Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 28
136
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by OuttaTime
 



Dude! The plane went through ONE reinforced wall. The outer wall. The outer three rings on the Pentagon are not "separate" on the first floor. And if you crash an airliner into an object, the explosion is going to send debris in ALL directions. But, you were right in the statement that 'much of the debris would have been drawn into the building'.....because it was.


OK, so if it did in fact penetrate 1 wall, then what happened to the other 5? A fuel/air explosion wouldn't have been able to create that type of damage that far in. We can agree that conflagration would occur in ALL directions, and the momentum of the crash would draw most of it in. I'm trying to imagine the comparisons between the impact of the 1st tower and the impact of the pentagon. Given the circumstances of the pentagon crash, then the plane that hit the 1st tower should have gone all the way through and left an identifiable imprint on the south tower as it exited.
What I'm seeing is a tell-tale fingerprint of a shaped charge explosion (regardless of what type of craft carried it in). I've seen enough films and photos of an HE shaped charge incident that in my mind, it raises questions. A shaped charge explosion can spray debris in all directions, but it primarily creates an extremely powerful cone shaped pressure wave on one end.




posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Just more of the same crap lines from you Dave..
The pic is fine but then I'd say there is NOT pic out there that shows where a boeing 757 with 2 3500kg engines hit the Pentagon..

I'll let you post a pic to show your proof then..
But I bet you pick one from after the wall collapsed..


Oh, so in other words you will only accept as proof a photo taken during the time when everything was all blackened and covered with smoke pouring out of the building and noone can see anything? All right, two can play this game. I present your own photo back to you and ask you to show me why there ISN'T a hole there.

You conspiracy people really have no credibility. Why the heck would the wall have even collapsed unless something really large had hit it? If it were explosives there wouldn't have been a wall left to collapse.


You are so predictable and simply repeat your same lines over and over without proving anything..


First of all, of course I'm going to repeat the same things over and over. This is a 9/11 conspiracy discussion forum so the topic is pretty much going to stay the same. What do you want me to post here, meatloaf recipes? Second of all, it's only in your mind that I'm not proving anything, and that's becuase you're grasping at every straw you can find for why you don't have to believe anything that refutes your alternative scenarios. A hundred eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet and you zero in on one anonymous guy who said he saw a helicopter. The 9/11 commission report specifically identifies the C-130 above the Pentagon as a Minnesota air national guard plane and yet you completely ignore that all so you can say how mysterious it is that one witness saw a C-130 above the Pentagon. That doesn't even go into just how flipping idiotic it would be to use a cruise missile and go through all this unecessary work for no reason when we know someone was flinging passenger jets into a bunch of OTHER buildings.

Please, explain how this is legitimate research into the events of 9/11 to me, 'cause from where I sit, you're simply making up pathetic excuses for why you should continue to trust everything Thierry Meyssan says.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You pretty much post the same crap in every thread. So predictable.

Why do you post here? What's the point? To prove to everyone who disagrees with the 9/11 OS that everything we were told is real?


I already stated many times why I am here- to illustrate just how badly these damned fool conspiracy web sites spoon feeding you this drivel are pulling your leg. In the case of this whole "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" BS it was invented by a French guy named Thierry Meyssan to sell a bunch of books. Anyone with a lick of horse sense will understand just how idiotic it would be to go through all the trouble of shooting a cruise missile at the Pentagon and planting armies of disinformation agents, maufactured aircraft wreckage, doctored video stills, or whatever, when we know full flipping well the terrorists were flinging passenger jets into a bunch of OTHER buildings. Who's behind all these conspiracies, anyway, Rube Goldberg?

In case it hasn't dawned on you...and apparently it hasn't...if your lame conspiracy stories can't even get past a nobody like me, then how are they going to get past any official investigation you people keep harping you want?


No one here who is against the OS is ever going to listen to your BS and change their minds.


