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.

 

It is scientifically impossible that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11

page: 14
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


Take a look on the internet? Many have tried to discredit the wreckage of the 757 at the Pentagon - all have failed. People have attempted to match the engine wrecks to the A-3 Skywarrior, RQ-4 Global Hawk or even BGM-109 Tomahawk - all have failed. Some have even attempted to link it up to a Boeing 737 painted up in AA 757 livery. Those that have done their research correctly have failed to find the smoking gun in analysis of the wreckage.

TJ




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FeeBanks
 


That is the C-130 piloted by Lt. Col. O'Brien. The C-130 crew were contacted by ATC to keep an eye out for an aircraft in his vicinity. Apologies for Jim Fetzer rambling away!




TJ

edit on 21-1-2011 by tommyjo because: Additional info added



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by RemedylaneI want to begin this reply by stating that this is not a personal attack but rather a statement, a statement that each of us have the right to make. Those of you that continue to post again and again touting the merits of "the Official Story" are without a doubt, the lowest form of life on earth. There is absolutely, not one socially redeeming aspect of your posts. To act as though you have considered the 'facts' and then independently come to the conclusions you have is despicable behavior. The only reason the mods let you spew your foul posts is I believe, because they are so unbelievable. How you guys are recruited is a mystery, because logic, common sense and patriotism are not requirements for your club. I have utter contempt for those of you who continue to try and delay judgement day. It's very sad that I let you ruin what would otherwise be a good day, but my conscience will not allow those people to have died without justice being served. You guys will never win, because defending a lie forever is impossible.
 




That has to be one of the most bizarre posts I have seen on this forum.

You are so wedded to a fantasy that you appear beyond reason and, having personally carefully investigated many aspects of 9/11, I resent your accusation of being " the lowest form of life on earth " simply because I don't go along with your theories.

Frankly you appear hysterical rather than having come to a logical conclusion based on evidence.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Wheels and stuff? I think all this junk was planted. Can someone, oh someone please please please post a video of a Boing 747 (or anything large that resembles one) crashing into something? PLEASE?!? or show a video of an actual NON-9/11 crash site of one of these planes so we can compare crash sites with the supposed Pentagon crash?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Rosevelt Roberts said he saw a commercial plane flying away AFTER the explosion,not a c-130.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


That was pretty sad to watch.

Roosevelt Roberts is certainly not very credible....his story holds no water.

AND, in any event, NO ONE ELSE saw any airplane "fly away"!!!!

None. Out of hundreds, maybe thousands of people, either stuck in traffic on the roads nearby, or just outdoors. . .NONE.

No one in DC, right where this mystery "jet" would have to fly over, saw anything. Not one report.

Nothing on radar, from the Washington TRACON. The controllers in the Tower at National AIrport saw the jet. The American jet, flight 77, was witnessed...directly witnessed, to impact the Pentagon. Debris, including the most imprtant items, the Flight Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder, were recovered from inside the crash site.

DNA from all of the passengers and crewmwmbers was found. Personal effects of the passengers and crew were found. MANY witnesses attested to this.

Yet, ONE man makes this bogus claim? And, an entire "conspiracy" theory hinges on him??? Ridiculous.


edit on 21 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Such utter garbage from I am sure some very smart people Hang your heads in shame.
There is so much plane wreckage in that building, and it is posted everywhere for people to see. There is no round hole where the plane went in, that is a punch out hole in the next structure of the C ring, from probably an engine. There are people in this thread pointing out that that was an entry wound. The films show a Jet, from 3 camera's. You can see the top of the tail from the hotel webcam video.

IT IS scientifically possible, because that IS what happened. Read the facts and get out of this nonsense people. It is disturbing to read such mis-interpretation of hard evidence because you are getting your data from some dillusional people that want you to believe this and will say and post just about anything to get you on their side.

Have some respect for those who lost thier lives in that horrible massacre.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

You seem to be suffering from a serious overload of BS that has been fed to you,


Yes most do suffer from an overload of BS being fed to them by certain OS supporters here



Originally posted by weedwhacker
by (I presume) those ridiculously ignorant "truther" websites that infest the Webz....


Oh but those ridiculously ignorant anti-truther sites that infest the web you and others peddling the OS lies use to support their claims are so much more credible right?


Admit it weed, you're a hypocrite since you can't even meet the standards of evidence that you set for everyone else... you BLINDLY support a CONSPIRACY THEORY that has less evidence to support it than the argument against it has.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
>Those small pieces do not a jet engine make. They would have left entrance wounds in the side of the building in direct relation to their location on the plane. None were present.

Really??

