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 Finally Fully Exposed.

page: 5
56
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sirdumpsalot
 



Pentagon Finally Fully Exposed.

This will be a long and articulate thread, at the moment I am sifting through more photos and relative information than is healthy, I do not want to put forward any information that cannot be backed up irregardless of it`s authenticity, anyway here is part one, it does not really entail much, it is more of an explanation on how the following pages will be depicted and why........


I'm sorry if that sounds like Gospel to you. Anyway you unobjectiveness is noted.




posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirdumpsalot

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by sirdumpsalot
 


Right. And its not like the grown up thing to do is read the post and make your own judgement based on the evidence presented. The grown up thing to do is discredit every single perseon who ever made an error or misjudgement permenantly, and to ridcule them. It would make God cry if someone thought for themselves.


Wow, yeah, ya got me there. Pay attention to whats posted. AGAIN, just for you, if the OP had said it was his theory and not the gospel then it would have been different. Yet when faced with people able to debunk his claims and the fact that he has no proof to support any of his findings, the OP wants to argue with them over it instead of working on it even more. As for your previous post, none of us have said that the Gov did not have anything to do with this, nor is their report accurate. And I will ridicule anyone who wants to pass off a theory as pure fact anytime.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by sirdumpsalot]


I had one person iirc who argued about the size of the small jet and said it was the 757, then I gave some evidence proving him wrong, the main part of this thread was to disprove that a 757 hit the Pentagon, afaic and many others it`s job done, ridicule whom ever you want, more evidence than is possibly needed is in this thread it`s up to you how you perceive it.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
As a parting bit of fun download this video (if possible) I converted it to mpeg2, download an easy to use video editing freeware VirtualDub-MPEG2 is good, open this file and fast forward to frame 2589 then hit the right arrow key and see how long the 757 stays in the same position, also notice the strange shadow phenomena occurring also, if you think I have somehow doctored the video go download and convert it yourself.


(click to open player in new window)


Have fun
.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 



Easy, biscuit.

I don't have all the resource (or the freakin' time) to play around with pictures.

If you actually read my post, you noticed that I put the word "holster" in quotation marks. That means, I didn't know what it was, but I was pretty sure that it wasn't a holster for a weapon, as I said (did you miss that, too?).

Someone before you said it was a tie. When I looked at it again, I was certain that he was correct and it was a tie.

But, hey, thanks for playing. I'll make sure you get a copy of our home game.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Well one thing is for sure as per the video at 1.26, (and many of us have seen it before) whatever type of aircraft hit the Pentagon it was at, or as near as makes no difference, ground level. There are the two videos from the security cameras side by side on other presentations, and one of them seems to have missing frames when viewed side by side.
www.youtube.com...

have a look at the looped video lower down on the page at this link,

911review.org...



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Wait? Are you suggesting that the US Military is the enemy of the American People?



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


well, i see a lot of pretty lines and diagrams, but nothing really shows your logic behind how you manage to make a convoluted flightpath like that, which I don't think any plane in existence could achieve. so either your logic is way off, or you're suggesting aliens hit hte pentagon, which is it?



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
reply to post by Seventh
 


well, i see a lot of pretty lines and diagrams, but nothing really shows your logic behind how you manage to make a convoluted flightpath like that, which I don't think any plane in existence could achieve. so either your logic is way off, or you're suggesting aliens hit hte pentagon, which is it?


Their lamp posts, their flight data, a CCTV, and a point of impact, some maths, some converting, nothing wrong with my logic, it`s who`s data I used that`s way off, and bingo



which I don't think any plane in existence could achieve.


Hit the nail right on the head
.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 



Here's another contribution in my efforts to seek the truth.

"A cube 4 meters in length and 3 meters in width giving an estimated 36 cubic meters of jet fuel ... ."


1. Jet fuel is measured by WEIGHT once on board, not volume.

2. Why "estimate" when you can calculate? Why "cube" when you can illustrate?

A plane with a given starting point and destination takes on a specific amount of fuel. At any given load, altitude and speed, it burns a fixed amount of fuel per minute.

Multiply minutes of flight by the rate, and subtract from the initial load. You'll get a better idea of how much fuel was VAPORIZED upon collision with a window-wall system.

Your "estimate" of a volume roughly 9'X9'X14' (or more appropriately, given tank and wing dimensions: 2'X6'X100' cannot be anywhere near accurate for either flight striking the towers. The fuel would be spread out from wingtip to wingtip, and thus filling a greater volume of air/building upon destruction of the aircraft.

jw

[edit on 6-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I found an interesting and detailed article dated 6/12/09
(www.fourwinds10.com... )
regarding American Airlines as the source for revealing that 2 flights attributed to AA on 9/11 did not exist. The long and the short of this part is: WikiScanner discovered that AA changed their Wikipedia entry to state that flights 11 (N Tower) and 77 (Pentagon) never flew on 9/11.

Sticking with the Pentagon crash - if AA flight 77 did not exist, who are the 64 passenger names that were released? Did AA submit the list to the media? If so, why would someone with an IP address from AA change the wikipedia entry to say the flight didn't exist? Has anyone ventured down that rabbit trail?

If there is an error in the article and the flight actually existed, but it is proven that a 757 did not crash into the Pentagon, what happened to their 64 passengers?

Within same article, much thought is given to an unmanned jet-powered aircraft called Global Hawk, and how it may be the culprit for the Pentagon crash. It has a wingspan similar to 737. Photos at crash site clearly show an engine rotor that is too small for a 757, but fit a Global Hawk. And article discusses that only 1 rotor was ever found at crash site, but 757s have two. I am NOT an expert in aircraft, but thought the article raised many good questions about the crash debris and lack of 757 remains.