LOL I could have told you that. If the conspiracy people are so much in love with their secret plots and coverups that they're even accusing Ted Olson of lying to cover up the conspiracy and the murder of his wife...and someone here actually did, just now... you've officially abandoned all hope of returning to reality from anything I or anyone else could possibly say.

If you don't believe anything I say, then believe this- your worst enemy isn't me. It's the blind zealotry of your fellow conspriacy people making you all look like babbling lunatics by association. I'm the one making up claims of lasers from outer space or hologram planes, dude.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


You are purposely forgetting that the mass of aircraft is still moving forward at roughly the same velocity as it was when impacting the exterior wall. You forget that one the plane impacted the wall, it punched through it, but the rest of the aircraft is still moving forward, carrying with it the fuel, the engines, the interior, and the shattered remains of the aircraft. Its not going to just stop to zero velocity a split second after entering the building. It is going to move forward until all forward momentum is used up.

The airplane once inside, was not turned into a gas or atom sized particles and just stopped in its tracks. The momentum of the aircraft sent the airliner and its remains into the building until it ran out of momentum and punched a final hole in the last ring.

For it to have bee a shaped charge, that wold have meant it was to have been a HUGE warhead to be able to puncture through this many rings of the Pentagon. There are no warheads the size of a 757 fuselage. Also are you aware how a shaped charge works? The end of the charge is concave with a layer of copper placed on top of a concave charge. At the moment of detonation, the copper turns into a liquid jet which punches through the target. For even trying to do a shaped charge in the Pentagon, you would need to place charges on each and every wall in the direction of the "impact", and even then you would have to somehow do massive damage inside including aircraft parts and such. Its beyond convoluted to try and "fake" a plane cash with warheads, missiles, and cruise missiles.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


You are purposely forgetting that the mass of aircraft is still moving forward at roughly the same velocity as it was when impacting the exterior wall. You forget that one the plane impacted the wall, it punched through it, but the rest of the aircraft is still moving forward, carrying with it the fuel, the engines, the interior, and the shattered remains of the aircraft. Its not going to just stop to zero velocity a split second after entering the building. It is going to move forward until all forward momentum is used up.

The airplane once inside, was not turned into a gas or atom sized particles and just stopped in its tracks. The momentum of the aircraft sent the airliner and its remains into the building until it ran out of momentum and punched a final hole in the last ring.

For it to have bee a shaped charge, that wold have meant it was to have been a HUGE warhead to be able to puncture through this many rings of the Pentagon. There are no warheads the size of a 757 fuselage. Also are you aware how a shaped charge works? The end of the charge is concave with a layer of copper placed on top of a concave charge. At the moment of detonation, the copper turns into a liquid jet which punches through the target. For even trying to do a shaped charge in the Pentagon, you would need to place charges on each and every wall in the direction of the "impact", and even then you would have to somehow do massive damage inside including aircraft parts and such. Its beyond convoluted to try and "fake" a plane cash with warheads, missiles, and cruise missiles.


True, but as I posted a few pages back, if the plane did hit the pentagon at a 45 degree angle then there would have been a shearing of the jet as it entered, but the pics shown 15 minutes after the impact didn't show the effects of it. We've all seen the F4 video where it disintegrates upon impact. While it follows the laws of physics on one side, it defies the laws on the other side. While the F4 vaporized when it hit the block, it did not penetrate the block. Structural components between the two craft are fairly common. I do believe there were no engines in the F4 though.
Yes I'm familiar with shaped charges. I was a training P.O. in air launched weapons and aircraft at both a test facility and an aircraft carrier. One had to have knowledge of the components they worked with, and I've pulled plenty of safety pins from launch rails. A shaped charge the size of a baseball can penetrate a few inches of steel and still have enough power to create a pressure wave on the blown side of the plate (i.e antitank weapons). A shaped charge can be as big as a car if need be but most applications don't even use 1/4 that much. A 100 lb shaped charge can do major damage to a block wall. The pressure wave of the explosion will also convert debris into part of the shockwave.



