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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 

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

Please note that to see the alleged impact damage you must be wearing officially supplied government magic glasses. They come in one-size-fits-all.




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Denial, denial, denial. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Doesnt change the fact that those pictures show where the right wing impacted the facade of the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I see you're wearing those government magic glasses, Swampfox.

Nothing in those images definitively shows any signs of wing impact.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Oh, you gotta love this photo

www.geoffmetcalf.com...

The first ring of the building is obviously charred, damaged and has a section missing, which is what you would expect from an impact.

The second ring has a minimal amount of charring to the exterior of the building, mostly on the top left and top right sections.

Now, here's the good part. The third ring is significantly more charred than the second ring. Just look at that blackened middle section.

Would you not expect the second ring to be more blackened than the third ring, since it was closer to the impact? Did the fireball miraculously jump over the second ring and engulf the third ring instead?

Here is another picture which shows the third ring a lot darker and more charred than the second ring.

www.geoffmetcalf.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I just want to get this completely clear:
* The wings did hit the building, but were smashed into tiny pieces (and, by some accounts 'mixed themselves with cement'), which then aligned themselves with the fuselage and entered the building?
* The hole in the building was made by the nose/fuselage which had a higher velocity and density to the wing-mounted engines (which evaporated and folded back along the body) which accounts for the engines leaving no impact holes?
* The composition of the wall at the impact points for the engines was different to the composition of the wall where the nose hit?
* The entire tail section also folded up and slipped into the hole made by the nose? - (sorry, this is off topic...)
* The impact areas where the wings hit and disintegrated and folded into the body and retained their fuel had glass windows that would withstand this kind of impact velocity and stay intact?

Wow, do I feel foolish now.
I was trying to be logical and use common sense. That's where I went wrong.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


www.fire.nist.gov...

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


Can you try to post something that is not a file I have to download to look at? I am not sure what internet you use, but I never download anything from strangers on forums that are bent on stopping me from pointing out how foolish they have been.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
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?


Wing damage? Really? You are going to need to point that out specifically. I am pretty sure I already made that request but hey. Do you really feel like you busted me for taking a photo that Swampfox gave me and trying to insert it in the thread so that he knew which of HIS pictures I did not see the damage in, then be proud of that. I guess you do not think too much of swampfox if you thought that my posting his own picture on the same page is going to trick him.


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.


Where? In case you had not noticed, we already have people saying that. I want to actually see it. There are photos to use, ask swampfox.


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 more stuff that says more stuff. Great, show me.


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.


So this is the story you want to go with?

Please explain how they hit the walls with enough force to break into millions of pieces and then get inside the wall without breaking the wall to do it?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
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.


But all the other tapes are still being used to in someone's trial right? That is what I was told for quite some time. Trial over. Tapes?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Badgered1
 


Nope, you didnt get it. But thanks for playing. Have a good evening.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Badgered1
 


Nope, you didnt get it. But thanks for playing. Have a good evening.


What is you response to each of those points? Just dismissing them without reason is not very convincing. I have really come to expect more from you than that. Then again from reading your posts to date, I really do not think you have a response.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Except, there are still trials going on (KSM) and still the slim possibility of more trials in the future. However, if you would like to read about the tapes, here you go.

www.flight77.info...

This page has the Doubletree, CITGO and security cam videos

www.flight77.info...

Of course, the affidavit about what was, and was not on the tapes was executed by an evil government employee who is part of the cover up.

(of course, I dont believe the "evil govt.." part, Im just beating certain ATS posters to the punch)



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Badgered1
 




The wings did hit the building, but were smashed into tiny pieces (and, by some accounts 'mixed themselves with cement'), which then aligned themselves with the fuselage and entered the building?


Yes the wings did hit the building, and yes quite a bit of the wings became a bunch of aluminum confetti for lack of better words. Did pieces end up embedded in the limestone (not concrete) facade? Yes. However your "aligned themselves with the fuselage and entered the building" is inaccurate.



The hole in the building was made by the nose/fuselage which had a higher velocity and density to the wing-mounted engines (which evaporated and folded back along the body) which accounts for the engines leaving no impact holes


Another inaccurate statement, especially about the "no impact holes". There is a lot of "empty" space in a jet engine, and upon hitting a limestone wall, the majority of the engine will fragment, leaving itty bitty pieces of itself all over. Now, will fuel lines and other tubing survive an impact to drag parts of the engine along with it? Its entirely possible, however to say that it simply folded back along the body is an extreme simplification.




