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.

 

9/11: The Pentagon - Jesse Ventura Speaks With Pilots For 9/11 Truth

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm sorry, but you actually believed all of this garbage?!? Just because it was on Jesse's "conspiracy" show?

This is the sort of thing that is commonly repeated (and is false, BTW) at many "9/11 conspiracy" websites....seems that Jesse, and his producers, either are complete morons, not doing ample research, and just accepting what the see online...OR, are not stupid, and just "cashing in" on the latest fad...which is the "9/11 truth" bandwagon. Guaranteed TV ratings, I suppose.....



Jesse had to go in that direction...otherwise he would not have a "conspiracy". It would be nice to see him actually debunk a long standing conspericy too, but then that is not what his program is about.




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 




Originally posted by backinblack
It's you that have stated over and over that any trainee pilot could do what was done on 9/11...


If I recall, I never used those exact words (nice job, putting them in my mouth).

NOW....what is so difficult, do you think, about steering an airplane so as to hit a target? Not making any extraordinary, or unusual maneuvers...just basic pitch (that's "nose up and down" motion) and roll (that's wings "tilting", to use a layperson's term).

The comparison is with a car, and a bridge abutment....only difference in flying, is the extra dimension....and, a person figures that out VERY early in one's training. A person can be qualified to make his/her FIRST SOLO at 10 to 12 hours (or less, but that's generally typical). They can takeoff, fly a normal airport traffic pattern, and conduct an approach and landing, all by themselves...with confidence. Along with having other very basic skills and knowledge, at that point. Do you realize how much MORE experience a person with 200 hours has???

So, this next bit is irrelevant, in your "argument", as pertains just steering the airplanes into a crash:


... but only recently have you mentioned simulator training..


The ONLY "benefit" the 9/11 hijackers received from simulator exposure was in the familiarization of the cockpit layouts that are specific to the airplanes they intended to hijack!! They did NOT "need" this, though....plenty of other reference materials are available, to study and get accustomed that way. It is EASIER, though, to actually DO IT, hands-on, than just READ about it.

There are a great many ways, even more nowadays, since YouTube debuted....but, even in 2000 and 2001, in aviation circles, there are other ways to learn. We are talking about instruments and procedures that are COMMON to all airplanes....it is just that each design has minor differences in presentation and location of some aspects. Most of the acclimatization is just knowing where to look to find what you want to use, which piece of equipment or instrument to operate.

You ever been momentariuly puzzled in a hire car (rental car) that you were unfamiliar with, before? At first glance? Like, location of the four-way hazard flashers, radio tuning/volume controls, that sort of thing?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by xweaponx
Just watched the episode and WOW! All I can say is there are some pretty interesting facts.


Fact 1: Donalds Rumsfield 09/10/01 speaks about 2.3 trillion dollars coming up missing from tax payers. Anything with that much money would launch a HIGH scale investigation


Any connection outside of creating a whole new branch of conspiracies linking 2.3 trillion dollars to 911 or even to Rumfield, Bush etc? Being the spokesperson for the issue does make you the culprit too.



Fact 2: 09/11/01 Plane, Missile, Bomb hits pentagon in the computer network in the financial division completely knocking out all the computers that kept record of the 2.3 trillion dollars and their for no investigation could be done since well....the computers are gone.


This is a confusing fact..... So we had 2.3 trillion dollars in some sort of EFunds sitting in a defense department building with nothing but one computer (isolated and localized network of a few computers?) to account for it all?



Fact 3: Cell phone calls could not be placed on a plane that was so high up and have NO equipped backseat phones.


50/50 chance I get a phone on the back seat when I fly...”so high up” is actually normal flight altitude with nothing out of the ordinary there. We need more info here, like how many planes does that airlines use on these domestic routes that do not have backseat phones? What if all their domestic fights do not have backseat phones…or all do, don’t you think without empirical evidence to answer this your #3 “fact” really means nothing….



Fact 4: A highly surveillance building having over 100 security camera on the outside and only ONE camera caught the "plane, missile, bomb" hit the building....


And?? Anyone have physical evidence showing the location of all those other cameras and whether the airplane would ever be in their firld of view to even record it?



I think there is more to what the government is saying. Plus where and what happened to 2.3 trillion dollars? That is a LOT of money to go missing and no trail to where it went since the trail has been blown up....


