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.

 

Challenge to 757 impact at the Pentagon supporters...

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Karen Kwiatkowski, then an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon, writes of "a strange lack of visibile debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact." Another witness was CNN's Jamie McIntyre, who reported live from the Pentagon that day: "The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand." (How does that square with any photos you've ever seen of crashed airliners?)
Griffin also quotes retired pilot Ralph Omholt, discussing the photographic evidence, who said, "There is no hole big enough to swallow a 757... There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel... The expected 'crash' damage doesn't exist...Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged!" So it may have been more than just a slip of the tongue when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld blurted about the "missile" that hit the Pentagon............................




posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
"The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand." (How does that square with any photos you've ever seen of crashed airliners?)



How many crashed airliners hit a reinforced concrete wall at 530 mph?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
LMAO just the fact that if a 757 was going the speed and altitude over the highway cars would have been blown like leaves due to turbelence this should be enough EVIDENCE that a 757 did not hit the pentagon..



Then how do you explain the videos posted a few threads down that show large commercial jets flying over 400 miles per hour just over the tops of cars and buildings and had no problem what so ever?

This claim that Mr Lear made about the vortex stuff is 100% completely UNTRUE. There is no basis for it and because of his flying experience, everyone assumed it to be true. It is NOT true what so ever. Go watch the videos yourself. Talk to pilots who don't think everything that ever happens is a conspiracy. While John is the nicest guy, you can't take his word on these kinds of things. His imagination is far greater than his expertise.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

Lying ? To lie is a deliberate act - 757 was travelling at around 400mph
It struck a number of objects (cable drums, generator, electric vault)
in front of building before crash.


Yes, the pentanium cable spools... I want to get some to put on my car! Never have to change rims again... or use tyres. Just run it on rims. Darn what a smart idea.

www.thewebfairy.com...


Originally posted by snoopy
This claim that Mr Lear made about the vortex stuff is 100% completely UNTRUE. There is no basis for it and because of his flying experience, everyone assumed it to be true.


Being a pilot myself... agreed. Wake vortices are effected by velocity, faster you go the futher they extend behind your craft, they also have a 'corkscrew' motion if you can see them. When travelling 'fast' the plane is already out of the effect of them, let alone 400mph...

Pics of what I mean here www.cerfacs.fr...

[edit on 8-4-2008 by GhostR1der]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
So if the plane did not hit the building, what happened?

Accuser: aaahhhh so you say you didn't kill your husband mrs. knowitall ?
wweeellllll perhaps you would care to exlain to the court WHO DID then ????
ooohhhhhh I seeeeeee ... you can't explain who killed your husband because you claim you just don't know? weeeeellllll isn't that convenient for you indeed.

...well if you can't explain to the court who killed your husband, we'll have no other choice but to plead you guilty of the crime.

CASE CLOSED !!!!


(Defending the authorities at any cost !)



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I'm not sure how countless eye witness reports can be simply ignored. It's like having 100 people in a town say it rained yesterday but you came up with a scientific theory that "proved" it was actually sunny. I think I'd be inclined to believe the eye witnesses and suspect that the scientific reasoning was faulity. Like someone here posted... scientists proved after the Wrights made their first flight that heavier-than-air-flight was impossible.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ghofer
 


They eyewitnesses prove a military deception.

Most most of the witnesses simply saw a plane and heard the explosion.

Of course they would believe it hit the building.

Very few were in a position to be able to see the alleged impact point.

But the true flight path proves that most were fooled and some weren't really eyewitnesses at all and simply lied to support the official story.

Watch some of the presentations on our website in my signature and you will see the evidence that proves it.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Blame the military with no proof.
Even your witnesses saw it hit the building.
But Boger saw it hit, so did others.
The true flight path you use to have, or the new 20 G flight path you are working on?
Watch Paik, you can see there was little or no bank, and the others also confirm bank angles less then 10 degrees in the last 30 seconds before the impact you witnesses saw. Your video is key for solving the fake paths you have had to continuously abandon. The yellow path looks best.

So there is no evidence to remove the DNA.
No proof the FDR was fake.
And no proof the RADAR data was fake dispite blaming the military, the FAA and others. But no evidence.

Plus there are still zero witnesses to a fly over at the Pentagon.

