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.

 

Explain these photos

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   


So it has a punch hole all the way at ring C. But theres no exit punch hole at ring E????


Thats because there are no intervening walls between the exterior E
ring wall and the exit hole at the C ring. The bottom two floors of the
Pentagon are continous office space from the E ring to the C ring.
The debris which caused the hole would only have to smash through
the E ring wall and continue on till it hit the C ring wall which lead into
the courtyard.




posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
In respect to the theory that the engines vaporized on impact is even more unbelievable than holograms. Turbine engines even at full power do not vaporize on impact. Even after impact with the ground at over 700 knots the core can be found to be remarkably intact. This is not to mean that the N1 and N2 compressor blades are still on the disks, they are generally shared. However the blade roots will still be in the disks. The turbine rotors and buckets would still survive the impact in a similar fashion as the compressor rotors.

One poster asked if one of the engines could have made the hole in the wall, sure provided that you have a flat trajectory and further outboard. Though the "official" report says landing gear made the hole. This though does not address the lack of a corresponding exit hole in E ring.

Now I am not a fireman nor have ever been one. This being said, the back draft theory (asked by a fireman) for the hole is just a plausible as the landing gear. Being that we don't have picture showing the landing gear outside of the hole on the pile of debris either.

Personally I find it rather annoying when some people enter the realm of aeronautical engineering and post fantasy based on the "official" report. If your not an aeronautical engineer, please state your point as IMO. The official report has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Whats so funny are the reports that the engines (one of the strongest and heat resistant parts of the plane) vaporized but fragile aluminum parts like skin with windows in survived. Like anyone with basic common sense could believe that.

But then again we have a photo of 1 of the engines found at the Pentagon so the the reports must be wrong.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
What is really the conspiracy here? The first footage of the plane crashing into the pentagon during the first day after the attack or that those videos are nowhere to be found now. Maybe I was just dreaming, but I DID see, as far as I can recollect, a jet crashing into the pentagon while watching CNN. Was it a small plane instead? Could be. A really fast plane that was made to look like a big jet? Could be. I don't know what to think about this after seeing these photos. However, i don't know a lot about physics. I remember hearing that the pentagon was a wooden structure. It was quite old, so I don't see how the entrance hole would be so far off from the exit hole. All I know is people died and somebody lied. Just as a side note, I have a friend who worked at the pentagon during this time. He had just returned from delivering something to the FBI that day and when he pulled into the parking lot at the pentagon he said he saw a jet crash into the pentagon. Hmmm. I wonder about all this and don't think I will ever have an answer to my questions. Heck, I don't even know what questions to ask.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The de-bunkers would have you believe that the Pentagon had no capability of identifying aerial craft by video on approach. They would have you believe that the Pentagon in essence was only prepared to have video for a "robbery". This of course is not believable.

The puncture hole, they would have you believe is perfectly normal and perfectly acceptable and your eyes are deceiving you.

There is obviously something wrong with what the Gov is trying to sell us with this. I think a lot of people can plainly see that. The question is what?

I still maintain a plane most likely crashed there, but after this angle, I am of the opinion something else was involved.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by talisman]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   
jackinthebox that is an amazing video of the pentagon you posted thankyou!

www.pentagonstrike.co.uk...

Captainobvious are you paid to "debunk"? The amount of time and effort (with little credit) you spew is quite frankly outstanding. To the point I often wonder if there is just one of you doing all the "debunking".

If anything your posts make me more and more affirmed ALL of 911 was the biggest neocon job crime ever pulled. Keep going, the more I see from official "debunkers" such as you, the greater comfort I feel in myself that I and every other 911 truther are vindicated. Carry on


watchZEITGEISTnow
then
watchESOTERIC AGENDAnext



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
So, these Sheraton employees who were watching the videos in horror until agents confiscated their tapes....

Has anyone interviewed them?

Why were they in horror?

Was it because they saw a giant airliner, or two planes, or a missile and a plane, or a missile and a plane and a helicopter, or all of the above?

How come we are able to know that they were in horror, but we are clueless as to what they actually saw? Are they still alive? If yes, are they still working there? If they indeed saw anything contradicting the official story, were they bribed to remain silent or are they legally bound by some "national security" nonsense to keep their mouth shut?



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pstrron
In respect to the theory that the engines vaporized on impact is even more unbelievable than holograms. Turbine engines even at full power do not vaporize on impact.


I agree that sounds like a downright hairbrained theory. Who actually postulated something so stupid?

Seriously. Please cite a source.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by may_be_true
So, these Sheraton employees who were watching the videos in horror until agents confiscated their tapes....

Has anyone interviewed them?

Why were they in horror?

Was it because they saw a giant airliner, or two planes, or a missile and a plane, or a missile and a plane and a helicopter, or all of the above?

How come we are able to know that they were in horror, but we are clueless as to what they actually saw? Are they still alive? If yes, are they still working there? If they indeed saw anything contradicting the official story, were they bribed to remain silent or are they legally bound by some "national security" nonsense to keep their mouth shut?


