It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 06:57 PM
reply to post by GodIsPissed

Yes, I am certain. For one, the shattering runs along a line where the wings impacted. If an explosion had caused it, the damaged area would have a much different shape to it.

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady

The, NON-dancing Israelis, did not show up and start taking pictures until after the first Tower was hit. Making them just like hundreds of other people in New York/New Jersey who started taking pictures.

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by youngdrodeau

Meaning that you didn't have a clue in the first place. A very poor attempt at back-peddling.

Ahh the old 'gooberment' theory. Everyone was in on it!

The F-4 sled test was funded by the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., Tokyo, Japan. So according to your logic the Japanese were in on 9/11 too!

Next you'll be telling me that the Muto Institute is a front company for the CIA?

Did you do any research into the test? Did you even take a look at the media from the 1980s when the test took place? It was featured in the December 1989 edition of Popular Science. No doubt you will be telling me that Popular Science were in on it too?

Do a Google search for 'propelled Jet popular science'


posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:12 AM

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.

NO IT DOESN'T FIT or MATCH... apparently you're seeing what you want to see and ignore what doesn't "fit" your argument.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.

A) The claim those are "wing scars" is nothing but SPECULATION
B) If those are in fact wing scars, then your theory is in even more trouble because you then have to answer why those SCARS didn't BREAK or CUT through the wall surface but did cut through a far stronger steel surface at the WTC... which also means you either have to explain where the wings WENT and/or admit you agree with MIKE WALTERS.

quite conundrum for you indeedy weedy... can't wait to see how you weasel your way out of this one.

and its this logistical nightmare of explaining so many physical impossibilities that prove alone why the OS is ridiculous and those supporting it look so foolish and cannot possibly possess basic common sense.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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, this is from that simple search, and it is in an ATS thread, too:


that pic is WORTHLESS as evidence proving your claim or disproving mine...

furthermore, that pic is an image taken AFTER THE COLLAPSE of the WALL... which makes that evidence even more worthless.

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

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Of course not....Mike Walters was speaking in analogy,



Originally posted by weedwhacker
and just using some colorful descriptive phrase. He didn't mean that they "literally" folded back!!!

Uhm Yes he did.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
In fact, the event would have occurred so rapidly, no person would have been able to see all of the events precisely.

So now you're agreeing with CIT and truthers by admitting that MOST including MIKE, wouldn't have been able to see the impact precisely and was at best ASSUMED IMPACT?

thank you weed...finally.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.....

Yet how many witnesses give a DETAILED PRECISE description of what they claim to have seen which you say was ONE SECOND.

c'mon weedy, the jig is up... you can't have it both ways. PICK ONE and stop changing the goalposts

Originally posted by weedwhacker
a fraction of a second, actually!


which even further proves my point... thank you again... keep digging... you'll be in china soon.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.

what he described was CLEAR... and he CLARIFIED IT with plenty of opportunities to change his testimony... which we all know is physically impossible if not proves his INVOLVEMENT as a SHILL or at best a witness lacking any credibility.

the fact that you can come up with so many illogical and ridiculous claims to explain away what can't be explained and makes no sense, let alone find nothing wrong or suspect with ANY aspect of 9/11, proves more and more to anyone with a brain and common sense, that you're either in denial or have a hidden agenda.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is contrary to physics, and how materials respond in those circumstances....any school child should understand that. The "folding back" nonsense.

YES Weed, EXACTLY... we do agree that MIKE WALTERS TESTIMONY is NONSENSE... at least you finally admit it... more evidence that supports the claim that MANY OS witnesses are either LIARS, SHILLS or unreliable to use in proving the OS and RPT.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.

And only Mike Walters is to blame... yes, how CHILDISH and ignorant that OS supporters use a MEDIA PROFESSIONAL'S testimony that WASN'T LITERAL and hardly credible, as proof a passenger Jet flight 77 hit the pentagon.

So i guess you better add MIKE to the WORTHLESS WITNESS LIST.

