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.

 

U.S. Government admits nose cone of Flight 77 SURVIVED Pentagon crash!

page: 5
51
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
No impact from wings/engines = no plane hit the pentagon and the ernest of proof is on the CIA/Zionists who we know lie from the WMD crap they gave us that also included computer animations of mobile weapons factories.

Where are these weapons


Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 

The funny thing is...

When there isn't enough evidence (like Shanksville) you say "OMG WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?!"

When there is evidence (like the Pentagon) you say "OMG HOW CAN THERE BE EVIDENCE - THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING LEFT!!"

So, you win both ways don't you. And that's how your conspiracy continues...


I think you should consider what you are saying here.

Plane hits soft dirt and nothing is left and it hits steel reinforce concrent and you could recondition the tyers ?




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I agree in a way accept that, to me, common sense says there would be airplane wings and evidence, real, big evidence, that an airplane crashed there. Even in that very detailed pic that was posted on page 3 here, I don't see anything that resembles airplane parts, in fact most stuff isn't even burned. You can see my opinion on the link in post #2, page 1.

* The main point *

I was so appalled by our government posting the source as an outbound email I HAD to start this thread!! We really do deserve more than mindless propaganda. That's the main point of the thread but the first two pages were dominated with many people pointing to anything but what the OP was about... hence the crazy arguments and speculation over nose cone pieces and whether the Jack daniels in the drink cart added heat to the blaze (that' an attempt at humor and not to be taken seriously; I don't have any citation on the Jack Daniels bit
)



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Planes are not made of STEEL again a misleading comment by you guys which is in fact total BS!



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Well I would agree with you that there should be wings left over and identifiable, IF the crash itself was the plane trying to land, traveling at landing speeds, and either touching down on the expressway and sliding into the Pentagon, or crashing into the Pentagon just after landing and overshooting the runway at lower speeds. If that were the case, then i would agree with you 100%.


But what really happened? The plane impacted full speed ahead over 400mph right into the building. At those speeds I am not expecting to see ANYTHING recognizable, except for shreds and parts thrown everywhere, and yes, including the wings being blasted apart and/or shredded in the impact or explosion of the wing's fuel tanks.

But hold on a sec. This "email" could have very well been from someone that was respnding to the "debunkers" request for evidence or information into the Pentagon impact. And to be honest, it appears very innocent as all it was saying was that they indeed find parts of the nosecone, and other parts of the aircraft inside the Pentagon. I dont think they were trying to "hide" anything at all. This is not some big secrecy thing, but just common sense info. And there was plenty of aircraft debris that is much more easily identifiable than other parts, such as chairs, engines, exterior paneling, landing gear, instead of say a wing or a tail. But they did find the FDR and the blackboxes didnt they? Didnt someone say that either one or the other is located in the tail of the aircraft and that it was discovered deep in the Pentagon. (Weedwhacker, if you can clear this up I'd appreciate it!
) Isnt that evidence it went in?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
There are 2 things that need to be looked at in this thread. The first the Government should not be using email from some unknown to back up its claims. It just shows they are worried and don't have any of there own information. Linking to snoops from a government site not a good move.

The second point is how could they find PARTS of the nose and yet there is no damage from the wings on the building and as it has been said the grass is find. All the nose would look like if it was there would be chunks of metal.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147


U.S. Government admits nose cone of Flight 77 SURVIVED Pentagon crash!

No, they don't.

Eyewitnesses reported seeing PIECES of the nose cone. The article you mention is simply poorly written. Show me A SINGLE witness statement saying they saw the whole, intact nose-cone...

Nothing to see here, folks. Just more inaccurate, fatuous nonsense.


Give me a break, do you really think there would be any trace what-so-ever of that nose cone if it really were on the front of an aircraft that supposedly flew into the Pentag"ram"?? That thing would have been disintegrated wothout a doubt.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I fell for the OP's trap too. I didn't go to the source; I merely took his word for it that someone claims to have seen an intact "nose cone". Really, I should know better by now.

So where are we with this claim? We have someone who claims to have seen "pieces of the nose cone" - I still doubt that that's actually what was seen, but it's plausible enough for me. Now it's simply either:


a) The original source lied about seeing anything, much less a piece of the "nose cone". But there is no wrong doing by the america.gov site. The site is simply quoting the rense site(there is your daily dose of irony), which has the detailed first hand eyewitness accounts. As someone else pointed out, there is even a disclaimer on the america.gov site which reads..

"This site delivers information about current U.S. foreign policy and about American life and culture. It is produced by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.". Where is the conspiracy? I must be daft, coz I ain't seeing it.

b) The original source was mistaken about seeing pieces of the "nose cone". Still no conspiracy by the america.gov site.

c) The original source did in fact see, and correctly identify pieces of the "nose cone". Good, accurate reporting all-around.


Anyone who starred this piece of crap thread should have their starring privileges revoked. This is what passes for good investigating here? Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

* The main point *

I was so appalled by our government posting the source as an outbound email I HAD to start this thread!! We really do deserve more than mindless propaganda. That's the main point of the thread but the first two pages were dominated with many people pointing to anything but what the OP was about... hence the crazy arguments and speculation over nose cone pieces and whether the Jack daniels in the drink cart added heat to the blaze (that' an attempt at humor and not to be taken seriously; I don't have any citation on the Jack Daniels bit
)


How dare the america.gov site have the *audacity* to correctly link original sources to back up their short summary of the debris!

