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.

 

New Pentagon Video footage

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
I disagree...and please, i am not trying to be difficult..

However, showing a few photos of some debris, placed who knows where is hardly forensic proof....not at all, so no forensic comparisons please..

Also, why only a few shards of metal really...wheres the rest??The seats, hundreds of them?

Do you really think it makes sense..you cant because it doesnt!!

Where is any evidence of the plane on the photo i posted above??

Using your forensic sleuthing my "lack of plane" proves there was none, just as you are saying heres a man holding a piece of plane = forensic proof....

You seem to be quite happy with
a) no visible plane
b)no visible plane impact marks on building
c)no damage to any lawn, even though its right in front of the impact site
d)upwards of 43 cubic metres of cargo
e)over 200 seats missing

i could go on..you get my drift....

I am not so accepting of something especially seeing that even a chimp could see this just doesnt add up...



The plane struck the building at over 400 MHP aluminum alloys do not hold up under that pressure. The compact and compress.

Again take a look at the many many many pictures of planes after crashes espcially ones that hit solid objects like the Pentagon (reinforced limestone)

I could post a few for you...

But please share with us your experince with crash physics and the way light alloys handle impact stress and heat.



[edit on 13-3-2009 by Achorwrath]




posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
1

2

3

4

5

6

6 plane crashes some low speed some high speed in all you only see fragments and mangled metal...

Should I post more?

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Achorwrath]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
The first time I saw the pentagon on the news on 9/11 I was convinced that NO plane had caused that damage. My opinion hasnt changed one iota since that day. Something else did that damage and it was definitely orchestrated for the mass media.

Wheres the plane? Indeed. More importantly - wheres the damage that a modern jetliner would have caused..

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Nonchalant]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
same goes for thedmans "the whole plane is inside the building via a hole less than 20ft wide" theory....



Well yea he had to put it all in there. Where else is there to put it that we cant all see..



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
You know nonchalant....
I think youve got it......!!


And thanks for those photos mate...one notable difference though, they all have evidence of a plane and accompanying wreckage....the pentagon hasnt....
Oh...

and your 6th pic had this one too...



..which i am sure you will agree shows lots of debris unlike your cherrypicked choice....


[edit on 14-3-2009 by benoni]

[edit on 14-3-2009 by benoni]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni

And thanks for those photos mate...one notable difference though, they all have evidence of a plane and accompanying wreckage....the pentagon hasnt....


Oh but the Pentagon has..their just not releasing it due to 'security' implications.. (or so the story goes
)



[edit on 14-3-2009 by Nonchalant]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

posted by benoni

And thanks for those photos mate...one notable difference though, they all have evidence of a plane and accompanying wreckage....the pentagon hasnt....
Oh...

and your 6th pic had this one too...

..which i am sure you will agree shows lots of debris unlike your cherrypicked choice....


Cherry picked is right. Picture #5 (Grumman Goose seaplane) does not show the more than 100 meters of radius in which the wreckage was scattered does it, as stated in the article?



Besides the Grumman Goose seaplane which Achorwrath is trying to compare to a 90 ton Boeing 757, is a 10 passenger aircraft built from 1937 to 1945 (total production 345) which has a loaded weight of 3.6 tons (7200 lbs and about 4% of a 757) with twin 450 hp prop engines and a maximum speed of 184 mph. This is the desperation which drives the government loyalists to defend their precious 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
You know nonchalant....
I think youve got it......!!


And thanks for those photos mate...one notable difference though, they all have evidence of a plane and accompanying wreckage....the pentagon hasnt....
Oh...

and your 6th pic had this one too...



..which i am sure you will agree shows lots of debris unlike your cherrypicked choice....


[edit on 14-3-2009 by benoni]

[edit on 14-3-2009 by benoni]


If it was cherry picked, why would I levae that, you see what you want not what it there.

There are peices of wreckage on the ground, in the building and even in the picutres you posted of the internal hole.
And amazingly they are about the same size and some of the pieces in that last picture you posted.

Do you know how air to ground missles work?

There is no Air to Ground missle that is 18 feet in daimeter. they are all anout 4-inches to 4 feet, they make a small entry hole and exploed inside.

this is why reactive armor works as such a good protection, it causes the missle to explode before it can penetrate.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 




No visible plane? You expect to see an airplane in one piece or in large pieces after it impacted a building at very high speeds, and burned inside for hours, and parts of the building collapsed on to it. I don't even know where to begin to tell you how wrong you are thinking that. I just posted three photos of plane crashes where there is almost nothing left of the aircraft after the crash, and one of them did not involve a building. The entire plane will be destroyed in the impact AND fire. Seriously, again, have you ever seen a plane crash or the aftermath? In some there is just a black smear on the ground and small debris.
I would suggest you research plane crashes and how many different ways a plane can crash and how it would look afterwards. No two plane crashes are ever the same. In one the plane can remain intact, the other, bits and pieces. One plane can land intact, catch fire, and burn down to nothing but smoldering remains with only the tail remaining.

Take a look at what happened to Air France Flight 358
Air France Flght 358
The plane crashed and stayed in one piece. It caught fire. Look at what remained.
www.flickr.com...@N00/990335161/
www.flickr.com...@N00/403581269/
www.flickr.com...@N00/401850835/in/photostream/

pcox.net...
as you can see, this used to be an Airbus A340. Much larger than a 757. All it did was burn. Fire. alone. If this is what fire can do to a plane, how about having that plane slam INTO a building and then burning for hours? I mean, to not be able to understand at least this is just mind boggling.

[edit on 3/14/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Isn't everyone kinda missing the point?

Isn't the point trying to find out who was behind 911 rather than whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon?

