discuss the issue at hand. Keep in mind, I freely admit my bias.

My beef isn't with you personally. It's with the nonsense that makes up the so-called "truth" movement. IMO, your post is a classic representation of truther thinking. That is, a cursory knowledge of the factors involved, a dismissive view towards details and representing opinions as facts.

For the life of me I can't fathom how the "truth" movement claims to be after so-called truth when their own pet theories require an absolute dismissal of the massive evidence that does not support 9-11 being an inside job. Is there some evidence that supports a conspiracy? Of course there is! There is always going to be the “unexplained”. If this evidence was all there was, they would have a strong case.

The problem is, it isn’t. In order to “buy into” the so-called truth movement, one must selectively look at very fine data points. Why? Because if you (the royal you) look at all of the evidence, the idea of a conspiracy becomes (IMO) completely absurd.

That factor is critical in my dismissal of the so-called ‘truth’ movement. Their own attitude precludes any understanding of actual truth. Anyone being intellectually honest has to give ground somewhere. Truthers never give ground on anything. No matter how ridiculous the idea, they will support it, discuss it, promote it and call you a debunker for being skeptical. Mini-nukes? Holographic illusions? Off-loading three planes worth of people and presumably marching them off to their deaths? Doppler sound effects to mask missile sounds? Explosive “pods” attached to the undersides of the airliners? A staged crash site in Pennsylvania? A world-wide fake feed of live events to presumably to “cover-up” what was really happening. And these are but a few of the ridiculous assertions discussed in all sincerity by so-called ‘truthers’.

Ultima:
The answer to your question is widely available and easily disseminated – if you’re at all interested in knowing what that answer is. Most truthers aren’t because it’s another piece of the massive pie that indicates 9-11 was not an inside job.

The answer to your question: mass, velocity & rigidity. Basically, the wings folded back into/onto the main body of the aircraft as it entered the building. The walls are very strong, the aircraft was moving very quickly and the wing root simply did not have enough structural rigidity to overcome the superior strength of the building itself. That is, the wings snapped backwards and folded into the main body of the aircraft as the wing roots started to penetrate the building. The body of the aircraft became more of a liquid (in so far as the two materials relate to each other during the impact) made up of fuel, aircraft pieces, bodies, office furniture, etc. which “flowed” more than it ‘punched’ through. This liquid-like state was produced by the massive forces involved. The mass contained the energy of the impact and transferred that energy to the structure. I am not an engineer and I relay this to you as a laymen. Don’t believe me. Do your own research. Read the actual reports. Study them in your free time and form opinions based on all of the research that has gone on.

This is corroborated by eyewitnesses, structural engineers, aerospace engineers and exhaustive research all publicly available for review.

[edit on 6-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]


Your post is not spot on. You didnt prove anything exept that you are angry and bias.
That is not the way it happenes. Apperantly you didnt read T&C.

Where did you get your info? Aluminum doesnt liquify on force alone. Apperantly you forgot about newtens laws. I dont blame you cause your in your 30's. people tend to forget. The plane isnt made of alluminum alone, it has some sort of internal support structre. The wings wouldve smashed into eachother and left debris evrywhere. The wings folding in, if you say it happened, wouldve severed the back part of the plane off and almost stop the back part from moveing. There would be tailwing everywhere.

Now to real physics. The wings wouldve snapped in half, one folding into the plane, the other into the building, and if i remember correctly, the engines are pretty darn heavy. SO the engines wouldve left a mark visible. The fuel would get everywhere, start on fire and burn the lawn. There wouldve been a screecmark on the front lawn of the pentagon. according to this pic



There were no skid marks, no debris, and because of your complaints, here is a DIFFERENT immage from a DIFFERENT web site.




Happy? Those images i have posted throghout the thread have been enough to disprove the fact that it was a plane.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I had the chance, but i didnt take it. Probably later in life, though.



Sorry, i replied to the wrong post.

[edit on 6-4-2008 by shiman]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join