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.

 

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 106
215
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by UFOAlienLover
 


Look at these. images.google.com...://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/docs/427.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/pentag on/analysis/compare/jetcrashdebris.html&usg=__Y_ZJKqHdttuXsvhrcBROz2Md10I=&h=260&w=394&sz=27&hl=en&start=14&itbs=1&tbnid=2aRcw0hjq_Fn9M:&tbnh=82&tbnw= 124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dflight%2B427%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Some of these don't look much like airplane crashes either.




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Did you mean this pic?





Ya it looks like a huge hole in the ground.


Anyway, Here's one more pic.. again not one piece of a plane.





posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOAlienLover
Did you mean this pic?





Ya it looks like a huge hole in the ground.


where plane crashed. you conveniently ignore that.




Anyway, Here's one more pic.. again not one piece of a plane.




Nice to show a pic of AFTER collapse. how about pics BEFORE collapse?

Truther tactic - ignore other images and only post 1 image AFTER the events.


Nice big hole here:
www.geoffmetcalf.com...
www.geoffmetcalf.com...


notice how truthers have to lie.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
rip curl:


Here's what I noticed about your reply.

You use key words. Truther.... lie.... plane crash....




I am focusing on those particular pics for now.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
What's easier to fabricate, witness testimony or the physical evidence of a large commercial airliner?

What about the video evidence at the Pentagon? Oh yeah, that's right, if they did release it, we still wouldn't believe the official fairy tale. Yeah, that'll go over real well in a court of law. Your honor, we're not going to release the video evidence because the jury will not believe it anyway.


I don't know what moron was responsible for planting physical evidence that day, but whoever it was, did a piss poor job.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by UFOAlienLover
reply to post by jthomas
 



So if there were witnesses that say there was a plane - a huge commerical plane mind you - that crashed into the pentagon.... shouldn't there be plenty of physical evidence showing that. Not a few pieces of debris that could have been from something else and planted....


You can't evade the fact that hundreds of the people all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, and in the Pentagon parking lots never reported any "jet flying flying over and away from the Pentagon."


If people saw this picture (below) anytime BEFORE 9/11 happened how many would actually say this looked like a plane crash?


Fortunately, we have thousands of people who were at the Pentagon in the minutes, hours, days, and weeks after AA77 crashed into the Pentagon whom you all evade:


"Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


You'd better do your homework, young fella.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 


Based on your post you must not subscribe to the CIT theory of a flyover.

How so?


You have ignored all the witnesses that saw an impact because you determined them to be unreliable.
bare assertion (23) I have not ignored any witnesses.


Where are the statements of the hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots?

How is this relevant? Simply because someone was present at an event does not mean they witnessed something. That’s common sense. Look up the definition of ignore. You seem to not understand what the word means. I have not ignored anything.


What did those people see?
It really doesn’t matter. Between the reliable eye witness testimony, the psychical evidence and the flight data recorder; CIT has already gathered enough corroborating evidence that proves a plane flew north of the citgo gas station, slightly over the naval annex and over the pentagon.

The burden of poof falls on you at this point if you wish to prove that the witnesses were lying/mistaken, physical evidence was misinterpreted and/or the flight data recorder had malfunctioned.


What's taking you so long, JPhish?
So long to do what?



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 

The basis for your rejection of the witnesses is that you don't understand how the plane penetrated the building and therefore the witnesses who saw it happen must be mistaken or lying.
bare assertions (26) that’s not my basis for the dismissal of the witnesses.

What witnesses claim to have seen a plane impact the building?! You keep on talking about these “witnesses” yet the only person you have presented is “Penny Elgas”. She is an unreliable witness because the website you pulled her “testimony” from is unproffessional and unreliable.

If you’re referring to Mike Walter (who I presented), he is an unreliable witness because he claims that the wings folded back, which is physically impossible. The engines are the heaviest part of a plane. Although this is misleading because they are behind the nose, they lead the plane. Not the fuselage.

The wings on a 757 would NEVER fold back unless the engines impacted something and the fuselage did not. Or maybe (and I’m stretching for you now) perhaps if a plane some how executed a full reverse thrust of the engines mid flight at very high speeds. Regardless as to whether or not that would cause the wings to fold back (which I don’t think it would), 757’s can not execute reverse thrust in mid-flight last I checked.


You are an expert speaking from a position of knowledge and authority.

I never claimed to be an expert nor have I claimed to have any authority.
I claim to be knowledgeable and able to interpret information logically. There is a difference.


You even invoke Newton to support you but I doubt that he would.

Whether Newton would support me or not is an Appeal to authority (27). Newton’s laws support me. There’s a difference. Newton (referring to Newton’s 3 terrestrial laws of motion) proves that Mike Walter is not telling the truth. Obviously I was not saying the Newton himself supported me. The man is dead, how could he? It was a figure of speech utilized for brevity. . .