Seems to me everyone's fighting in the dressing room while the game's being played out on the pitch.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Way to go there SPReston! Way to go!

There we have 6 examples of crashes and fires where all that is left is small wreckage, and you hang up on ONE instance with the Goose crash, because its not a large plane. I mean, I really don't know what to say. You want examples of plane crashes leaving behind small wreckage and now you throw the baby out with the bathwater because one plane is not as big as the 757. So that one "inconsistancy" negates the rest of the evidence and arguement.

By God if only you could do that to your own arguements. Even though your using eyewitness accounts to prove a NoC approach, you automatically cut off the rest of the account where they ALL agree they see the plane impact the Pentagon. That is just... I'm speechless really.
"My eyewitnesses all confirm the NoC and oNA approach, so that proves the plane didn't hit the Pentagon!"
"Uhh, don't they all also say they saw it hit?"
"Oh they are all mistaken."
You cannot do that SPreston. Logically it doesn't make sense. All it does is make you look like you have gone off the deep end and are refusing to admit that your idea has a huge flaw in it. That is, NO eyewitness accounts of the plane missing the Pentagon from any of the NoC/ONA eyewitnesses you use as "proof". Also missing is the eyewitnesses that saw agents waltzing around and planting debris inside and outside and planting the lamp posts, in the middle of the rush hour traffic. All you have is a fantasy.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Ok Airliners will this make you happy?

I doubt it as again you are only seeing what you want...

1

2

This one was low speed and look how much burned up, where are the seats and boddies in this one???

3

Plowed into the ground and almost nothing left

Now notice I am linking the entire article, not just the pictures...



[edit on 14-3-2009 by Achorwrath]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Here is a Russian cargo plane that crashed in Khartoum.
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Not much left of it eh?
It was an Ilyushin 76. From the debris, can you tell it was an Il 76?

C-130 Tehran

www.1001crash.com...

DC-9 crash: Nigeria
www.1001crash.com...

Md-82 crash:
www.1001crash.com...

Tu-154
www.1001crash.com...

I can go on and on showing you pictures of plane crashes with teeny tiny wreckage. Beside the C-130, the rest of these crashed into the ground. Not much left.
Here is a good one too:
www.1001crash.com...

A 737:
www.1001crash.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


How do you account for the downed light poles when the aircraft actually flew far north of the downed light poles? Over 13 verified eyewitnesses place the aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo gas station. Zero verified eyewitnesses place the aircraft on the south official flight path hitting the downed light poles.



Even the FAA shows the aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo gas station and above the light poles and overhead highway sign in its path; far north of the official downed light poles.

1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive



Your precious 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is dead dead dead.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by donttaserme
 

www.zap16.com...

Cabin diameter: 3,54 m.
or roughly 11.6142 ft
yup that fits it and where exactly do you think planes store their fuel?


Wing tanks and belly tank.




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Nice home made animations, where is the proof?
Taking theory and conjecture from someone elses theory and guesses is not proof as you as so found of saying.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by donttaserme
 

www.zap16.com...

Cabin diameter: 3,54 m.
or roughly 11.6142 ft
yup that fits it and where exactly do you think planes store their fuel?


Wing tanks and belly tank.





What is the scale on that drawing? That is important to establish the actual deminsions we are talking about, snice this image shows a angle of view it does not constitue any sort of viable evidence sorry.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Achorwrath]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Here

Is a very informative PDF and disprovwes your drawing.

Notice the compartmentalization of the tanks are completely different from what the creator of the above image shows.

They would break right after the engine mount in the event of a high-speed impact.

same thing with the surge tanks in the extreme ends of the wings



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


But all the people that had the plane fly over thier cars, damaging them are all lying? And those rightnext to the Pentagon that had a ringside seat of the plane entering the Pentagon a few hundred yards away from them are all lying, or somehow magically tricked with pixy dust into seeing the plane hit, while it fly high up and over and not a single person saw that part? I see.
What about the fact that those closest to the Pentagon at the moment of impact described it as approaching nose down nearly all the way in? I do not see how this correlates with it flying high and far north of the building.

And the fact remains, ALL of your eyewitnesses say they saw the plane hit the building. You fail to take into account their perspectives and the possibility they could be mistaken about the path, and then you completely ignore their confirmed account of plane hitting Pentagon and NO mention of it flying high up and over the Pentagon before the fireball or after. I'm sorry, but the "offical story" makes more sense then what you are peddling.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SPreston
 


But all the people that had the plane fly over thier cars, damaging them are all lying? And those rightnext to the Pentagon that had a ringside seat of the plane entering the Pentagon a few hundred yards away from them are all lying, or somehow magically tricked with pixy dust into seeing the plane hit, while it fly high up and over and not a single person saw that part? I see.
What about the fact that those closest to the Pentagon at the moment of impact described it as approaching nose down nearly all the way in? I do not see how this correlates with it flying high and far north of the building.

And the fact remains, ALL of your eyewitnesses say they saw the plane hit the building. You fail to take into account their perspectives and the possibility they could be mistaken about the path, and then you completely ignore their confirmed account of plane hitting Pentagon and NO mention of it flying high up and over the Pentagon before the fireball or after. I'm sorry, but the "offical story" makes more sense then what you are peddling.



Nice post the problem is your are trying to reason with people that just wont except things like this can happen its got to be an inside job all the time, one great example of stupidity is the fact that some of these people claim a plane could not fly through the walls of the towers although they saw it on TV and because of little or NO understanding of physics or construction methods they cant see how it's possible.
Then when another building is attacked with a different result (BECAUSE OF HOW IT WAS CONSTUCTED) this confuses them even more which makes their crazy claims even more logical to them!
The only way to convince these people its to rebuild and fly planes into them and say i told you so!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join