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: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Exactly. Now you are catching on. You can look at that photo of debris all day long and you agree that you are unable to tell us of what that debris is composed.



Since you agree you cannot tell us of what the debris in the background is composed, then you would agree that you cannot tell us that the debris does not contain wing debris. You can only say, "I don't know."



How do you even take your own posts seriously. You are trying to claim that since I cannot prove they are seagulls, then they must be wing parts????????

Were there reports of seagulls dropping from the sky that day? None that I recall but what I do recall is reports of two planes, a flyover, a missile, and one plane. Do you just pick and choose which "reports" actually mean anything?




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Yes, you have seen photographs of the debris from the wings. Simple Newtonian mechanics, since the plane struck the wall at an angle, the debris field will be located along a path of similar angle, but opposite (any pool player knows about this when they bank the cue ball off the rail). So no, there would be no debris on the 'lawn' in the direction of approach, but towards the helipad extending outward towards ANC. That is exactly the location of the debris field.

Furthermore, much of the smaller debris fragments went airborne and can be seen on the DCA ASR radar in the same direction, drifting back towards the Doubletree where some of it is seen falling on the parking lot several minutes later. Even more of the airborne fragments were seen falling along with papers as far away as the DCA parking facility as reported live on local TV that day.

So you have answered your own question. The wings (or what is left of them are lying all over the place in thousands of small fragments exactly where Newton would have predicted them to be.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
This aircraft hit a reinforced concrete piling, similar to those in the Pentagon…

Northwest Airlines flight 255
So tell me Lillydale, since you seem to have all the answers…
Where are the wings???



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
Exactly. Now you are catching on. You can look at that photo of debris all day long and you agree that you are unable to tell us of what that debris is composed.

Since you agree you cannot tell us of what the debris in the background is composed, then you would agree that you cannot tell us that the debris does not contain wing debris. You can only say, "I don't know."


How do you even take your own posts seriously. You are trying to claim that since I cannot prove they are seagulls, then they must be wing parts????????



What part of my response confuses you, Lillydale? Read what I wrote CAREFULLY:

"Since you agree you cannot tell us of what the debris in the background is composed, then you would agree that you cannot tell us that the debris does not contain wing debris. You can only say, 'I don't know.'"

Are you going to say, "I don't know", or not, Lillydale?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   




I guess I need to know just which part of my response confused you. Do I need to repeat myself for you....AS USUAL?!?!?!?!?!?! I said I did not know that it was not pieces of wing. I also said I did not know if it was pieces of fusulage, seagulls, stephen king's waste bin, etc. I clearly stated that I could not know because nothing in the photo gives us any indication.

Now, you seem to think that somehow proves that I am looking at shattered airplane wings. Am I? Do you know? No, you do not. Can you admit that you do not know? See, you presented this bs photo as some kind of evidence of what happened to the wings. Guess what? You do not know any more than I do what parts of what we are looking at. Can you not admit that you do not know?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
This aircraft hit a reinforced concrete piling, similar to those in the Pentagon…

Northwest Airlines flight 255
So tell me Lillydale, since you seem to have all the answers…
Where are the wings???


Ahhh, now I have all the answers do I? So you show me one picture of a plane crash from a distance and tell me to identify in it what cannot be identified in the pentagon pics?

Sad sad sad try that is. Planes go down over the ocean and I cannot point out those wings either. This in NO way proves that a plane hit the pentagon, it's wings shattered, and left no trail of their damage.

Perfect Anti-truther logic for you "Look, here is a completely different things that happened with different results and a different investigation based on different evidence....so that proves lillydale is wrong."

At least tell me how strongly you believe in glaass domes all over the moon so I can try to understand just which planet of thought you are coming from.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
So you have answered your own question. The wings (or what is left of them are lying all over the place in thousands of small fragments exactly where Newton would have predicted them to be.


WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are amazing! The way you managed to mangle the laws of ANY kind of physics here is just fantastic. When you hit that pool ball, does it shatter against the edge into millions of pieces and then all of those pieces continue in the opposite direction as the impact site? Why did the debris not all land in perfect wing shapes right where you think each and every pieces should have gone? According to your logic, the wings hit the wall and without damaging the wall, the wings shattered into millions of pieces and then continued to mirror the original vector. If what you were saying even remotely held true in the real world, there would be two wings sitting right where you say they should be. I do not see two wings. Do you?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Folks, as far as I´m concerned, the question has been answered.
Big kudos to Jthomas.
Photographs have been shown.
Both of the wing debris, and damage to the facade of the building.
I can´t understand people who, after looking at these photos and all the evidence are capable of insisting that those pieces of metal and fuselage were "planted" (within minutes I might add) at the lawn without anybody noticing anything.
So, I see no point in continuing pointless discussions round and round in circles that go nowhere.
If some people have decided they will not believe and accept what is presented to them, then there´s nothing we can do to convince them that they are looking at the EVIDENCE. They decided that´s not the evidence.
If a video was to surface tomorrow showing an AA B757 perfectly identifiable crashing into the Pentagon and the U.S. Gov. said, "this is a new tape that was found that we weren´t able to show before".
These same people would inmediately say.
"That video is fake". "It´s CGI".
"Obviously that hadn´t come out because they were making it up".
"How come it took all this time for them to show it".
"We demand an independant investigation into why this tape came out this late". Etc...etc...etc...
So, I´m done in this thread. Enjoy.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
Folks, as far as I´m concerned, the question has been answered.
Big kudos to Jthomas.
Photographs have been shown.
Both of the wing debris, and damage to the facade of the building.
I can´t understand people who, after looking at these photos and all the evidence are capable of insisting that those pieces of metal and fuselage were "planted" (within minutes I might add) at the lawn without anybody noticing anything.


*Snip*Jthomas did nothing of the sort. If you are so certain that he has shown us pictures of wing fragments all over the lawn, then you should have no trouble pointing out which parts are from wings and which are from anything else.

If you would pay attention to half the crap you pretend to read and dismiss, you will see that I never claimed that anything was planted anywhere in any amount of time.

What you will see if you read correctly, is that

1-a wing hitting a wall and blouncing off like a billiard ball as you suggest, would leave two intact wings where the cue ball would have landed.

2-there is crap all over the lawn and not one bit of it is identified as what part of what plane if a plane at all that any of it came from.

3-where is the wing damage to the building again? I know the picture shown that claimed there was damage caused by wings but in the picture the plane either had no engines and fuselage or they made really nice marks in the lawn they would have had too be far to low to miss.

4-if the junk all over the lawn was shattered wing matter, the serial numbers of plane parts would have matched the ones on AA77, right?

Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail

and hand it to Jthomas for the fail of all fails by kicking off these fails and suckering people into failing with them.

Talk all you want. Say things that make you feel like you know the truth. When you have a fact or two, let me know and I will read it.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/29/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
...unless that fact is contained in a pdf document. Then you wont look at it.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
Exactly. Now you are catching on. You can look at that photo of debris all day long and you agree that you are unable to tell us of what that debris is composed.

Since you agree you cannot tell us of what the debris in the background is composed, then you would agree that you cannot tell us that the debris does not contain wing debris. You can only say, "I don't know."



How do you even take your own posts seriously. You are trying to claim that since I cannot prove they are seagulls, then they must be wing parts????????


What part of my response confuses you, Lillydale? Read what I wrote CAREFULLY:

"Since you agree you cannot tell us of what the debris in the background is composed, then you would agree that you cannot tell us that the debris does not contain wing debris. You can only say, 'I don't know.'"

Are you going to say, "I don't know", or not, Lillydale?


I guess I need to know just which part of my response confused you. Do I need to repeat myself for you....AS USUAL?!?!?!?!?!?! I said I did not know that it was not pieces of wing.


