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.

 

Pentagon Whistle Blower?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

CONCLUSION
Several seismic stations recorded seismic signals originating from two events which occurred at the WTC site, immediately prior to both aircraft impacts. Because these signals preceded the impacts there can be no doubt that the seismic signals recorded were not those associated with the aircraft impacts on the Towers.


I read these articles very, very. carefully, so I could understand the information. From what I'm seeing, the seismic data reported from Columbia University (and corroborated by Pallisaides) show two small blips, then two gigantic blips, which one would normally think were the initial impact, and the final collapse, of each tower.

If my understanding is correct, becuase the 9/11 commission report recorded the initial impact strike at a different time, the author is concluding that the small blip is actually some mysterious seismic activity and the gigantic blip is in fact the plane impact? If that was the case then there would have to be a THIRD seismic activity for the actual collapse of each structure, and the chart shows no such thing. Moreover, are the authors really claiming it's de fact proof the attack was an inside job entirely becuase there's a 17 second discrepency between the 9/11 report and the seismic charts...? Do I understand this material correctly?

Due to the lack of a third seismic activity to account for the actual collapse, I would conclude the 9/11 commission report made a simple mistake in when the aircraft struck the towers, and the first seismic activity really IS the plane impact, and the second, the collapse. Likewise, claiming it's de facto proof of it being an inside job simply over a 17 second discrepency is stretching things a tad. The Palisaides report itself says the actual times reported for the aircraft impacts by the media are all over the place.

By all means, please explain to me why anything I said here is wrong.




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Originally posted by GoodOlDave



I read these articles very, very. carefully, so I could understand the information. From what I'm seeing, the seismic data reported from Columbia University (and corroborated by Pallisaides) show two small blips, then two gigantic blips, which one would normally think were the initial impact, and the final collapse, of each tower.

If my understanding is correct, becuase the 9/11 commission report recorded the initial impact strike at a different time, the author is concluding that the small blip is actually some mysterious seismic activity and the gigantic blip is in fact the plane impact? If that was the case then there would have to be a THIRD seismic activity for the actual collapse of each structure, and the chart shows no such thing. Moreover, are the authors really claiming it's de fact proof the attack was an inside job entirely becuase there's a 17 second discrepency between the 9/11 report and the seismic charts...? Do I understand this material correctly?

Due to the lack of a third seismic activity to account for the actual collapse, I would conclude the 9/11 commission report made a simple mistake in when the aircraft struck the towers, and the first seismic activity really IS the plane impact, and the second, the collapse. Likewise, claiming it's de facto proof of it being an inside job simply over a 17 second discrepency is stretching things a tad. The Palisaides report itself says the actual times reported for the aircraft impacts by the media are all over the place.

By all means, please explain to me why anything I said here is wrong.


It`s not so much the twisting of time that FEMA done, it`s wether the actual impact from the planes would have managed to register on a seismic graph, one of those who made the report emphasised this, the readings are done via the ground and he estimated that the buildings would soak up the impact so whatever was recorded just prior to the impacts wether incorrectly timed or not could have not been the jets hitting, looking at the reading when WTC7 collapsed 0.6 and what are supposed to be the Jet impact readings 0.7 and 0.9 I have to agree, in your honest opinion what do you think registers higher a Jet exploding 80 + storeys up and into a tower built to absorb, or 40 + storeys hitting the ground almost simultaneously?.

If the two impact readings are indeed down to incorrect times and are the actual planes then yep it`s a no brainer, but as the guy clearly states would the shock wave have hit the ground and recorded itself anyway?.

/cheers.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 





ALSO the Plane Cabin was roughly the size of two and a half stories. Big enough to put a HUGE hole into the building.


Wrong. The diameter of the fuselage is right around 14 feet (less than a story and a half) roughly the size of the hole in the wall prior to the collapse of the stories above it.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Here SwampFox1999



A better photo for size perspective. As you can see for the hole to of been made on the first floor the engines would of HAD TO TEAR THROUGH DIRT.

And as you can see in the following photos The Pentalawn is just fine. No torn up lawn due to a plane ripping through the dirt.



No Ripped up dirt here



None here either.

Nor do we see any hole big enough to accommodate a 757.

So this magical 757 must of shrunk in size so as to avoid both the dirt and make a much smaller hole... either that or the government LIED ABOUT SOMETHING!!!!