In that illustration the jet of energy would be heading towards the word 'effect'


Explains more to me the damage at the punch out hole, versus fiberglass nosecones or landing gear.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaTime
True, but as I posted a few pages back, if the plane did hit the pentagon at a 45 degree angle then there would have been a shearing of the jet as it entered, but the pics shown 15 minutes after the impact didn't show the effects of it. We've all seen the F4 video where it disintegrates upon impact. While it follows the laws of physics on one side, it defies the laws on the other side. While the F4 vaporized when it hit the block, it did not penetrate the block. Structural components between the two craft are fairly common. I do believe there were no engines in the F4 though.

You're ignoring a critical part of the F4 video, namely that it was part of a test into how nuclear power plants could be secured against airplane crashes.

The block it hit was designed and built to withstand an airplane crash. The Pentagon was not.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


Maybe so, but the pentagon was built to withstand truck bombs, associated with terrorist tactics.

The towers were designed to withstand multiple 727 hits, yet 1 plane struck it and an hour later it collapsed.
edit on 2-1-2011 by OuttaTime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


The blunt force shock wave from a truck bomb is vastly different from a propelled, penetrating object. One would expect an ordie to know the difference.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Of course there's a difference. I use that analogy in reference to the reinforcement of the pentagon walls. That's an awful lot of concrete and rebar to stop a subsonic plane made of soft metals. The F4 vaporized on a 5' wall, while the 757 penetrated a total of over 10+ feet of concrete and multiple reinforced structural beams. It had been noted that the nose section penetrated the C-ring, yet it is made of fiberglass.
There were testimonies claiming that an explosion (similar to a bomb) occurred, even by other military personnel. Link



Terry Morin, a former USMC aviator -- heard from the BMDO offices at the old Navy Annex
I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon. There was a large explosion noise and the low frequency sound echo that comes with this type of sound. Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like a small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off 1/2 mile in front of you.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


Where do you get the idea the plane penetrated a 10 foot thick wall? That is so far from reality that it is not even close to amusing. Then you hop on the nose was fiberglass. The actual nosecone might have been fiberglass, but the aircraft bulkhead it was mounted to, wasnt. Nor were the structural members attached to the bulkhead.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


Where do you get the idea the plane penetrated a 10 foot thick wall? That is so far from reality that it is not even close to amusing. Then you hop on the nose was fiberglass. The actual nosecone might have been fiberglass, but the aircraft bulkhead it was mounted to, wasnt. Nor were the structural members attached to the bulkhead.


2 e-ring walls (2 walls @ 2' thick = 4'), 2 d-ring walls (2 x 2' = 4'), and 2 c-ring walls (2 x 2' = 4'). 12' actually but I'm giving them the benefit of a doubt about actual wall thickness, and the actual pour strength of the concrete (and omitting fiberglass reinforcement within the cement) and the rebar reinforcements and the added brick facia on the rings and the interior support beams. It also had 2 open areas to push debris through and shed forefront debris (between ring e and ring d, and between ring d and ring c not counting the debris area between ring c and ring b).



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


And again, you show that you are not either doing the research or paying attention to the thread. The outer three rings are connected on the first two floors. Your belief about 6 reinforced brick walls is wrong.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


From the 2nd pic down in this link I see distinct rings and the path was at an angle and it intersects with the inner C-ring area. From the info I've seen, there would be damage on both the 1st and 2nd floors in the E-ring and carrying forward into the D-ring. Keep in mind that if the engines were close to the ground, the bulk of the plane would be at 2nd floor level and the tail fin would be impacting the 3rd floor. So if the centerline of the plane was between the 1st and 2nd floor, then the plane would have been sheered in two, which is not clearly evident in the photos.
The FDR (flight data recorder) was found at either the entry point or at the c-ring punch out (depending on which report you read).
I'm still pouring over the info on pilotsfor911truth.org... so I'll get back to you



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Beautifully argued thread. Enough to debate any counterpoint made on this matter.

