Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 41
136
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by PoorFool
Question:

If they wanted us to believe a plane really hit the Pentagon, why didn't they use a real plane?



Probably couldn't find an experienced pilot capable of hitting it..




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I have any easy answer;

There are no DNA records, no mention of flight fatalities, obviously the PENTAGON would be the MOST investigated crash site in American history. They prefer the other crashes to encite.

Back to basics physics and chemistry. Wow, if they can do that then then ECHALON has an issue, the collective mind of humans is greater. Synergystic extrapolation in truth.

Ergo, no humans on board, no DNA. etc

So simple.

And the wonderous ability of PentaLawn, wish I could use that on the local golf course.

Which means a UAV.

Happy Hunting

HADES



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Oh dear, it supports what you want to believe, please don't pretend it explains everything.

It doesn't explain how the damage to the pentagon is inconsistent with a passenger jet crashing into it. As usual many assumptions have to be facts for this paper to work.

Sorry bud but no soup for you.

Have you actually read that thread yourself, is anyone but the debunkers buying it?


With regard to the Frank Legge / Warren Stutt paper on AA 77's FDR you ask " is anyone but the debunkers buying it ?"

So it seems to me that you, along with most truthers on here, are not aware that this paper is not a "debunker
" production. Co-author Frank Legge is a prominent truther and an editor of Journal of 9/11 studies.

Why don't you actually read the paper and debate the contents ? it is new information and not same old, same old as being endlessly and pointlessly recycled on this thread.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



With regard to the Frank Legge / Warren Stutt paper on AA 77's FDR you ask " is anyone but the debunkers buying it ?"

So it seems to me that you, along with most truthers on here, are not aware that this paper is not a "debunker
" production. Co-author Frank Legge is a prominent truther and an editor of Journal of 9/11 studies.

Why don't you actually read the paper and debate the contents ? it is new information and not same old, same old as being endlessly and pointlessly recycled on this thread.


Many like me have debated the content..
Or do you ignore that???



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
 



With regard to the Frank Legge / Warren Stutt paper on AA 77's FDR you ask " is anyone but the debunkers buying it ?"

So it seems to me that you, along with most truthers on here, are not aware that this paper is not a "debunker
" production. Co-author Frank Legge is a prominent truther and an editor of Journal of 9/11 studies.

Why don't you actually read the paper and debate the contents ? it is new information and not same old, same old as being endlessly and pointlessly recycled on this thread.


Many like me have debated the content..
Or do you ignore that???



My post was directed to ANOK. But, since you bring it up, the only truthers I have seen address the contents of the report at all have been you and turbo.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow2
FACT: lightpoles knocked down matching up the width of the plane.


Not a Fact or you'd be able to show concrete evidence of the plane actually hitting them... but then, the proven NOC path disproves your claim as well.


Originally posted by surfnow2
FACT: side of the pentagon damage matches up to the approximate width of the plane


except there's irrefutable evidence proving otherwise.

Originally posted by surfnow2
FACT: debris from plane with American Airline lettering found on the site outside the building


which has never been forensically verified to belong to flight 77 and could easily have been
planted which evidence exists to support. So that evidence is IRRELEVANT.

In other words, it may be a fact that debri from a plane w/AA lettering was found, but it doesn't prove
flight 77 crashed or was even there. Apparently you either intentionally fail to acknowledge that relevant fact, or haven't done enough research to understand the implications.

Originally posted by surfnow2
FACT: various engine parts, seats and other fuselage material found inside the building.


which has never been forensically verified to belong to flight 77 and could easily have been
planted which evidence exists to support. So that evidence is IRRELEVANT.

In other words, it may be a fact that debri from a plane w/AA lettering was found, but it doesn't prove
flight 77 crashed or was even there. Apparently you either intentionally fail to acknowledge that relevant fact, or haven't done enough research to understand the implications.

i suggest you revise your argument and look up the definition of "relevance" and "facts".


