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: 8
51
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


????? OK...well, it's your thread, and you wish to take it in this direction, (away from the focus of AAL 77's "nosecone")...so for the record, a little trip down memory lane:



Originally posted by Thermo Klein
There was supposedly FOUR hijack-crash situations that day.

Shanksville doesn't show typical crash wreckage


Right. Because, it isn't 'typical'. We DO, however, have some precedents that, while NEVER exactly the same (no airplane crash ever is) have enough similarity as to be useful in comparison. I hope everyone is already aware of these?



The Pentagon doesn't show significant signs of an airplane crash (See picture montage).


Again, see above. Consider, and study, the physics involved. It does show the type of damage one would expect, under the circumstances.

NOW...rather than "blah, blah, blah" at me for OLD information being brought up, again...let's look (once more) at this:


The 767 that hit the second tower, flt 175, had a large rectangular object mounted under its fuselage which is not a part of a 767, it was added.


THAT is the 'old' news, long ago debunked (and quite easily). It is laughable to anyone familiar with the airplanes (the B-767) and only the layperson can be fooled into believing that tripe.

Take a look at photographs of OTHER 767s...(hint: Landing Gear Doors)


Fully intact wall after crash - it stayed intact for 20 minutes before it collapsed giving us the pictures the Original Story TV show focused on.


Do you refer, here, to the Pentagon? I'm puzzled as to where that particular bit of 'thinking' came from.

My home was just about 2 to 2.5 miles (as the crow flies) from the Pentagon (Look at Google Maps, find the Pentagon, look for a neighborhood called "Lyon Park". THAT was my house location).

I was home, that morning. Upstairs, I was looking East, but view was blocked by the dense trees in my area (fall had not yet begun in earnest). At about 10:00, maybe a few minutes after, I felt the house shake...later, I learned, that was when the upper floors at the Pentagon collapsed, which was about the ~20 minutes, or so, after initial impact.

OK...now, we're dancing north to NYC?



Chips of this substance were found in at least four different samples of dust from the WTC collapses. When this substance is burned it creates small iron micro-spheres which were found in nearly all WTC dust samples. It is an explosive (some people are refering to it as thermite, thermate, or nano-thermite, but the name may be incorrect).
(From this thread)


Ah. I see ou are citing your OWN other thread, here on ATS, as source. Very well....

Seems you're referring to the infamous "Dr." Steven Jones, and his notorious 'magic' thermite/thermate (depending on what you wish to call it, varies amongst CTers)?? Totally busted, the man is a fraud. Check out various threads here, on ATS as well, that discuss it. Note, also , that the man (Jones) was cut-off some years ago (pre-"thermite" claims) by the staff at BYU, over his previous 'demoliton' claims. And, if I'm not mistaken he ALSO was on the "pods" bandwagon, regarding UAL 175. I'd say his credibility is in the dumpster, where it belongs.


Now, I'm confused by the formatting below, from your post...so sorry if I use the wrong BB codes. (I see now, it must have come from your other thread), so I'll just bracket it as if you wrote it, and sort it out later:


If the mainstream media is saying 4 high-jackers stole planes that day, but if even ONE of those events doesn't add up, then the story IS FALSE. Don't jump to defenses on this - if four hijackers stole planes, but only three actually stole planes, where did the other plane come from?


I don't understand the point of that entire paragraph.

THIS< though? Seems whoever is responsible for writing it is just talking out of his/her....ermmm....nether orifice region:


There is no airport footage of these planes even though every airport has security, air traffic control, and FAA security videos, etc.


AND, this is a blatant falsehood, as well:


There's not significant proof that all, or any, of those planes ever originated at the airports that day.


It is actually quite simple to research, and see where this information is wrong...whether intentionally, or just being (innocently? and gullibly?)*parroted over, and over agian by the many 'conspiracy' websites that abound, that will take more time to figure out.