As an exercise for the student, delineate the many logical fallacies in your witness rejection argument.
bare assertion (28)apparently there are none.


Now you should explain the damage to the building since you say that an airplane couldn't have done it and earlier rejected my suggestion that you provide details on the explosives used.
Define airplane. straw man (29) I never claimed explosives were used because it is not relevant.


You can also explain the origin of the fireball and burning hydrocarbons.
straw man (30) I never claimed to know the origin of the fire ball because it is not relevant.


Tell me why you rejected all those witnesses, again.

You haven’t presented more than one witness. “Penny Elgas” was the only witness you’ve presented and “her testimony” is dismissed because the website you pulled “her testimony” from is unproffessional and unreliable..

The other witness (who i presented) that “attempts” to support a plane impacting the Pentagon is Mike Walter. His testimony is dismissed because what he describes is physically impossible.

[edit on 12/2/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Since you seem incapable or unwilling to present witnesses for your case, I will present some witnesses for you. Here are witnesses who claim they saw a commercial airliner impact the building.

Here you go!

Ironically enough, all of these witness in the video who had been exploited/threatened/duped/paid to support the OS; actually discredit each other when all of their testimonies are viewed as a whole.

You have to interpret their accounts logically; taking into consideration amongst other things . . .

their conflicting accounts,
their vantage points,
conflicts of interest (particularly with Mike Walter),
hindsight bias,
leading questions
(which are very prevalent with the news-reporters so pay attention!),
and their
respondent conditioning prior to and after the event.

Here’s a list of the witnesses as they appear in the video respectively. The video attempts to support the OS but actually reinforces the evidence of the flyover.

Mike Walter
Says he saw the “plane” down the infamous light poles (OS flight path)
Says without a doubt it was an American Airlines 747/737. (OS plane)

Since it is an impossibility that the plane clipped the infamous light poles and taking into account his other testimony where he describes the wings folding back (which is also impossible, refer to my previous post). I must conclude that Mike Walter is either brainwashed, lying or has been threatened. There’s also the very small chance that he is merely mistaken; but taking into account Mike Walter’s intelligence and the nature of his claims, I find the latter unlikely. Particularly taking into account his conflict of interest since he works for the very entity being implicated.

Steven Gerard:
Describes a small 20 passenger corporate jet with no markings on the side (Not OS plane which completely contradicts Mike Walter.)
His claim of seeing the plane impact the building is questionable in light of Respondent Conditioning prior to and after his experience.

Unknown witness:
Describes a VERY steep and angled descent which could have actually “dive bombed” into the top of the pentagon but came short and did not even hit the wall but hit the lawn. Then he describes an explosion that

“sprayed up the wall”

He goes against OS flight path AND the actual flight path (CIT flight path)
In my opinion, this witness is either a bad actor or a sensationalist who made up a story having not actually witnessed the event.

If he is not an actor this is a very strong case of Respondent Conditionings' influence on his story telling.

"Barbara"
Recalls a commercial plane (which would contradict Steven Gerard and
Michael Kelly) HOWEVER some people believe that “commercial airplane” is synonymous with “large plane”; In which case she would not contradict Steven Gerard and Michael Kelly .
She says she saw the plane

“go down below the side of the road”
. (Out of her field of view) and the next thing she saw was the fire. She did not see the plane hit.

Toward the end, her interview is conveniently cut short (4:34 in the video) as she says

“And I’m not sure exactly where the Pentagon wa-*SNIP*”
She didn’t even know where the pentagon was hit. Further proves she did not see a plane impact the building. She is assumes the plane hit the building having not seen it actually do so because of Respondent Conditioning prior to and after her experience.

Sean Boger
He had the best vantage point to see the plane coming in and is also an EXPERT witness.
In this video, he says without going into much detail that he "saw the plane come in and hit the building". (paraphrased)
However his interview with CIT shows:
That he supports the CIT Flight path (actual flight path).
He has qualms with the security camera footage.
Believes the “impact zone” was higher than the 9-11 Commission ascertains.
But his claim of SEEING the plane actually going into the Pentagon is questionable due to the Respondent Conditioning after and prior to his experience.

"Construction Worker"
Was North Easterly of the Pentagon. Only saw the planes approach and subsequent fireball in the back of the building. (South-West) Did not see the plane impact the building. Again, his inductive conclusion that the plane impacted the building in light of the fact that he did not see it impact the building is is likely a result of Respondent Conditioning after and prior to his experience.

Michael Kelly
Says it sounded and looked like a small plane. This contradicts all other accounts besides Steven Gerard’s. It can be said, that because of Respondent Conditioning, he was prone to believe that he had witnessed a plane crash since he had been listening to his radio at the time, which was describing plane crashes at the World Trade Centers. The same can be said for most of the witnesses. They saw a plane, so they assumed the plane crashed. Pavlov rang a bell, so they assumed they’d be fed . . .