Maybe you missed this, I put it up just last page, so one more time: Image with a to-scale B-757 over-laid, and aligned:



See there, how the engines line up directly to the areas where the decimated the structure?? Keep in mind, the building photo is from some days afterwards, well after the upper floors collapsed of course....and, even some of the wooden supports are installed, to shore up sections, as part of the demolition and reconstruction process.


Its so funny how often OS kool-aid drinkers present evidence they claim supports their arguments, but in reality does the opposite.

Funny how Weed tries to illustrate and explain away the damage the engines allegedly did, but ignores answering where the WINGS WENT and why there's no damage at all.

So weed, do you agree with Mike Walters that the Wings Folded back and disappeared into that "HOLE"? LOL


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Truly, you have a LOT more research, and education, to undergo before you make such bold assertions...absent all of the facts.


Oh puhleeeeeaze!

if that isn't the kettle calling the pot, i don't what is

edit on 22-1-2011 by lord9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 


You saw the image, you even re-posted it.....clearly shows the 757 scaled to size, and it matches the damage pattern. You apparently, though, did not read very carefullly.


.....did, but ignores answering where the WINGS WENT and why there's no damage at all.


Incorrect. There were clear indications on the exterior walls, where the wings impacted. These aren't the sorts of marks that can be seen in most of the photos that are taken from far away...the images that show the building span, in a wide arc. You have to find the close-up photos...and there, they show the scars from the wings impact.

It was actually quite easy to find examples....just used the Internet search engine. The "true believers" in the "TM" do not seem to do the research, but rather prefer to wallow in their delusions....here, this is from that simple search, and it is in an ATS thread, too:



THIS POST right here is definitive, and includes many, many good links...for further research.

What a shame, when SO MUCH good work has already been done, and years ago....yet, the hyperbole from the "TM" websites continues to infest and infect the Internet, as they spew their long-debunked filfth.



So weed, do you agree with Mike Walters that the Wings Folded back and disappeared into that "HOLE"? LOL


Of course not....Mike Walters was speaking in analogy, and just using some colorful descriptive phrase. He didn't mean that they "literally" folded back!!! In fact, the event would have occurred so rapidly, no person would have been able to see all of the events precisely. Airplane was moving at 810 feet per second. It's only 155 feet long, total. Do the math....he saw an event that was OVER within one second.....a fraction of a second, actually! Of course, he's going to come away from that with a visual impression imprinted on his memory, and then try to find words to describe it.

It is contrary to physics, and how materials respond in those circumstances....any school child should understand that. The "folding back" nonsense. It is funny, though, how such an "off-the-cuff" comment gets latched onto by the "TM". It's actually a bit childish, and an ignorant attitude.

The sections of the wings outboard of the engine mounts are a lot less substantial, in mass and method of construction...and all of that metal and composites woud have shattered, fragmented, shredded, broken apart into many, many pieces, on impact.


edit on 22 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 


So, umm, just what do you think caused all the impact damage to the facade of the building to the left and right of the collapsed area? It certainly wasnt caused by an explosion.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
How many of you have gone to the crash site of an F-15C that impacted at a high angle-of-attack?

Well, I have. Even things like leather boots disintegrate into unidentifiable fragments. The largest piece of anything we found of the pilot was the ACC patch, still attached by the Velcro to the remains of a 2-inch diameter piece of Nomex flight suit. We didn't even find anything to do DNA testing on from the pilot. There were no significantly large parts of either engine except about a 4-inch long slender fan blade segment.

There are characteristic blast patterns of ALCMs/SLCMs, AGM seriess, MK-84 series, BLU series, GBU series, or any other type of weapons capable of creating such a large area of damage. No data that I have seen provides ANY acceptable level of proof of any such weapons being used on the Pentagon.

This is America, and if people CHOOSE to ignore facts and believe the Earth is flat, that Apollo 11 didn't land on the monn, or any other such nonsense, they have the right to do so, because I, and millions of others over the course of more than 200 years, have placed our lives on the line to provide you that right.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You saw the image, you even re-posted it.....clearly shows the 757 scaled to size, and it matches the damage pattern. You apparently, though, did not read very carefullly.


Ya know, I really admire your fortitude and perseverance in dealing with the TMs but I have to ask: Did you ever hear of Sisyphus?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Mike Walters was speaking in analogy, and just using some colorful descriptive phrase. He didn't mean that they "literally" folded back!!!-Weedwacker

Um..yes he did mean literally..How the hell would YOU know what he meant lol?
"The wings folded back and that's the reason the hole wasn't as big as you would expect.."-Mike Walters

And the pictures you show of the supposed wing damage is AFTER the hole collapsed!

Next please!



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


"So, umm, just what do you think caused all the impact damage to the facade of the building to the left and right of the collapsed area? It certainly wasn't caused by an explosion".