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


My suggestion...do some more research into imagery from that day...especially prior to the collapse. If you look hard enough you will find pictures to answer your question about the engines.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


My suggestion to Swampfox_1999,
Go outside, Read a book by James Redfield, Goto Church and confess your sins, Apologize to the world and yourself for valuing money above truth. Get a new job that is more rewarding than your current one.

In my 9 years I have looked and looked for a hole. I do not need to waste more time looking for something that is not there. If their was a diffentive absolute "Look there it is hole" that fit the size and dimensions of the 757 then you would of already posted it to refute my claims.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
As to the witnesses who saw the plane - some of them talk about it passing within 10 or 20 feet, which would be an impossible height for a plane travelling at that speed because of the groundswell effect.

Besides which, a couple of witnesses who saw a plane said the engines passed right over their heads. If this were true then they'd be dead - the heat coming out the back of a jet engine is easily powerful enough to knock over vehicles, let alone tear someone's skin apart.

As such, they aren't reliable witnesses, and so their accounts prove nothing either way about what did or didn't hit the Pentagon.


Still, the flight recorder data released by the NTSB showing flight 77 flying too high to have hit the Pentagon is the most conclusive proof that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

There is zero evidence that any actual explosives were in the towers



Wrong.
rawstory.com...

www.youtube.com...

And what do you call this?

www.youtube.com...



Nowhere in the commission report did it discuss the mechanics of the collapse, so it's blatantly obvious you're makign this claim up off the top of your he



Again, wrong.

On pg 308, the report says "...the North Tower began its pancake collapse..."

www.9-11commission.gov...



[edit on 4-8-2009 by American_Soviets]

[edit on 4-8-2009 by American_Soviets]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by American_Soviets

And what do you call this?


The photos of the columns cut at an angle are probably the most infamous examples there are of how these conspiracy websites are feeding us outright rubbish in order to get people to believe what they want people to believe. These were cut *after* the collapse, during the cleanup of ground zero. We know this becuase that photo was almost certainly taken by Joel Meyerowitz, a NYC photographer allowed on site during the cleanup, and he took many, many, MANY photos of workmen cutting the steel wreckage to make them more managable for removal all over the site.

Alex Jones is deliberately presenting his information out of context by implying...but never coming out and actually saying...that the steel was cut before the collapse. He isn't stupid, so he certainly has to know he's taking it out of context.




On pg 308, the report says "...the North Tower began its pancake collapse..."


The towers DID fall in a pancake collapse. The initial structural failure began at the ninety-somethingth floor, and each floor below that point failed sequentially in turn as the wreckage above fell on it, in a chain reaction. This is shown by every video of the collapse in existence and it cannot be refuted.

The 9/11 commission report doesn't go into the physics of how each floor fell in turn. It's only stating each floor did in fact fall in turn.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Honestly, you official story guys should refrain from arguing about what happened at the Pentagon at all, I mean really. The pictorial evidence of the Pentagon before the wall collapsed is so damning to the "official story", it's unbelieveable! I mean, at what point do you realize your argument is impossible in the face of overwhelming, contradictory visual evidence? And don't be mad at me, I didn't hang you out to dry.

The more you argue such ridiculousness, the deeper the holes you dig for yourselves (and for the overall official story) become.

Peace


[edit on 3-8-2009 by Dr Love]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
[Does it not strike you as odd that within minutes of a strike on the Pentagon they had people out there collecting the material evidence who were not qualified forensic investigators, who were not photographing the pieces of evidence in situ, as they are supposed to, and this evidence was never used to reconstruct the aircraft as is a legal NTSB requirement in all such incidents?


I'm not with the NTSB so I can't comment on this, but I would imagine they reconstruct crashed aircraft to try and determine why they crashed to begin with I.E. if there was a bad weld somewhere. I think it's a given everyone in the world already knows that flight 77 was destroyed when someone flew it into the Pentagon, rather than it being due to a bad weld somewhere.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


What are you talking about? Do you have a photo of the 757 sized Hole in the pentagon that the world has not seen? If so Produce it!

I posted several Photos myself all close up and after impact but before collapse and we can not see ONE plane sized hole... Nor can wee see ripped up dirt... If that plane flew that low the engines would of dragged across the lawn... but that lawn looks just fine no markings of a plane dragging its engines as it crashed into the first floor.


