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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
Sorry, my bad!!
First time using this quote feature. I guess I got it backwards.
Is this the way it should have looked?


You are getting there. My appologies. I know it seems like a petty thing but when you are already arguing that it seems a little unfair for another poster to keep just making things up and claiming you said them without every once offering a link or quote to the actual text, it gets under my skin that what I said really be what I said. Not your fault but when a mod steps in to save a liar from losing and argument for whatever reason, it really irritates me. I thought they were supposed to be impartial but lying about other poster's own words is ok 3 times so far and defending what I have actually said has been deleted twice and earned me a warning. That makes me picky about my quotes being my quotes. Sorry you got some of that when you had nothing to do with it. Simple mistake that I have made here. It is easy to lose track of 'quote' remarks. I will see if I can answer here.



Originally posted by rush969
YES.



I provided the link here in ATS where all of this has been discussed and evidence has been shown regarding your questions


No. You provided a link to another thread where people have also had this discussion. Some feel they presented proof, some do not. It is not definitive by any stretch of the imagination. This is an ATS thread, there is no need to link to another ATS thread instead of just posting an answer.

The wings evaporated then? One post could explain how that is possible or one post can link to another thread. Which do you think would really answer this?


Can you please provide "your evidence" for this claim?


Since you cannot provide any of yours? OK, Jthomas, I will try my best to show you evidence that something did not happen.

Did you know there is a huge hole in the side of the Pentagon in the same pictures you would be using to show me the wing damage that is not there? That hole goes through several walls. What is it that was able to drill through all of those walls? You have basically an aluminum can with two aluminum arms with lead weights hanging off of them. The can is able to go through wall after wall after wall right? The arms with the lead weights, they just bounce off without making a scratch and dissolve into thin air and the lead weights completely disappear save a few parts later said to be from inside those lead weights. OK! Can I have the names of any and all physics teachers you may have had?



Thanks to you all the same.



Thanking me for just saying things to say things? Are you calling me a liar because you have something I lied about or because you think it makes you seem more informed?




posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You have no capability to tell anyone what the wings should have looked like after an impact and you know that.

Either demonstrate that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon or withdraw your claim.


Just going around saying things is fun. If you ever get any actual evidence of any of the things you said, flag me down.

If you ever get around to understanding the concept of proving a negative, flag me down.

Until then, happy trolling. I just hope you know that other people can read here and even the person who gave you your lonely stars is not able to point to any actual evidence or proof from you, just you claiming it is there.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:53 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.



LOLOLOLOL... oh boy that was really funny m8 .


I take it you don't have a technical / engineering background ?



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Suppose you fired a bullet at a slight angle into a thick concrete wall.... give me a description of what you would expect to happen.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Here's a clue to what to expect

concrete wall



[edit on 3-10-2009 by bigyin]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I already gave you the answer to your question twice.
So here it is one more time.
The wings were disintegrated. I never said evaporated. There´s a difference. I´m sure many things got actually evaporated there but the wings at least the whole thing didn´t. They broke apart in thousands of pieces or maybe millions. Some smaller than others. There are pictures of these things I talk about.
If you would only bother to go through the thread I provided, you would see this. But if you don´t want to or you don´t change your mind after looking through that information, well that´s your loss.
About the Pentagon walls and pictures I would like to see the pictures you talk about with no visible damage from the wings of the plane.
I would venture though, that one of the reasons part of the building collapsed was the damage that the plane and the massive engines caused to the structure.
And I would like to add that this doesn´t actually belong in a new thread. You have not presented anything “NEW” worth discussing. The same thread I talked about discusses all this.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I already gave you the answer to your question twice.
So here it is one more time.
The wings were disintegrated. I never said evaporated. There´s a difference. I´m sure many things got actually evaporated there but the wings at least the whole thing didn´t. They broke apart in thousands of pieces or maybe millions. Some smaller than others. There are pictures of these things I talk about.


No, there are not. Show me one picture of millions of pieces of wing because it will most certainly be a first and perhaps award winning. You have said it twice. You have failed to prove it as well. You do understand the difference between just saying things and the truth right?


If you would only bother to go through the thread I provided, you would see this. But if you don´t want to or you don´t change your mind after looking through that information, well that´s your loss.


All it takes is one post worth of proof. Why is that so hard?


About the Pentagon walls and pictures I would like to see the pictures you talk about with no visible damage from the wings of the plane.


Where are the images of walls WITH damage? Pictures are all over and NONE show wing damage.


I would venture though, that one of the reasons part of the building collapsed was the damage that the plane and the massive engines caused to the structure.


THE ENGINES WERE ON THE WINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why can't you just admit that you are just guessing. Just say that. There is nothing wrong with a guess other than the fact that you try to pass it off as fact.

Are you trying to say that the engines jumped inside the plane just before impact?


And I would like to add that this doesn´t actually belong in a new thread. You have not presented anything “NEW” worth discussing. The same thread I talked about discusses all this.


It does not answer it. This thread has a simple title. ONE simple question. It only needs ONE simple answer.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
And the question has been answered several times now.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
On this photograph you can clearly see damage to the outside part of the wall of the Pentagon. Right side of the collapse. It is damaged caused from something that hit the building from the outside. This of course was the right wing of AA77.

www.geoffmetcalf.com...