Sure,why not?

You seem real "certain" it wasn't an explosion that caused the damage..how could you possibly be so sure?If it was a deception like most people think then why would it be so impossible to believe explosives were used?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Remedylane
 


The actual Flight 77 never took off. Read this it's very interesting

letsrollforums.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 



And the pictures you show of the supposed wing damage is AFTER the hole collapsed.


Well, of course!!! If you've forgotten, was a raging inferno.

The collapsed bit was nearer the center....remember, the airplane hit mostly first floor area, took out a lot of support columns. (Have you downloaded and read the "Building Performance Report", yet?? It is described in great detail, there).

SO, the middle of the impact point, where majority of airplane mass is concentrated....took out columns, upper (very heavy concrete) floor collapsed straight downward, there. This does not affect the exterior facade of the building, the vertical face, on either side of the center damage area at all!! How clearer can that be? The photos were taken to document the extent and type of damage, after the fires were out, the injured attended to...and before the demoliiton and clean-up and reconstruction began.

This is silly, now....the type of "pretend argument", coming up with non-sequitor after non-sequitor.

The premise of the OP (one of them) for the "scientifically impossible" assertion included the (alleged) lack of damage consistent with, among other things, the vertical fin impact. We have shown that the concept was flawed, based mostly on a misconception about the actual physical make-up of the parts. The structure of the vertical fin is much the same as the outer wing sections....you can see, in many references, how airplanes are, actually, rather fragile. They HAVE to be built as light as possible, and still be just strong enough to be safe, and do the job. Weight is a factor in all aircraft designs...and it's always a compromise to build in just enough strength, without over-building and including excess weight.

Of course, NO airplane has ever been buit to withstand an impact with solid objects....at those velocities, and on that scale!!


edit on 22 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I just want to know how the Dancing Israelis knew to "document" the event. Why didn't they try to save the 3000 Americans in the WTC.

At what point would an Israeli feel the compulsion to save American lives?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Let me guess....the "letsroll" disinfo agents are still making that claim, about the BTS data???

Instead of CHECKING their claims, you just take their "word"?? Have you bothered to actually research the facts??

When you dig into it, you will learn a lot. First, the BTS data is supplied to the Government by the airlines. It was originally a "volunteer" basis, later a certain amount (not all that is collected) was made "mandatory". Every airline has their own way of compiling their internal data, before transmitting it to the BTS.

When you take a look at those four flights, you see the pattern: At American, they didn't log and include the data FOR their flights 11 and 77, because the data was INCOMPLETE!!! At United, on the other hand, they DID include the OUT and OFF times, as recorded from the ACARS....of 175 and 93....merely because United has a differnent accounting method, as they obtain and store the data.

This has to be explained, constantly...AND, it is DISinfo on that website you mentioned....because, by now (after all the years it has been posted) they surely, surely know....YET, they do not take it off of their site. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU??? They lie. ALL of the so-called "truther" sites lie, just like that. They have to keep their delusion going, or else the entire fantasy falls apart...and SCRUTINY on their claims is what must occur.


The simple TRUTH and FACTS and EVIDENCE that the "forum" is lying and distorting are the ATC recordings!! And, the Airfone calls. AND the radar tracking recordings. And the visual sightings, by eyewitnesses....and so on....
edit on 22 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Have YOU researched it? Care to back up your claims with any evidence? Or should I just take your word for it?

www.serendipity.li...

Pretty plain and simple.
Although I don't agree with the bottom part that says most of the passengers were made up, the rest is cut and dry. We just haven't put all the pieces together yet, that's all.
edit on 22-1-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


That site, too, is loaded with the same types of speculations, and errors based on misinterpretations, ignorance and prro research. I can't say, yet, that they TOO are guilty of intentional DIS-info...until I examine it more closely. It is oddly very similar to yet ANOTHER site (a blog) where I showed that the person there had many things incorrect...one thing that was easiest to show was his not understandin the time zone differences, between the cities of Chicago and Detroit...as he struggled to "prove" that something was "wrong" with the historical airplane movment that was logged on 10 September, for hte airplane that flew as United 93.

The way this site you linked it arranged, looks as if it TOO (maybe unintentionally, and "innocently" based, as I said, in ignorance) is over-complicated, and THAT should raise red flags right there.

The "ignorance" of the people who write these sites, and blogs, refers to their ignorance of hte business of airlines...and the real-world operations. Most laypersons suffer the same ignorance...UNLESS you have worked in the industry, it can be very confusing, and "contradictions" can seem to be there, when in fact they aren't.

AS TO that site, I will only de-construct it as far as it applies to American 77......




top topics



 
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join