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.

 

Where are AA77's wings?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigenous equity


The wings folded back upon impact and mixed in with cement and construction materials. The building collapsed on top of the rubble that was the airplane.

There is not a lot to an airplane, its mostly sheet metal and wiring, upon an impact of this nature they would disintegrate and mix in with object they are hitting.

Sorry, but thats just the way it is. No magic missiles, no holograms...just some really crazy people that killed a lot of people and did a lot of damage.


I cannot help but go back to this post and chuckle because I can't believe there are actually people out there who believe this scenario is possible, logical, scientific, or based in reality in this universe as it applies to the physics and facts at the pentagon with flight 77.

I guess its the same universe where basic laws of physics can be suspended only on 9/11.


you kill me IE

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Orion7911]




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


So...you reposted something that is posted a page back just to make fun of it?

...and what do you feel that you have added to the discussion?

edit to add, I agree with you that it is crazy but i would ask that of anyone who posts such a thing. it is hard enough for me to be nice, can't you guys do it either?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Lillydale]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by Orion7911
 


So...you reposted something that is posted a page back just to make fun of it?

...and what do you feel that you have added to the discussion?



www.abovetopsecret.com...


as to why I reposted it? Because I am still waiting for this poster to give some logical explanation how this "theory" works in the real world where physical laws and actual evidence match it.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


I get what you wish but unfortunately you have to learn the truth.

These folks that just believe all that stuff they heard on tv, they have no idea about things like this. It confuses them and hurts their heads. We ask perfectly logical questions and then they rant, rave, and run off. This leaves us with two choices. Stoop to their level and just taunt them, or be the bigger person and stand there, with your open question, and be proud of it until that day someone comes and snatches it away. I have a feeling they will not. You and it are safe. I figure that I add enough discordance to things after I have been typing here a while and therefore, I try to look for my lost civility in others.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by Orion7911
 


I get what you wish but unfortunately you have to learn the truth.

These folks that just believe all that stuff they heard on tv, they have no idea about things like this. It confuses them and hurts their heads. We ask perfectly logical questions and then they rant, rave, and run off. This leaves us with two choices. Stoop to their level and just taunt them, or be the bigger person and stand there, with your open question, and be proud of it until that day someone comes and snatches it away. I have a feeling they will not. You and it are safe. I figure that I add enough discordance to things after I have been typing here a while and therefore, I try to look for my lost civility in others.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
The pentagon had a lot of cameras trained on path of the plane. The citgo station had a video of the crash. Until those videos are released; I cannot believe the official story. To many unanswered questions.


thank you thats what ive been saying this whole damn time!
there is video evidence of what happened, but the government wont release it. so thats why i dont belive anything they are saying



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by taylor101
 



One more time. Here is the citgo video.

In response to a FOIA request by Judicial Watch and a related request, the FBI released security video in September 2006 that was taken at a Citgo gas station near the Pentagon on 9/11.






posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911


www.abovetopsecret.com...



If you have anything worth hearing, you would have posted that. I am not wandering off into some other link when I have a perfectly good thread right here. The question is simple, short, and should be cleared up soon.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I normally don't post in these threads, but, I must....

As a former military pilot, airline pilot (including the B757 and 767) AND an ALPA accident investigator, I have seen many accident and incident scenes. Some involved impacts with ground, some buildings, some other aircraft....

Based upon my experience (aircraft and accident investigations), IF an intact B757 size aircraft had impacted the wall of the Pentagon, the evidence would show one of two scenes:

1> fuselage hole or major destruction on the wall, with kerosene flaming and soot on the walls from burning jet fuel. If none, and there actually were wing structures, the wingspars would have created major impact damage, as well as multi sized aluminum shards and spar pieces.

2> In most cases, at these speeds, no evenly spaced hole would have been created. The impact of an aircraft, almost full of fuel, with hot and burning engines a split second later, would have created jagged wall damage, massive fire, repeat massive (not what we saw), and a wide debris field of aircraft pieces, almost none whole. The FDR and CVR would most likely have survived either, but, hmm, none was found or released..........



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

posted by habu71
I normally don't post in these threads, but, I must....

As a former military pilot, airline pilot (including the B757 and 767) AND an ALPA accident investigator, I have seen many accident and incident scenes. Some involved impacts with ground, some buildings, some other aircraft....