Pretty sure all that was about 'a hotel' with employees that actually turned out to be the Doubletree, and we've seen the video (google it). I'm guessing the horror was from seeing a massive explosion rise above the Pentagon from behind I-395 and knowing what it meant. The video showed no plane or even the Pentagon itself, just a horrifying explosion.


Oh an re: the OP I don't know fr sure what caused the hole inside. I don't know enough to rule out a plane part. Some say landing gear, they might mean this:


Or maybe they blew it out to gain entry (??) Or something sinister, who knows for sure?

Craig explained the six walls nine-feet of concrete strawman pretty well, no need for me to now. This was only the SECOND major exterior wall anything would encounter after the lawn.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by pai mei
 



Thanks for these photos as they demonstrate the sheer magnitude, of the efforts to spam disinformation on this topic from those who say that they are sceptics or who attempt to suggest that they are in someway the alternative view here to give balance (see any Captain-disinformation posts). Anyone that can say that a flimsy plane (don’t matter how fast it was flying, say mach II, if you want too? ) was able to penetrate those walls are not crazy. They are either stupid or deliberately trying to derail any serious debate that can only be kept to the realms of ‘commonsense’ comments, due to the lack of ANY non-tampered evidence or eye-witnesses accounts!

The subject is closed and no further comment will do anything other than negate the obvious, that an aeroplane 757 or other DID NOT make that impact.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Oh an re: the OP I don't know fr sure what caused the hole inside. I don't know enough to rule out a plane part. Some say landing gear, they might mean this:

Or maybe they blew it out to gain entry (??) Or something sinister, who knows for sure?

Craig explained the six walls nine-feet of concrete strawman pretty well, no need for me to now. This was only the SECOND major exterior wall anything would encounter after the lawn.


Landing gear was nowhere around the hole it was inside the building in a different part. How would they blow the wall outside towards camera if they were trying to gain entry? To blow inside out they would already need to be inside...

[edit on 13-4-2008 by GhostR1der]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 04:37 AM
link   
I think it's fair to say at this point even the skeptics and what not can all agree the pentagon was not hit by a plane. If we can't all get on the same page with this part it's almost like the 911 truth movement is pointless just save yourself forget spreading the word.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zealott
I think it's fair to say at this point even the skeptics and what not can all agree the pentagon was not hit by a plane.


We we really do not know what hit the Pentagon since a lot of the information is not being released.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mlmijyd


Thanks for these photos as they demonstrate the sheer magnitude, of the efforts to spam disinformation on this topic from those who say that they are sceptics or who attempt to suggest that they are in someway the alternative view here to give balance (see any Captain-disinformation posts). Anyone that can say that a flimsy plane (don’t matter how fast it was flying, say mach II, if you want too? ) was able to penetrate those walls are not crazy. They are either stupid or deliberately trying to derail any serious debate that can only be kept to the realms of ‘commonsense’ comments, due to the lack of ANY non-tampered evidence or eye-witnesses accounts!

The subject is closed and no further comment will do anything other than negate the obvious, that an aeroplane 757 or other DID NOT make that impact.


Typical. Go google KE or Kinetic Energy. You may learn a thing or two.

Since you ignore FACTS, I will refrain from commenting.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Typical. Go google KE or Kinetic Energy. You may learn a thing or two.


Funny how a fragile aluminum airframe hitting some small trees is severaly damaged but it make it though a reinforced wall, collumns and interior walls.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Not really funny. Sad actually. Alot of people lost their lives on that plane. Sad how you people can minimalize it by suggesting these people were taken by the government and executed somewhere. I understand you people need to play you fantasy games here, but I just hope none of the family members of those on the plane see this trash.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Typical. Go google KE or Kinetic Energy. You may learn a thing or two.


Funny how a fragile aluminum airframe hitting some small trees is severaly damaged but it make it though a reinforced wall, collumns and interior walls.



I rest my case. Thanks Ultima...genius.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
My main question about a plane hitting the pentagon has always been to do with areodynamics. How can a large plane doing the speeds they claim it was doing get that close to the ground without the air passing under the plane pushing it back up. My friend who is a pilot believes it is almost to totally impossible for a plane that size to fly 40ft above to the ground at that speed.

But a missile on the other hand could and do fly like that.

Missles also make nice neat holes in things, while a plane will maybe break apart but will take alot of what is breaking it apart with it!



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by PLUMBER1
 


Plumber....

That point has been raised and explained many times here. There is an ongoing thread that is going over that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your pilot friend is mistaken.

thanks,

C.O.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
As ive said before the damage pattern at the pentagon is entirely consistent with a low yield penetration missile. The fact that the exit hole is almost symetrical indicates a shaped pressure wave indicative of military style air burst missile strikes.

I direct your attention to my avatar, the amount of evidence in favor of a missile strike is overwhelming and those who refuse to acknowledge it are 1: Blissfully ignorant 2: suckling at the teet of the official story and protesting being weened



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join