Man, are you ever confused! You clearly wrote this and don't deny it: "You are trying to claim that since I cannot prove they are seagulls, then they must be wing parts????????"


I also said I did not know if it was pieces of fusulage, seagulls, stephen king's waste bin, etc. I clearly stated that I could not know because nothing in the photo gives us any indication.


Then don't put words in my mouth. Sheesh...


Now, you seem to think that somehow proves that I am looking at shattered airplane wings.


NOT on your life, Lillydale.


Am I? Do you know? No, you do not. Can you admit that you do not know?


I already made it crystal clear that I cannot discern of what that debris is composed. And neither can you.


See, you presented this bs photo as some kind of evidence of what happened to the wings.


Nope. Never said anything of the sort. Can't you understand what I wrote even a little bit?


Guess what? You do not know any more than I do what parts of what we are looking at. Can you not admit that you do not know?


And you didn't even understand the fact that you made this statement:

"Where is this debris again? I do not think that I need to repost the pictures because we have all seen the pics of the lawn after the crash. Where was all that wing debris?

And then I showed you you can't TELL from the pictures if there is wing debris or not. And now you AGREE with me and ADMIT that you cannot tell from looking at a photo if there is wing debris or not.

Gosh... I don't think I have seen anything as hilarious as a "Truther" claiming photos should show wing debris then admitting when I showed her some simple logic that one can draw NO conclusion if there is wing debris or not just by looking at a photo of the debris!

And now she wants to claim that's what she said all along!





[edit on 29-10-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Then don't put words in my mouth. Sheesh...


Which words would those be?



Now, you seem to think that somehow proves that I am looking at shattered airplane wings.


NOT on your life, Lillydale.


Thank you for admitting that you have a picture that no more proves anything you have said any more than anything that I have said. About time you man up.


I already made it crystal clear that I cannot discern of what that debris is composed. And neither can you.



Um....no. You did not make it crystal clear as you presented the picture as evidence of wing debris. Now you claim you do not know if it is or not and that you made that clear????????

Get a grip. Do you see why I do not even bother with half your posts anymore? I do not know what part of anything those white things are. You do not know either. What are you trying to prove again?????

If you have made it so crystal clear that you do not know what those are pieces of....then why did you present them as an argument for wing debris all over the lawn?

You have now backtracked, contradicted yourself, and so far you have attempted to prove a point and in doing so had to admit that you are really not any more sure what it is than anyone else.

Please tell people how you need to repeat yourself to stupid old me. I get many U2Us telling me how funny it is to watch you kill your own stupid arguments all while condescending to me because I simply point out how completely flawed that argument is.

I hope you are having fun. I really hope this is good for you and makes you feel good.

Write up a nice little form letter extolling the wonders of lying all over some conspiracy site so you can pretend you are correct and intelligent. Send it to me and I will be more than happy to see that every victims family gets a copy. The people mourning their loved ones and looking for answers sures deserve to know how much you are enjoying it.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
...unless that fact is contained in a pdf document. Then you wont look at it.




Which fact is that?

I think you are a little confused. I will look at a PDF. When I am on my computer and I can, I am more than happy to. What I will not do, is save a file offered in a link from some internet stranger that has made it clear they have less than my best interest at heart.

If the PDF thing really bothers you, try typing it out, get a text file and copy and paste, etc. I am not sure when you got into computers but downloading PDF files is NOT the only way to get information out there.

I have a real nice PDF that I want you to download for me ok. I will post it tomorrow and I really hope you enjoy 'reading' it.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
That is about enough with the insults and posting about other members..

This juvenile behavior will stop, or warnings are going to be next



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   


this is what a real plane crash looks like...



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by washingtonsghost


this is what a real plane crash looks like...