Isabelle James

“Big plane commercial liner type”


This reinforces what I said earlier, that most people believe “commercial airplane” is synonymous with “Large airplane”

Her English was rather poor and she was being lead by the reporter, but when she recalls her experience without the new reporter leading her, she states . . .

“We were driving down Columbia pike, and it just “shoot” right over us, as I said (before) full speed, then I tell my husband. “He’s going in the Pentagon; he’s going in the pentagon”; and then we HEARD a huge crash. SAW this fireball and flame and smoke.”


She did not SEE the plane impact the building. She filled in the gaps of her experience through weak inductive reasoning because of her Respondent Conditioning prior to the event and after. Most of her comments support the idea that this woman fell victim to Respondent Conditioning as well as hindsight bias. Particularly her comment

“-then I tell my husband. “He’s going in the Pentagon; he’s going in the pentagon”-”

Also, her comment

“Definitely the type of plane you get on when you want to go to L.A. or . . . something-”
makes me curious, in light of the abundance of leading questions she was being bombarded with during the actual interview.

”NAVY MAN”

“And all a sudden I saw a plane come; come out the west side, comin’; it was goin’ real fast; it was so low; I said to myself that plane is off course! You know what I’m sayin’? Because it almost hit that gas station (CITGO GASTSTAION!) right there! It came close to there. And then it kept going, and I saw the impact when it hit the ground, hit the building, I mean it slammed into it.”

Navy man is one more witness out of many that corroborates the CIT flight path and disproves the OS flight path; hence disproving the plane crash.

He obviously did not see the plane impact the building because he claims it “hit the ground”. Like Isabelle and the others, he filled in the gaps of his experience through weak inductive reasoning because of his Respondent Conditioning prior to the event and after.

So much for your witnesses.

[edit on 12/2/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Read your post in its entirety- very well done, starred :-). Also like to add that those were some good points on Mike Walter that I hadn't considered.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Once again, you disregard witnesses that say things that go against your personal beliefs and you seek reasons to reject them. You spout about "logic" but you do not see past your own shortsighted bias. You claim Penny Elgas is not a good witness because you don't like the website. This is convenient for you, isn’t it? Her statement and those of others are on 911research.wtc7.net...
You “claim to be knowledgeable and able to interpret information logically.”Then you state “If you’re referring to Mike Walter (who I presented), he is an unreliable witness because he claims that the wings folded back which is physically impossible. The wings are the heaviest part of a plane. The wings on a 757 would NEVER fold back unless the engines impacted something and the fuselage did not.” You also stated that “An aluminum alloy plane is 100% incapable of penetrating 1, let alone 3 steel-concrete reinforced walls.” How do you know these things? It would be good for you to check your sources. From what you write, your technical skills have been assimilated from Hollywood disaster movis and video games.

The fact that aluminum is relatively soft and of low density does not mean what you think it does. Read about “kinetic energy” and “sectional density” in your physics book. If you have the technical ability to reject witnesses based on physical impossibilities then you should provide argument why the wings would not fail on impact or an aluminum alloy plane is incapable of penetrating a concrete reinforced wall. If you are unable to do so, your reasons for rejection are unsupported and you must then accept the witness statements you rejected.

Keep seeking the truth, JPhish.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Interesting topic, can an aluminum plane go through a concrete wall.

Not sure how relevant this is, but that well known video of a military jet test smacking a concrete wall....the jet didn't really look like it punched a whole through that wall. I realize 77 would have been bigger than a military jet, but still, it seems like if 77 was able to punch through that many walls it would still be intact enough to tell there was obviously a jet there. Whereas if it didn't punch through walls then it would be easier to conclude, yeah it vaporized/exploded like the jet fighter. Get my point? It seems as if it actually goes through walls there has to actually be something fairly intact and of significant size going through to create the hole.

Just my 2cents layman's thoughts on the topic.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
can an aluminum plane go through a concrete wall.

... that well known video of a military jet test smacking a concrete wall....the jet didn't really look like it punched a whole through that wall. I realize 77 would have been bigger than a military jet, but still, it seems like if 77 was able to punch through that many walls it would still be intact enough to tell there was obviously a jet there. Whereas if it didn't punch through walls then it would be easier to conclude, yeah it vaporized/exploded like the jet fighter.


For starters the plane was not pure aluminum, obviously. Every plane crash has a unique set of variables - mass, speed, resistance, flammable materials ratio, etc. 90 tons including engines, compartment, fuel, were directionally thrust with tremendous velocity. Outer aluminum parts almost completely disintegrated on impact, but the denser hull and contents had tremendous momentum.