S&F
edit on 2-1-2011 by Ewok_Boba because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow2
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


how do we know you werent friends with all these people? even though
i know 3 people who directly saw the plane hitting the building.

1: Vdot manager at the marriot looking out the window at the pentagon, while shaving
2: a contract plumber who was doing work at the pentagon
3: state trooper who was one of the first responders on scene, who now has health issues because of the jetfuel
burning and other hazardous materials. direct witnesses like this speak volumes.

People who are interviewed years later can remember details they didnt remember before but they can also fabricate.
What credibility do the people you interviewed have? These people were not directly viewing the plane hitting the building.


Okay, but explain why the multiple cameras of footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon is never released? Simply release more than the few obscure frames and we all see this as solved like you do. Why is the footage withheld and all the area camera footage withheld? And those witnesses you cite would have a hard time being absolutely certain about an object crusing near the ground at 500mph. People's interpretation is imperfect, but clear video would tell the truth. So I'm baffled why they would withhold the video?

What is there to hide???
edit on 3-1-2011 by thepixelpusher because: typos



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by thepixelpusher
 

Good FSM, not the 84 videos again?!


A list of all the videotapes is available, which shows many of these videotapes do not have footage of the Pentagon at all. Instead, many have footage of the WTC, some are security video tapes taken from a Kinko's in Florida, etc. Some that show the Pentagon were taken days after the attacks, and some in the evening of 9/11/2001.
The security camera footage taken from around the Pentagon included the Citgo, the Doubletree, and the Pentagon parking lot. There was also video from cameras at Reagan National Airport parking garage. Both video files show smoke in the distance coming from direction of Pentagon. Another video came from a DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. The camera was repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon.

Footage taken after the attack included home video filmed by a tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera, and video taken by a NBC4 Washington reporter...

The list of 85 videos

Five videotapes were recovered from the post-attack Pentagon crime scene and submitted to the FBI Laboratory in Quantico.

13 videos were obtained by the Defense Protective Services (DPS) - Pentagon Police - on 9/25/2001 from individual filming Pentagon site from Boundary Channel Drive. These included footage from the WTC site in the days after the attcks.

One (1) Beta video tape - interviews in NYC
One (1) DVCAM tape labeled "Twin Towers, World Trade Center" - NYC/WTC
One (1) DVCAM tape - suburban setting, unknown individuals, dated 9/12-13
One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC/WTC, 9/21-22
One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC/WTC, 9/22-23
One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC 9/23
One (1) DVCAM tape - interviews in NYC; 10 seconds of Pentagon footage, but not crash site
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
8 videos were received on 10/11/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected during consent search of residence in Avanel, New Jersey. Pending case on subject.

One (1) damaged Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
Videos received on 10/15/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected from surveillance cameras at multiple Kinko's in South Florida.

One (1) TDK 1-160 VHS video tape
One (1) VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
Video received on 10/22/2001 at Quantico. This video was recovered from garbage at residenced in Neenah, Wisconsin by the Neenah Police Department. Investigation on suspect has been closed.

One (1) damaged VHS video tape and housing
Received at Washington Field Office Command Post

These two video tapes included footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene taken by DOD media pool photographers, and were obtained from Navy Rear Admiral Craig Quigley.