Based upon my experience (aircraft and accident investigations), IF an intact B757 size aircraft had impacted the wall of the Pentagon, the evidence would show one of two scenes:

1> fuselage hole or major destruction on the wall, with kerosene flaming and soot on the walls from burning jet fuel. If none, and there actually were wing structures, the wingspars would have created major impact damage, as well as multi sized aluminum shards and spar pieces.

2> In most cases, at these speeds, no evenly spaced hole would have been created. The impact of an aircraft, almost full of fuel, with hot and burning engines a split second later, would have created jagged wall damage, massive fire, repeat massive (not what we saw), and a wide debris field of aircraft pieces, almost none whole. The FDR and CVR would most likely have survived either, but, hmm, none was found or released..........


Thank you. In other words there is zero evidence that an aircraft impacted the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Exactly, SPreston...

And to the previous poster that maligned the P4T organization, as a proud member, I take offense.

P4T is probably the most astute and knowledgeable collection of pilots, crewmen, accident i nvestigators and scientists that has studied the issues of the official story. If anyone can smell truth or prove falsehoods in the official story, the combined knowledge of this organization makes it the logical place to go for FACTS.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by habu71
I normally don't post in these threads, but, I must....

As a former military pilot, airline pilot (including the B757 and 767) AND an ALPA accident investigator, I have seen many accident and incident scenes. Some involved impacts with ground, some buildings, some other aircraft....

Based upon my experience (aircraft and accident investigations), IF an intact B757 size aircraft had impacted the wall of the Pentagon, the evidence would show one of two scenes:

1> fuselage hole or major destruction on the wall, with kerosene flaming and soot on the walls from burning jet fuel. If none, and there actually were wing structures, the wingspars would have created major impact damage, as well as multi sized aluminum shards and spar pieces.

2> In most cases, at these speeds, no evenly spaced hole would have been created. The impact of an aircraft, almost full of fuel, with hot and burning engines a split second later, would have created jagged wall damage, massive fire, repeat massive (not what we saw), and a wide debris field of aircraft pieces, almost none whole. The FDR and CVR would most likely have survived either, but, hmm, none was found or released..........


Thank you. In other words there is zero evidence that an aircraft impacted the Pentagon.



"Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11" I take it you have read this book and you think they are all paid government shills, who gladly have conspired to be an accomplice to murder.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by habu71

Exactly, SPreston...

And to the previous poster that maligned the P4T organization, as a proud member, I take offense.

P4T is probably the most astute and knowledgeable collection of pilots, crewmen, accident i nvestigators and scientists that has studied the issues of the official story. If anyone can smell truth or prove falsehoods in the official story, the combined knowledge of this organization makes it the logical place to go for FACTS.


So, as a proud member of PfT do you subscribe, as the leadership at PfT does, to their idea that self-defense surface to air missiles at the Pentagon were deliberately shut down or "stood down", allowing an aircraft coming from the west to....well.....not hit the building?

So, as a proud member of PfT do you subscribe, as the leadership at PfT does, to their position that a western Camp Springs One departure from Andrews Air Force Base would never *ever* be used in the morning hours because of *cough cough* rush hour traffic into DCA?

So, as a proud member of PfT do you subscribe, as the leadership at PfT and their proud brethren over at CIT do, that a 7X7-class airliner flew a big old banking turn at 50 to less than a 100 feet above the south parking lot of the Pentagon, and only 1 person saw it? (witness Roosevelt said it was "banking". Can a 7X7 aircraft "bank" at 50 to less than 100 feet? Without dragging a wingtip? 55 foot wings and a 12 foot wide fuselage makes a 757, wingtip to wingtip, 122 feet. Can a 122 foot wide aircraft fly at 50 to less than 100 feet while banking over a 3,000 car parking lot at 9:30 am outside a building that holds 25,000 people while only 1 person sees it?)

What is it you said you flew? Military? May I ask who's military?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Orion7911


www.abovetopsecret.com...



If you have anything worth hearing, you would have posted that. I am not wandering off into some other link when I have a perfectly good thread right here. The question is simple, short, and should be cleared up soon.


Not sure what "you're" going on about, but my post addressed and expanded on something you said which I was replying to.

As far as the question about wings, whats the point of harping an issue that anyone with a brain can figure out? No wings = No plane

Never was no matter how hard the shills and deniers claim otherwise.

The evidence supports NO PLANE HIT

a No-brainer.

so what are you being pissy about?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
Not sure what "you're" going on about, but my post addressed and expanded on something you said which I was replying to.


