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: 6
51
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 

OK why does it say "intact cockpit seat" but not "intact nose cone"?

Why not just "cockpit seat"? Why do you suppose they felt the need to put the word "Intact" just in front of the cockpit seat and not the nose cone?




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

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 

OK why does it say "intact cockpit seat" but not "intact nose cone"?

Why not just "cockpit seat"? Why do you suppose they felt the need to put the word "Intact" just in front of the cockpit seat and not the nose cone?



Since this alleged "intact cockpit seat" came from the same outbound email source, how 'bout I answer that question after you provide a PICTURE of the cockpit seat - it's a moot point and a matter of semantics until then.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 
Why would I be any more reliable than an anonymous email that's the source you're complaining about?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


Thanks for the pic - I'd love to see more when you post 'em on here (different thread obviously
)


I'd like to see the official photos too but too bad he only got 94 out of "thousands".

ThaLoccster, any of those 94 photos you got show an intact cockpit seat? If so please post it, thanks.

But statistically speaking, if there were thousands of photos, the chance of finding the photo you want out of 94 isn't too high.

By the way if the government was making up so many lies why wouldn't they just lie about the source too instead of admitting it's from an e-mail?

My guess is whoever wrote that didn't want to or have time to look through thousands of photos any more than ThaLoccster did and used what was convenient, and told the truth about what the source was. And the author isn't an NTSB investigator, where I think a higher standard applies.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

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?


If by "pit", you are referring to the cargo bays, if the cargo lining is removed, you'll see the floor beams running east-west, spaced every 6-10' or so. These beams are quite beefy, but nevertheless aluminum. If the cargo bay floors(or sidewall lining) and insulation is removed, you'll see stringers going longitudinally down the length of the airplane, they are spaced every 4-5' or so. If you peeked into the wheel wells, you'd see the keel beam, which is there to add longitudinal support for the wing box and wheel well cutouts. On some planes, this beam is steel, but on most modern planes(probably composite on some), it's aluminum. But the keel isn't inside the pressure hull, so you couldn't see it from the cabin or bag bins.




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



Well, this is the internet, after all. People sometimes feel empowered to answer questions they have no business answering, but I'm not here to impress anyone. You ask me a question that I don't know the answer to, I'll say I don't know. Some people can't seem to do that. In any case, thanks for your vote of confidence!


[edit on 4-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 

Do you have a better explanation why there is NO other evedance that a big airliner crashed at that spot other then a few strangely scattered parts and the so called statements of eye witnesses some of wich say they saw a SMALL plane, some a LARGE plane and some a FIGHTER jet?? the truth is that the average joe on the street will say just about anything as long as they get 5min of fame



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Th33lood3n1gMa
reply to post by 767doctor
 

Do you have a better explanation why there is NO other evedance that a big airliner crashed at that spot other then a few strangely scattered parts and the so called statements of eye witnesses some of wich say they saw a SMALL plane, some a LARGE plane and some a FIGHTER jet?? the truth is that the average joe on the street will say just about anything as long as they get 5min of fame


The crash scene is about what I'd expect to see with a perpendicular 530 mph crash into a concrete and limestone fortress. I'm sure by now that you've seen the F-4 Phantom vs concrete wall video...where the F-4 gets turned into confetti by the reinforced concrete barrier? Well, the 757 experienced a similar result. I honestly don't see what the fuss is about.

Most airliner crashes occur at low speed(take offs and landings) with a much lower angle of incidence to the ground. High-speed, nearly perpendicular crashes are rare, but they happen. Some examples would be Valujet 592 and my favorite example, the Canberra bomber crash in the UK.

The aircraft was described as flying "low and fast" when suddenly it entered a steep dive, with no apparent attempt to pull out, striking the ground at an angle of approx. 80 degrees at an estimated speed of 400-450kts. WD991 instantly completely disintegrated, scattering wreckage for some 600 yards beyond the main impact crater and sending a column of black smoke into the sky. Fortunately the impact was in open farmland and the only nearby building - a bungalow on Valentine Lane - was peppered with debris, shattering all the windows facing the impact and tearing several holes in the roof. Fortunately no one was at home at the time.