The deal is people just grab events and try to link them to 911 with little or no connection except of what they dream up. It’s like saying Bush set up an alibi to be in front of students when it happened. Yes, it happened and yes Bush was in front of students, but an alibi is a connection created out of thin air to link Bush to 911.
This scenario is the same with all your facts to link them to 911…..

edit on 18-12-2010 by Xtrozero because: grammer



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


No people do not have to connect them randomly, they are all very obvious and conspiratorial actually...

It takes a HELL of alot of work to actually deny these connections. As you must actually program yourself into thinking inside of some kind of cell for your mind...




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



NOW....what is so difficult, do you think, about steering an airplane so as to hit a target? Not making any extraordinary, or unusual maneuvers...just basic pitch (that's "nose up and down" motion) and roll (that's wings "tilting", to use a layperson's term).


Give it a rest WW..If it was so easy to fly a plane we wouldn;t need clowns like you preaching they've had 40 years experience..
Instead we would have 18 year old nobodies piloting for a lot less than you earned..
You are starting to become a joke..

One minute all your experience makes you an expert..
Next minute, any idiot can do what you do..

Please get some consistency..!!!!

BTW, care to show me in this pic where those wings full of fuel went through the walls??
Bet you don't..


Why? Because you can't.........





posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Now here is a classic case of how the trusters work. The rest of us have been posting eyewitness accounts reporting it was a passenger jet, photos of aircraft wreckage, etc to the point where it's practically spamming...and yet these conspiracy people continue to mindlessly trust everything Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, and now, Jesse Ventura, says...who turns out to be just repeating whatever Alex Jones says...like it was religious gospel.


To the point that its practically spamming you say. Yet on the day of the attack live on the news there were reports of helicopters and explosions before the plane hit. They are perma linked to this page in the news archives and nobody arguing the CT's mentions them.

Yet they "spam" the reports that support the OS.

See? Unbiased scientific method wins every time.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


It was a jet liner.. Thousands of people saw it.. Hundreds are on record saying they saw it..

I saw it with my own eyes.. This is why I have a hard time siding with the "truthers" on any part of this.. I agree that there is something off with the OS.. But I think it more or less what info we had prior to 9/11.

Could I tell you without a doubt what type of plane? nope.But I know with 100% certainty.. IT WAS A PLANE. In my minds eye, all I can see is a huge plane that looked out of place.. No because of some conspiracy.. Because it was so close to the ground and louder than anything you could ever imagine.

I lived in Northern Virginia.. and worked in DC.. EVERYONE in that area knew someone that saw it.. Several people in my neighbor hood saw the plane but couldn't see the impact... I have a buddy who was a bar tender.. He saw the entire thing from a high rise in Alexandria.


If your wrong about the pentagon, what else do you have wrong?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 



It was a jet liner.. Thousands of people saw it.. Hundreds are on record saying they saw it..


Most of the "missile" theorists accept that there was a plane but that it flew over the Pentagon while a missile hit it..
Looking at that picture I just posted I can honestly say it doesn't look like it's been hit by a 757..

Too many differing theories and not enough answers..



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
It was a jet liner.. Thousands of people saw it.. Hundreds are on record saying they saw it..
I saw it with my own eyes..
EVERYONE in that area knew someone that saw it.. Several people in my neighbor hood saw the plane but couldn't see the impact... I have a buddy who was a bar tender.. He saw the entire thing from a high rise in Alexandria.

If this 757 was so visible flying around and "thousands" saw it, can you please post one surveillance video, or other video, showing an unmistakable plane flying around and/or hitting the Pentagon?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Better still..
Spot the plane in this early pic of the crash site..

Notice the lawns are clear even...





posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Why would I do that? Did I give you the impression, that I had any interest in making you believe me? I dont know if there was or wasn't video. You are probably right... I have never seen any video other than the shoty cam from the pent..

But then I ask myself.. What camera would be aimed up in the air? Even the traffic cams in the area would be pointed south.(At least what I assume, knowing the traffic patterns)..

Any of the cameras in the area would be pointed at the entrances of buildings..

Do you know of a specific Cam that would have shown the plane in its view? Or are you just guessing that there "must be" one?

But can you make a conclusion on "what isn't" really?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 

I just find it amazing you say thousands saw it, but no surveillance video captured an unmistakable 757.

The plane supposedly came in at ground level. I'd expect a couple surveillance cams would catch it like some caught the water crash landing of US Airways 1549.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by Resurrectio
 

I just find it amazing you say thousands saw it, but no surveillance video captured an unmistakable 757.