Originally posted by surfnow2
FACT: A reported who witnessed the plane hit the building stated he saw an American Airline plane hit the building.
He also stated that it was "LIKE A MISSLE". For some reason people keep saying this guy stated that a MISSLE hit the building. He did not say it was a missle he said the plane was like a missle because quite frankly it probably scared the # out of him.


I think you're mistaking that for rumsfield and a congressmens freudian slip.

but I also think you're insinuating witnesses aren't able to distinguish the difference between a 757 and missile...Is that what you're saying?

amazing the lengths OS supporters will go to defend and make excuses up to explain obvious lies and screw ups by the perps.


Originally posted by surfnow2
everything i typed above can be found through simple investigations.


and imagine what you could have discovered if you actually ever did any.

So Yes, everything you typed can be found inaccurate, fallacious, and irrelevant as real evidence or facts through simple investigations.

edit on 12-1-2011 by lord9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



My post was directed to ANOK. But, since you bring it up, the only truthers I have seen address the contents of the report at all have been you and turbo.


Who you directed the post to is irrelevant..
Facts are what matter and you are quickly running out of them..

The report you address is full of holes and assumptions and is NOT peer reviewed..

Come back with FACTS and we will talk...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
 



My post was directed to ANOK. But, since you bring it up, the only truthers I have seen address the contents of the report at all have been you and turbo.


Who you directed the post to is irrelevant..
Facts are what matter and you are quickly running out of them..

The report you address is full of holes and assumptions and is NOT peer reviewed..

Come back with FACTS and we will talk...



If this paper is " so full of holes and assumptions " why don't you debate those holes and assumptions on the appropriate thread ?

All I have seen you do is pick up turbofans allegation about accuracy of radio altimeters above certain speeds , which is going nowhere fast, and try to run with it.

You still haven't answered my question about the final FDR recording. If the altitude was wrong and the plane cleared the Pentagon then how come that was at the same moment as deceleration so severe it was beyond the devices capability to fully record it ?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by maxwellsdemon
 





I have any easy answer;


But it is the wrong one.



There are no DNA records


They identified every 'real' passenger on the plane and victim in the Pentagon, and virtually everyone required DNA for that identification. Only the hijackers were not specifically identified, however their remains were found and identified as a group by process of elimination.



, no mention of flight fatalities,...


What do you mean? Please read this article.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Well seeing as you offer nothing to support your comment, it's nothing but your opinion.


Well since this thread, and many others on this topic on ATS, already contains all the support a thinking person could want, it isn't his opinion, it is demonstrated fact.



I don't go by opinions.


Unless they support your personal fantasies.



I know what debunkers claim as evidence,


I thought you just denied seeing any support for SurfNow2's assertion?



but it doesn't explain the physics anomaly.


Since there is no physics anomaly, and you 'know' the evidence against such a thing, then you must be of the opinion that there are different physical constants or processes involved in the area of the Pentagon than anywhere else in the universe. I thought you don't go by opinion?

Anyway, it is OK to have your own opinion. But please don't invent your own facts.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by lord9

Originally posted by weedwhacker

  • 136 saw a plane approach the Pentagon.

  • 103 saw the plane HIT the Pentagon.

  • 26 were certain it was an American Airlines jet.

  • 7 were savvy (knowledgeable) enough to recognize it as a Boeing 757.

  • 8 witnesses were pilots. One was an Air Traffic Controller at the Pentagon heliport.

  • ZERO saw a missile hit the Pentagon.

  • ZERO saw a Global Hawk or other type of military aircraft hit the Pentagon.


  • and when anyone examines all the evidence and witnesses you've listed, its clear the evidence for real planes or a plane hitting the pentagon is worthless.





    Are you serious? Or is that little mental blocker kicking in right now when your precious conspiracy theory is being demolished? are you going to refute the 103 that SAW the plane hit the Pentagon? are you going to refute the many that were inside cleaning up the mess for weeks later, taking airliner pieces out?

