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

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


How much is the government paying you to troll here and try to cover up blatant evidence? I'm curious. How can you say "nope" when the pictures are right there? lol!






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




posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Im curious, you were flat out told that on the first page of the website you posted is full of lies....and you ignore that and post pics of the exit holes...

Why is that?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


That website lies.

The first image? The center red box (#2) looks like the correct exit hole into A-E Drive. The problem is, there is no DATE on those images, when they were taken. Don't suppose it occurred to you to check how they went about in the re-construction, and what kind of demolition took place weeks, months after wards? When were those photos taken? "Truther" sites are notorious for distorting things like that, to suit their agendas...


Here....oddly, this is an overlay from a "truther" blog (another one full of baloney) where THEY put the airplane image on top of an illustration right out of the "Pentagon Building Performance Report". I guess they think they're "uncovering" some fakery...but actually, they just help put it into perspective:



(Impact area is in "Wedge 1". Not highlighted there, as in the Report).



Here, also from that same report (and also used at the same blog, as above --- an oblique view --- it is "Figure 6.6 in the Report):




An independent study was conducted at Purdue University, where they used a high-powered computer to model the physics, and show it graphically, in computer animation:



I think they are partly correct....the fuel....but ALSO some other very massive components as well, as have been discussed.


You should pull in your claws, on the "paid troll" accusations, BTW. Not cool.

As a long time airline pilot, I happen to understand the physics of this event....as do MOST people....there are only a tiny handful of delusional people who spout the sort of nonsense that has fooled you so well, and post it up on their vile websites.

This is enormously disrespectful to the memories of the victims....and NOT only the dead, but many others who loved and cared for them.

Particularly bad is when they, either unintentionally due to ignorance and perhaps laziness, or on purpose, for other reasons, post websites that lie and distort...and ignore solid, undeniable evidence, in favor of the fantastic "theories" that many have become wedded to........



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 


Did you even read the report? The test was conducted at an exisiting rocket sled facility. The Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics funded the test and simply utilised this facility. Obviously you see a 'gooberment' conspiracy where other don't. What did you want the Japanese Institute to do, build their own rocket sled facility or source an already established one? The whole point of the test was to see whether a proposed Japanese nuclear power plant could withstand a high-speed aircraft impact.

TJ



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Oh my bad, I was told it was full of lies so it must be full of lies!!!!!

Weedwhacker I'll reply when I get to a computer



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Well, when the site starts right off with a lie, its a good bet that there are more lies in the pages that follow. One of the..most misinformed..beliefs in the truth movement would be the "Pentagon is protected by anti aircraft missile batteries"



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


A plane entering the Pentagon's airspace would have been shot down long before it reached the Pentagon.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


A plane entering the Pentagon's airspace would have been shot down long before it reached the Pentagon.


If I recall correctly, the plane had appeared to have been doing landing maneuvers and so was not immediately considered a threat, though suspicious. Would it be better to have on record that the military shot down a plane full of civilians that may have been trying to land, or that the military was allowing a civilian jet to land and it subsequently turned out to be hijacked and hit a building?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


The whole reason they scramble jets is to prevent this stuff from happening. Rather shoot down a plane of civilians than have both the civilians and whoever is in the path of the plane's destruction killed. IMO it looks pretty bad that they refused to scramble aircraft after they knew it was "hijacked." Kinda like they...let it happen?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by Varemia
 


The whole reason they scramble jets is to prevent this stuff from happening. Rather shoot down a plane of civilians than have both the civilians and whoever is in the path of the plane's destruction killed. IMO it looks pretty bad that they refused to scramble aircraft after they knew it was "hijacked." Kinda like they...let it happen?


So if you were on a hijacked plane, you would want the government to kill you rather than attempt to save you or anything? Maybe you didn't realize, but outside of a war zone, people don't just blow everything up on sight.


In fact, after applying a little logic, if they had shot down Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon, there would have been flaming debris raining down on civilians all over DC, wouldn't there?
edit on 23-1-2011 by Varemia because: added a line



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
lol @ Pardue

Aren't they the ones who did another animation showing the aluminum wings cutting through a bunch of thick steel beams and concrete of the World Trade Towers?

Yes..yes they are.

1:22 in..
www.youtube.com...

Notice the concrete is absent in the animation.

Some people think the towers were hollow but every floor had concrete!
From 2:50 to 3:11 in,see all that stuff they're pouring?That's concrete lol.
www.youtube.com...

My point is you can make anything happen in animation.

They imply the wings slammed into the Towers..exploded..carried on through cutting steel beams while turning concrete to dust before cutting the steel columns..this is what Pardue claims happened.Not in those words but they are saying the wings cut the core columns and in order for that to of happened the wings would have had to of survived the impact,explosion,steel beams and concrete to finally cut the core columns....really now?