You talked about "undamaged" outside of the Pentagon.
I would be looking forward to a retraction on your part. Of course I can sit here waiting, and I know it will not come...


[edit on 3-10-2009 by rush969]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


Can you post a pre-collapse photo that shows the same damage? Maybe draw an arrow and point to specifically what you are seeing?
Thanks.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


In here:

www.geoffmetcalf.com...

You can see a few pictures of the Pentagon attack´s aftermath and they have an explanation in each one.
You are able to see that the damage to the outside is there before the collapse. Look at pictures 4 and 5.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
On this photograph you can clearly see damage to the outside part of the wall of the Pentagon. Right side of the collapse. It is damaged caused from something that hit the building from the outside. This of course was the right wing of AA77.

www.geoffmetcalf.com...

You talked about "undamaged" outside of the Pentagon.
I would be looking forward to a retraction on your part. Of course I can sit here waiting, and I know it will not come...


[edit on 3-10-2009 by rush969]


OK, now draw an outline around the damage from the wings. Don't forget to keep the plane high enough to not scrape the ground.

You also still kind of have to prove that these wings could just be nothing.

Why is it that you are only using photos that are shot from the right and not the ones that show the left side of the impact?

anywhere in here, just show where the wings did damage.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by Lillydale]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
You are kind of funny Lillydale!!
You cut the photograph to show nothing and ask me to point at something that´s not visible in THAT part of the photo!!!
But the photograph is bigger than what YOU show.
So I guess you have "shown your true colors".
What I´m glad for though, is that people can read my post and see for themselves in the link that I provided, what I´m showing you.
So the only one you are fooling is yourself.
By the way, in the other link that I provided last, picture number 11 is the one showing some remains of the wings. You said there were none.
Well...now you know.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by rush969]

[edit on 4-10-2009 by rush969]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
You are kind of funny Lillydale!!
You cut the photograph to show nothing and ask me to point at something that´s not visible in THAT part of the photo!!!
But the photograph is bigger than what YOU show.
So I guess you have "shown your true colors".


Oh man, you so busted me. I never would have thought you would recognize one of the photos that YOU supplied and be able to tell it was cropped.

Look, genius - I embedded the pic from the link. Sorry, it turned out to be too big for the page but I did not supply the photo, YOU DID. I guess I figured that since it was too big and I could not shrink it, well anyone that knows what photos they have been using as evidence would recognize that and just post another version with either that area highlighted or cropped or whatever. I guess instead of proving your point, you would rather jump on what you think is a gotcha? OK.


What I´m glad for though, is that people can read my post and see for themselves in the link that I provided, what I´m showing you.
Right, like the photo in my post that I got from YOUR LINK.


So the only one you are fooling is yourself.


OK! If you say so.


By the way, in the other link that I provided last, picture number 11 is the one showing some remains of the wings. You said there were none.
Well...now you know.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by rush969]

LOL. You are funny. So let me see if I am following along. The wings hit so hard that they broke up into millions of microscopic pieces and you can see that in your picture? I cannot see it.

I am glad that you think you caught me being deceptive using your own picture on the same page you posted the link to them but that does not change the fact that you have not shown exactly where this wing damage is. I see the damage you want me to look at but then the wings would have had to be the lowest part of the plane and I am pretty sure they were not.

Just show me where these wing remnants are and where they hit the building. I will not bother to try and shoehorn another one of your pictures in until I can properly shrink it. Good one on catching me not doing anything sneaky though - it really helped distract from the fact that you cannot outline what was asked of you.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by rush969]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


www.fire.nist.gov...

Page 28 and 29. Pictures of Pentagon exterior showing impact damage from the right wing.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
What, we're still talking about this?
9/11 is history and the objectives achieved.
I hate to be da one to bring da bad news....

The rape and theft continues and is remarkably aided along.
There will be no confession or even impression of guilt.
Still the grazers graze contently.

Where is ALL the other security cam footage, anyway?

Is it really that bad? (that we only see what we want to)
Waking up after a long deep sleep is tough. Just sayin'.
Good luck and strong coffee to those that are.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Well Lillydale. As you admit, “busted”.
What I don´t understand is why you would use that same photo, that CLEARLY shows the damage to the outside of the walls. What would be your point?
Now on the other hand, Swampfox46_1999 has provided much better information where you can find lots more evidence of what you were seeking. The wing damage is clearly visible on the outside of the wall and some columns.
The info. is very clear with a very comprehensive explanation of how the aircraft inflicted the damage it did, how it broke apart, where the body remains were found, etc...
So, to answer your question perhaps with more clarity this time:
Where are AA77´s wings? They broke apart in many many pieces (not microscopic although some might have been that small), perhaps thousands or millions, some smaller than others and basically they fell around, outside and inside the Pentagon. Basically disintegrated as said earlier.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:29 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.


yup...your right, that's one of the main reasons i don't believe the official story. why wouldn't the government want to show this?...it would back up their case. even after 8 years , no videos, thus, no belief. i wonder how long they have to wait before the technology is available to completely doctor the tapes, that nobody would be able to challange.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Good grief. The CITGO video was released a couple years ago and, since the camera was pointed at the gas pump area, it doesnt show the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


There is no wing damage in that picture. Furthermore if you scroll up in that document to page 16 of the pdf file you can clearly see that there is ***ZERO** damage from the left wing.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join