    I cannot believe your incredulity and ignornace. It literally boggles the mind people can be so ignorant on purpose. ATS is to deny ignorance, not embrace it.



    posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:29 AM
    link   
    I think the debries found at the pentagon crashsite will be hard to explain away.



    posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:47 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by lord9
    Not a Fact or you'd be able to show concrete evidence of the plane actually hitting them... but then, the proven NOC path disproves your claim as well.


    WoW!
    For someone to be claiming to have done so much evidence, the ignorance you spew is unbearable. You want concrete evidence the plane hit the lightpoles? You have eyewitnesses confirming it. You have pictures of the lightpoles DOWN. Even a taxicab was hit and damaged by one falling it. Did you miss all that? Oh wait, it contradicts your beliefs in the TM Religion, so you ignored it. Naturally.



    except there's irrefutable evidence proving otherwise.

    What evidence? Because some truther in his mom's basement looked at a photo of the Pentagon and said it isnt so? That's your irrefutable evidence?
    Once again, you ignore the people that were there and watched it unfold right in front of them, or stayed behind to go in and clean up the mess and rescue any people trapped inside. The real evidence of the impact weighs a lot more than your incredulous claim of "irrefuteable proof proving otherwise". Care to present this mystical "irrefutable proof priving otherwise"? Cause I have yet to see anything of your claims.


    which has never been forensically verified to belong to flight 77 and could easily have been
    planted which evidence exists to support. So that evidence is IRRELEVANT.
    In other words, it may be a fact that debri from a plane w/AA lettering was found, but it doesn't prove
    flight 77 crashed or was even there. Apparently you either intentionally fail to acknowledge that relevant fact, or haven't done enough research to understand the implications.


    Ah so the fact that hundreds of people saw an AA 757 fly in straight into the Pentagon, the ground crew that serviced the plane before it left, the flight control that tracked AA flight 77 from take-off to impact, the C-130 crew that followed the plane, the 1st responders and search and recovery teams that went in looking for survivors and the clean up crews afterwards, were all duped by a fake? And wait, the kicker, the debris was planted??
    So they used stealth ninjas to literally come out of the shadows carrying sacks of 757 debris, and in full view of hundreds if not thousandfs of spectators, first responders, firefighters, police officers, DoD personel, news crews, eyewitnesses, and just started to scatter the debris right in front of everyone, and everyone just missed it and ignored it???
    Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.



    which has never been forensically verified to belong to flight 77 and could easily have been
    planted which evidence exists to support. So that evidence is IRRELEVANT.


    But the DNA that was matched to the dead crew and passangers, is irrelevant? The baggage debris and personal items recovered was planted? Those blinders are doing wonders in trying to keep your conspiracy afloat in your mind. Tell me again how they managed to plant it without anyone noticing? I want to hear this story.




    In other words, it may be a fact that debri from a plane w/AA lettering was found, but it doesn't prove
    flight 77 crashed or was even there. Apparently you either intentionally fail to acknowledge that relevant fact, or haven't done enough research to understand the implications.

    i suggest you revise your argument and look up the definition of "relevance" and "facts".


    Seems to me you are the one in need of the definitions!



    I think you're mistaking that for rumsfield and a congressmens freudian slip.

    but I also think you're insinuating witnesses aren't able to distinguish the difference between a 757 and missile...Is that what you're saying?

    amazing the lengths OS supporters will go to defend and make excuses up to explain obvious lies and screw ups by the perps.


    So you have never heard of a simile? here is the definition:
    A simile is a figure of speech that indirectly compares two different things by employing the words "like", "as", or "than".

    So someone saying "like a missile" means it was being compared to a missile. A 757 @ 500mph heading right for the Pentagon? Yeah sounds like describing it as a missile is pretty accurate. It amazes me the lengths you "No Planers" go to ignore the facts.


    and imagine what you could have discovered if you actually ever did any.

    So Yes, everything you typed can be found inaccurate, fallacious, and irrelevant as real evidence or facts through simple investigations.


    OH REALLY?


