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.

 

Pentagon bodies from Flight 77

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


you have been an advocate of the official story since I started reading this site back in 2005. Can you tell me with absolute 100% truth that nothing in the official story (9-11 commission report) seems fishy and needs a bit more explanation?




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
I don't know what hit the Pentagon. I'm still confused by the secrecy regarding the video tapes. The government could eliminate this entire conspiracy if they would simply show a frame of a plane hitting the building. There were 80 something cameras I believe that should have caught it on film. NONE of them caught a plane???

Two did, but they're not clear enough to make out anything more than a blurry group of pixels. Here, this is a video I created years ago to show what actually was recorded. Too many people convert this into youtube videos or gifs and don't do proper conversion. This is an accurate view of the area where the 'object' appears in the second frame:

911db.org...

It's not exactly ideal, but this is the only clear camera view that anyone is aware of, and this has been converted and encoded properly, without compression artifacts or smoothing issues.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

That comes directly from certain websites that seem to think (and spread the disinfo) that the airplane "must" have skimmed along the ground before impact at the Pentagon, doesn't it?

He hit right at the bottom, fromt he AIR...that is, while flying. WIth a still slight downward trajectory.


A "very" slight downward trajectory if he was able to clip several light poles.


You really think a frangible light "pole" that is designed to absorb, by shearing/breaking at the base, the impact forces from an automobile in accidents is going to,what? "Tear off" the wing? At most (if we could have seen the intact wing after striking the pole) the leading edge would have dents/some damage. The slats were retracted, and snug up against the wing. IF they are extended, then you'd see even more damage, possibly even separation from the airframe. But, that isn't the case here.


They are made to break away in the case of car accidents, not a 100 ton 757 flying at 500+mph. A stationary object colliding with a moving object will cause damage regardless. At those speeds, that light pole (or poles) should have cut through the aluminum wings like butter. At the very very least it should have altered his trajectory slightly. Thats with hitting one pole. It hit (supposedly) several. I'm not an expert. I'm just using common sense.


A wing that is designed for a Boeing 757 is much stronger than some people seem to give it credit.


I agree. But it still shouldn't have been a zero factor in ripping light poles out of the ground at 500mph. I'm certainly not stating that the wings weren't at all damaged by the strike. It would just seem that the plane would have buffeted or something. Being that low, and supposedly inexperienced, I would think HH would have panicked or something.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
you have been an advocate of the official story since I started reading this site back in 2005. Can you tell me with absolute 100% truth that nothing in the official story (9-11 commission report) seems fishy and needs a bit more explanation?

I'll jump in here too cause I'm in a similar boat to weedwhacker.

There's plenty that seems fishy. Just exactly how much did Bush know ahead of time? Could he have taken better action to protect the US? Were there institutional issues with investigating? We know that some people went to the authorities over the hijackers etc but they were not thoroughly investigated.

I just don't think there's anything fishy that would change huge portions of the story. No evidence is going to emerge that will ever indicate a missile hit the pentagon instead of a plane, because there were tens of people there on the day who saw a plane hit, the bodies and remains of the passengers were found in the building, we have a video (see above) of an unexplained tail fin coming into view etc.

So yeah, some bits are fishy, but all of the major points are not as far as I am concerned.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
They are made to break away in the case of car accidents, not a 100 ton 757 flying at 500+mph. A stationary object colliding with a moving object will cause damage regardless. At those speeds, that light pole (or poles) should have cut through the aluminum wings like butter. At the very very least it should have altered his trajectory slightly. Thats with hitting one pole. It hit (supposedly) several. I'm not an expert. I'm just using common sense.

How do you know they did not affect the trajectory. It's not like we know where he meant to hit compared to where he actually did do.


I agree. But it still shouldn't have been a zero factor in ripping light poles out of the ground at 500mph. I'm certainly not stating that the wings weren't at all damaged by the strike. It would just seem that the plane would have buffeted or something. Being that low, and supposedly inexperienced, I would think HH would have panicked or something.