One (1) Betacam BCT-30G video cassette, labeled "1 of 2" & "early 6pm 9/11/01"
One (1) Betacam BCT-30G video cassette, labeled "2 of 2" & "early pm 9/11/01"
Also received at the Washington Field Office Command Post:

One (1) VHS video cassette - witness interviews near Pentagon after the attack
One (1) VHS video cassette, labeled "9/11/2001" - footage of post Pentagon crime scene, obtained from Chief Mastin, Prince William County
One (1) TDK Hi8 MP 120 video casette, wrapped in Pentagon map and labeled on back "1/29/1952 Mohan Shresesa 8/2/2018 Todoroki Japan 9/17/01 3:00 hr Fern/So. Rotary" - Home video taken from car, dated 9/17/2001,showing post-crash Pentagon crime scene very briefly from road (~10 seconds)
One (1) FujiFilm DP121 video cassette, labeled "WJLA-TV" - miscellaneous footage from news reporter, dated 9/18/2001
One (1) Sony MP120 8mm video cassette - Home video, DC sightseeing
One (1) TDK HG Ultimate TC-30 video cassette - Home video, unknown date, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
One (1) Maxell DVM60SE mini digital video cassette - Home video, dated 9/17/2001, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
One (1) Sony Hi8 video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/11/2001 showing ~6 seconds of Pentagon footage (not crash site)
One (1) TDK Hi8 MP 120 video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/21/2001, showing post-crash Pentagon crime scene
One (1) JVC MP120 8mm video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/21/2001, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
Videos filmed on 9/26/2001 by FBI Forensic Audio-Visual Analysis Unit (FAVIAU) of post-crash Pentagon crime scene.

One (1) original SONY 40 min. Digital Betacam video tape
One (1) original SONY 40 min. Digital Betacam video tape
Videos submitted to FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, under cover of communication dated 2/19/2002, all depicting WTC footage.

One (1) Betacam video tape
One (1) HDCAM video tape
One (1) Betacam SP video tape
One (1) Betacam SP video tape
One (1) Mini DV video tape maked in part Antonio M.
One (1) DVC PRO video tape
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1056 COPY 5A of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1056 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1471 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1788 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1729 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1808 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1813 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B530 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B729 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1563 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1051 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1787 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B2406 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1276 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "CNN RE: BURN VICTIM..."
One VHS video tape marked in part "NIGHTLINE 2/15/2002"
Videos submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico, under communication dated 5/13/2002.

One (1) Sony SDX1-25C video tape
One (1) Sony SDX1-25C video tape
One (1) TDK 8mm video tape
Video obtained by FBI on 9/28/2001 and submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico on 5/28/2002. Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 showing footage of WTC after attacks, obtained by Suffolk County, New York Police Department.

One Hi 8mm video cassette tape from Eileen McMahon
Video obtained by FBI on 9/13/2001 and submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico on 5/28/2002. Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 showing footage of second plane hitting WTC and aftermath.

One Mini DV 60 video cassette tape
Video submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico under cover of communication dated 9/22/2001. Obtained by FBI NK from Dime Savings Bank, Nutley, New Jersey

One TDK T-160 VHS video tape
Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by NBC4 Washington reporter, with footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

One (1) home Video of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.
Video from DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. Camera repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

One (1) videotape
Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera. Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

One (1) videotape
Copy of home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by AP photographer using camera borrowed from nearby motorist. Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

One (1) duplicate video cassette tape dated 9/11/01
Video from cameras at Reagan National Airport parking garage. Both video files show smoke in the distance coming from direction of Pentagon. Obtained by FBI on 9/13/2001.

One (1) CD containing 2 video files
Video from security camera at Citgo Gas Station, 801 S. Joyce Street, Arlington, Virginia. Submitted to FAVIAU to determine if video showed impact of plane into Pentagon. Determined not to show impact. Obtained by FBI on 9/11/2001.

One (1) JVC EHG Hi-Fi videocassette, labeled Day 11 Quarters K
Video from security camera at Doubletree Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Security video showing rotating footage from different camera locations at hotel; no camera captures impact of plane into Pentagon.

One (1) TDK video tape marked "11C"
Images captured by two separate cameras at the entrance to the Pentagon Mall Terrace parkinng lot. Images capture the impact of the plane into the Pentagon from two different cameras. Obtained from the Pentagon Force Protection Agency via USA/EDVA.