    That must be the largest steaming-est pile of bull-dung I have read in a long time. But you know, I'm going to give you a chance to dig yourself out of this one. Show some concrete evidence that anything he typed was false, inaccurate, fallacious, or irrelevant. Explain how hundreds of eyewitnesses who would testify to seeing the plane impact the Pentagon is irrelevant. Explain how stealth ninjas planted tons of debris in full view of hundreds, if not, thousands of eyewitnesses in front of the Pentagon and anyone who had a decent view of the area. Go on, you are the one with the foot in the mouth, lets see you take it out.



    posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:25 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by ANOK
    reply to post by dereks
     


    So where did the plane go?

    If it had the energy to go completely through the first outer reinforced wall it should not have completely disappeared, as there is nothing else beyond that first wall that was stronger. So what made the plane disappear?

    Where did the wings and engines go as there is obviously no hole for them to have gone through. If you think they were completely destroyed by the wall then that contradicts what the rest of the plane did. Jet engines verses carbon fiber nose cone, which one is more likely to do the most damage?

    Newtons 3rd law of motion, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    We have contradicting events going on if you believe the planes fuselage went into the building and was destroyed by the same walls it went through, yet the wings and engines somehow did not manage to go through the walls and ended up in the same state, completely obliterated.

    The whole story is a contradiction.


    Boy oh boy, another one with blinders on.


    Where did the plane go? Hmmmmmmm where did it go, where did it go?? Oh, wait, it crashed into the Pentagon, try checking in there first!
    ANOK you crack me up.

    Do you really think the Pentagon's exterior wall was a solid dense mass of lead 30ft thick? If not, then why do you think the plane would have just hit the wall like in the F-4 video, and dissappeared into nothingness, while leaving the wall unscathed? What made the plane disappear? Are you serious, or just out for a troll? A plane slams into a building at 500 mph, and you want to know where the plane went? Ignorance must be bliss for you ANOK. The plane crashed into the building. That is a fact. On impact with the building, it punched through the exterior wall, which gave way allowing the rest of the mass of the speeding airliner to continue inside. The wings and engines also followed suit, with a good section of the wing (the section from the fuselage to the engines and a little beyond) entering the Pentagon, while the flimsier lighter sections of the wing shattered on impact on the exterior. Thats why there is not wingspan-wide "Wiley Coyote" impact hole. have you ever even seen the dimensions of the hole in compraison to the aircraft?

    fire.nist.gov...

    Why dont you read the report first, then get back to us.

    Wait, you really think that because the nose of the plane was carbon-fiber, there should not have been as much damage???
    Are you joking? Or are you serious? Did you forget what the nose-cone was attached to?
    And then you expect us to take you seriously? Here is a fact, if it was just a fiberglass nose-cone all by itself, impacting the Pentagon, you'd be correct. Nothing really would have happened except for maybe a scuff mark on the wall. What happened on 9/11? A 757, hit the building. The nosecone probably crumpled into pieces on impact, but what was behind it? Oh, the rest of the airliner! But do you honestly believe, that a couple of feet of fiberglass nosecone is going to diminish, absorb, or cushion the full impact force of the entire airlner on impact to almost negligible?
    Seems to me you need to recheck your physics there buddy. Read up on momentum, kinetic energy, and force, then get back to us on preaching about physics.



    posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:31 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by backinblack
    reply to post by surfnow2
     



    no two accidents are the same they are all different as there are many variables.

    Really???
    Two planes hit two towers..They both fell...Oh and a third for good measure..
    Both planes dissapeared into the buildings.

    One plane hit the Pentagon..Little wreckage outside.
    It dissapeared into the building..

    One plane crashed into a field..
    It dissapeared into the ground..

    Seems you are wrong..Some accidents seem incredibly similar to me.
    edit on 10-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


    Well gee, if you have four airliner crashes where the impacting airliner hit something at 400+ mph, they are going to look pretty similar indeed, especially in comparison to a crash on take-off or landing, when the speeds are almost half of the 9/11 crashes. Even a controlled descent into a mountain is not going at 400+mph. Majority of plane crashes happen during these moments, on take off or landing. Some occur during an inflight emergency at crusing speed, but majority crashes are during take off or landing.

