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: 16
136
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by backinblack
 


so why dont you do some investigation and prove it? you could be the new woodward & bernstein Get the passenger names who supposedly died and go interview their relatives & friends, All you need to find is 1 passenger that deosnt exist and you have evidence of foul play.

But lets face it you & i both know you will find greiving relatives & friends who would all confirm they were on the plane. Thats why no planers wont investigate. It would falsify their theory and they couldnt handle being wrong.
edit on 27-12-2010 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


To me and many others it's already proven..
A lot of people here in Australia know little about 9/11 apart from the trin towers,
but when I show them pics of the Pentagon and tell them a passenger jet hit it, there overwhelming response is "BS"...




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Mayb after the death of our generation they will finaly give the true story what happend.

Or is this to optimistic???



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Very interesting thread; I have wondered an still am, if the "truth" will ever see the light of day. I think there's too much at stake. "They" needed a war to sponsor the billion dollar warfare machine. A machine where all you Americans and inhibitants of all western countries are economical depending of. So it's a matter of time before "they" will do something like this again.

If have not read all of the threat content; but was something said, or is something known about passengers or crew? was there any investigaton to the people left behind, relatives of those passengers?


edit on 27/12/2010 by saturnus1962 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Too tired to go back and see if this has already been posted..and I'm not to sure about how objective 'the' objective reality described here its....but this is one perspective of it...and a good one imo.

Link to Pentagon Strike SWF
www.pentagonstrike.co.uk...


R



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


No, your point is not clear.

You challenged people to find a problem with the sizes of the engine parts of the Global Hawk and the 757 and the crash debris at the Pentagon.

The crash debris part size is consistent with that of a 757, and is at least 4 times too big for a Global Hawk.

So:

If your point is that the crash debris is that of a Global Hawk then you are obviously incorrect.
If your point is that the crash debris is that of a 757 then you are most likely correct.

I just wanted to know which you were trying to demonstrate with your challenge.

Why are you upset at that question?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by mikelee
 


No, your point is not clear.

You challenged people to find a problem with the sizes of the engine parts of the Global Hawk and the 757 and the crash debris at the Pentagon.

The crash debris part size is consistent with that of a 757, and is at least 4 times too big for a Global Hawk.

So:

If your point is that the crash debris is that of a Global Hawk then you are obviously incorrect.
If your point is that the crash debris is that of a 757 then you are most likely correct.

I just wanted to know which you were trying to demonstrate with your challenge.

Why are you upset at that question?


OK, why didn't the two 3500kg engines punch through the wall like the flimsy fuselage did???



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 





That 90 ft hole you reference was only visible after the building collasped.


The 90ft hole is clearly visible in the photo I referenced, and is taken from before the building collapsed.

Please turn off your confirmation bias and look at the photo.

Before Collapse: (with measurements)


After Collapse:



Spot the difference?
edit on 27/12/2010 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


No mate..No one is claiming a 90' hole..
Each section of the Pentagon was around half that and only one section collapsed..

Show me the 90' hole in this pic..

www.twf.org...



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 





OK, why didn't the two 3500kg engines punch through the wall like the flimsy fuselage did???


They did.
edit on 27/12/2010 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by backinblack
 





OK, why didn't the two 3500kg engines punch through the wall like the flimsy fuselage did???


They did.
edit on 27/12/2010 by rnaa because: (no reason given)


My, you are the only person saying that..
Could you please link to a credible source that says there was a 90' hole prior to collapse and that the engines penetrated the wall??



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 




No mate..No one is claiming a 90' hole..
Each section of the Pentagon was around half that and only one section collapsed.
.

That is just silly and demonstrably false. The Pentagon is one of the largest office buildings on the planet.

SOURCE

The Pentagon building is composed of five concentric pentagonal rings connected by ten radial corridors. Each of its outer walls is 921.6 feet long.








Show me the 90' hole in this pic..

Please see the pictures in my post immediately above your post that I am answering here.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Each face of the Pentagon is split into sections..
That are around 50' wide..
One section collapsed..

I do not see a 90' wide hole in your pics...



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
It's amazing, pleasing and confusing how this still gets so much attention and how we are still so very much divided.

There are plenty of threads about the Pentagon and I was hoping this wouldn't branch off but, it did and that's to be expected due to all our passion over this event but, can we try to stick to the gist of the thread and that's the other videos?