The plane supposedly came in at ground level. I'd expect a couple surveillance cams would catch it like some caught the water crash landing of US Airways 1549.


And keep in mind that the Pentagon was hit nearly an hour after the WTC was hit..
You would think a plane flying that low for an extended period would have draw a lot of attention..
There were many people filming and taking pics around NY at that time..
Every TV station had reporters and news crews out..
Yet no one even took a photo of it???

Possible but very odd.....



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


"give it a rest"?? And, bonus!! Lots of laughing smilies!! Just the sort of intellectual response I've grown accustomed to......


If it was so easy to fly a plane we wouldn;t need clowns like you preaching they've had 40 years experience..


You really have NOT been paying attention, have you?

Evidence is apparent, in what you wrote right there....shame you are non-comprehending. I can only assume it is congenital?

NO, what we actually have are clowns like Jesse Ventura re-hashing years-old garbage "conspiracy" crap that has already been discussed and explained, and enticing new "recruits", apparently, who have about as much intellectual capacity to understand as he exhibits.


What is this supposed to mean, to this topic anyway?:


Instead we would have 18 year old nobodies piloting for a lot less than you earned..



Next.
Example of non-comprehension, deuxième partie:


One minute all your experience makes you an expert..
Next minute, any idiot can do what you do..


Please show my posts that make the claim, ahem: "That any idiot can do what I do." Either direct me to the threads and page #s, or if you know how, copy the url and post them. (Hint:...Highlight, right-click, and use "copy/paste". It's easy).



BTW, care to show me in this pic where those wings full of fuel went through the walls??
Bet you don't..


AND, you proceeded to post one photo, taken from quite a distance away....because?....To prove, what?......

There is no ONE photo....and, again, I can only surmise that you are labouring under the misconception that the wings would have STAYED INTACT upon striking the building exterior. The Pentagon structure is NOT the same as the WTC Towers. Circumstances, and results, very different. WHY is this so difficult to comprehend??

Here is a statement from someone who was there:


Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"


(emphasis by me)

Any impact marks were only visible UP CLOSE....and NOT in photos taken from yards away. Furthermore, in many post-fire photos, the marks would be even harder to see, from fire and smoke and firefighting foam obscuration.

It is also a LIE that ALL windows survived the impact. Fuel and wing pieces (debris) could have entered through many gaps resulting from the impact...the ENTIRE expanse of the breach (before the upper floors collapsed) was about 75 feet. The "conspiracy" dolts (and JV) LIE about the "entry hole"...all the time, they LIE.

Windows:


Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do—they're blast-resistant.


Lot's of "conspiracists" stop there, but continuing:


"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse.


The wings didn't "fold back", another commonly 'quoted' claim...ironically, from a witness who stated that, but really, as most witnesses do, was speaking in hyperbole. (It's like the witness to the "USAir on the Hudson" incident....on calling the 911 operator, he said he saw an "airplane on fire" flying low....USAir 1549 was NEVER on fire....witnesses have hysteria, sometimes, under stress of events).

The wing structure failing, breaking, disintegrating....THAT is how it would have happened:


When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains.


www.popularmechanics.com...

The last sentence? .... "sheared off" by "load-bearing columns"?? That was IINSIDE. That is where "load-bearing columns" are located.... "conspiracists" love to use statements like that out of context.


Further reading for some ACTUAL research:

sites.google.com...

sites.google.com...


Now, for impact damage, "wing marks" and the rest....let's re-visit this image:



Looking at the head-on and top views---recall the extent of the damage from initial impact and entry was about 75 feet wide.

If you research airplane structural design, you will know that a wing has what's called a "spar" (or several...in the case of larger airplanes) that provides the main strength for the wings....and the attachment point at the fuselage (which uses a "keel beam" for added strength, and attachment). This is simplified, of course.

Again, in the image above....the MAJORITY of the "beefiness" for the airframe is the part of the central section of the wing, where the Main Landing Gear attach, as well as the Engine Mounts. I think the reason for that should be obvious?? The very center section is called the "wing box"....and provides main support for landing gear. The B-757 wings have most strength out along the leading edges...not a "spar" in traditional sense, but the structure is designed to serve the same function. Similar arrangement with the trailing edge (to support the TE flaps).

Also, to improve controllability, and balance, there is a great attempt to minimize the amount of mass out near the wingtips....keeping it mostly concentrated nearer the center, as much as possible. So, the portions of the wings OUTBOARD of where the engines are attached doesn't require any great strength...just enough, and no more. There is no need, also, for the "beefiness" to extend out all the way...just a bit beyond the engines is sufficient.