..from the last link above.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor

Surely there are at least 5 frames of video of the plane hitting the building...

Oh wait, there's not..

Epic fail

All you can do is guess.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by sandwiches
reply to post by 767doctor

Surely there are at least 5 frames of video of the plane hitting the building...

Oh wait, there's not..

Epic fail

All you can do is guess.


So let me see if I have this right...unless there's video of an event, it can't be said to have taken place? That's a rather strange and arbitrary condition to attach to reality.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
It does seem strange that the US government would try to support their contention that a large jet crashed into the Pentagon by using an anonymous email to a ‘conspiracy debunking’ site…

Can one of the ATS members who believe the OS please explain why the government won’t simply release some video of the event? Even just a few stills of the jet coming in would be far more convincing than an anonymous email story.

Thanks in advance.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by aethron
Can one of the ATS members who believe the OS please explain why the government won’t simply release some video of the event? Even just a few stills of the jet coming in would be far more convincing than an anonymous email story.
Feel free to disregard the e-mail story.

Come on, you've seen the video, right?

Do you understand velocities and frame rates? Apparently some people do and some don't. If you don't understand frame rates and velocities study them until you do so you can understand why the video shows what it does. Note how the car moves through the field of view, it's not a continuous motion. It's a slow frame rate.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by weedwhacker

How about finding the EXACT source of these comments? Demand a paper trail!!


There IS NO paper trail! From the government's own supplied information they are using an outbound email to a anti-conspiracy website for their "proof" LOL

Although I did submit this to the San Francisco Examiner



By the way - it's never mentioned in this thread that the website is "new"
[By "the website" here I mean the America.gov website we've been talking about since the OP - and not ATS or some other twisted rendition of "the website"]


Are they trying to refer about this article??

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


sorry dude your video is not working. Is it that video where you see a flash of something then hitting the pentagon for a split second? If you think that is a "boeing 757" then you can call me GWB. That scale was totally off and it looked more or less like a missile. Just remember if a boeing 757 can take down a building. Then why can't it take down the pentagon???????




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by sandwiches
reply to post by 767doctor

Surely there are at least 5 frames of video of the plane hitting the building...

Oh wait, there's not..

Epic fail

All you can do is guess.


So let me see if I have this right...unless there's video of an event, it can't be said to have taken place? That's a rather strange and arbitrary condition to attach to reality.


that's not what he said at all, and the 9/11 false agents that starred your thread = epic fail, and that goes for your ridiculous word twisting.

the pentagram is one of THE most secure buildings in the world, they can see every angle of the outside of the building as well. why not release the tapes of the miss--plane explo--cruising naturally like a plane would through the 15 foot blast radius on september 11th, 2001, instead of what, 8 years later? and seriously, that is the worst footage i have ever seen, i couldn't believe what a gaping and piss poor edited JOKE that video was when i saw it.

why not release the footage? why not release the footage the day of the event, instead of 8 years later in what couldn't be a more BS vid that barely got any coverage on the MSM?

i don't see how a truly objective mind, faced with both stories, could not side with 9/11 truth. i was a kid in jr. high when this went down. for years i believed my country and feared these "terrorists" that attacked us, until i woke up to reality. it's not just the events of 9/11, it's the cause and effect on a global scale. i don't understand how you would want to stay asleep in a world like that. but if you want to roll over, be my guest.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
If flight 77 basically disintigrated when it hit the wall, and left the wall complete and left standing for 20 minutes, with only a 16 foot hole (see pictures here) then HOW did it manage to get through the OTHER FIVE WALLS leaving perfectly round 16 foot holes! 124 foot wide plane through a 16 foot hole is kinda like squeezing a softball through a garden hose...

OMG!!! I just figured it out, JUST NOW!! - the Pentagon people are supposed to be 'like' reptilians or something, maybe the Pentagon can open extra wide like a snake's mouth! Case solved!!