You sir are indulging in fantasy if you think a A Muslim with a box cutter hijacked a plane and crashed it into the pentagon.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by titorite]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Honestly, you official story guys should refrain from arguing about what happened at the Pentagon at all, I mean really. The pictorial evidence of the Pentagon before the wall collapsed is so damning to the "official story", it's unbelieveable! I mean, at what point do you realize your argument is impossible in the face of overwhelming, contradictory visual evidence? And don't be mad at me, I didn't hang you out to dry.


Hmmm. We "official story guys" will continue to pursue the concept that it was in fact flight 77 that hit the pentagon, if you don't mind, for the simple reason that every *other* alternative scenario (I.E. cruise missiles, fly overs, etc) is even more absurd than how you consider the "official story" is. For one thing, it's an established fact that the conspirators did in fact have control of one or more disposable aircraft, so it stands to reason they wouldn't need to jury rig some extraneous and overly complex fake crash site. They'd just use another aircraft.

If you have an alternative scenario for the events at the Pentagon that doesn't accuse everyone within a five mile radius of the Pentagon of being a secret gov't disinformation agent, I'm all ears.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinciguerra

For comparison, they dragged over 95% of TWA800 out of the water and rebuilt it.


Do you realize how foolish you look right now? TWA 800's center fuel tank ignited and exploded in mid air, breaking off the forward section of the aircraft. All pieces ended up hitting the water at terminal velocity, roughly 130-150 mph, with terminal velocity being ultimately dependent on the size of the piece of aircraft falling and any residual imparted speed.

Read that again. The pieces that made up TWA 800 hit the water at 130-150 mph.

AA77 hit the Pentagon, with its outer wall being made of concrete, marble slabs, cinderblock and steel reinforcement at approximately 500 mph.

It is no wonder at all to anyone who understands aeronautical issues that TWA 800 could be rebuilt in that hangar at Calverton.

Also, how many "Pentagon walls" did the plane have to go through?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Hey trebor451, That plane that supposedly hit the pentagon at the ground level, 1st floor..... How did it fly so low and Not drag its engines across the pentagon lawn?

Lots of photos here in this thread that shows no skid marks from the plane. You wont produce one either.

Also You can not show us a 757 size hole in the pentagon. Swampfox could not do it, GoodOlDave cant do it and you cant do it.

If you can show us the Photo of a 757 SIZE HOLE in the first wall OR skid marks where plane engines dragged across the lawn please do so. So far your other propaganda mates have been unsuccessful.

Evaporation would be the tactic you would want to use at this point.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by titorite]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Vinciguerra

For comparison, they dragged over 95% of TWA800 out of the water and rebuilt it.


Do you realize how foolish you look right now?


Do you realise you're breaking the forum rules?


TWA 800's center fuel tank ignited and exploded in mid air, breaking off the forward section of the aircraft. All pieces ended up hitting the water at terminal velocity, roughly 130-150 mph, with terminal velocity being ultimately dependent on the size of the piece of aircraft falling and any residual imparted speed.


Depends on what you think downed TWA 800. Obviously there are a lot of different theories about that.


Read that again. The pieces that made up TWA 800 hit the water at 130-150 mph.


They were still underwater.


AA77 hit the Pentagon, with its outer wall being made of concrete, marble slabs, cinderblock and steel reinforcement at approximately 500 mph.


No, it didn't. It is impossible fly a plane of that size that close to the ground at that speed.


It is no wonder at all to anyone who understands aeronautical issues that TWA 800 could be rebuilt in that hangar at Calverton.

Also, how many "Pentagon walls" did the plane have to go through?


This is irrelevant - whatever was left of the plane should have been photographed in situ and then collected by forensic investigators and even if the reconstruction was only partial it is still required by law that they do it.

This did not happen. Now, if you can refute that point without talking about who understands what and who is a #stick and who isn't then I'll continue this exchange.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   


Also You can not show us a 757 size hole in the pentagon. Swampfox could not do it, GoodOlDave cant do it and you cant do it.

If you can show us the Photo of a 757 SIZE HOLE in the first wall OR skid marks where plane engines dragged across the lawn please do so. So far your other propaganda mates have been unsuccessful.


As I've said on here before - one shouldn't necessarily expect to see a Boeing shaped hole in the Pentagon. However, one should expect to see consistent damage at both the Pentagon and the WTC, and we don't see that. We see a rough hole in the Pentagon maybe 16 feet across and scattered damage all around and below it with no further holes of any significant size. At the WTC we see a cartoon outline plane shaped hole.

