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'S OFFICIAL: Even conspiracy web sites acknowledge it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon

page: 19
20
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 



In the photo I mention, the early one with the FF on the left spraying what 'looks like' water completely across the entire impact zone, two questions. Is that water? And, is that necessary, like IYO, that the spray be such as it is in extent and direction? Like if say, that was you in the photo and you "just got there" and a plane crashed there would you spray water like he is spraying in the same way that he is spraying it and for the same length of time? (Especially since most, if not all, of the 'plane' is reported to have actually entered the building?)


Checked my sources (FIREFIGHT) - ARFF units from Reagan National began to apply foam and water to
knock down the jet fuel fires raging near the entry hole. Had to be done delicately to avoid pushing the fire
into the building on to any survivors or fire crews.

ARFF have large tanks of foam concentrates along with mixer (proportioner) to mix with water. Also have
turret nozzles able to swivel and lay down foam - they are designed with this in mind as often face hydrocarbon
(avgas.jet fuel) fueled fires from aircraft accidents.

Normal fire apparatus carry smaller amounts of foam in 5 gal pails or in small (30-40 gal tanks), foam can only
be pumped short distance and requires special nozzle - takes few minutes to set up for foam operation and
have to be fairly close to fire. ARFF are able to pump foam immmediately and have ability to pump while
on the move (most other fire apparatus have to be stationary)




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
One person doesn't speak for all.

I'll be willing to believe a plane hit the pentagon when you show me a video of it. The FBI has them. The CIA has them. We don't.

Happy hunting.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
In order to create the resulting hole in the pentagon the plane would have to be flying just above ground level on impact, as there is no evidence of ground impact.
Two questions i dont believe can be adequately answered are;
1, Why arnt the light poles damaged?
2, What happened to the wings and where is the signs of wing impact, did they just fold back and follow the fueselage through the building or disintergrate?

Idont expect anyone to explain these to me as i believe they cannot, just posed them here so people can involve them in their reasoning.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 
You would think that, but there are actually a small group of people that will tell you just how wrong you are. They, somehow or another, will attempt to convince you that the same material that punched a hole thru feet of re-inforced concrete, vanished upon impact. There is something seriously wrong with these people, and they need our prayers.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by lestweforget
 
You would think that, but there are actually a small group of people that will tell you just how wrong you are. They, somehow or another, will attempt to convince you that the same material that punched a hole thru feet of re-inforced concrete, vanished upon impact. There is something seriously wrong with these people, and they need our prayers.



There are [sic] also a small group of people who apparently need pictorial evidence of anything, or else it didn't happen. Furthermore they require it to look exactly like they imagine it would, based on their wealth of expertise garnered from, er, watching films.

Strangely one of the few things they don't hold to this standard of evidence is an omnipotent deity. Go figure.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget
In order to create the resulting hole in the pentagon the plane would have to be flying just above ground level on impact, as there is no evidence of ground impact.
Two questions i dont believe can be adequately answered are;
1, Why arnt the light poles damaged?
2, What happened to the wings and where is the signs of wing impact, did they just fold back and follow the fueselage through the building or disintergrate?

Idont expect anyone to explain these to me as i believe they cannot, just posed them here so people can involve them in their reasoning.


If you haven't seen pictures of the knocked down light poles and wing damage to the Pentagon you can't have looked very far , do a bit of googling.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 


Huh???


Idont expect anyone to explain these to me as i believe they cannot...


You haven't been reading and following links in these many, many threads????



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by lestweforget
 
You would think that, but there are actually a small group of people that will tell you just how wrong you are. They, somehow or another, will attempt to convince you that the same material that punched a hole thru feet of re-inforced concrete, vanished upon impact. There is something seriously wrong with these people, and they need our prayers.



Your reference to " small group " is entirely misplaced. The whole point of this thread is to point out that 9/11 Blogger, which I think is the largest truther site, has turned its face firmly against " no plane at the Pentagon. "

You are out of line with your own side and need to keep up.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I don't know about you, but I was most pleased to see the drawing which "weedwacker" provided to us on the preceeding page.

With it in mind, allow me to speculate as to just how the impact upon the pentegon took place.

For the sake of clarity I am going to base my explaination on the 757-200 configuration. The reason being it's smaller size would fit into the wall hole a little better.

As I see it, the larger mass of the cockpit frame work should be the most likely candidate for that part of the plane which could be expected to be start the hole. The nose cone of most planes are such thin metal, or even plastic, so as to offer the least adverse effects on their own radar antennea mounted behind it.

This would mean the actual nose of the plane struck the ground at the base of the wall and was immediately crushed because of the inertia of the remaining mass of the plane behind it. This also means the plane could not have been traveling "level" across the lawn as many have tried to discribe. It was, instead almost "standing on it's nose, as it struck the wall.