But at the pentagon,the wings just magically disappeared...well actually the plane pretty much disappeared.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


If that were the worst case, yes. Do you understand what happens when they scramble jets? They contact you on radio and give you warnings. How would you feel if you were flying a plane and a couple F15s flew up along side of you and boxed you in? As if that isnt intimidating enough, they will fire warning shots in an attempt to get the pilot to cooperate. None of that happened. An attempt wasn't even made to do that. You'd have to be pretty stupid to buy the story the government feeds you.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


Exactly! And in that video they show the nose of the plane disintegrating, when in REALITY the nose of the plane came out perfectly from the other side of the building. Hmmm. Not a very accurate representation if you ask me.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


Exactly! And in that video they show the nose of the plane disintegrating, when in REALITY the nose of the plane came out perfectly from the other side of the building. Hmmm. Not a very accurate representation if you ask me.


I'm going to try to be very gentle in my wording, as I really hate posting in the 9/11 forums... How do you know FOR A FACT that the nose exited the building? There are probably a few videos taken from a distance which show the side of the trade center where the plane exited partially. Now, it only APPEARS to be a nose at first glance, without thinking, without using logic, without applying reason, without applying any kind of common sense!

Could it be possible that a simpler answer exists? Could it be that debris from the plane (which you say can't have hit and damaged core columns, yet can miraculously make it all the way through the building) exited the building in somewhat of a bunch without any coherent shape, only appearing to be a misshapen plane from a great distance with reduced quality? Noticed how it disappeared fairly quickly? I mean, that couldn't have been because it was not a solid piece. It's not POSSIBLE that the debris spread out, especially with the shock of the explosion from the fuel...

Please, when talking about 9/11, use your brain. Don't let others use it for you.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Thank you for illustrating my point about people in the truth movement being misinformed. Aircraft are in the Pentagon's "airspace" all day/night long, it lies in the approach/departure area of Ronald Reagan National Airport. Runway 33 L points directly at the building.

I await your list of aircraft shot down because they flew into the Pentagon's airspace.........



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Really? Then you should have absolutely NO problem of posting previous instances of attempted kamikaze attacks diverted by fighter jets? Proof of ACC's procedures that call for warning shots? SOMETHING to back up your misguided beliefs about the subject....from someone other than Alex Jones, Dylan Avery etc....



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


A plane entering the Pentagon's airspace would have been shot down long before it reached the Pentagon.


You obviously don't have a clue how close planes going to and fro Reagan National Airport pass the Pentagon. This pic will give you a good idea :-

www.zimbio.com...

Fortunately, I can't see any signs of fighter jets or missile batteries engaging this one.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 



Do you understand what happens when they scramble jets?


I do. Every pilot is taught the procedures (some promptly forget,though).



They contact you on radio and give you warnings.


"warnings"??
No, they give you ORDERS!
First, in 2001, very very few fighters had radios on VHF (except for the emergency frequency, 121.5/243.0 on UHF). So....if you were in contact with ATC (when overland) the fighters couldn't just tune to that same freq....hence, the 121.5. IF you're a numbskull (or radio is inoperative) then there are visual signals....hand signals and wing waving, in daylight, lights and wing wagging in nighttime.

As pointed out...."shooting down" over the populated city is WORSE, most likely....no, they would at least try to aggressively "herd" the airplane, risking collison perhaps. However, that was an unprecedented event, on 9/11....they wanted to die, anyway. MOST pilots have a sense of self-preservation instead...and will comply.




None of that happened. An attempt wasn't even made to do that.


Are you truly that misinformed???

NONE of the four hijacked airliers were EVER intercepted in time!!!! And, yes...ATTEMPTS to find them WERE made!! Insisting otherwise is a lie, or self-delusion.



You'd have to be pretty stupid to buy the story the government feeds you.


Poor form, there..... the "government" isn't "feeding" anything. These are the reports of the PEOPLE involved...citizens, hundreds, thousands of them that were live witnesses to these events...ALL had different experiences, and ALL contribute to the over-all narrative.

You need to get AWAY from the liars and BS artists at the so-called "truther" sites, and read some actual books on the subject. . . .books with history and facts, not made-up garbage, from fertile (uneducated and ignorant) imaginations.

(JUST) One in particular, since it deals a lot with the aviation side, and the NORAD response (and other pilots' responses and experiences) is "Touching History", by airline pilot and author Lynn Spencer.

Check at your local library...it's free there........


edit on 24 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Well considering Pentagon lies about 1 mile from Reagan National airport how is it they dont shoot down
everything in the area....?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


They weren't scrambled in time because they chose not to. I have a voice recording from that day, and I'm going to try to dig it up for you. But it goes like this:

"Should we scramble the jets?"
"I'm not sure"
"Well this is a decision that's going to have to be made within the next couple minutes"
"Well uh...everyone just left the room"



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join