Please explain why he's USED to in the LIST OS supporters keep linking to as an example of credible eye witnesses to flight 77 hitting the pentagon.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


Yeah I see plenty of evidence of 2 passenger jet wings all over the lawn

My what a tangled web you've weaved for yourself weed.

but I expect yet another one of your long-winded responses that answers questions that were never asked.

edit on 23-1-2011 by lord9 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2011 by lord9 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2011 by lord9 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:19 AM

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:38 AM

Originally posted by apodictic


Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. On the one hand they can be intentionally misleading. Without wishing to cast aspersions on the honesty of any single witness that day, it is a point of fact that a large proportion of the witnesses to the Pentagon attack were, not surprisingly, military officials and other Pentagon personnel. More surprising perhaps is that so many employees of mainstream media organisations were also in the area that day. Eyewitness reports can also be unintentionally misleading. This is particularly the case when the event witnessed is sudden, short-lived and singular in nature, which is certainly the case with the Pentagon attack. In these circumstances many people have difficulty accurately processing in their own minds what they have seen and may unconsciously rearrange or embellish events to make their subsequent account sound more rational and plausible.

True to form, the eyewitnesses of the Pentagon crash offer an almost comical mishmash of contradictory accounts. Some for instance claim that the plane hit the ground and turned cartwheels before hitting the building, others that it made a clean strike. Some believe they could see passengers through the plane's windows while others are convinced the window blinds were down. Some say the plane impacted with a huge, ear-splitting explosion, others say they heard very little and could only feel the shockwaves.

The wide discrepancies between the different accounts mean we should resist the temptation to give preference to any one report over another. In the absence of other corroboratory evidence it is not possible to determine which eyewitness reports are the most reliable, even though some may sound more plausible than others.

Although I said earlier we should resist the temptation to favour one witness statement over and above another, there is nonetheless one witness whose testimony I believe deserves particular mention. Actually this witness wasn't an eyewitness at all because she did not see the incident directly. Nevertheless her account is of particular significance because her exposure to the incident was not as a shocked and surprised observer. It took place within the context of her everyday professional work. Danielle O'Brien was on duty that day as an air traffic controller at Dulles Airport and tracked the approaching Flight 77 on radar as it entered Washington airspace. Of the incoming plane she reported to ABC News:

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane....And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second".
So while the overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses were convinced they saw a regular Boeing passenger jet, professional air traffic controllers were convinced they were tracking a military plane. If this puzzling contradiction is to be resolved we must turn our minds to the other evidence.

a TRUE PROFESSIONAL in recognizing types of aircraft from the vantage point and use of advanced equipment at the ATC.

Her professional observation of what type of plane was being tracked?


So who has more credibilty... Mike Walters, or those working as an ATC ?

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Truth1000
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.

are you seriously trying to compare this

to this:

you want people to believe that the crash dynamics and physics would be similar?

Originally posted by Truth1000
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.

everyone has a right to their opinion, but ones opinion is worthless when determining TRUTH and discerning FACTS and EVIDENCE.

OPINIONS are like _________ .... Everyone has one

so how exactly does ones opinion have merit in a discussion forum designed to seek truth on a subject that deals in FACTS and EVIDENCE to support claims?

If someones opinion is the world is flat, what does that say about that persons credibility and how can any hope to have a productive discussion?

edit on 23-1-2011 by lord9 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2011 by lord9 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:38 AM
reply to post by Remedylane

Two things- 1) jet fuel is a low flash fuel @~100°F and burns at ~410°F low flammability it is essentially kerosene. 2)very shortly, possibly witin minutes after the suspect projectile hit and penetrated said "fortress" people climbed out of that whole to escape what try though was a bomb(?) Furthermore, these witnesses saw NO bodies. And let me say this if that many bodies were burning jetfuel or not as I have seen war and what surprises me is this never mentioned you never ever ever ever ever forget the smell of burning human flesh and hair and clothing. EVER!!! I am surprised no veterans ever mention this. The pentagon and the whole local area inside would have reaked of it. They would have to have had their cloth furniture and everything purged burning flesh lingers and it gags virgins of war. If I wasn't clear its distinct and pungent.
edit on 23-1-2011 by sirjunlegun because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:47 AM
reply to post by lord9

It wasn't a high angle attack. Alledgedly it took out street lamps several hundred meters or more from the pentagon if that is even true. I mean they have pictures of it. That doesn't mean anything though. But the commision is the one stating that.

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:57 AM
I still laugh when Mike says the "wings folded back".A 125 ft plane just don't fold into a witnesses report,16 ft hole or size of a garage door.

There were a lot of USA today witnesses there...all these reporters and no one thought to grab there camera?

Where are the light pole witnesses?There are 13 witnesses on video that say the plane was no where near the light poles.Who are we to believe?

There is much more evidence to suggest flight 77 did NOT hit the pentagon..why is that?

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:02 AM
And how would there be bodies?Can't find the steel and titanium engine blocks or a good 99% of the plane but bodies were found??

