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: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



There's no doubt because there's no evidence.

If they are making the effort to hide important forensic evidence, ie security footage either inside or out then they must have something to hide.

What was under the blue tarpaulin that was carried out under heavy security?

I've heard apparent statements that there was in fact debris, but I’ve never actually seen the bulk load of debris I'd expect, when a Boeing airliner crashes into a massive office block.

Think about this, it’s the Pentagon. There would be a multitude of camera's watching hallways, doors, driveways... yet we are only given 6 blurry frames that honestly show's f'all??

Give me a break.




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by EtCetera
 


???


Do we have any idea of the weapons used by the hijackers?


Yes.


50 or so people wouldn't have just sat there as their plane descended and eventually crashed.


Obviously, they DID! Do you not understand how simple it is, for the terrorists in control, to keep people submissive?



... the plane went perfectly into the building; without any signs of a struggle in the cockpit.


"struggle" in the cockpit? The pilots had already been killed, at the time of the take-over.



....without the most advanced military in the world responding?


The "military" DID respond!!! Too little, and too late....AND, the focus was up in New York City.



You'd think the pentagon would have some kind of defense against such an attack.


Why?

How?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DiamondEyes
 


errrrmmmmm....did you just type this, without thinking it through???


....with today's mobile phones etc, someone would've recorded that right....



With TODAY'S mobile phones???



Sorry, but the obvious needs to be pointed out, sometimes.....



Not only that but the aircraft was moving at around 500 mph at those last several seconds at the moment it would have come into few by anyone in the highway area in front of the building. I challenge anyone EVEN today to be able to pull out their camera and catch a photo before the impact(at that location). In 2001, even people with camera's in their cars didn't catch a picture.

Imagine being at a 300+mph drag race, with your back turned to the start line and your phone in your pocket. Your goal being to NOT remove your phone until at least the start of the race, which you would have to detect by ear..then you would have to take your phone out of your pocket and catch a shot before the finish line. Those are better odds than the people in their cars with the approaching aircraft's view blocked, and it moving over 200mph faster than the drag racer.

It's not surprising to me in the least no one snapped a pic of the incoming aircraft, what's utterly amazing is that not a single video of f77's approach has been released yet(from any of the stationary video cameras in the vicinity and at the Pentagon).



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


What????

People didn't carry camera's in their cars the way they did now!
Mobile (cell) phones didn't even have cameras then, christ, digital cameras were a luxury!! (I had one, a kodak
)

Re-assess your argument.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by KANE OG
 


Maybe your seeing some invisible evidence as well, There are many threads on this subject that have been debunked purely for the lack of concrete evidence, This thread is no different.

The same to you, just because you belive it was faked doesnt make it so, Prove it,



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by youngdrodeau
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


How do you know the circumstances of these plane crashes?Oh yeah..YOU DON'T.So stop just saying stuff.

Anyway,the purpose of these pictures isn't to compare crashes,it's to show how MASSIVE these things are.
edit on 15-1-2011 by youngdrodeau because: (no reason given)


Technically (I know it's a distinction wasted on you) they are not massive. Their mass is as low as it can be and still do the job. What you are failing to understand is even though they may be large in square footage they are made just as light as they can be and still do the job. Every pound put into the airframe means the finished airliner carries less fuel and/or passengers. Less range and capacity means the plane earns less over it's lifetime. That's not what airlines want. This "massive" structure you keep nattering about is actually very fragile, especially to stresses outside of it's design parameters. It's made mostly of soft aluminum. The Pentagon has massively reinforced walls to protect it from the types of attack it will probaby never see now. The tail was there. Some of it went through the hole with the rest of the debris and much of it was on the lawn in small pieces after it was destroyed by the 500 mph collision with the Pentagon wall.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by youngdrodeau
reply to post by wasco2
 


The link you provided is just a buncha documentation.I don't wanna see paperwork,I wanna see plane wreckage.Anyone can write anything.


There are pictures, you apparently didn't scroll down far enough. That "documentation" is from numerous experts that destroy your slightly loony conspiracy theory. It wouldn't hurt you to read it.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Here is what happens when an 40,000 lb aircraft hits a concrete wall at 400+ knots.



F4 Phantom crash test

A 100,000 lb 757 would give a similar result only quite a bit more energetic.

There is nothing left that remotely resembles an aircraft so the poster with the theory that part of the tail assembly always survives needs to scratch that one of the list of what he/she "thinks" should happen.

Weedwacker is correct in everything he has posted regarding the aircraft, some of the "facts" a few of you have bought into would be laughable if it wasn't such a waste of grey matter.

A quick reminder that its hard to fib about qualifications in aeronautics, the only people your going to impress are others who are equally as unknowledgeable. It shows in your first couple of sentences whether you have any formal education in the field beyond the wings at war discovery marathon.

I get the impression a few of the more creative posters are younger folks who need to be reminded that stick time on the PS3 doesn't count towards your rating in the real world and in no way puts you on an equal footing with a commercial pilot.

The irony is some of you trying to argue nonsense seem capable of learning enough to see the flaws with most of the bad science you've bought into. At the same time there are a handful of people that post here who have enough education and experience in various engineering disciplines more than willing to help anyone interested to learn for themselves.

Unfortunately a couple of you wont listen and will continue propagating paranoid lies and belligerently arguing nonsensical junk science while honestly believing your doing something remotely good for society.