If there is enough to question the truth of the government's version of the Pentagon crash - or ANY 9/11 event for that matter - why hasn't major media exposed the inconsistencies and sought the truth? What benefit do they receive for avoiding such matters?

If the OP can prove a 757 is incapable of the flight path/crash site and adds the lack of 757 debris, I'd say he should get someone from the major media to pay attention. And if he doesn't get their attention with that, well then, I'd have to conclude they receive a much greater benefit to hide the truth.

My apologies for the passenger sidetrack, but it's bugging me.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
sorry dude. you're wrong


there were over 100 witnesses, who were pedestirans, fire fighters, cops, mexican yard workers, business owners.. all saw a plane



they are not wokring for the fbi, trust me



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Originally posted by jdub297



1. Jet fuel is measured by WEIGHT once on board, not volume.

2. Why "estimate" when you can calculate? Why "cube" when you can illustrate?

A plane with a given starting point and destination takes on a specific amount of fuel. At any given load, altitude and speed, it burns a fixed amount of fuel per minute.

Multiply minutes of flight by the rate, and subtract from the initial load. You'll get a better idea of how much fuel was VAPORIZED upon collision with a window-wall system.

Your "estimate" of a volume roughly 9'X9'X14' (or more appropriately, given tank and wing dimensions: 2'X6'X100' cannot be anywhere near accurate for either flight striking the towers. The fuel would be spread out from wingtip to wingtip, and thus filling a greater volume of air/building upon destruction of the aircraft.

jw

[edit on 6-9-2009 by jdub297]


Doesn`t matter if it`s weight or cubic metres the end result = the same, apart from you cannot show liquid as a weight when trying to asses something.....Grade A Jet fuel - A fully loaded 767 - 200ER maximum fuel capacity is 90 cubic metres for a 12,000 km flight. This day it`s pay load was 11000 gallons which = around 40 cubic metres, 34 cbm for flight to L.A. + 6 cbm for 1 hour reserve.

It had used 6cbm in 1 hour flying = 34 cbm left, which I rounded up to their benefit.

My estimate as stated before is as accurate as the formulas I use, all bar I gave the building another 2 cubes, after all, the initial explosion only left a few cup fulls to weaken 90,000 tons of steel and 110 acres of concrete (cannot tell me after that well over the top for that dear little cube of high explosive kerosene blast, there was much left to evenly disperse over 110 storeys!!).



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Originally posted by CanadianDream420
sorry dude. you're wrong



there were over 100 witnesses, who were pedestirans, fire fighters, cops, mexican yard workers, business owners.. all saw a plane



they are not wokring for the fbi, trust me


Who said there was no plane?, no matter what way you look at it, even if you ignore the stuff I posted, ah you didn`t watch that video through a video editing programme did you?, or you wouldn`t be stating the above
.

And believe it or not when a 90+ ton vehicle hits a wall at 550 mph it hits it, there`s more than some little dent in the brickwork, and wing damage, and tailfin, and two huge titanium engines causing havoc, the flight path mapped out by their data not mine including the lamp posts and being recorded by the CCTV at that focal point 5 feet above the ground is impossible for a 757.


As much as the debunkers will shriek `But yeah man, this was teh Hani Hanjour, he can wheelie Jumbo`s etc etc etc`, the air squib, Bush is dyslexic, Rumsfeld meant whistle he said a whistle hit the Pentagon, but they didn`t reveal Arabic names on the flight manifest due to respect, Jet fuel melts steel only in office environments cookie cutter GL bullcrap cannot cover this one
.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I'm sorry but threads like this ruin ats for me... well done on the research first of all, and interesting post...

but the thread title...

PENTAGON FINALLY "FULLY" EXPOSED

F*** OFF and stop wasting my time.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boniouk06
I'm sorry but threads like this ruin ats for me... well done on the research first of all, and interesting post...

but the thread title...

PENTAGON FINALLY "FULLY" EXPOSED

F*** OFF and stop wasting my time.


Wow an internet hard guy, big brave boy you, now, exposed - what didn`t happen, but like every other aspect it means nothing, but at least you get to swear, if you read the thread correctly you will notice one huge part, it was impossible to hit the lamp posts and be in the focal point of the CCTV, 5 feet above ground, what was you expecting? Hani Hanjour to turn up maybe?.

Nothing changes, and never will.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Your post has NOTHING to do with what i said. Fully exposed is a load of rubbish.
So it's fully exposed is it? closed case now? officially all lies? well done. lets move on then.

[edit on 8/9/09 by Boniouk06]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boniouk06
Your post has NOTHING to do with what i said. Fully exposed is a load of rubbish.
So it's fully exposed is it? closed case now? officially all lies? well done. lets move on then.

[edit on 8/9/09 by Boniouk06]


Thanks.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Thanks.


You're welcome!



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by Seventh
Thanks.


You're welcome!


Lol, and as you couldn`t be bothered to check that video I just done it, got around 30 amazing screenshots, I will upload them later
.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
sorry dude. you're wrong


there were over 100 witnesses, who were pedestirans, fire fighters, cops, mexican yard workers, business owners.. all saw a plane



they are not wokring for the fbi, trust me

could you please link me to their satements? I would very much like to see 100 statements from people who say they saw the plane hit the pentagon. I will not count any people that did not say they saw te impact or where the interviewer infered they saw the impact. Thanks a lot, eagerly awaiting your source.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join