The engines, being @ 30+ feet behind the nose would have not yet have reached the ground and thus would not have made any marks or signs of impact in the lawn. It goes without saying that the rest of the plane was even higher at this moment, thus no signs of impact, even from the tail section.

Of course, this means the wing tips would be some what higher than shown in the drawing, but they could have still been low enough to strick the light poles. I do not know how tall they were, but they had to be hit by something to knock the over.

The drawing shows the tail of the plane to be 44 ft. & 6in tall. The pentagon is four story building which should be @ 50 ft.+, or only a few feet taller than this tail section. If the plane was in a "nose down" position, the tip of the tail would have been above the top of the building. This could have been, though I have never heard anything about it, the piece which can be seen going over the top of the wall.

Of course, with this one might expect to see some damage done to the buildings exterior by the tail fins impact. If it hit the wall.

As to the wings themselves; the inertia of the mass of the plane "could have forced" them together in such a manner as to fold in against the body of the plane, carrying the engines with them, and into the hole in the wall.

At this point please allow me to interject that this entire senario is pure improbable conjecture on my part and that I, myself, don't believe a word of anything I just wrote. It just seems a little too much for my personel belief system to grasp. But there it is, my best understanding of the "official story". If some one can show me the errors in this train of logic I will be more than greatful for the opportunity to become more enlightened.

edit on 15-2-2011 by hdutton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caji316
He was so scared at the time it was happening that he was reading the "Billy Goat Scruff" book up side-down


Typical truther lie

www.snopes.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


Oh, man!!!! You are SO way off, not sure you're even in our Solar System anymore!!!


Where to begin?.....

....how about at the very end, then we'll take a look at your fallacious "reasoning"....


... this entire senario is pure improbable conjecture on my part and that I, myself, don't believe a word of anything I just wrote.


As well you should....NOT believe it, for it is terribly incorrect.


But there it is, my best understanding of the "official story". If some one can show me the errors in this train of logic I will be more than greatful ...


Well, work cut out for me, then. The biggest error of initial assumptions is one that has me scratching my head in puzzlement about:


This also means the plane could not have been traveling "level" across the lawn as many have tried to discribe. It was, instead almost "standing on it's nose, as it struck the wall.


I highlighted the "standing on it's [sic] nose" part..out of the sheer.....HUH????....factor.

Your "vision" of how airplanes fly is seriously askew, at that point....and all else that follows is, as you pointed out, "errors" in your "train of logic". So, much of the discussion after that is moot, and irrelevant.

However, for the sake of clarity, this is another head-scratcher:


For the sake of clarity I am going to base my explaination on the 757-200 configuration. The reason being it's smaller size would fit into the wall hole a little better.


Um....is it because I found an image that showed BOTH the -200 and -300 models?? Because, beyond any shadow of doubt, American 77 was a Boeing 757-200. So, your point there, again, moot.


This would mean the actual nose of the plane struck the ground at the base of the wall and was immediately crushed because of the inertia of the remaining mass of the plane behind it.


You have that partly correct....but, nevertheless, the amount of energy and force, from momentum and velocity, will still inflict a great deal of damage, even initially....and discussing the radome as being "thin" or "plastic" is again, pointless....there exists an increasing amount of mass and metal components just aft. Another little-understood aspect is the mass of the AIR trapped within the fuselage tube, as a contributing factor....for just those fractions of seconds on impact.

In any case, mere milliseconds later, the main central and densest mass of the airplane impacted.....the area bounded from engine-to-engine, laterally....and longitudinally. This was the main brunt, and breach effect into the buildings' structure.

Observe:



(Please realize that is for illustration purposes, to see the scale. Of course, it isn't meant to depict the airplane structure still intact and whole at that point in the impact sequence!! I do hope people understand that distinction?).

Video:




Now, you continue on about "heights" and such, based on that wrong impression, from the very start....the airplane traveled HORIZONTALLY, as is undeniable from the damage patterns that were documented in the investigations.

Another huge mistake, seen often, by those who just fail to adequately comprehend:


The drawing shows the tail of the plane to be 44 ft. & 6in tall.


Again....you are looking at a three-view diagram with dimensions of the airplane ON THE GROUND with landing gear EXTENDED! That dimension is important to know, when you wish to have a hangar big enough to accommodate the airplane....or, for pilots, in those (very, very rare occasions) when an airport has a structure or bridge that crosses over a taxiway. You have to know your clearances.



The pentagon is four story building which should be @ 50 ft.+....


Oh, dear! "four" stories? You might want to do some better research.....



Of course, with this one might expect to see some damage done to the buildings exterior by the tail fins impact. If it hit the wall.


There is, because it did. BUT, you also don't seem to know just WHAT the vertical fin is constructed of, do you?? You said it earlier...."plastic". High-tech advanced carbon fiber epoxy composites, of course....but, basically, "plastic".


