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 - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

page: 13
136
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Yea ok bully.




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Response to Cosmic.Artifact -

Jet cars at drag races are a bit of an oddity but they can occasionally turn up. With other things being burned in the Pentagon fire after impact there could well be a mixing of smells making it difficult to differentiate. But based on your testimony it does give me reason to doubt the OS and perhaps lean toward a missile launch theory. Thank you.
edit on 26-12-2010 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by EdWard54
 


I'm a retired LEO. 27 years total. So there is no need for me to ask a local LEO. I appreciate your concern regarding my use of the word and wish you well.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Interfacer
 


Got a problem with the rules here? Then stay away, its that simple. I suggest you "interface" yourself with the forum rules. Have a nice day.
edit on 12/26/2010 by mikelee because: Add text



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


I have always wondered this. Ive never understood why. The footage from the gas station and the hotel across the street has never been released either. If it was a plane, why is it classified? Really makes you wonder about the validity.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Just for the sake of SANITY and reuniting this country again why not bring all evidences to light?? IF I was leaders of USA I would nip this in the bud. I swear they are trying to divide us to what end it dont know but COME on already! This is a HUGE issue! They are smearing the truthers almost as bad as they did the anti vietnam war movement. There is something VERY DISTURBING going on and NO Politician is in touch with what Americans feel!



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Event Horizon
 


The footage from one gas station was released but it does not show anything in detail at all. It was released to satisfy a load of FOIA requests and little else. It is on Google vids if you want to check it out.
edit on 12/26/2010 by mikelee because: Add word "not".



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Interfacer
 


Well said and I agree. They should release all the footage that can conclusively show an airliner if that was what struck the Pentagon. I do not understand why as you said, they wish to keep the division in place by ignoring requests to show footage as well creating a division among otherwise patriotic Americans. No matter what side they believe on this issue.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


well I am not quite sure, never have been... never looked into it, now though I am leaning toward a smaller plane that was crashed into the pentagon. (eg: a private sized jet or small passenger jet)

thanks for your input but I believe the testimonies here from people without their location masked or not filled in (eg: locals who lived or worked near the Pentagon) has begun to outweigh any delusional statements made by those overseas or in the gutter up north.

the Nose Knows...
edit on 12/26/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 

The fuel burning at the Pentagon was undoubtedly JP-8, a kerosene based jet propulsion fuel in wide use since 1996.



The fire, (emanating grey and white smoke) in the Pentagon building itself was put out very quickly, but interestingly a small and very smokey fire in the diesel generator in front of the building was allowed to burn for a long time, generating considerable amounts of thick black smoke, consistent with a JP-8 fire. That's not surprising since:

en.wikipedia.org...


Outside of powering aircraft, JP-8 (or JP-5) is used as a fuel for heaters, stoves,[2] tanks,[3] by the U.S. military as a replacement for diesel fuel in the engines of nearly all tactical ground vehicles and electrical generators, and as a coolant in engines and some other aircraft components. The use of a single fuel greatly simplifies logistics.


Basically, the smell of the fuel onsite at the Pentagon would certainly have been the smell of JP-8, because that was undoubtedly the fuel burning at the generator. Could fuel from a missile have been detected by some? It's possible. It would take a huge nose to take everything in.

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



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
if it was a global hawk dont you think ATLEAST 1 person in the area got some kind of footage of it or even announced that they saw a black airplane flying in to the pentagon? I have a hard time believing this was a global hawk.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Helghast1
 


Why? Currently, there is no footage of an airliner either.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helghast1
if it was a global hawk dont you think ATLEAST 1 person in the area got some kind of footage of it or even announced that they saw a black airplane flying in to the pentagon? I have a hard time believing this was a global hawk.


What kind of a material is a global hawk made out of, where it cannot be painted?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Fuel & engine in Global Hawks - JP-8. Engine Make - 1xAllison AE3007H



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Global Hawks can be painted whatever color suits the mission. The RQ-4 is powered by an Allison Rolls-Royce AE3007H turbofan engine with 7,050 lbf (3,200 kgf / 31.4 kN) thrust, and carries a payload of 2,000 pounds (900 kilograms). The main fuselage is standard aluminum, semi-monocoque construction, while the wings are made of lightweight, high-strength composite materials.
Source: USAF
edit on 12/26/2010 by mikelee because: Add text



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

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Global Hawks can be painted whatever color suits the mission. The RQ-4 is powered by an Allison Rolls-Royce AE3007H turbofan engine with 7,050 lbf (3,200 kgf / 31.4 kN) thrust, and carries a payload of 2,000 pounds (900 kilograms). The main fuselage is standard aluminum, semi-monocoque construction, while the wings are made of lightweight, high-strength composite materials.
Source: USAF
edit on 12/26/2010 by mikelee because: Add text


So it can be painted?
Then it makes:




Originally posted by Helghast1.
if it was a global hawk dont you think ATLEAST 1 person in the area got some kind of footage of it or even announced that they saw a black airplane flying in to the pentagon? I have a hard time believing this was a global hawk.


Void.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 

I've always thought that another aircraft was present at the Pentagon that morning, otherwise it would make no sense to fake the downed light poles. I thought that a missile might have come in along the line of downed light poles, wth the airliner taking the north of Citgo trajectory. To me this scenario makes sense. I can't imagine a Global Hawk and an airliner not both being seen by spectators. But perhaps it is true, hard as it is to believe.

I know Craig Ranke believes that the Pentagon damage was caused completely by planted explosives.

He explains the divergence of the airliner trajectory from the line of downed lightpoles by "margin of pilot error" during the approach to the Pentagon.

I have trouble accepting that, myself. I think Rummy had it right. It was a missile. Craig Ranke thinks that Rummy was putting out disinfo. I think that notion is overly elaborate, but I do respect Craig's opinion. The CIT guys are very sharp on their stuff.

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



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


The issue I have with the light poles is that an aircraft hitting that many in flight would have sheared off it's wings or at the very least, made it not worthy of flight and crashed well before its intended target. To have hit all of them then continued on into the building is something from a movie. Even Pilots have stated that much. If a bird in flight can cause a potentially air worthiness issue when it impacts a plane's wings, consider the damage that 6 aluminum light poles would cause at 150 kts over it's maximum speed.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 

I think you are quite right. One of the problems from the public's point of view and a golden opportunity from a propagandist's point of view is that Hollywood movies have conditioned Americans, and indeed people everywhere, to accept impossible scenarios as plausible.

The classic one from the WTC is the alleged fireball going 85 floors down the elevator shaft and blowing out the doors at the bottom. This is a complete impossibility. But people believe that happened, even though they have the visual of the fireball outside the building descending only a few floors before beginning to rise and dissipate.
edit on 27-12-2010 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Americans have never trusted nor liked Canadians, and that happens to be one of the sure things we have rediscovered in the wake of 9/11
edit on 12/26/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)


Well with that little observation you just lost all credibility past, present and FUTURE and this is the type of logic that OS believers use? You didn't do your cause any good whatsoever.

I'm gonna bookmark this little gem and throw it up when ever you make a thread or post anything.

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


good deal buddy


I have openly stated on this board since I have been here that I personally do not like Canadians or British people hardly at all, I am thinking about adding it to my sig... They are so lame they will not even post their location and for good reason... this site happens to be hosted in a "Freedom of Speech" country.


What a forward thinking individual you are. Didn't I read that you said you were going? Take care.



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join