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: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by peacenpizza
reply to post by Soloist
 


You're the one mentioning "Mary Poppins" when we're talking about the Pentagon. Typical?


Oh, ok I got it.

My post appears to have went over your head. It happens. Since you're new here and all I shouldn't be surprised.

When you have something to say that matters let us know, mmkay?




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by youngdrodeau
reply to post by peacenpizza
 



Also,lets not forget that the witnesses were all driving down a busy interstate that sits atop a hill when whatever happened happened.If a plane goin 500mph had appeared out of nowhere right above their heads & flew over the Pentagon as a missile went off,they'd be none the wiser.Remember,it would take a second or less for the plane to get from above the cars to Pentagon.It was so fast the surveillance camera couldn't catch it,right?So how could the human eye catch it,between flenching for dear life at the plane comin at you from one direction,lookin up at the road to avoid an accident,then flenching at the explosion in the other direction,all in a split second?



Just so your aware of the correct information, the precise location of the impact was plainly visible from two different highways 395 and 27....395south would have had the longest best view from that highway and Both sides of 27 would had a excellent view of the impact.

More importantly, it was not a zipping speeding highway(neither were) at the time of impact, it was morning rush hour and especially on 27 but even on 395 traffic would have been stop and go , sometimes moving in small bursts up to ten, fifteen mph. For the people who heard it's approach, they would have been able to witness the impact easily, with out thinking about impacting any other vehicles. Even with the one light pole falling on the Loyds Lincoln and the highway there wasn't a single accident. The morning and 5 O'clock rush hours are basically the worst in the entire country, can easily take you upwards of two hours to get somewhere that any other time of the day would take you ten minutes.

Guessing from the size of the area that had the best view, during that time, there were probably easily a couple hundred people that witnessed it at least. I have said many times that plenty of the people who witnessed it never went to the authorities or media, most of them probably just went on with their days(as best as you could on that terrible day). My point being most of the metro area people don't think twice about things they witness, it is very fast paced, most stop for nothing.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by peacenpizza
reply to post by TedHodgson
 

In the pictures you can see people that were in chairs (they appear to be screaming). If the crash was powerful enough to completely destroy the the plane as it did, then how are the bodies left sitting there.




If you notice, the one person has a name tag on , and even though I have no proof or way to prove it, I am all but a 100 percent sure that all of the photos shown in the Moussaoui trial were photos of Pentagon employees. Mainly because I don't believe for a second that they would of shown photos of the passengers on the aircraft, plus the fact that the one is wearing a name tag.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
There are many inconsistencies in the pentagon story.
The lack of debris on the lawn, the lack of any marks on the lawn from those two huge engines,the lack of the engines,the size of the hole etc etc.
Tere were people inside the building who had experience that claimed the explosion was a cordite explosion and not a fuel/air one.
The fire was definately not hopt enough to destroy all the debris, as the hole had deska and computers around the perifeery which were not scorched even.
If there is STILL somebody out there who believes that a 757 hit the pentagon, ive got a war in iraq and afghanistan id like to sell them.....



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
If there is STILL somebody out there who believes that a 757 hit the pentagon...



There are.

All those witnesses who saw the event. Good luck with your sale!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Um - just to apply a touch of science on this:

The kinetic energy of impact at 500mph/250m/s - is slightly greater than the energy required to raise aluminium to its melting point (from 25C) - and then there was the huge fireball.

I wouldn't be expecting to see huge pieces of tail sitting on the lawn outside!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


The witnesses from all angles saw the same thing?No.Thats not true AT ALL.There were witnesses who saw nothing of the sort & in fact saw nothing of the sort.There are in fact,witnesses who claim to have seen a plane fly away from the building immediately after the explosion.

Here's a link to a video from reporter Chris Plante.His witnesses saw something totally different.

www.youtube.com...

Here's what reporter ABC's Joel Sucherman said about a 2nd plane after the "crash".

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



The tail section on a plane is 44 ft tall?


I was going to go through your post bit by bit but instead decided that this little tidbit of misinfo would suffice. Please check your numbers again.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by youngdrodeau
reply to post by Soloist
 


The witnesses from all angles saw the same thing?No.Thats not true AT ALL.There were witnesses who saw nothing of the sort & in fact saw nothing of the sort.There are in fact,witnesses who claim to have seen a plane fly away from the building immediately after the explosion.

Here's a link to a video from reporter Chris Plante.His witnesses saw something totally different.

www.youtube.com...

Here's what reporter ABC's Joel Sucherman said about a 2nd plane after the "crash".

www.youtube.com...


Your first link about a helicopter simply arose from the confusion of that morning. There was no subsequent witness confirmation of a helicopter flying around any more than there was subsequent confirmation of a car bomb going off at the State Dept as also reported that morning.