He very well could have, but when you're a few hundred feet from a building, pointed straight at it and at 400+mph, no amount of panicing is going to avoid the inevitable. You're going to hit that wall at a high rate of speed.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Thanks for the video link. For some reason I can't open it here at work. I'll have to check it out when I get home.

Your probably right as far as the speed vs buffeting is concerned. Like I said, I wasn't there. I couldn't see what happened. I'm not a closed minded person. I enjoy debating these topics of 911 simply because I DONT know the truth. And I don't believe the full truth has been disclosed. Just saying this so I don't come across as narrow minded.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 

Bulls£*t answer to that is they dont want any future terror gangs to learn how to hit the pentagon again lol!



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
well, I would like to see these bodies, any pictures of them? The only plane part photographed at the pentagon is an engine that is no higher than a man's knee, hardly a 757 jet engine. The FBI confiscated and is withholding so much video surveillance that that in itself is a crime. And not to mention the pentagon released video where you can see a missile in the corner of the screen.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


It seems his life depends on it for some reason known to himself!



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I can only best relate to aspects that are aviation related, and attempt to swat down so much of the dis-info that infests that part. Some of the other aspects, structures, buildings collapsing, and the physics is just common sense, seems to me. Many misconceptions are abounding there, and being spread too. I blame Hollywood and movies, partly, for that.

There is no so-called "Official Story", not in the sense it is constantly being derisively bandied about by some in the so-called "TM". Obviously the 9/11 Commission Report is not all-inclusive, so therefore is not a basis for any "official" narrative to describe all events. Much of what happened is compiled from known public records, news broadcasts, after-the-fact accounts of what people experienced at the time, etc.

Personal opinion is that, as regards the "Commission", the only scent of "conspiracy" there was from a few in the government who side-stepped, weaseled, withheld --- in order to cover their behinds, for the IMMENSE failures of intelligence...and the incompetence of various individuals within various, and separate agencies. The inability/negligence in putting the pieces together, form the disparate reports that should have been heeded, of an impending "operation".

Fact that either those warnings were not taken seriously, were ignored (whether intentionally, or 'on purpose'?? Who knows?) is where people's eyes should be focused. Those who failed aren't being held accountable for those failures/omissions, whichever.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Thanks for the video link. For some reason I can't open it here at work. I'll have to check it out when I get home.

If I remember correctly it's encoded with HuffYUV to ensure no loss of quality. You might wanna try something like VLC. Don't get your hopes up though, it's incredibly low resolution, but an object the right size, shape and colour for an AA tailplane does appear for a single frame followed by the explosion.


Your probably right as far as the speed vs buffeting is concerned. Like I said, I wasn't there. I couldn't see what happened. I'm not a closed minded person. I enjoy debating these topics of 911 simply because I DONT know the truth. And I don't believe the full truth has been disclosed. Just saying this so I don't come across as narrow minded.

I can appreciate that, it's a difficult topic to get a grasp on. I would recommend looking up the pentagon on google earth, and measuring the distance to the wall. Divide that into 400+ mph and you'll see what I mean



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
well, I would like to see these bodies, any pictures of them? The only plane part photographed at the pentagon is an engine that is no higher than a man's knee, hardly a 757 jet engine. The FBI confiscated and is withholding so much video surveillance that that in itself is a crime. And not to mention the pentagon released video where you can see a missile in the corner of the screen.

None of this is accurate. Lots of pictures have been released, you can start here: sites.google.com...

The FBI witholding videos that belong to them or to private companies is not illegal, it would be illegal for them to give out private property without good reason. They've detailed exactly which videos exist, and we know that only one got a 'good' shot of the plane, see my post above for the video I extracted from the original.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



I would recommend looking up the pentagon on google earth, and measuring the distance to the wall. Divide that into 400+ mph and you'll see what I mean



Also, for anyone who can come visit the area, then they could see for themselves, the arrangements, slope of terrain, etc.

