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.

 

12/17/10 Jesse Ventrura Pentagon Episode

page: 14
47
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by loveguy

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by gaparke
 

As has been explained repeatedly, the money was never missing, so none of it could have been routed to Halliburton.

Not that it'll change anyones mind, conspiracy theories are always so much more fun than the cold, hard facts.


How do you know that??
It was unaccounted for..
How they ended up accounting for it is anyones guess and last I heard they were still $700billion short.


Just like the 2.3 trillion bucks-----POOF!

Gone baby gone. And, with no explanation that pertains with verifiable accounting transactions.

Was that off topic?

Jesse seems to be making headway, he's doing it right because he's still on the idiot box, I mean TV.




before you are exposed or labeled as a disinformation agent.




How nice of you to finally acknowledge me...

Just so you get up to speed; re-read my post. I was commenting on how the "mushrooms" in this thread up and scattered like there was a dunkin donuts burning down.

Disinfo agent? Click the second link in my signature.

Thanks for finally acknowledging that you care enough to quote me in your reply. Have a Merry Christmas.

Oh yes, I'd like to review the pentagon cctv tapes please...




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596



What would happen if a 757 was going 150 knots over the maximum operating limit?

Airplanes do not automatically fall apart when you exceed their operating envelope.


but of course you nor any can seem to show a single example or shred of evidence of a plane exceeding or approaching Vmo +150 knots without suffering structural failure. Once anyone with a brain examines the evidence, its beyond clear that it was not a commercial boeing that struck WTC2.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 


And you cannot show any evidence of any airliner falling apart when it exceeds its designed speed. Next volley?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 


Your "attitude" is neither amusing, nor particularly adult.

I am guessing you have a passably decent comprehension of physics?? Or, can look it up? You may wish to re-visit the concepts of motion, momentum, mass, force and vectors.

FUEL is a substance, and thus, has mass. When in motion, it contains momentum, just as any other mass does. ALL the various components had their own particular amount of kinetic energy, depending on many variables.

It seems that many, many people STILL have terribly incorrect "assumptions" of how things really work, in the real physical world. I have often suggested that it has something to do with modern entertainment media. "Hollywood-style" entertainment....where rules of physics are often ignored, in favor of what "looks good on film", and provides audience enjoyment/excitement, etc.

Here. computer simulation, using the very strict rules of mathematics, and therefore physics, to predict and depict some aspects of the behavior of solids, and specifically the airliner and the fuel, on impact...AND shows the specifics of the building design, and those effects:





Except your cartoon doesn't actually depict reality or illustrate "REAL" physics as you're claiming. The fact you base your opinions and perception of reality off of a cartoon,
speaks volumes about the credibility of your OPINIONS, which is NIL.

So far you've failed to adequately explain where the WING HOLE is and attempt to divert your inability by spouting off rhetoric and irrelevant mumbo jumbo how animation shows physical reality when in fact your animation actually debunks your claim that the wings disintegrated upon impact.

Your cartoon actually shows the wings INTACT AS THEY ENTER THE BUILDING'S FIRST WALL.

SO WHERE'S THE DAMAGE FROM THE WINGS?

The ONLY damage is no more than 25ft if that. What happened to the other 100ft WEED?

And how does FUEL have mass when it ignites? The next thing you'll probably tell us is the fuel caused the
Punch-out hole



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
In the post of yours I reply to (two stars??? wow....some people have low standards, I guess)...you quoted the majority of it, all except the video, which would ANSWER your question asked:


We see it clearly ignite..Now my physics only extends to year 12 but I think thats enough..
Is not most of the fuel carried in the wings? The same wings that did NOT seem to have penetrated the building?

had you watched the video, you would see how the structure of the airframe disintegrated on impact, into many many pieces, fragments....so, your claim about the wings is invalid.


EXCEPT THE CARTOON YOU'RE USING AS EVIDENCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT SHOWS THE WINGS ENTERING THE BUILDING which contradicts your claim that the wings "DISINTEGRATED ON IMPACT".

So which is it Weed? You can't have it both ways like the perps OS you're defending.