*Not sure if 'gullibly' is really a word...but, it should be!

~~~~~

Hmmm...online dictionary says it is...!

gulli·bly adv.




[edit on 6 June 2010 by weedwhacker]




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Weedwhacker I am so impressed!!

Not only did you specifically address questions you did it in a coherent, thoughtful, and organized manner! Kudos! (seriously, that was a great post)

I appreciate your acknowledgement of the diversion/derail. It's toward the end of the thread and I'm addressing a specific question (as someone who believes the OS is a lie).

I am by no means a Shanksville expert, it seemed obvious from the first time I saw the hole in the dirt that no plane crashed there; it's simply not worth my time to get into Shanksville threads. It's certainly not assumed by a majority of the world that a plane crashed there.

The Pentagon: the physics invloved? How about airplane wings don't dissolve after being left outside a building with a 16 foot hole in it. (even if they did I would assume they'd leave a hole or at least a pile of ash)



uh... nope, not seein' it.

ooh... you felt your house shake when the Pentagon floors collapsed? I can imagine that would really make the whole thing feel real - to be that close to it. I went to a local restaurant with a TV and watched with about 20 other people - it was an emotional day.

Dr. Steven Jones has had an exceptional career in physics. If he got fired for publishing data on 9/11 I just feel for him all the more - however he has been a fighter for 9/11 truth movement ever since and has done some of the most insightful and far-reaching scientific research out there. He's "the big gun" of the enemy, of course a lot of OSers are trying to discredit him. Here's snippet from his educational background (yes, from a thread I wrote, "peer reviewed" by ATS
)



Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.


Let's re-phrase the stolen airplane bit...
the TV story says 4 airplanes were hijacked
if any one of those came from somewhere else or didn't exist...
why should we believe any of the planes were hijacked?

Imagine this on TV:
"Hijackers stole 3 airplanes and the fourth didn't ever exist"
If ONE wasn't hijacked it, at VERY LEAST, means they were in collusion with a non-hijacker group who could manipulate the media.



[edit on 6-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


The LOT Polish airplane photo is a 767....FYI.


You used that to 'complain' about the '16 foot hole'???

Please, show where the entry damage at the Pentagon was only 16 feet wide. There is plenty of evidence that shows otherwise.

( please don't trot out the inner-ring photo, of the concrete block wall....THAT is what keeps being pointed to, by so many CTers....
)

The "if only" and "what if" about how many airplanes?? Where does that particular nonsense come from? There were FOUR. FOUR are missing, FOUR were tracked on radar, FOUR left crash debris. It's really quite simple....only 'conspiracy' sites wish to cloud the facts, and propose more, ever-outrageous "theories".....

BTW...I do not need any 'back-handed' compliments regarding my posts. One can take my posts at their face vblaue, or leave them....that is their choice.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I have a photo I'm working on getting uploaded with some others, it seems to show sections of wing at the pentagon. But it honestly could be any number of things. I'd like weedwhacker or others more familiar with aircraft to look at it and give me their thoughts.

I'll hopefully have all the pictures uploaded and posted today.

Sorry to be OT, just saw the bit about the wings and it reminded me.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
i'd just like to say that posting photos as proof without the dates the photos were taken is without cause.....

how many photos do you think cropped up after the fact?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The LOT Polish airplane photo is a 767....FYI.


Right... AA 175 WAS a 767
that's why I put a picture of a 767!




You used that to 'complain' about the '16 foot hole'???

Please, show where the entry damage at the Pentagon was only 16 feet wide. There is plenty of evidence that shows otherwise.


Here's a picture within two minutes of the explosion. You can see the whole wall is intact.


As referenced from the above picture we are looking at the center of the explosion site. This picture (below, posted again) shows the wall intact - any hole that might be there is hidden BEHIND the spray from a fire truck... exactly 16 feet? I don't know, but it's small enough to fit behind the height of a fire truck.






BTW...I do not need any 'back-handed' compliments regarding my posts. One can take my posts at their face vblaue, or leave them....that is their choice.


I didn't mean for that to sound condescending; it was an honest compliment however unnecessary or inappropriate my judgment of a post is. I enjoy our conversations here, sometimes I'd like to even sit down for a beer together and laugh out the stress of all this reseach we're doing!



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


OK....help me out, here....


Right... AA 175 WAS a 767
that's why I put a picture of a 767!


First impact, WTC North Tower -- AAL 11 A B-767
Second, WTC South Tower --- UAL 175 Also a B-767

Third impact, the Pentagon -- AAL 77 A B-757

Last...failed to reach intended target, UAL 93. A B-757

Just to clarify.
~~~~~~~~~~~

Those photos pre-collapse? Insufficient, and deceptive. BUT, they are favorites of the 'conspiracy' folks, aren't they?

911review.com...

[edit on 6 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


OK....help me out, here....


Right... AA 175 WAS a 767
that's why I put a picture of a 767!