Can visualize it much better, in person. (I have, many many times). Putting it all together with a view, and perspectives, getting elevated (various buildings aound, with windows to look out of) all in real life is much better than trying to picure it from photos on a computer screen. No other way to describe it, unless you come see for yourselves.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
I was recently posed this question by an OS(official story) supporter. He said the Pentagon/Flight 77 impact happened and here was his reason: They found almost every body/remains of the passengers on Flight 77 in the Pentagon. He said that since several hundred people were involved in the search for bodies, the autosy's , and other facets of the body recovery and ID, they could not all be in on a coverup. How could they have planted all the remains in the Pentagon? I could use some help in giving a reasoned explanation for this problem as I have looked around the web, read several books on the 9/11 issue and was not able to give him an explanation that would solve this dilema. Lokking for answers. Thanks.


I am afraid your enquiry confirms what many people think about truthers. Your dilemma arises simply because of your need to try and shoehorn a conspiracy into plain facts instead of genuinely seeking the truth.

There is plenty of evidence placing AA 77 at the Pentagon :- Radar, Air Traffic Control, Witnesses including flight crew of a C130 in the area, Flight Data Recorder with record of final fatal flight and 11 previous flights , Boeing 757 parts, body parts of passengers and crew and personal belongings.

The idea that the Pentagon was salted with passenger and crew body parts and aircraft wreckage is just beyond ludicrous. AA77 took off at 0820 and crashed into the Pentagon at 0937. First responders were at the scene in less than 2 minutes ( the first of more than 8000 to be involved in the recovery ) .So there was a window of 1 hour 19 mins to get AA77 down, kill all the passengers , chop them into bits, burn them and get them to the Pentagon. This is patently absurd and where do you recruit the monsters to do it ?

If the suggestion is that the body parts did not belong to the passengers and crew then who did they belong to ? How were they planted while people worked in the area ? Why were all the medical examiners and forensic experts prepared to issue false reports about identification in order to cover up mass murder of fellow citizens and remain forever silent ?

Here is something else truthers might care to explain. How come AA77 passenger Suzzane Calley's wedding ring was recovered with her remains at the Pentagon and returned to her husband ?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


and no matter how much I or others may want to believe the conspiracy side, your information on the avionic side is true. But it gets so aggravating to think that this could all be avoided if we were told the truth. Show a video clip of the plane. It was amazing how it was able to pull up after missing the big tower and still not hit the ground, and I am continually confused by the reports of flight 93 debris being found miles away from a crash that was supposed to be straight down. If it was shot down, tell us. It doesn't diminish the fight the passengers may have put up.

In some of the investigation CIT did, they showed the data from the DFDR putting the plane in the direct flight path of a big tower. I don't remember how tall it was, but it was kind of hard to believe that the plane could make that maneuver. Let alone a guy who doesn't have the flight experience you do. Are you familiar with that report?

Those are the kind of questions I have and I assume other do. We aren't going to spout insults at people presenting their side, we just want to have real answers to questions and we don't want to be labeled as anything for asking. (ie twoofer) ( and I am not directing that at you as I don't recall you ever going down that road)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


What are you tripping on ? You want to send me a U2U with a veiled threat , because I post my opinions here , just like everyone else ?

Show me where I have called you a liar . If you claim to have EVIDENCE that a missile hit the Pentagon , but you don't post said evidence , then what are we supposed to infer from that ?

I won't go so far as to call you a liar , because that might be construed as a personal attack by the mods . However , I WILL say , if you make adamant claims of having proof of a missile but , you show nothing in the way of proof , then I can only surmise that you are lying , and have nothing to support such claim .

You can take that anyway you like , I don't give a rat's ass .

Don't ever threaten me , otherwise I will be obliged to contact a moderator .

As for taking you on in any debate , I believe it is foolish to argue with someone who only contributes one-liners , claims that can't be validated , and simply repeats the same old lies that make up your camp . If it weren't for repeating those lies , you would not have anything to contribute to an intelligent debate .

Produce something that hasn't been proven false already , and then get back with me . Until then , don't be so arrogant as to contact me in the manner that you did .



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Flight 77 used twin Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B turbofan engines.