One (1) CD-ROM

web.archive.org...://flight77.info/85videos.html



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


I do realize that a large shaped charge can be used to create such damage, but where was it planted? I dont recall hearing any accounts of a huge shaped charge attached to the exterior wall of the Pentagon prior to detonation. You can't just park a truck next to the wall and then detonate it and have it punch through that many walls inside. And then you have to account for the aircraft debris inside the Pentagon, which included having some large parts actually wrapped around certain columns inside. Also, some of the columns deeper inside also showed impact damage of a large object. How can a large shaped charge outside snap a column deep inside the building?


So naturally one will then go on and say it was attached to a cruise missile. Ok fine, then how did hundreds of people see a 757 AA fly right over their heads, cars, in front of them, right smackdab into the Pentagon, if it was supposedly a cruise missile? There are no cruise missiles in the US, or for that matter the world's military inventory, that have a wingspan of the 757 or the length of a 757. None. How else would a cruise missile knock over lamp posts on approach to the Pentagon? Did it zigzag in? And again, what of the obvious 757 debris laying about, including human remains, seats, and other miscellaneous airliner debris from a 757?

Ok so now the argument will say, oh it was a Global Hawk.
Ok, I dont see how a GH can skim over hundreds of people and impact lamp posts without losing control immediately. The wings of the GH are much thinner and smaller than a 757's. They are made from light composites, that would have been damaged on impact with multiple lamp posts. And then, how can it impact the Pentagon with such force to punch through the walls right to the end? Also people reported it was a two engined aircraft, with engines hanging off the wings. The GH has one engine located on its back towards the tail. Was the warhead inside the nose of the GH? How the heck did they manage that? Then it will be said that it fired a missile into the Pentagon. Ok, but the GH is not designed for missile launches. And what kind of missile did it fire? There is a limit to warheads and size, and especially for shaped charges in warhead, and a missile body. What about the large amount of fuel? How was that managed by the GH?

You see, the more you go into these alternate ideas of what hit the Pentagon, the more complicated and Rube Goldberg-esqe it gets, and starts to make less and less and less sense when compared to the facts and events of the day. The mundane explanation is the correct one, a hijacked 757 AA flight 77 impacted the Pentagon. No magical fly-bys, no magical cruise missiles, no magical shaped charges, no magical fly-overs, no squads of stealth ninjas planting aircraft debris in front of the Pentagon in front of thousands of potential witnesses, or inside the burning inferno of the Pentagon. There is more than ample evidence and proof of a 757 impacting the Pentagon. Unfortunately many in the truth movement have an instant thought blocker, which kicks in the moment any contrary evidence is provided which disproves the "no plane impacting Pentagon" idea. Any mention of factual reports, pictures, etc, which disprove the no-plane idea, and boom, the thought processes are suspended, and blocked, and the silly little NP idea is safe from facts. I dont get it. Embracing ignorance is not a part of ATS's mission.

People want pictures to prove a plane hit it, they are shown the pictures, not good enough.
People want eyewitness accounts of it happening, its given to them, not good enough.
People want video of the impact, its shown (as best as can be), not good enough.
When people say the saw a 757 impact the Pentagon, not proof enough.
When people say they thought it looked like it was going to miss, then its PROOF it flew over.
When people say the flight path took it a few feet in either direction in relation to the actual flight path, then its PROOF that it was all staged and faked.
When people on the other side and inside the Pentagon only mention the impact and blast of the plane hit, and they thought it was a bomb (as they didnt see the plane hit them), well then that is incontrovertible proof that it wasnt a plane, but some sort of a bomb.

And it goes on like this. Every time. And the wheel of ignorance goes round and round again!