The composition of the wall at the impact points for the engines was different to the composition of the wall where the nose hit?


Nope. Unless you are referring to the fact that the underlying brick part of the exterior wall did not have all the mortar that it should of...




The entire tail section also folded up and slipped into the hole made by the nose? - (sorry, this is off topic...)


Again, inaccurate. The tail smashed against the exterior wall and again, hydraulic and electrical connections would have dragged pieces of the tail along with the fuselage.




The impact areas where the wings hit and disintegrated and folded into the body and retained their fuel had glass windows that would withstand this kind of impact velocity and stay intact?


Okay, the first half of the statement is inaccurate. The part of the "glass windows that would withstand impact", is kind of accurate. That being that the blast resistant windows around the impact area, a lot of them stayed fairly intact, the windows in the impact area did not.








[edit on 5-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Would you not expect the second ring to be more blackened than the third ring, since it was closer to the impact? Did the fireball miraculously jump over the second ring and engulf the third ring instead?

Here is another picture which shows the third ring a lot darker and more charred than the second ring.


Unfortunately, this shows nothing but unfamiliarity with the construction of the Pentagon. Yes, the first ring is blackened from the initial fireball, and subsequent smoke from fires.

The second ring will not suffer the same blackening from soot, as there is actually a roof at the lower section between the first and second ring, and the second and third ring. This means that even though there are three rings, the ground floor is one large connected space. You can even see the roof between the rings in the second photo you posted.

However, the alleged 'punch-out' hole in the third ring provides and area for the smoke from the internal fires to escape, leaving its tell-tale trail of blackening from soot up the wall of the third ring.

There is really no conspiracy here. I used to think the same thing, until Swampfox pointed out (quite accurately) about the lower floor roof between the rings. If you look at it carefully, particularly the second photo you posted, it makes perfect sense for the blackened areas to be where they are...

Rewey

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


What would help me sleep at night is if a single person could illustrate the wing marks. As of yet that fantasy is unfulfilled.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


What wing marks? Who has said anything about wing marks? There are no wing marks. There´s damage that was caused by the wings impacting on the outside walls. But wing marks??? What do you want to see?
Not even in the building performance report are "wing marks" discussed. Only the presence of damage produced by them.
NEXT...



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Well Lillydale.
Now you have a new question...
How did the wings hit the wall with enough force to brake into millions of pieces and then get inside the wall without breaking the wall to do it?
Let me get this straight.
Are you telling me that if I explain this to your satisfaction you would admit AA77 crashed at the Pentagon?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
I know that ATS frowns upon brief opening posts but this is a subject that really needs very few words. In all the bickering over 'evidence' at the pentagon attack, I still have not seen a decent explanation as to what happened to the wings of the plane. I have asked and seen it asked many many times on ATS but still have not seen it answered. I am hoping someone can help me out.


No airplane hit the Pentagon, period.

* There's no FAA video from the airports
* There's no hole in the ground
* There are no airplane parts from the scene
* The hole in the Pentagon is SMALLER than the fuselage of an airplane
* The flight path which has been shown as real is both aeronautically and physically impossible for that size airplane to manage hitting where the explosion was

IT IS A RUSE! No airplane hit the Pentagon.

Next question... why would they say it did? And, why do I feel sick inside when I think about it.

A media and government that lies to it's people can only last for so long.

****

A simple comparison would be if tire tracks were found on your side yard and there's a two foot hole in the front wall of your house. The proponents would be saying it was a car that drove through the front of your house.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by jprophet420
 


What wing marks? Who has said anything about wing marks? There are no wing marks. There´s damage that was caused by the wings impacting on the outside walls. But wing marks??? What do you want to see?
Not even in the building performance report are "wing marks" discussed. Only the presence of damage produced by them.
NEXT...


That would mean "marks caused by wings" for those of us proficient in English. I see that you're proficient in sarcasm. Unfortunately thats only useful when coupled with another skill.

If you want to be useful illustrate " damage that was caused by the wings impacting on the outside walls.". Theres 2 wings per plane for the record. Have fun failing. At least you have your wit.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


The damage has been shown in photographs both before collapse of the section of the Pentagon, as well as after collapse.
If you chose not to see what´s there, that´s "your problem".



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 

It certainly has not. I've asked you to supply such evidence and am eagerly awaiting your or anyones positive response. Thank you for your time.

PS, if you dont have the time to back up what you say, don't bother posting.




top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join