    What you need to do is look at crashes that happened when planes fell out of the sky or were intentionally flown into the ground at high speeds, higher than landing or take-off speeds.



    posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:52 PM
    link   
    reply to post by GenRadek
     


    at least i see another pseron here with common sense. i am surpsrised there wasnt more damage to the pentagon.if anyone here lives in the northern VA area. Take a ride by the pentagon so u can see just how big the building really is. i dont think people truly understand until they see how enormous it is.



    posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:01 PM
    link   
    9/11 was an inside job! i agree, no footage = no plane if they had notthing to hide then they would show us footage from one of the 1000000 cameras that are placed in and around the pentagon with the full smooth flowing footage



    posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:28 PM
    link   
    I'm sorry folks, but it couldn't be more obvious this was set up and orchestrated by the US government start to finish. Seriously... a guy who trained on what was it- twin engined propellor driven aircraft?- and according to his instructor was pretty dire even at those, pulled off a turn that could take a commercial jet into the Pentagon without damaging any of the surrounding street lights, or as has already been mentioned, digging into the ground before striking?

    As for that flight that was supposedly taken over by the passangers and crashed into the ground... well, look at the photographs from that, then look at photos of any other crash by similar craft and you'll see the obvious. If not, book in for an eye exam!

    Then the WTC... buildings DESIGNED to take that sort of hit, set on fire by fuel that burns at least 200 degrees below the critical point of the steel supports (and if the concrete had broken loose and come down, the supports would still have been sticking hundreds of feet into the air), plus the fact that the laws of physics don't seem to apply to these buildings- falling at near freefall, something that could only happen by the supports being taken out sequentially at fraction of a second intervals.
    Add in the presence of molten iron under the buildings (including the third one that WAS NOT HIT) weeks after the incident, than anyone with GCSE chemistry should be able to point to THERMITE being used to take out the supports- and again, in the photos the supports are cut diagonally, just as they would have been in a planned demolition.

    Keep talking, saying about lack of evidence, I say use your eyes. The evidence is there... and it all contradicts the US government.



    posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:19 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Anektomaros
     


    Would be nice, if you wish to post on this topic, that you try to get some facts right before beginning:



    ... a guy who trained on what was it- twin engined propellor driven aircraft?- and according to his instructor was pretty dire even at those, pulled off a turn that could take a commercial jet into the Pentagon without damaging any of the surrounding street lights....


    Firstly....even a twin "propellor" airplane is sufficient to help a person get used to flying a larger commercial airplane. Secondly....the "street lights"?? THAT is the point!!! FIVE were struck, by American 77, on its approach and just fractions of seconds before impact with the building.



    ..... or as has already been mentioned, digging into the ground before striking?


    Yes....mentioned. NOT low enough to "dig into the ground". You may wish to read the many factual links on that.




    As for that flight that was supposedly taken over by the passangers and crashed into the ground...


    Ummmmm....off topic, but you mean United 93?? It was NEVER "taken over" by the passengers....they were not allowed the chance.



    .... well, look at the photographs from that, then look at photos of any other crash by similar craft and you'll see the obvious.


    Indeed....post "any other crash by similar craft"....to include the EXACT details, speed, type of terrain at impact, and all that.....



    Then the WTC... buildings DESIGNED to take that sort of hit,.....


    Nope. NOT at those velocities. I see someone has been infected by a few "9/11 conspiracy" websites???

    Based on the incorrect rantings seen (and not repeated here, referring to the NYC Twin Towers)....

    Suggestion: GET OFF THE INTERNET!! And, go find some other sources for learning about this. It is history, and the Internet is NOT going to be the best source for much of that history....UNLESS you can verify the sources that supply what you are reading.........



    posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:20 AM
    link   
    reply to post by mikelee
     

    Well thought out thread. But I know we will never know the truth.





    new topics

    top topics



     
    136
    << 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

    log in

    join