I'll post a bit more later if anyone is interested in why any two aircraft at the same bank angle and g-load turn at an identical rate (even if ones a B757 and the other is a F-18) and other things that a few are trying to argue with Weedwacker as being correct.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


The did a study with pilots on the History channel and used a flight simulator and the experienced and non experienced pilot could not crash the plane at 500mph into the building.


You know, I keep hearing this but I don't buy it. At the time I had a powerful computer designed specifically for MS Flight Simulator complete with control yoke and rudder pedals. I had little trouble duplicating the Pentagon and WTC crashes. I couldn't repeat them 100% of the time but pretty close. I should add that while I don't now I had a pilot's license in the 1980s. The hijackers did use flight simulators and had plenty of time to practice until they could do the attacks consistently.
edit on 16-1-2011 by wasco2 because: typo



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


Try reading my post one more time my friend, I agreed with WW and with what you said....And your wrong about the camera in the car thing back then, many photos from that day are from witnesses who had cameras in their cars.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


Oh I agree with you, it would have happened too fast for anyone to have snapped a shot, by 'eck I wouldn't even be able to snap one off that fast, but your wrong about the cameras. Everyone has a camera this day and age, but in 2001 it was the kids picnic that would have drawn one out, not the expectation of some muslim anarchists flying a plane into a public building.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
They had numerous amounts of people that said they witnessed the plane going by them flying very low.

Eyewitness Accounts

Whether or not it was a plane or a bomb, i think a lot of us can agree that there is something fishy due to the fact Rumsfeld was talking about the missing 2.3 Trillion dollars the day before, and next thing you know, a plane (or what ever it was) fly's into the Pentagon in the area where the financial records and accountants are. Yes maybe it is a coincidence. A real big one.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DiamondEyes
 


errrrmmmmm....did you just type this, without thinking it through???


....with today's mobile phones etc, someone would've recorded that right....



With TODAY'S mobile phones???



Sorry, but the obvious needs to be pointed out, sometimes.....


Lol, ok - 10yrs has gone by so fast.. I'm sure mobile phone could record then though? ..hmm maybe not. Take it for granted today with the iPhones


Anyway - Chinese people are ALWAYS taking photos & recording film
they'd have something back then



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
what i can't understand is how on this website can anybody believe the governments story about 9/11? the "evidence" has so many holes in it that it makes swiss cheese look like a solid piece of lead.
everybody in government has been told to shut the hell up about it. your beating a dead horse, because this "big lie" is so huge, that the american people cannot and will not believe in a conspirecy on such a massive scale.
proof?...look at the german parliment destruction during hitlers early reign, that lead germany to falsely accuse the polish government of the attack, which gave hitler the go-ahead to invade poland.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
what i can't understand is how on this website can anybody believe the governments story about 9/11? the "evidence" has so many holes in it that it makes swiss cheese look like a solid piece of lead.
everybody in government has been told to shut the hell up about it. your beating a dead horse, because this "big lie" is so huge, that the american people cannot and will not believe in a conspirecy on such a massive scale.
proof?...look at the german parliment destruction during hitlers early reign, that lead germany to falsely accuse the polish government of the attack, which gave hitler the go-ahead to invade poland.


Mate, your history sure is jumbled up !



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyxproof?...look at the german parliment destruction during hitlers early reign, that lead germany to falsely accuse the polish government of the attack, which gave hitler the go-ahead to invade poland.

I'm impressed you managed to get the story THAT wrong.

Though the Reichstag fire does mimic the 9/11 attacks in a way, in that the sitting government used it as an excuse to expand their powers, and that subsequently the ill-informed has been convinced that it must have been an inside job.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by DiamondEyes
 


Mobile phones did NOT have cameras in 2001, well, they did, they had been around for about a year and your average joe would not have had one, besides, the quality was crap at about 110k pixels!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Dean Goldberry
 


I always told my kids Santa existed.And that his real name was Kris Kringle and he went around giving out presents..it's true.

Some would have you think the plane's debris was on the inside,but the hole was too small for the huge plane to have squeezed in there.

Witnesses said a plane crashed there?

Witnesses also said the plane was a commuter plane..
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Witnesses also said that the plane was on a different flight path..no where near the light poles!
www.youtube.com...

Some pentagon witnesses also lied!Now why would they do that?
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

So who's telling the truth?Why would anyone lie?

This guy said the plane dived!But yet there was no impact crater and the footage shows the "plane" go straight across.And look how clean cut the pentagon is!How did it collapse so neatly?
www.youtube.com...

Don't even get me started on Lloyd England!The whole Lloyd England incident is so phenomenal in itself with all the different things that happened there...this calls for a thread.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 


OMG.People.PLEASE stick to the subject.This thread is not about witnesses or cameraphones.Take that to another thread.Sheesh.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 


The subject is whether or not a plane hit the pentagon.There is more evidence that suggests the government is lying.

I'm thinking because people saw a smaller plane that it was painted to look like a 757 and they used this to fly in and shoot a missile and flew away.The reason they used a smaller plane was for flying capabilities.A 757 couldn't be trusted to be remote controlled to the exact location and get the damage they wanted.

They even tested a remote control plane to crash into a target at a low speed and couldn't do it like it shows here.
www.youtube.com...




top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join