Explained in another thread:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

When it first hit the wall the nose cone and the rest of the plane was intact. Whatever it's made of, a cone is a strong shape that transfers energy well. 90 tons of mass, 530 mph, and a 21" reinforced concrete column is gone as well as the nose cone if that's where the hit happened. A window pane or truss would be gone. Bricks, limestone, even the kevlar cloth would be moving away from the scene very fast, with the nose cone damaged but intact if that was the point hit.

That's why 90 feet worth of outer wall was entirely removed on floor 1. Engines and fuselage at that angle are about 70-75 feet wide. After that the plane is breaking up and the damage will be more sporadic. 50+ columns were damaged, all bowed inward.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I don't know if I agree with your assessment that it is 'explained' in the thread link you posted to. I see a lot of people going back and forth with their opinions on the matter. Frankly I don't see how anyone can completely buy into any one side of the argument, these are people's speculations, though some seem to be very confident in their theories.

I think there is a great point made Also, two colliding objects hit each other with equal force no matter how fast one is moving, so the stronger object will win regardless of speed. Think of that F-4 hitting the concrete wall the other way around. Stationary plane and moving wall. Would the outcome be different? Or will the plane still be smashed to pieces by the wall? Think about that and then put it into context with the pentagoon. Another point to think about, if the nose cone was strong enough to break through the reinforced wall where did it go? Where did the rest of the planes fuselage go? Not to mention wings and tail section, engines etc. There was nothing beyond that first wall that would have destroyed the plane. You can't have it both ways, either the plane broke through and should still be somewhat recognisable as a plane, or it wouldn't break through and in the extreme do what that F-4 did.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
I don't know if I agree with your assessment that it is 'explained' in the thread link you posted to. I see a lot of people going back and forth with their opinions on the matter. Frankly I don't see how anyone can completely buy into any one side of the argument, these are people's speculations, though some seem to be very confident in their theories.

I think there is a great point made Also, two colliding objects hit each other with equal force no matter how fast one is moving, so the stronger object will win regardless of speed. Think of that F-4 hitting the concrete wall the other way around. Stationary plane and moving wall. Would the outcome be different? Or will the plane still be smashed to pieces by the wall? Think about that and then put it into context with the pentagoon. Another point to think about, if the nose cone was strong enough to break through the reinforced wall where did it go? Where did the rest of the planes fuselage go? Not to mention wings and tail section, engines etc. There was nothing beyond that first wall that would have destroyed the plane. You can't have it both ways, either the plane broke through and should still be somewhat recognisable as a plane, or it wouldn't break through and in the extreme do what that F-4 did.


I think your physics are somewhat awry. Can you shoot a lead bullet (soft metal ) through a tin (steel) can ( hard metal ) ? Of course you can.

Reason, energy of the speeding bullet.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
It certainly could be awry, I suppose it all boils down to what is stronger a plane or multiple re-enforced walls....I certainly don't know the answer to that.

As for your bullet can analogy, the bullet would likely remain intact on the other side of the can, unlike the plane in said crash, so maybe no the best analogy to put to much thought into..



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Here's a picture of the Challenger corporate jet that skidded off a New Jersey runway on takeoff, hurtled across a 6 lane highway, smashed into 2 cars then punched through the wall of warehouse on February 2, 2005.

As you can see the plane didn't vanish into thin air.


Check the image out:




posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
lol...


You seriously want to make that comparison to what happened at the Pentagon?

Seriously?

lol



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Enough force can penetrate anything man-made. That's been demonstrated throughout the history of security and warfare. From steel doors blasted open to bunker-buster bombs.

As planned, a fuel laden 90 ton airliner hurling at 400 mph functions as a virtual megabomb, the largest ever known.

This page answers questions about the Pentagon damage, what the photographs don't show, and explains how the no plane conspiracy story started:



www.snopes.com...

... the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall.

... it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash

... As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire.

... Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site

... By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had collapsed, further obscuring the impact point.



[edit on 2-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Enough force can penetrate anything man-made. That's been demonstrated throughout the history of security and warfare. From steel doors blasted open to bunker-buster bombs.



You need to go back to your physics class. What you are trying to claim is that under enough pressure "ANY MATERIAL CAN PENETRATE ANY OTHER MATERIAL." Unfortunately, that is just not true.

You are trying to say that with enough force, Aluminum can penetrate all that concrete and steel. Sure, with enough force eventually that could happen. You did not have that kind of force here. There was nothing behind the airplane applying force. It had inertia and that inertia would need to be so insanely great that you need to drastically change the speed of the plane or the mass of it. Are you claiming it was really going thousands of miles an hour with a continuation of forward force after impact?

Can you even demonstrate the very principal you are trying to explain?

According to you, if I just push hard enough, a piece of paper can be pushed right through a steel door. Please explain that to me. Both myself and the laws of physics must have missed something.

You do understand the difference between putting explosives on a door to blast it open and an airplane flying into something right?

[edit on 12/2/09 by Lillydale]



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join