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


I do realize that a large shaped charge can be used to create such damage, but where was it planted? I dont recall hearing any accounts of a huge shaped charge attached to the exterior wall of the Pentagon prior to detonation. You can't just park a truck next to the wall and then detonate it and have it punch through that many walls inside. And then you have to account for the aircraft debris inside the Pentagon, which included having some large parts actually wrapped around certain columns inside. Also, some of the columns deeper inside also showed impact damage of a large object. How can a large shaped charge outside snap a column deep inside the building?


Have you seen this video www.youtube.com...
Now I was aware watrching this that there is no mention of 'airplane debris inside the Pentagon. Where do you get your information from? Please will you link us to it--videos if possible that show this aircrat debris. In this video there are pilots that insist negotioating a plane --as is reported--is virtually
impossible even for a skilled pilot never mind for the supposed 'terrorist' who apparently was a crap pilot. Can you explain that? Also the witness who says she thought she heard an explosion and walked out of the hole where it happened but saw no plane parts. WHERE was the luggage--the bodies? Checkout in the film how OTHER plane crashes look like!


So naturally one will then go on and say it was attached to a cruise missile. Ok fine, then how did hundreds of people see a 757 AA fly right over their heads, cars, in front of them, right smackdab into the Pentagon, if it was supposedly a cruise missile? There are no cruise missiles in the US, or for that matter the world's military inventory, that have a wingspan of the 757 or the length of a 757. None. How else would a cruise missile knock over lamp posts on approach to the Pentagon? Did it zigzag in? And again, what of the obvious 757 debris laying about, including human remains, seats, and other miscellaneous airliner debris from a 757?


In that fil it is suggested a plane MAY have flown towards the Pentagon but not IN it, rather over it coinciding with the explosion so as to create the IMPRESSIOn a plane flew into it---especially with the media stating it did over and over. Propaganda uses psychological techniques. What do you think of this theory?


Ok so now the argument will say, oh it was a Global Hawk.
Ok, I dont see how a GH can skim over hundreds of people and impact lamp posts without losing control immediately. The wings of the GH are much thinner and smaller than a 757's. They are made from light composites, that would have been damaged on impact with multiple lamp posts. And then, how can it impact the Pentagon with such force to punch through the walls right to the end? Also people reported it was a two engined aircraft, with engines hanging off the wings. The GH has one engine located on its back towards the tail. Was the warhead inside the nose of the GH? How the heck did they manage that? Then it will be said that it fired a missile into the Pentagon. Ok, but the GH is not designed for missile launches. And what kind of missile did it fire? There is a limit to warheads and size, and especially for shaped charges in warhead, and a missile body. What about the large amount of fuel? How was that managed by the GH?


I dont know jack about missiles. But at the beginning part of the video I link you to it is stressed impossible that a plane could have hit the Pentagon with the two big engines because there is no structural damage that matches.


You see, the more you go into these alternate ideas of what hit the Pentagon, the more complicated and Rube Goldberg-esqe it gets, and starts to make less and less and less sense when compared to the facts and events of the day. The mundane explanation is the correct one, a hijacked 757 AA flight 77 impacted the Pentagon. No magical fly-bys, no magical cruise missiles, no magical shaped charges, no magical fly-overs, no squads of stealth ninjas planting aircraft debris in front of the Pentagon in front of thousands of potential witnesses, or inside the burning inferno of the Pentagon. There is more than ample evidence and proof of a 757 impacting the Pentagon. Unfortunately many in the truth movement have an instant thought blocker, which kicks in the moment any contrary evidence is provided which disproves the "no plane impacting Pentagon" idea. Any mention of factual reports, pictures, etc, which disprove the no-plane idea, and boom, the thought processes are suspended, and blocked, and the silly little NP idea is safe from facts. I dont get it. Embracing ignorance is not a part of ATS's mission.