First impact, WTC North Tower -- AAL 11 A B-767
Second, WTC South Tower --- UAL 175 Also a B-767

Third impact, the Pentagon -- AAL 77 A B-757

Last...failed to reach intended target, UAL 93. A B-757

Just to clarify.
~~~~~~~~~~~

Those photos pre-collapse? Insufficient, and deceptive. BUT, they are favorites of the 'conspiracy' folks, aren't they?

911review.com...

[edit on 6 June 2010 by weedwhacker]


umm.... weedwacker.... i know you've been helpful in informing me.... but that picture does no justice to your argument......

reason being....

the area where it says... left wing damage.... is certainly not from an airplane wing.... didn't you notice the vertical damage there as well???? you know.... the three dark colored lines that run into the dark horizontal line???

not to mention.... the "probable aircraft debris" looks more like bent up signs to me.....

[edit on 6-6-2010 by C-Reilly]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
How about some of these?


The pictures that the "truth" peddlers want you to see are like these, where the first floor is cropped out entirely or obscured by smoke and the firefighting.

A pretty good debunking of the "hole is too small" claim can be found here and here. It's hard to find debunking sites which deal with this claim since there are far bigger issues that are harder to research. But, several prominent pro-9/11 conspiracy sites have thoroughly debunked this claim. It's time to move on, Thermo Klein.


BTW, I had considered a snarky "let me google that for you" reply because pictures of the precollapse hole, in its entirety, are very easy to find.

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

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



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by C-Reilly

the area where it says... left wing damage.... is certainly not from an airplane wing.... didn't you notice the vertical damage there as well???? you know.... the three dark colored lines that run into the dark horizontal line???


The left wing damage is a great big effin' hole in the wall, check my post above.


not to mention.... the "probable aircraft debris" looks more like bent up signs to me.....


With some of the more mangled debris, it's hard to tell what is building and what is airplane. But there are many, many photos which show recognizable aircraft debris.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

The 767 that hit the second tower, flt 175, had a large rectangular object mounted under its fuselage which is not a part of a 767, it was added.






Oh my laughing dog, please tell us you are joking!! Next to the no-planers and space beams people, the "pod people" are the laughing stock of the truth movement.

Ok enough mocking, it's time to educate. You said two days ago that you were familiar with airlners because you worked for the airlines - yet you have never seen a wing to body fairing?

So, the large rectangular part seen in the impact videos is merely the wing fillet, pronounced by lighting conditions. What else do ya got, Thermo?

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



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 




This picture is BS...

The center of it is a different color than the rest, the smoke in various parts is lit by sun, the windows in the off-color section don't even align with the rest of the building! I especially like how they cropped the bottom ground level - must have been harder to find matching pictures to splice
Oh, and the complete "blackness" in the bottom center with smoke blowing out of nowhere...

The picture is on one of the sites you linked to:
Oil Empire


[edit on 6-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Those photos pre-collapse? Insufficient, and deceptive. BUT, they are favorites of the 'conspiracy' folks, aren't they?

911review.com...





So let's get this straight... you actually, really..., honestly believe THIS is the picture of an airplane crash!!!???

LMAO I've seen this before a few times and I gotta say ... bear with me, trying to think of something that isn't profane...

You think an AIRPLANE WING did that... left almost no damage and didn't BURN anything!!??? (Try saying that in the Nicholas cage over-the-top voice of his early movies, makes it even more laughable.)

It's time to get back the nose cone thing and let this thread die...

By the way I meant UA 175 (as the pictures showed it crashing into the tower...)


[edit on 6-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Ok, for the sake of advancing the debate, I'll agree with you that the picture above is manipulated(which is why I didn't link it with the first 5 examples in my reply). Now, how about addressing the fact that the pictures you are using also do not show that there is a very large(just how large is in dispute) hole in the first story. The other pictures I linked to show it, and there are also some good ones in the Pentagon Building Performance Report.

There was a great site called pentagonresearch.com which was taken down. But luckily the wayback machine pentagonresearch.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">has it archived very well. I'd suggest taking an hour or so and looking through it, Thermo Klein. There is some very detailed, meticulous research therein and it's worth mentioning that the author, Russel Pickering, is a truther who started the site to show that it couldn't have been a 757, but after two years of research, he ultimately concluded that it was. Russells work in that arena was used heavily in the latest Loose Change movie.

edit: the forum software has a hard time with double url tags. Pentagonresearch archive can be found at:

http ://web.archive.org/web/*/http ://pentagonresearch.com
(remove the spaces after the http)


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

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



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein



So let's get this straight... you actually, really..., honestly believe THIS is the picture of an airplane crash!!!???

Argument from incredulity. Does this look like an airplane crash? Or this? Or this? Or this?
What is a 530 mph airliner crash into an blast resistant fortress supposed to look like?