That cannot possibly be a plane crash. Look at that picture carefully. Enlarge it and really examine it. I know for a fact it is not a plane crash because I can see a crashed plane and all the ATS members that are far more intelligent and informed than I have spent years convincing me that plane crashes really look like holes with little to no plane parts around them. You pic shoes an entire crashed plane. That just does not mesh with anti-truther logic at all. Find us a pic of an empty hole in something and that will be a good pic of a plane crash.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Ahhh, now I have all the answers do I?

Oh yes! You like act like you do. After all, the rest of us, who do not prescribe to the truth movement, are simply sheeeeeple, right? I mean, if we do not follow, then we are the objects of the movements ridicule and scorn, so you guys must know everything.


Originally posted by Lillydale
So you show me one picture of a plane crash from a distance and tell me to identify in it what cannot be identified in the pentagon pics?

Here you go…





Originally posted by Lillydale
Sad sad sad try that is.

Nice attempt at a dodge, and guilt trip…
Now Wings please.


Originally posted by Lillydale
Planes go down over the ocean and I cannot point out those wings either.

This plane did not go down in the ocean; it hit the train trestle on Middlebelt road, and slid under the I-94. The piling of the trestle is obviously less reinforced then the facade of the pentagon. Since you believe that wings should exist at the pentagon, then I believe that wings should exist at this much weaker, much smaller (less surface area) structure. Doubly so, since this aircraft was just taking off, and moving at vastly slower speeds.

Now enough messing about, where are the wings?!?
As a matter of fact, where is the damage to the bridge?
…Or was this a cover up as well?


Originally posted by Lillydale
This in NO way proves that a plane hit the pentagon, it's wings shattered, and left no trail of their damage.


I cannot believe I actually have to explain this to you.
The main trail of debris starts AFTER the plane hit the obstacle, not BEFORE it. Why do you think there should be debris IN FRONT of the pentagon, and that it would not be BEHIND the impact site at the facade? In other words, the debris is INSIDE the building, not out on the gawd-blessed lawn.

I hate it when truthers intentionally cannot think of this stuff because it disproves their theory.

The Physics of Inertia 101:
(normally taught in 4th grade science)
NW 255:

Basically, The debris field is past the Main Point of Impact (MPOI), in the direction of travel. Right?

Please excuse my crappy artwork, but hopefully it conveys the point

Dryden Flight Crash Test:

Again, inertia makes the debris field be BEHIND the point of impact, correct?


So why does the truth movement want people to believe that this is how the debris field at the Pentagon should look?

With the debris field IN FRONT of the MPOI?
Is it lack of knowledge of physics? Sheer ignorance?
...Or, is it a straight out lie propagated by some folks to sell a conspiracy theory? (Be sure to order your books, DVD's, and hats at Defcons 911 Truth Site starting at just $9.11! What a bargain! )


Originally posted by Lillydale
Perfect Anti-truther logic for you "Look, here is a completely different things that happened with different results and a different investigation based on different evidence....

Actually very similar set of circumstances, and in fact, there should be MORE wreckage from this flight as there was a smaller structure, and the aircraft was moving slower….


Originally posted by Lillydale
At least tell me how strongly you believe in glass domes all over the moon so I can try to understand just which planet of thought you are coming from.

I don’t. I think that stuff is almost as nutty as chemtrails and 911 truth, but not quite.



Edit because Youtube removed the NASA testing video for some unknown reason...

[edit on 10/30/2009 by defcon5]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by washingtonsghost


this is what a real plane crash looks like...

That is the FEDEX crash in Tokyo. It was a low speed crash while landing, and the aircraft was very close to the ground. Talk about comparing apples to oranges. The plane was not moving at high speed, was at low altitude, and did not hit any structures. The crash was caused by a sudden wind shift, or microburst, at the last seconds before touchdown. There is seldom that much wreckage left from air disasters. You should be expecting even less in the case of 911 as the guys behind the stick were intentionally flying to cause as much damage as possible, not trying to mitigate damage as most pilots do in an emergency.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join