With regard to the second clip it is well known that there was a C130 in the area. Nearby Reagan National airport asked the C130 to look out for AA 77. They picked up AA 77 visually and reported the crash to ATC at Reagan. So that flight crew's testimony is to be added to all the rest.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Just a question regarding thoses people in America who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy.
If you are so convinced that your government is capable of killing thousands of your fellow citizens why do you still live there?
In Iraq when Sadam went aroud doing this people fought him and a lot did their best to leave their country, if you are so convinced why stay?
I find that to be



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 


So how many aircraft crashes you been too....?

What are your qualifications as a crash investigator....?

Just because the debris does mot meet your expectarions does not mean it did n't happen

The impact on the Pentagon is not a Saturday mornong cartoon like you expect

A plane impacting a masonry structure at nearly 500 mph will be quickly reduced to metallic fragments - some
of the larger heavier pieces will survive . Much of the aircrafts structure will reduced to small pieces

Sections of landing gear



Jet engines inside Pentagon

[url=http://]http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml[/url

Explain how such large heavy pieces got into the building?

As for the tail - it basically a lightweight honeycomb structure covered by light gauge aluminium skin . It is only
as strong as needed.

Most of the mass of the aircraft is in the fuselage which would have penetrated the Pentagon

The tail would have been smashed into fragments on impact and scattered around the scene



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Tail wreckage was recovered and witnessed. Many images have simply not made it out into the public domain. How do you explain recovery teams recovering bodies still strapped into their seats of the airliner?

See video from T. Carter, an American Airlines Flight Attendant scheduled to fly that day. T. Carter identified the birthday present bracelet that she gave to Flight Attendant Renee May. The bracelet was still on the remains of her burned body.

See video and other eye witness accounts at the following links.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

TJ



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 


Seems your "research" is less than exhaustive.

You may not fully comprehend Newtonian physics, motion, momentum.

Also, your understanding of the physical construction of an airliner is flawed (referring here to your signature "argument"...the vertical fin of the Boeing 757).

Rest of your OP, the "planting" of evidence claims? More indication that you haven't researched thoroughly....

Some videos (by no means the only ones, you should hunt for more):









I also STRONGLKY suggest that people make the effort to COME HERE and visit the Pentagon, to see the terrain, the layout and the arrangement first hand. Sitting at home, as a "keyboard warrior", is insufficient.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Weed, approx what % of a 757 does the plane debris at the Pentagon make up in your opinion?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman1
 


Maybe because some of us can't just up and leave. Like those of us serving in the Army.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


ATH911......there are NO RESOURCES available online to even begin to attempt to address that question.

Unlike the situation in NYC (airplanes mostly INSIDE each Twin Tower, although SOME debris ejected, due to momentum) where the final airplane debris was MINGLED up in the collapse of the much, much larger building debris, AFTER the fall. AND, of course, intense fires raged (as they did at the Pentagon).

THREE airplanes, impacted INTO buildings. With fires. Aluminum (the primary metal in airframe construction) WILL MELT quite easily. I know this first-hand, as one of the Cessna 150s (FAA registration number N8282F...if you wish to look it up...I had a LOT of hours in that airplane) that my family owned crashed, and burned, due to a rental pilot's poor handling as he practiced landings. (He escaped.....the fire started AFTER he exited the airplane). MOST of that Cessna airplane was a molten puddle of aluminum....except, of course, for those parts that were made of different metals.

American 77 was MOSTLY inside the Pentagon.....fragmentation at impact shed some parts in many directions, it is the nature of the forces involved....the PHYSICS involved.

As of yet, I have no links nor info on any final assessment of total recovered American 77 airframe debris. THAT, however, would be an interesting road to explore......



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ATH911
 


ATH911......there are NO RESOURCES available online to even begin to attempt to address that question.

American 77 was MOSTLY inside the Pentagon.....fragmentation at impact shed some parts in many directions, it is the nature of the forces involved....the PHYSICS involved.

That's OK, I just want your opinion how much was left.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by peacenpizza
 


With over 24 years in aviation maintenance, including accident recoveries, I can state without a doubt that the crash site looks almost exactly what I would expect to see in such an incident, with the exception that I am surprised that more of the Pentagon wasn't destroyed.

As for the other post you made, feel free to leave when your enlistment is up. I sure in the hell don't want you on the fenceline of any airbase I end up at.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weed, I wouldn't bother with him. He seems to think that someone is at every crash with a scale to weigh all the pieces of wreckage.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by peacenpizza
 


With over 24 years in aviation maintenance, including accident recoveries, I can state without a doubt that the crash site looks almost exactly what I would expect to see in such an incident, with the exception that I am surprised that more of the Pentagon wasn't destroyed.

How many plane crashes into buildings have you seen before 9/11?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join