What else is new? What is next? Have a good weekend



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
The evidence against the government and military story of 911 is becoming so overwhelming that the truth is on the verge of breaking out. The question is what will be done once that truth is totally out for all to see? The controlled media is doing everything it can to avoid the issue, but the swell of new understanding is growing all the time. Yep folks, what we thought was life is far more intersting than getting up, going to work, and eating, sleeping and starting all over again.

Common sense is going to be the new mandate and mantra of our world and those who currently think they have the power and control, well that is a pipe dream ready to explode in their faces. Eventually they will no longer be able to buy or intimadate the masses to keep quite. Then their own safety will be in question.

There is going to be a time when a great change in all that is as it seems and then the lies might quickly turn in to truth.




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
It's amazing to me how the evidence we present is categorically dismissed by those who claim to be "skeptics" even though they are unable to provide a single piece of independent verifiable evidence in this entire thread to back up their faith based claim supporting the official conspiracy theory.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It's amazing to me how the evidence we present is categorically dismissed by those who claim to be "skeptics" even though they are unable to provide a single piece of independent verifiable evidence in this entire thread to back up their faith based claim supporting the official conspiracy theory.


As soon as you stop "playin" and start presenting real evidence we will be more than happy to play your little game.

I know what happened there, I had friends there, I know what they saw, I believe their eyes over your "evidence."



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 
I agree with your witnesses, you presented, who saw 77 hit the Pentagon. One of them was right by the impact. You have done very well showing, with your hard evidence witnesses, that 77, a 757, hit the Pentagon. Everyone should review what all the witnesses, your witnesses, have said since 2001. Then there is no doubt a 757, 77, hit the Pentagon.

Reading the statements from your witnesses, has proven to me, a 757, Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Good job.

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."
Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief. Keep finding these witnesses, already in the public domain, who saw 77 hit the Pentagon.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief. Keep finding these witnesses, already in the public domain, who saw 77 hit the Pentagon.


Yes "beachnut" we know that witnesses were deceived.

Either they were deliberately deceived or they all simultaneously hallucinated the plane on the north side.

What is more likely?

Simultaneous mass hallucination or deliberate deception?

Boger not only saw the plane on the north side but he saw it bank over the navy annex too!



Even Mike Walter reports the same bank!



Both of their accounts fit the NoC flight path PERRRRRFECTLY and prove their belief in an impact impossible.

Boger admits to hitting the deck. No doubt he did this AS the plane approached as any human would who has an airplane headed right towards them.




[edit on 15-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Craig is just a shill promoting his own website, and probably whatever garbage they sell there, skim over his posts, he calls attention to it often.

Even if we managed to get ahold of those 100 witnesses and get sworn testimonies, Craig wouldnt care, because they clearly are liars to him. Honestly, I swear people like him get off on these notions in a sexual manner.

[edit on 4/15/2008 by DisInfo]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT



Both of their accounts fit the NoC flight path PERRRRRFECTLY and prove their belief in an impact impossible.

Boger admits to hitting the deck. No doubt he did this AS the plane approached as any human would who has an airplane headed right towards them.




1-Show the flight path.
2-They both saw the impact.

Until you show a flight path that works, your theory is not possible.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Until you show a flight path that works, your theory is not possible.


Incorrect.

The evidence we present proving the plane came from east of the river and flew north of the former citgo is not reliant upon any speculated flight path hypothesis OR the flyover theory.

No true critical thinker who actually follows scientific reasoning would suggest that a theory/hypothesis needs to be accepted in order for evidence in support of the theory to be deemed valid.

That is completely backwards thinking and breaks all the rules of scientific reasoning.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig,

I disagree. Your flight paths would NOT WORK! Therefor what I conclude is that your witnesses were mistaken on what side of the citgo station they saw. If you had asked them 5- 6 years ago, perhaps it would have been different.

Show a flight path that supports the unreliable witness statements and we can take it from there.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Craig,

I disagree. Your flight paths would NOT WORK!



You are wrong and you have not backed up your blanket statement with anything but pure faith and denial.

Reheat's calculations do NOT consider the scenario we have hypothesized in the least.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I tell you what Craig. Show me a picture of your latest potential flight path. I will present it to the aviation experts and see if it holds water.

Thanks,

C.O.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Prove you have access to "aviation experts".

I think you are bluffing.

The anonymous liars you have referenced so far have zero credentials and used fabricated values that have nothing to do with what we hypothesize.

That is nothing but a straw man argument.

Faulty logic does not refute evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join