LMAO I've seen this before a few times and I gotta say ... bear with me, trying to think of something that isn't profane...

You think an AIRPLANE WING did that... left almost no damage and didn't BURN anything!!??? (Try saying that in the Nicholas cage over-the-top voice of his early movies, makes it even more laughable.)

It's time to get back the nose cone thing and let this thread die...

By the way I meant UA 175 (as the pictures showed it crashing into the tower...)

I thought I showed you the big ass hole the left wing and engine left? I could have sworn I linked about 5 images that showed it....I'll assume you didnt see them. There is a great big hole where the left wing and engine impacted. There is a hole where the right wing and engine imapcted. Maybe you have a problem with scale and dont realize how big the Pentagon is and how small a 757 is in relation.

It's worth pointing out that the outboard wing section(mid point outwards) isnt going to inflict much damage on a blast proof building. If you are looking for a Wil-e-Coyote silhouette of a 757, then you probably take a university level physics course..or perhaps even high school level physics course.

I don't know what to make of your "didn't burn anything"(in all CAPS NO LESS) comment where theres clearly a out of control blaze in the image. But I think I know what you mean, and you only need to ask yourself "is concrete flammable?" and "is limestone flammable?" "Are the windows explosion proof?". And you have your answer.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


Here's the best view I see from your Pentagon Performance NIST report:


Notice how in the drawn section the "hole" is empty, but in the other picture (bottom left) the columns still remain (blown outward I might add). No airplane went through there because the columns still remained but if you want to call it a hole since most of the wall is gone go for it.

If you have better pictures of that I'd love to see them.

As a funny side note - there's one single cloud in the sky from my view and it looks exactly like that Illuminati eagle!! ya know - maybe you guys are right... I should probably just back off for a bit




[edit on 6-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
No airplane went through there because the columns still remained


If the columns were made out of cardboard I'd have to agree with that analysis, but they weren't.

There's no hole in this wall after the plane hits it, does this mean that no plane hit it?

Jet hits concrete wall at high speed


Any collision between two objects will have destructive effects relative to the relative strengths and physical properties of the two objects colliding.

If a plane is flown into a solid thick reinforced concrete barrier, there may be absolutely no hole at all in the barrier. The above video demonstrates this. In the case of the Pentagon we have reinforced columns that are more resistant to destruction than the surrounding walls.

To put it another way, if the outside wall of the Pentagon was made entirely of thick reinforced concrete columns, there may be no holes at all, just a lot of concrete dust and pulverized plane parts. But that doesn't mean a plane didn't hit, it just means the object hit was strong enough to resist total destruction by the impact.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
This is probably one of the best arguments there is stating than an airplane actually hit the Pentagon (you know, since they won't release any video tapes from the 6 cameras on that Pentagon wall that was hit).

There are a lot of problems with that video though...
1) An F4 Phantom jet is only about 50 feet long and a Boeing 757-300 is about 180 feet long; F4 is also tremendously lighter. There's A LOT more airplane to collapse against a wall with a 757, so the tail of AA 77 would have slowed down significantly by the time the rest had "accordianed" into the wall and squeezed through the spaces between the enforced columns. The tail, latter part of the fuselage, and the wings would likely have stayed outside I would guess.

2) According to your theory, it seems once a hole was made some of the plane had already evaporated/dissolved but the rest of the plane went through the holes in pieces. Apparently these small pieces carried enough kinetic energy to puncture holes through an additional FIVE walls.

I can't even imagine how you could rationalize this... what would the consistency be? Are you imagining a ball of molten liquid aluminum? Pieces of airplane in like a tornado-style swirl?

If all the airplane eventually dissolved, save for a few select pieces including, according to our nice government website in the OP, a fully intact cockpit chair and the nose cone, how long did the pieces last before they dissolved?

This is so outrageous that it's definitely up to you to prove. The Original Story is disvelieved by most of the world at this point - if you think the plane dissolved into dust like the F4, then the remaining parts punched through 5 additonal walls (one of which was created as reinforced since the two outer Pentagon wings were added later) - how did anything at all survive?

According to what I understand of physics the kinetic energy is significantly dropped by slamming through a wall so tough as to demolish a plane into dust, yet there's allegedly enough kinetic energy to slam through five more walls?? Not happening - you simply can't have both.

If you throw an orange at a wall it will probably destroy the orange.
If you throw the orange hard enough it might go through the wall but it will drop right after.
If you fire a bullet through a wall it might go right through and continue on, BUT the bullet must retain it's shape to go through a subsequent wall. It won't both destroy and remain - impossible.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
According to trusted sources within the U.S. Government


Are there still people who believe that there are "trusted sources within the U.S. Government"?



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by soleprobe

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
According to trusted sources within the U.S. Government


Are there still people who believe that there are "trusted sources within the U.S. Government"?


Not after this thread!!



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join