In fact, an airplane is mostly a bunch of empty space....its "volume" is empty, contained by the "skin" that is the outer appearance. WEIGHT is a primary enemy of all airplane designs, so it is always a compromise, when providing adequate strength.

Here are two images to show a bit of the internal structure of the B-757, since pictures are more useful than words to describe:









You are starting to become a joke..


Oh, wait....you wrote that bit!! I won't call you a "joke"....just terribly unable to understand logic, reason and evidence, it seems.....




edit on 19 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Oh BS WW..Another long winded post of nothing..

Yes, one picture is enough to see what happened..
Please show me the 75' wide entry point in this or any pic prior to the collapse..
Keep in mind the collapsed section wasn't even 75' wide..

It is also a LIE that ALL windows survived the impact. Fuel and wing pieces (debris) could have entered through many gaps resulting from the impact...the ENTIRE expanse of the breach (before hte upper floors collapsed) was about 75 feet. The "conspiracy" dolts (and JV) LIE about the "entry hole"...all the time, they LIE.

Maybe conspiracy dolts lie but pictures don't....

And yes WW, you did state many many times that these little trained hijackers could perform these extreme maneuvers that many pilots have stated they couldn't.....



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by Resurrectio
 

I just find it amazing you say thousands saw it, but no surveillance video captured an unmistakable 757.

The plane supposedly came in at ground level. I'd expect a couple surveillance cams would catch it like some caught the water crash landing of US Airways 1549.


And keep in mind that the Pentagon was hit nearly an hour after the WTC was hit..
You would think a plane flying that low for an extended period would have draw a lot of attention..
There were many people filming and taking pics around NY at that time..
Every TV station had reporters and news crews out..
Yet no one even took a photo of it???

Possible but very odd.....


I quess this is one of the things I have a hard time understanding.
The two World Trade Center Towers were hit by Aircraft that morning. Everyone that was breathing knew we were being attacked, and yet not one.....of the thousands of people that saw a plane flying low towards the Pentagon...were able to take a video, or even a single picture of a plane flying low....In the Capitol Of the USA??

I still don't know what to think, or believe. But that is just a coincedence. that is just about too hard to believe.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


I'm not denying anything; I just want to see the connection. Our brains love to connect things, and that is how our brains are wired. This can be good or bad, and if you do not provide the physical connection then it is bad.

Just fill in the spaces ok…

Pentagon___________unaccounted for 2.3 trillion dollars________________isolated computer network, and/or one computer with 2.3 trillion Efund dollars on it________________no backup or reason as to why it is there like that in the first place___________________Rumfield ___________________Bush__________________Plane hits the Pentagon at the exact location of the computer_______________



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Resurrectio
 



It was a jet liner.. Thousands of people saw it.. Hundreds are on record saying they saw it..


Most of the "missile" theorists accept that there was a plane but that it flew over the Pentagon while a missile hit it..
Looking at that picture I just posted I can honestly say it doesn't look like it's been hit by a 757..

Too many differing theories and not enough answers..


The problem is just what does a plane traveling at extreme high speeds, hitting a building full of gas look like? The main force would be the kinetic energy of the airplane and heat of the fuel. The airplane’s Aluminum shell in this case would be mostly inconsequential.

There is no normal behavior as we would think of it to be when dealing with extreme forces.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by zeta55
 


It is not extremely odd for a plane to be flying low in that area. Of course the path was different than normal..

The pentagon is a stones throw away from Regan National Airport...






Top right corner of that photo is Regan national... So most people in the area are used to seeing low flying jets.

The land that looks like an Island in the top right ... Is a runway at Regan national.. Only scarier landing I know of is St. Thomas Virgin Island..
edit on 12/20/2010 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



The problem is just what does a plane traveling at extreme high speeds, hitting a building full of gas look like? The main force would be the kinetic energy of the airplane and heat of the fuel. The airplane’s Aluminum shell in this case would be mostly inconsequential.

There is no normal behavior as we would think of it to be when dealing with extreme forces.


What's the "building full of gas".?
True, the force would have been huge but it's odd that the inconsequential aluminium shell (fuselage) punched through three walls whereas the much denser 3500kg engines supposidly dissintergrated without leaving much damage..

Also, where did all that fuel burn?
Pentagon workers actually walked out of the impact hole not long after the attack..




top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join