Because a thread full of links to other things is the best way to get people looking at and talking about other things. I am not stopping anyone from starting a thread to post anything they like. I just want to avoid the usual 9/11 traps that they use and the first one is distraction. I just want to know where the wings went.


As far as the question about wings, whats the point of harping an issue that anyone with a brain can figure out? No wings = No plane

Never was no matter how hard the shills and deniers claim otherwise.

The evidence supports NO PLANE HIT

a No-brainer.

so what are you being pissy about?




Well, for one thing I am being "PISSY" about the fact that you apparently have not noticed that not everyone agrees about that. I am really glad that you see it the same way that I do but unfortunately, that does little to actually settle the issue. I still see plenty of people saying it was an airplane and thus had wings. I guess I will be "PISSY" until one of them finds any way to back it up and explain this question.

I never said that I was nice.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

The evidence supports NO PLANE HIT

a No-brainer.

so what are you being pissy about?


There is no such evidence. There are lots of fanciful claims that no jet hit the Pentagon, but not a single piece of positive evidence for that has ever been presented.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
I still see plenty of people saying it was an airplane and thus had wings. I guess I will be "PISSY" until one of them finds any way to back it up and explain this question.


All airplanes have wings, including Boeing 757s.

Because you think they are supposed to stay in one piece as wings after hitting a building at several hundred miles per hour is no reason to claim AA77 didn't have wings.




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
All airplanes have wings, including Boeing 757s.

Because you think they are supposed to stay in one piece as wings after hitting a building at several hundred miles per hour is no reason to claim AA77 didn't have wings.



Yeah, I never once even hinted that they should be found in one piece. You are getting sloppier and sloppier with this.
Seriously, you should just go start a thread and fight with yourself all over it. Why don't you find what I actually said about what the condition of the wings should have been after and impact like that.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Orion7911

The evidence supports NO PLANE HIT

a No-brainer.

so what are you being pissy about?


There is no such evidence. There are lots of fanciful claims that no jet hit the Pentagon, but not a single piece of positive evidence for that has ever been presented.


Since Not a single piece of conclusive evidence has ever been presented that proves any jet HIT the pentagon, and you continue to have a problem explaining what happened to the wings of this jet you insinuate did hit, anyone with a brain can see your logic is illogical.

Since you support and defend the official conspiracy story, the burden of proof is on YOU FIRST, to prove a plane hit the pentagon.

Failure to present this CONCRETE "PROOF" is why your argument fails by default.

If you use your witnesses saw this or that logic as PROOF a plane hit aside from the fact such witnesses are contradicted by others and fact CIT has already PROVEN the NOC path, you've still lost the debate as it proves nothing.

As long as evidence exists which contradicts the OCT (including facts about the NOC, and FDR discrepencies, along with science, math and common sense physical impossibilities) that has not been logically countered or disproven, your argument again fails and proves nothing.

So where are the wings?

They don't exist since no plane has ever been proven to have hit the Pentagon.

The damage ISN'T consistent with such an impact which is why you've continued to evade countless questions on this issue.

That alone is enough of a reason why what you say about anything on this matter is worthless.

NO ONE, i repeat, NO ONE with common sense who has researched or done a full investigation into all the facts, science, math and evidence objectively and academically, listens or believes anything you're attempting to assert here.

The facts speak for itself.

Not one single shred of VISUAL evidence has ever conclusively shown a plane hitting the pentagon.

The only evidence you and the government can put forth to support your ludicrous conspiracy story that a plane hit the pentagon, is either video footage that has clearly been tampered with, or suspect witnesses and MSM propoganda that are contradicted by credible officials, facts, math, science and common sense.

So once again, the burden of proof is on YOU and the perps in the MSM and Government who you defend, to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that a plane hit the pentagon which to this day hasn't by a long shot been even remotely done.

Until you do, and we all know you can't and never will because no real plane if any at all hit the pentagon, its more than reasonable and logical to conclude the evidence against NO PLANE hit far outweighs the evidence for one.

A very simple truth which you for some reason lack the ability and critical thinking skills to comprehend.







[edit on 18-9-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


It strikes me that if the "Official Story" were true, we would not have made it to page three of this thread. While I applaud the various guesses offered by OS believers, they were all still just guesses. More than one person has even tried to say that they just completely vaporized. I thought the truth was so clear?




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join