Some specs;

Weight of each engine; approx 7,300lbs. (heavier when momentum is factored in)
Length; roughly 10 feet long.
Width of fan; a little over 6 feet wide, narrowing to 2.5 feet wide at the turbine.

Since you were kind enough to provide a nice engineering diagram of an engine, perhaps you'll be kind enough to provide an image of the holes in the Pentagon wall where these two engines slammed into it?

All i've seen is single hole, approximately 16 feet in diameter (before the wall was pulled down by rescue workers)

Apart from the hole mentioned above, and the expected shattered windows either side of it, the facade bore no trace of an impact either of the engines, the wings, nor the high tail/stabilizer section.

The ground surface did not sustain any damage consistent with two 7,300lb engines slamming into it at hundreds of mph either.

If you have an image for the damage made by these things, i'd rather you posted that image instead.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

edit: Actually I just looked at your storage estimates. I don't know what sort of encoding you're using but one day's worth of footage in MPEG2 is certainly not 400 meg. It's actually more like 15 gig depending on bitrate. I've seen one DVD containing two hours, and one DVD containing 24 hours, but you wouldn't be able to get much from 400 meg without modern encoding.




you need to factor in resolution. Different cameras have different resolution. Plus the DVR can record in different quality. On the lower end there are thee qualities. Good, better, and best. They will have a dramatic difference on space used. The installer has to factor in a lot of things when setting one up. Will a review need to see a lot of detail? If so, they you will sacrifice storage space for video quality. I gave a generic example. A standard DVR with 4 channels comes with an 80gb HDD and can record about two weeks worth of data with default settings. I have several DVR's with remote access that can prove that information if needed.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I think I remember, but first ---- let me say that the "CIT" are, to but it mildly, way off their rockers.


In some of the investigation CIT did, they showed the data from the DFDR putting the plane in the direct flight path of a big tower. I don't remember how tall it was, but it was kind of hard to believe that the plane could make that maneuver.


I think what they ("CIT") were prattling on about was the Virginia DOT antenna structure?? It's located (still there) right alongside I-95, approximately adjacent to the Navy Annex buildings.

It isn't really very tall, at all.

Wish I had a photo....maybe will try later. **
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Adding: **Or, try using Google Map (I just checked it myself). Put the "Street View" little man cursor on I-395, along there south of the Annex complex. (West of the USAF Memorial). When you're in the right place you can see the Sheraton hotel in the distance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I mentioned psts above, going out and actually looking with one's own eyes helps a great deal, in understanding. IN FACT, when you stand there, look around, and check it out, you see that the terrain height, and trees and such, to the NORTH of the Annex makes the "CIT"s claims a complete load of nonsense.

They are higher than the VDOT "tower".

Mostly, the airplane followed directly along the Columbia Pike highway. You can Google Map to see that, and watch the NTSB video showing approximate location, heading, speed and altitude for the final 'run' at the building before impact.



edit on 16 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Add (**)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
you need to factor in resolution. Different cameras have different resolution. Plus the DVR can record in different quality. On the lower end there are thee qualities. Good, better, and best. They will have a dramatic difference on space used. The installer has to factor in a lot of things when setting one up. Will a review need to see a lot of detail? If so, they you will sacrifice storage space for video quality. I gave a generic example. A standard DVR with 4 channels comes with an 80gb HDD and can record about two weeks worth of data with default settings. I have several DVR's with remote access that can prove that information if needed.

There's nothing wrong with anything you're saying here, but you're ignoring some important things.

1. Resolution is key in detail, many people criticise the only available video because it's QVGA
2. I'm pretty sure a modern DVR will use MPEG4 or similar, a huge improvement from MPEG2
3. We don't even know if they did use a DVR. judging by the fact that the framerate is 1fps, it's entirely possible it was multiplexed to SVHS, although it does look like a digital source.

I have some experience with CCTV systems, and so I can tell you're not distorting things, but you should be careful about making assumptions about what would be seen at the Pentagon. Even if you are just speculating, there are some who will take your speculation and demand that it is unassailable fact.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join