I would like to hear why you think we're not being shown them. In as much as it bothers me when I read someone say: they don't owe us anything let alone an explanation, I suppose that is your opinion. But can we get a better answer than that or, is that it?

So, anyone want to continue the conversation as to the reason we're not being shown any better quality CCTV videos either from the multiple cameras around the Pentagon, the gas station, Arlington Cemetery or any of the hotels (and I believe there are at least two)?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



So, anyone want to continue the conversation as to the reason we're not being shown any better quality CCTV videos either from the multiple cameras around the Pentagon, the gas station, Arlington Cemetery or any of the hotels (and I believe there are at least two)?


For the many that believe the OS is a fairytale It's pretty obvious why we are not shown any other video..
I guess you are asking the others..



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



My, you are the only person saying that..


How do you figure that?



Could you please link to a credible source that says there was a 90' hole prior to collapse and that the engines penetrated the wall??


Sure.
911research.wtc7.net...

On this photo I've circled the engine impact point in yellow for your convenience. Of course one or both of the engines may have already been damaged by impact with the generators and lampposts and what not on the way in. So their structural integrity may not have been at their hole punching optimum. Never-the-less they did leave large holes behind.


Furthermore, this photo show a close-up of the left engine impact hole. You can see it beyond the top of the burning fire. Before you pooh-pooh the 'mild' wing damage beyond the impact hole, remember that the wing is quite flimsy past the chassis that supports the engines. The hole damage basically aligns with that chassis, the wing tips are purposely designed to be lightweight and flex. They are not substantial at all, and were torn into shreds and blown all over the place.




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



I do not see a 90' wide hole in your pics...


Then you are being willfully disingenuous and there is really no point in discussing anything further with you.

If you want to have another look, it is the part outlined in red and labeled in yellow as being 96 feet wide.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by backinblack
 



My, you are the only person saying that..


How do you figure that?



Could you please link to a credible source that says there was a 90' hole prior to collapse and that the engines penetrated the wall??


Sure.
911research.wtc7.net...

On this photo I've circled the engine impact point in yellow for your convenience. Of course one or both of the engines may have already been damaged by impact with the generators and lampposts and what not on the way in. So their structural integrity may not have been at their hole punching optimum. Never-the-less they did leave large holes behind.


Furthermore, this photo show a close-up of the left engine impact hole. You can see it beyond the top of the burning fire. Before you pooh-pooh the 'mild' wing damage beyond the impact hole, remember that the wing is quite flimsy past the chassis that supports the engines. The hole damage basically aligns with that chassis, the wing tips are purposely designed to be lightweight and flex. They are not substantial at all, and were torn into shreds and blown all over the place.






LMAO..You show slight marks on the walls supposidly due to wing damage..
So where's the frikin wings???
If where you say they hit is correct then they didn't penetrate the wall..
So where are they and the 5000+kgs of fuel they held.???
edit on 27-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 




LMAO..You show slight marks on the walls supposidly due to wing damage..
So where's the frikin wings???


In millions of little pieces of aluminum scattered all through the site. Some of it, perhaps most, vaporized in the fireball.



If where you say they hit is correct then they didn't penetrate the wall..


Correct. Most of the wings did not penetrate the wall. More of the left wing than the right wing penetrated. The approximately one third of the wing (as far out as the engine chassis) would have penetrated. The wing tips had a much harder time. The right wing impacted at the floor deck level between the 1st and 2nd floor, so it encountered much more mass. The left wing impacted below the floor deck level and would have penetrated further. The wing tips (and the vertical stabilizer tip) would most likely not have penetrated the wall.



So where are they and the 5000+kgs of fuel they held.???


Answer to the first question is above. Impact fireball and fires inside the building burned off the fuel that remained after the flight. By the way, who says the plane had a full load of fuel?

Here you go, do some of your own research. Please turn off your confirmation bias before reading.
The Pentagon Building Performance Report
edit on 27/12/2010 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 
I'd love it if one of us with enough time, compiles a list of posters like this guy. One who has the stones to post the pictures he does, and then actually go into detail about them! I hope the discussion about paid contributors is over. This guy is king.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
It still amazes me how much some people work to keep floating this theory..

I worked for a major computer company and I had a call at a building right across the morning the pentagon was hit.

I was leaving that building and headed to get on 395 to go into DC for another repair call when I saw THE PLANE come down and hit the pentagon.

Not a missle , not a drone, it was also not the Arch Angel Michael nor a bunch of of Screaming MIMI's it was A PLANE!!



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join