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:13 AM
reply to post by lord9

He may be onto something because this is a picture of whatever hit the pentagon. Very blurry, but still...

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 06:44 AM
Don't forget the Dancing Israelis.

Are Israelis allowed to kill any American citizens they see fit. We had the USS Liberty and now we have 9/11.

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by tommyjo

No.The F-4 test was done by Sandia Corporation.

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:27 AM

Originally posted by apodictic

You keep repeating that link. (Oh, and one line posts = bad)

I am getting to the nonsense written at that website. There is much, much that is wrong there. As I mentioned, due to their ignorance of the airline business, and aviation....and how the real world works.

NOW....the first clue that the site is full of it? The ATC (that is "Air Traffic Control") recordings, for both American 11 and American 77 (also, of course, United 175 and 93....but, that site focused on American).

The ATC radar tapes. The visual sightings. The Naudet film (for American 11). The Airfone calls. The SSDFR for American 77. The CVR for American 77 (unfortunately, damaged beyond recovery). The other UNDENIABLE physical evidence of American 77, recovered from the Pentagon crash site. Undeniable physical evidence of American 11, too...recovered from the WTC crash site.

The airline employees who worked both departures, American 11 from Boston, and American 77 from Washington. THEY could be contacted, and will recall that day, and the reality of those flight having departed, as is known and proven for hundreds of reasons....

.....compared to that junk site, "serendipity"? Whose authors cannot properly comprehend the Department of Transportation BTS data, nor how its collected and disseminated??

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by thedman

Thanks for proving my point Dman!

There are bodies..but where is the plane??So flesh and bone is more stronger than metal and steel and titanium?If bodies survived then where is the plane????Those 5 pieces of hand-held unburnt metal they found can't be considered a hundred ton a plane!So what happen to the rest of the plane?

Next please!

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Who cares if It's a one line post lol all the information you need is in that link. There are THREE equidistant uniformly shaped exit holes inside the Pentagon clearly shown in a picture in the link provided. There is footage there from the pentagon's cctv camera where you can clearly see A PLANE DID NOT HIT IT. Deny it all you want, you're wrong as can be. Just another brainwashed government drone who listens to what the media tells them (yeah, that's run by the government too bud). How about you actually go look at the evidence before you use your "proof" that comes straight off of the TV. Go back to sleep little sheep, your government loves you.
edit on 23-1-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by GodIsPissed

Five pieces of unburnt metal? You really need to get out more, there are a lot more pictures of the wreckage out there.

Curious though, why do you ignore the photos of whats left of one of the engines when you make your rant about flesh and bone surviving the fire, but not parts of the engines.....

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by apodictic

Do you even lift your head out of the morass of the silly "conspiracy" websites?

.... all the information you need is in that link

And, I can show how it is ALL WRONG! Either they lied intentionally, or are just very ignorant. Either way, it is not correct.

Here....doesn't take long, right in their introduction, to see that they're full of crap:

The Pentagon, in common with the nearby White House, is one of the best-protected public buildings in the USA. It is equipped with its own battery of surface-to-air missiles and the airspace above it is the subject of a permanent overfly ban in respect of commercial aircraft.

As I said, either inteniaonally LYING, or jsut incredibly ignorant....and repeating what they've read somewhere else (other crap "conspiracy" sites).

There WERE NO AA BATTERIES at eh Pentagon!! Period. And, it is a flasehood that the airspace above it is "the subject of a permanent overfly ban"...the Washington (Reagan) National Airport is about one mile away!! Airplanes can fly just almost nearly OVERHEAD the Pentagon, depending on wihch runway thay are using.

That entire site is a load of hourse pucky.....

There are THREE equidistant uniformly shaped exit holes inside the Pentagon clearly shown in a picture in the link provided.

Nope. Look for the "Pentagon Building Performance Report"...oh, wait...YOU will think it's all "faked". What a shame.....

There is footage there from the pentagon's cctv camera where you can clearly see A PLANE DID NOT HIT IT.


Deny it all you want, you're wrong as can be.

You are denying the mountains of evidence. Why? All for the delusional fantasy that some crackpot on the Web posts up on his silly site, and doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about?

Seems all "conspiracy" believers would rather exist snug in their delusion, and like lemmings, follow all the other "conspiracy" believers off the cliffs.

There ARE many, many valid conspiracies out there. Shame, when the ones that aren't get so much wasted attention...all misplaced attention.

edit on 23 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in