it is not about embracing ignorance----it is looking at ALL the evidence. Instead of assuming magical this that and the other which will stop you looking rather look at ALL the evidence. For example, in a murder case the detectives and prosecutor will be looking for MOTIVE. In the video it is stressed that the very day before Rumsfeld told the media that trillions were missing....! then the day after a ? hits the very part of the Pentagon that has those details and the humans there who may have known about the missing money. Is that so? I am asking you. For all I know Ventural may be talking crap. So we must FIND OUT if that is so, right? because that would give a motive. Now how likely is it that a 'terrorist' with little flying capability could fly a boeing intothe Pentagon when you hear experienced pilots say thet even they couldn't do it? WHY are all the camera footage being kept from public viewing? Wouldn't ONE have ANY footage of a plane flying? Has ANY of the supposed aircraft debris been investigated verfying it was that flight.? What about the impossibiliy of Ouslon's wife talking to him by phone. Are you prepared to FORGET all these clues so you can be nice and cozy with the officially promoted version?


People want pictures to prove a plane hit it, they are shown the pictures, not good enough.
People want eyewitness accounts of it happening, its given to them, not good enough.
People want video of the impact, its shown (as best as can be), not good enough.
When people say the saw a 757 impact the Pentagon, not proof enough.
When people say they thought it looked like it was going to miss, then its PROOF it flew over.
When people say the flight path took it a few feet in either direction in relation to the actual flight path, then its PROOF that it was all staged and faked.
When people on the other side and inside the Pentagon only mention the impact and blast of the plane hit, and they thought it was a bomb (as they didnt see the plane hit them), well then that is incontrovertible proof that it wasnt a plane, but some sort of a bomb.

And it goes on like this. Every time. And the wheel of ignorance goes round and round again!


Please show me the pictures? How come not ONE camera caught a plane flying near, and into the Pentagon that day? Why were all the cameras confiscated? The video that WAS shwon only showed an explosion which at least one witness who was actually in the building claimed that is exactly what it was---no plane.
I have heard there are pilots for truth and engineers for truth, etc, but are there any LAWYERS for truth, or detectives for trust. because this stinks to high heaven.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I stand corrected. It's a bit difficult to get floorplans for that building. I'm looking at the columnar damage assessments now.

But I did find this which indicates 7 probable walls


and this image showing the support damage
edit on 3-1-2011 by OuttaTime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 




I do realize that a large shaped charge can be used to create such damage, but where was it planted? I dont recall hearing any accounts of a huge shaped charge attached to the exterior wall of the Pentagon prior to detonation. You can't just park a truck next to the wall and then detonate it and have it punch through that many walls inside. And then you have to account for the aircraft debris inside the Pentagon, which included having some large parts actually wrapped around certain columns inside. Also, some of the columns deeper inside also showed impact damage of a large object. How can a large shaped charge outside snap a column deep inside the building?


That's the $64,000 question. If a jetliner did hit the pentagon, the charge itself may have already been in the plane. With that being said, then it opens a can of worms about prior knowledge and premeditation of the attack.
I've read testimonies where the witnesses claimed to hear a whooshing sound go by them and the pentagon exploded moments later. I talked to someone on the phone last night who recalled a testimony he read about a dozen or so fishermen on the banks of the potomac describing a red and white 'torpedo' flying low over the river. I had also read about the mysterious white plane spotted over the towers and the pentagon prior to the events (from the pilotsfor911truth.org website forums). This isn't the C130 mentioned in prior threads, but a suspected E4 govt plane.
It has been postulated by others that the 757 was preloaded with explosives, which would explain military testimonies of a bomb like blast (not a fuel/air explosion), the smell of cordite/gunpowder, the shockwave, etc.

So yes you're right. The most obvious explainations are mundane, and the mundane explanations are obvious, yet every query digs just a little deeper in the rabbit hole. There were many anomalies 24 hrs prior to the Flt 77 event (Rumsfeld declaring a war, $2.3T dollars vanishing, Hani Hanjour being a horrible pilot, NTSB being denied access to investigate the crash but got access to the black boxes, surge on stock put options).





new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join