This isn't a "Did it hit or not" thread but anyhow... the chance of any part of a nose cone existing has got to be one of the smallest odds events ever!

It's been 8+ years, if "they" haven't finished creating... I mean de-classifying, a video yet I doubt it will have any credibility if it ever does show up. If they ever do that they better plan on releasing a stack of different videos - one from each of the 6 roof cams that were pointed at the lawn, plus dozens of confiscated videos.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Yup, that's the one. I knew which thread he was talking about but his only purpose in mentioning it was to attempt to discount my credibility. weedwhacker is somewhat of an expert at derailing threads from the true course of exploration.

Thanks for posting it



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


yes, him and his crew love to derail threads and are called "experts" in everything.

when I read that article I was just shocked they posted that. That is saying the "crackpot" conspirators are right and they are backed in a corner.

I despise those who try to say I am a criminal, but sure allow the true criminals set free.

this world is messed up.

But I also don't believe the official story of the Pentagon. If a 757 can "destroy" a tower why not the pentagon?

Just remember RMS Lusitania.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by aethron
It does seem strange that the US government would try to support their contention that a large jet crashed into the Pentagon by using an anonymous email to a ‘conspiracy debunking’ site…

Can one of the ATS members who believe the OS please explain why the government won’t simply release some video of the event? Even just a few stills of the jet coming in would be far more convincing than an anonymous email story.

Thanks in advance.



Can you U2U me this video when it is finally released. I'd like to see a plane hit the Pentagon myself. Thanks in advance



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
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.


Yes, the sources did say pieces of a nose cone. You are the one doing the ever so obvious twisting.

Once again using your above logic, the sentence you're quoting (while avoiding the sources) also says "THE FUSELAGE". Remember, THE meaning the whole thing as you say...

ZOMG, THE WHOLE PLANE MUST HAVE BEEN INTACT!!!!






posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


sorry dude your video is not working. Is it that video where you see a flash of something then hitting the pentagon for a split second? If you think that is a "boeing 757" then you can call me GWB. That scale was totally off and it looked more or less like a missile. Just remember if a boeing 757 can take down a building. Then why can't it take down the pentagon???????


Thanks for pointing out the link was broken, I fixed it. I can't tell you what hit the pentagon from ONLY the video, that much is true, nor do I expect the video of that frame rate to clearly show an object traveling that fast.

Apparently you haven't studied the construction details of the WTC versus the pentagon. If you had, that would answer your question. The Pentagon was not only a beefier construction but it was undergoing a renovation at the time to make it even stronger.


Originally posted by Thermo Klein
If flight 77 basically disintegrated when it hit the wall, and left the wall complete and left standing for 20 minutes, with only a 16 foot hole (see pictures here) then HOW did it manage to get through the OTHER FIVE WALLS leaving perfectly round 16 foot holes! 124 foot wide plane through a 16 foot hole is kinda like squeezing a softball through a garden hose...


I think you can answer your own question here. What part of the plane is 16 feet in diameter and would travel further than the rest of the plane? It's funny how we can look at the exact same evidence and what you describe sounds perfectly consistent with a 16 foot diameter plane to me with some things attached to it. Perhaps the discrepancy lies in an assumption on your part that the things attached to the 16 foot diameter part are attached so well nothing could remove them? I make no such assumption.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sticky
Can you U2U me this video when it is finally released. I'd like to see a plane hit the Pentagon myself. Thanks in advance


I've had to tell young children sometimes you don't always get what you want.

But I'm not sure why pictures or video of a plane hitting would help, we have that for the WTC and people don't believe the OS for that either.

So, no, a picture wouldn't really make any difference. There's DNA evidence and plane parts at the scene and if people claim that is faked, so why wouldn't they claim a video was faked too? Some people have already said they wouldn't believe it even if they see it.

So I don't see how a picture or a video showing a plane would make any difference. It wouldn't, people would just claim that's faked like the plane parts at the scene and the DNA evidence at the scene.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join