Hint: its the source who claims it was a "piece" of the nosecone.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kreese
 

I agree, common knowledge of building structures with that tipe of damage point to a missle or some similar weapon hiting the pentagram.... o sorry pentagon, or even a jet plane traveling at high speed, definately NOT a huge passenger aircraft, My gut tells me that aircraft parts where deliberately stored in that section of the pentagon so when the projectile hit it scattered these items to make it immediately look like a passenger airliner crashed



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Th33lood3n1gMa
reply to post by kreese
 

I agree, common knowledge of building structures with that tipe of damage point to a missle or some similar weapon hiting the pentagram.... o sorry pentagon, or even a jet plane traveling at high speed, definately NOT a huge passenger aircraft, My gut tells me that aircraft parts where deliberately stored in that section of the pentagon so when the projectile hit it scattered these items to make it immediately look like a passenger airliner crashed


Yet no one saw a missile, and hundreds saw the passenger jet hit the Pentagon. But yeah, you go with your "gut instinct".



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Th33lood3n1gMa
 



My gut tells me that aircraft parts where deliberately stored in that section ...


Your "gut"??

Would you please inquire of your 'gut' the details about how the DFDR, complete with ALL the info for that flight, from the time it left the gate at KIAD (and more, also...from previous flights....it stores quite a lot of data), was "planted" in the wreckage of the Pentagon??

Time machine, perhaps?

Perhaps you may wish to have a gander (invite your 'gut' along) at this:

ntsb.gov...



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Until they release footage from one of their surveillance cameras of an actual plane flying into that building, then I will always believe they ARE hiding something!!!!



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I wonder what this guy here talking to miles obrien on cnn meant !

Oh noes another youtube video !

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 4-6-2010 by GrinchNoMore]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 



I am not pushing nonsense.

First: Wings are large surfaces, nothing left to be found.

Nose cone faring is relatively small in comparison, yet should have suffered the most of the force of energy impacting the Pentagon Walls, pillors and etc, and still a piece was recovered and indentied from the debris.

Now I'd suffice to say that qualifies survived the event, INTACT enough to identify right?





posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


It says parts. It could mean anything. Parts of the cockpit.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
Until they release footage from one of their surveillance cameras of an actual plane flying into that building, then I will always believe they ARE hiding something!!!!

One star for you, my good man.

reply to post by GorehoundLarry

The proof's on the tapes! Give us the tapes and we'll give you the proof! Yargh..

This isn't over!



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Planes are not made of STEEL again a misleading comment by you guys which is in fact total BS!


I didn't SAY airplanes are made of steel, but they do have a steel frame inside the aluminum from what I understand. I would assume that by now in this forum basically everyone knows the simple basics of airplane construction


I apologize if you feel misled - did you need to look up the steel vs aluminum thing or was that "common sense".



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Planes are not made of STEEL again a misleading comment by you guys which is in fact total BS!


I didn't SAY airplanes are made of steel, but they do have a steel frame inside the aluminum from what I understand.


...and you'd be wrong. There's a lot of stuff *attached* to the airframe made of steel(landing gear, hydraulic pumps, pylon mounts, engine mounts, control cables, etc), but the airframe structure(stringers, longerons, ribs, spars, skin) is aluminum.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
Hint: its the source who claims it was a "piece" of the nosecone.


How many times do we need to look at the SAME point!

The website says:


Plane Debris Found at Pentagon Crash Site

People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane, as reported in an e-mail to a conspiracy theory Web site that debunks the conspiracy theory claims



People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone, landing gear,


You recognize your like the 4th or 5th "debunker" to MISQUOTE the source???

yes, it says THE NOSE CONE!!!!!!!!!! U understand that??? It's the derailers and debunkers that are QUOTING incorrectly. The website says:


the nose cone


yes... that's from the source, the government website - again they said "THE NOSE CONE" (emphasis: bold, caps added by me)

they DID NOT say "pieces" of a nose cone... how many times can people twist around the same FACT to press their own agenda... FAIL!

p.s. that was "the nose cone" remember... THE meaning the whole thing.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Planes are not made of STEEL again a misleading comment by you guys which is in fact total BS!


I didn't SAY airplanes are made of steel, but they do have a steel frame inside the aluminum from what I understand.


...and you'd be wrong. There's a lot of stuff *attached* to the airframe made of steel(landing gear, hydraulic pumps, pylon mounts, engine mounts, control cables, etc), but the airframe structure(stringers, longerons, ribs, spars, skin) is aluminum.


I rarely trust people at their word in this forum but since this is a relatively casual question I'll trust you based on your name, I assume you have some integrity for your airplane facts


As an ex-airline employee myself I've spent plenty of hours in "the pit" and thought I remembered that above the upper bin aluminum ceiling plates/under the main aisle, in a 757 that there are 2 steel struts that run the length of the plane for support. That's not correct?



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join