And wheres the ENGINES Weed? You claim to be an aviation expert which means you should know such engines are TITANIUM and would never "DISINTEGRATE" or vaporize which is essentially what you and OS peddlers are trying to sell to dumb-downed Americans.

These are basic elements of the Pentagon LIE that only fools believe and shills try to pass off as if physics or science support.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 


Umm, no, most of the engine is made out of steel, not titanium. Lets shoot for a wee bit more accuracy.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by lord9And wheres the ENGINES


You don't expect the engines to just drop off the pylons and come to rest on the lawn intact afer such an impact?

edit on 26-12-2010 by C46driver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by lord9
 


And you cannot show any evidence of any airliner falling apart when it exceeds its designed speed. Next volley?


I don't need to when there's already been precedent set and boeing design limits set for a reason and you can't show any commercial boeing 767/757 that could come anywhere near being 150+Vmo without suffering structural failure as precedent has already shown happening only 5 knots into the zone of structural failure engineers have set.

So the issue goes far beyond "design speed" which you're evading for obvious reasons... one being you lack the knowledge and experience to understand the reasons why.

As evidence proves and its been explained, "EA990, China Airlines 747SP, TWA 727, 737, Modified DC-8, all suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits. EA990 suffered in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS. Thats 5 knots into the Structural Failure Zone of the 767 based on speeds set by Boeing, the definitions as set by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, and it is 85 knots LESS than the speeds reported for the aircraft which hit the south tower."

Again, Its a FACT that aircraft cannot exceed their manufactured set limits by 150 knots without suffering in flight structural failure. According to Boeing and the Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics, a standard Boeing cannot achieve speeds of 510 knots near sea level.

Slam dunk. Game Over



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by lord9Wall of text



Load of horse poo.

Are you one of Capt. Balsamos disciples?

Boeing airplanes have exeeded vmo with more than 150 kts in the past with no in flight breakup



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by C46driver

Originally posted by lord9And wheres the ENGINES


You don't expect the engines to just drop off the pylons and come to rest on the lawn intact afer such an impact?

edit on 26-12-2010 by C46driver because: (no reason given)



Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by lord9
 


Umm, no, most of the engine is made out of steel, not titanium. Lets shoot for a wee bit more accuracy.


Lets ignore for a moment you failed to address anything else I said let alone in context...

"Flight 77 had 2 Rolls royce RB211 engines, made of steel and titanium alloy. They are 9 feet in diameter, 12 feet long and weigh 6 tons each. Titanium melts at 1688 degrees celcius, Jet fuel can only maintain a burning temperature of 1120 degrees celsius, and that is only after 40 minutes of maintained fuel. The fuel would burn off upon impact. The 2 engines should have been found mostly in tact near the pentagon. Instead there was a single turbo jet engine about 2 feet in diameter found in the building. Manufacturing reps confirmed that the piece found at the pentagon was not from a bowing 757. If the plane had vaporized, it would have been the first time in aviation history.

Other than a single hole in the pentagon there was no damage where the rest of the plane including the engines. Even the windows around the hole were intact.

So the fact remains that in all four cases that day the government would have us believe that planes just straight up disappeared into their alleged targets, into WTC, into the Pentagon, into the ground.

In a couple of these cases, these theorists want us to believe that objects and material had physical properties that morphed from second to second.

A plane is supposedly made of heavy rigid enough materials that it can plow through the wall of the Pentagon, the most heavily fortified building on the face of the planet, with walls specifically designed to withstand bunker busting long-range cruise missiles. That same plane is supposedly constructed of soft enough materials that allowed for the wings and engines (will the engines fit into the fueselage?) to fold neatly into the fueselage as the plane neatly zips into a hole barely the size of the diameter of the fueselage, and pretty much disappears entirely into this hole, which in turn becomes an oven so hot that everything within is "vaporized," including the fueselage that was formerly hard enough to penetrate a stone, concrete and steel wall hard enough to withstand a long-range bunker busting cruise missile (and yet was still soft enough to ...)

What you have there is straight up doublethink.