I'd suggest that if anything, the damage at the Pentagon is more realistic than that at the WTC.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

It`s not so much the twisting of time that FEMA done, it`s wether the actual impact from the planes would have managed to register on a seismic graph, one of those who made the report emphasised this, the readings are done via the ground and he estimated that the buildings would soak up the impact so whatever was recorded just prior to the impacts wether incorrectly timed or not could have not been the jets hitting,


In other words, the author has the hypothesis that the technicians at Columbia and Pallisaides are wrong when they declare the primary spikes were the plane impacts becuase his hypothesis is that the plane impacts couldn't be seen by them. He then uses that hypothesis to support the followup hypothesis that becuase they couldn't be plane impacts, the primary spikes had to be unaccountable explosions unrelated to the plane impacts...? Then, he uses THAT hypothesis to arrive at another hypothesis that it was really an inside job...?

I want to make sure I fully understand, before I say anythign further.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
Also You can not show us a 757 size hole in the pentagon. Swampfox could not do it, GoodOlDave cant do it and you cant do it.


If you're going to quote me then please quote me correctly. I said I couldn't do it WITH THOSE PARTICULAR PHOTOS THAT WERE POSTED, namely, becuase the area shown was too obstructed by smoke and water spray from the fire trucks to be of any use.

The following is a link to a pro-conspiracy web site that supports the controlled demolitions scenario, and even THEY say yes, it was an aircraft that hit the Pentagon. They posted this information page becuase it's their opinion these absurd "no plane" claims are deliberate disinformation being circulated to make the rest of the truther movement look foolish. So, if you don't believe me, then at least believe your fellow truthers.


Pinch yourself- it really WAS a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon

Regardless of which side we're on in this debate, I think we can all agree on one thing, at least- You're can't expect anyone to accept your explanation of things when you can't even agree among yourselves on what the explanation even is.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Originally posted by GoodOlDave




In other words, the author has the hypothesis that the technicians at Columbia and Pallisaides are wrong when they declare the primary spikes were the plane impacts becuase his hypothesis is that the plane impacts couldn't be seen by them. He then uses that hypothesis to support the followup hypothesis that becuase they couldn't be plane impacts, the primary spikes had to be unaccountable explosions unrelated to the plane impacts...? Then, he uses THAT hypothesis to arrive at another hypothesis that it was really an inside job...?

I want to make sure I fully understand, before I say anythign further.


Dave it`s not that technical, notice this...

`Both data time sets are based on UTC (Coordinated Universal Time, the world’s atomic clock system) and the sources that determined these times were prestigious, reliable and credible`.



SUMMARY
On September 11, 2001, the seismic stations grouped around New York City recorded seismic events from the WTC site, two of which occurred immediately prior to the aircraft impacts upon the Twin Towers. Because these seismic events preceded the collisions, it is clear they were not associated with the impacts and must therefore be associated with some other occurrence. None of the authorities charged with the responsibility for the investigation of the events of 9/11 have proposed a source for these seismic events, nor have they given a valid reason for the difference in times between the seismic events and the aircraft impacts. Only by consideration of the evidence of basement explosions before the aircraft impacts, as experienced by William Rodriquez and 36 others, can an explanation be found for the fact that the seismic stations recorded seismic events originating from the WTC sites prior to the aircraft impacts. It seems unlikely that Middle Eastern terrorists could have overcome the WTC security and managed this kind of high-level, technological coordination. Do the facts presented here, simple and few, raise the possibility of inside involvement in 9/11/01, both before and after the attack?

OVERVIEW
This paper is primarily concerned with the factual data surrounding the exact impact times of the two aircraft that hit WTC1 and WTC2. This is neither theory nor hypothesis, but a statement of publicized facts regarding the timing of the aircraft impacts. There exist two separate precision data time sets that address when the aircraft crashed into the Towers. Both data time sets are based on UTC (Coordinated Universal Time, the world’s atomic clock system) and the sources that determined these times were prestigious, reliable and credible. There is no question regarding the precision and accuracy of the instruments used to record both data time sets, since their entire function depends and relies upon temporal accuracy, and therefore there can be no doubt that both data time sets are correct. The time data sets represent objective scientific data recorded by two separate, independent entities.The problem is the data sets have different impact times. These times were given out years ago but at different times. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University (LDEO) gave its findings around the time of the event with what it thought were impact times based upon the seismic data recorded, while the 9/11 Commission published its impact times, based upon FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic, years later in its Final Report.

The Commission no longer exists.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join