Why didn't the wall crater? Why wasn't the hole bigger? The engines were enormous standing taller than a grown man and wider than an astro van and longer than a Chevy Suburban. Where did they go? They ran on jet fuel but were in turn "vaporized" by the same jet fuel they ran on? One of those engines, traveling at 500 miles per hour would have left a hole big enough you could have driven a car through and that hole would have been located yards from the main hole? Where is it? Oh that's right, it folded neatly into the fueselage..."



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by C46driver

Originally posted by lord9Wall of text



Load of horse poo.
Are you one of Capt. Balsamos disciples?
Boeing airplanes have exeeded vmo with more than 150 kts in the past with no in flight breakup


Are you one of the resident shills or one of those who were too afraid to debate those posting facts and evidence to support their arguments, until they were censored?

But now that you made that claim, please show evidence to support that "Boeing airplanes have exeeded vmo with more than 150 kts in the past with no in flight breakup".

I'm sure many would be interested seeing your claim isn't a load of horse poo.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by curious_soul
 

You really want to quibble over a hundred or so foot difference in flight paths? That make absolutely NO difference in the end result? And listening to the leading questions coming from the interviewer...hes encouraging their stories in the direction he wants. Not to mention there is a bit of memory recall issues with witnesses. Going back to them years later, you are going to find differences in their stories. Do you have any interviews of those same people from that day?


as it was pointed out, the flight paths make ALL THE DIFFERENCE... so trying to dismiss its significance shows an attempt to obfuscate and divert attention from essential evidence one needs to understand and examine as it pertains to the flight paths. Those who use this disinfo tactic are either in denial, haven't done any real research, or shills.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by zeta55
 


The video shows a Tomahawk (quite small, only about 6 meters/20 feet long) and the fuel/air fireball explosion (fairly small too).

The Pentagon fireball from the fuel vapors was larger. It was as brief as normal jet fuel-type incidents.

Like this one. This is B-52, and a notTomahawk missile...hope you can agree?:



Uhhhhhhhhh The only thing it suggests is that if it were a missile or drone that hit the pentagon, it was larger. So whats your point?

And your B-52 clip has no relevance to anything.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TheWatcher11
 


Why do you suppose ALL possible video evidence would have been collected??


hide evidence?
manipulate/alter evidence?

are you really this naive and lacking of critical thinking skills??


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Any reason you can think of, when they conduct an investigation, to determine all the facts they can?

BTW...the term "confiscated" is used, intentionally it seems, by the "conspiracy" sites in order to innuendo-drop.

ALL "tapes", and other video recordings, were returned.


I almost spit up my coffee when i read that. Please show evidence that "ALL TAPES and OTHER VIDEO RECORDINGS WERE RETURNED" and that none are being withheld or were altered.

You and I both know what you're saying is false since its a FACT the fbi confiscated videos they've NEVER returned. So why would you try to pass off such a blatant falsehood here? Oh thats right, to perpetuate ignorance, disinfo and steer seekers from the Truth.

and BTW No, the term confiscated has also been used by the FBI and those peddling the OS.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

1....Why is the hole in the Pentagon only 16 feet in diameter.....Would not the wings and engines at least cause some exterior damage, instead of just folding in....going through the 16 foot hole?


Usually, when I see the "16-foot hole" mentioned, it includes a shot of the hole in the inner ring wall....the EXIT hole where some debris punched through. The actual outer facade breach was about 75 feet wide.


You didn't answer the question... and its interesting how you cleverly weasel your way around questions like this.

First off, Where is this 75 foot breach you're talking about.

Second, the wingspan of that boeing is 125ft... which would still be far short of the damage that boeing should have caused... But then, being a pilot, you already know that don't you Weed.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
As it was said, the whole reason for this is the antiquated beurocracy and filing systems being used in our military budget offices which are so out of date, that it is hard to track $2.3 trillion because its all stored in old and out of date systems, and some are incompatable with today's equipment. That IS the problem being addressed by Rumsfeld.


thank you for being a repeater.. but..

That is not finding or accounting for the missing trillions...

that is a childish small minded bureaucratic excuse...


not to mention the budgets from years past do not even add up to that amount...




so.. where did this money come from.. and where did it go..



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 


Oh boy, where exactly did Rumsfeld say in his speech that $2.3 trillion went missing?
You know, this lie is a lie, because a TRUTHER made it up. Thats right, a truther. One who claims to be for the truth. And yet, he/she made up a story, and LIED, by taking Rumsfeld's speech and taking out only a tiny portion out of context. You are aware what "out of context" means? If not, please go back and go over that. Now, back to the FACTS. This is what Rumsfeld said, exactly, word for word, and then I want you and every single truster of this conspiracy theory to use something called reading comprehension. I know its probably no longer being taught in schools, or people just stopped doing that, but still, lets dust off those skills, and get to the bottom of this.


Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security. In this period of limited funds, we need every nickel, every good idea, every innovation, every effort to help modernize and transform the U.S. military....

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.


Now then, take a look above, and then tell me exactly where Rumsfeld says that $2.3 trillion is missing. Reading comprehension folks. I want you or anyone else to point exactly in the quote, taken word for word in context, the exact spot where Rumsfeld explicitly says $2.3 trillion is missing. And then be sure to explain exactly how Rumsfeld's quote can mean or be twisted into trillions missing just his words. as far as I see it and read it, the problem is the antiquated records system and financial system in use at the Pentagon which causes tie-ups and headaches (not to mention red tape) of accessing financial data due to outmoded and crappy systems that are hard or nearly impossible to access in a timely manner. How this "= $2.3 trillion missing = lets fake a plane crash into the Pentagon without a plane to cover it up" is way beyond me.


My personal belief as to why the TM created all of these "theories" (more like ideas), is because that ever so iumportant critical ability of reading comprehension is lacking in many members of the TM. If this was on a standardized test of reading comprehension abilities, I'm 100% positive the TM would get a failing score on it. i read the quote and see it and understand it as is. I do not see anywhere any mention of missing trillions. But some schmuck in the TM makes up this little wonder and suckers in the gullible making them believe there is something sinister afoot, when there is nothing there in reality. There are countless examples of this, including the "pull it" non-scandal, eyewitness testimony, and this missing trillions, bit.

And finally for you reeferman, please show me where is it missing. How do you its missing? Who said so?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by theclutch
 


Again with the lies? Why are you parroting these lies? Are you aware that the black boxes have been recovered from Flight77 and Flight93? Are you aware that there was PLENTY of debris found at all four impact sites? Including the WTCs? And yes even the Pentagon. Are you new at this? A five minute search on ATS and online will prove how WRONG your entire post is. Engines? Found. All of this has been covered ad nauseum. I can see that all you are doing is copy and pasting the same drivel from those TM websites that havent updated their information in about 8 years. It's a joke when a non-American thinks they got it all figured out better than us, when all they did was look at a website that was created in truther's basement which spouts the same lies, innuendos, misconceptions word for word as every other TM site. When you think two frat boys in their mother's basement managed to uncover a massive conspiracy that implicates the US govt and thousands of others in mass murder, all from looking at grainy footage, a few pictures and a whole host of out of context eyewitness accounts, well then I have to question the sanity of anyone that believes them.

Oh and again, now you did not show me exactly where Rumsfeld said that $2.3 trillion is missing. Why are you also continuing this lie, when its been shown to be a BLATANT lie??????? So now I can see that no one can actually show me the part. You can't, no one else has. I love this little game of gotya! Its fun holding all the cards, and knowing full well the opponent has NOTHING to counter with.

And and real cute and mature with your extremely lame attempt to simplify the crash of UA93 with a solid steel dildo. I'm wondering how the mods didnt catch that but rest assured, they will be notified. FYI, an airplane is not a solid steel dildo. In fact, to do you a huge favor, I'm going to correct you. Take a 17.6 oz can of beer. Fill it with 1/8 of gasoline. Throw some paper shreds in it, some nuts and bolts, then launch it vertically into the sand box at roughly 400mph from 500ft. Then tell me whats left. Geeze, at least get your analogy parameters correct.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


It wasnt 2.3 trillion.
It was 3.4 trillion.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join