As to the wings themselves; the inertia of the mass of the plane "could have forced" them together in such a manner as to fold in against the body of the plane, carrying the engines with them, and into the hole in the wall.


Absolute, utter rubbish and nonsense. The wings were destroyed, on impact. Shattered, fragmented, torn to shreds.......

I think a refresher course in basic physics and aerodynamics might be helpful, in future.....
edit on 15 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


As I read you reply I began to realize just how much of the confusion in this discussion can be
contributed to those who have a lack of immagination and seem to take everything so literal.

I am fairly versed in many aspects of flight and fully realize that planes often fly at various angles, up or down, as are needed to change altitudes. The term "nose down" was not intended to imply that a plane could stay in the air while in the vertical position. Rather, the dive angle was of sufficient degree as to have the nose BELOW the bottom of the engine cowlings because they did not make any skid or impact signs on the ground.

I referred to the tail fin being 44+ ft high as this was the figure shown on the drawing and I do not know how high the landing gear might be.

In all the pictures I have seen the pentagon has four horizontal rows of windows, plus a parapit around the top. Thus it would seem to be a four story building; at least above ground.

Just in case you missed it! there was a hole in the outer wall of the pentagon before it and several inner columns collapsed, so everything NOT remaining out side would have to go inside before it fell.

Some people won't even let you agree with them.

From your so insightful explaination I am feeling the next thing you will tell me is how you can
punch a hole in a brick with a beer can.


edit on 15-2-2011 by hdutton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 



From your so insightful explaination I am feeling the next thing you will tell me is how you can
punch a hole in a brick with a beer can.


Well....actually, not too hard to picture.

IF you had a device to deliver the "beer can" (a very, very POOR analogy, if that's what you're going for here.....aluminum cans and airplanes share only ONE thing in common....they happen to share a bit of that one element, that we call "aluminum". Soda (and beer) cans are made with as LITTLE MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE....just enough to do the job. They do NOT represent an AIRPLANE!!!!).

Still.....even with this silly comparison....yes, you find a way to "shoot" an aluminum can....SEALED, at the rear, to be similar to the airplane fuselage on impact....and "shoot" it at sufficient relative velocity, to a relatively designed aggregate....it WILL have a tremendous destructive potential.

WHY DO YOU THINK BULLETS NEED TO TRAVEL SO FAST??? A small piece of lead, thrown at you by a man...even the fastest baseball pitcher in the World...might sting a bit.....

...BUT, mount that same small piece at the end of a method that accelerates it to incredible velocities?? NOW what will happen???

Try to engage your brain, please.....

AND....guessing you didn;t bother to pay attention to the image, or video??? :shk:



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yes but did they know that "beer can" was coming?

Earlier I joked with Dave that "Does the order still stand?" was an order placed for ice cream to the man driving the ice cream truck.

But seriously though, I also asked Dave if he could tell me what was Mineta talking about when he talked of the aide telling Cheney, "It's 200 miles out, it's 100 miles out, it's 50 miles out, it's 10 miles out..." etc.

Well, that begs the question: Out from what exactly?

Was he talking about flight 93? What? You mean they knew where that plane was going?! Was he talking about flight 77? Again. What? Did they know where that plane was going? 10 miles out from where? If it was the Pentagon and they knew it was coming then please tell me how they knew that, then they had time to evacuate, shoot it down or at the very least turn all the cameras on and get some people out on the lawn to witness it.

None of which, apparently, was done.

Maybe the assistant WAS talking about an ice cream truck! So can anyone tell me what the aide told Cheney was really about and was it about an incoming plane 10 miles out from *something* and just what that something was? And more importantly how they knew what that something was?

Was he talking 10 miles from Washington D.C.? And if so there were no alerts or immediate evacuation notices?!

No shootdowns, no intercepts, no cameras or outside witnesses? No call to anyone about the incoming threat at all? No, really?! Come on.

Who can fill in that blank?

Thanks in advance,

Peace



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Off the top of my head....and from reading many different sources....(NOT just what is available online, on the InterWebz....there is a big, beautiful world out there, beyond your home office or (gag) basment....)...

From various sources....the best impression I glean from that exchange between Veep Cheney, and the unnamed "aide", witnessed by Sec. Mineta is.....Cheney had issued (absent Bush's presence, but possibly, I don't know, authorized) to the Secret Service an edict to "protect the House at all costs".

The "House", in that short hand context, of course refers to the White House.

MY take on all of this, from reading and putting pieces together, is the feeling of Cheney was of a desire that a target (which....I will get too....he HAD been briefed was approaching....AND he was well aware of the events that had just occurred up in NYC)....an incoming hijacked airplane towards Washington...BUT, there was absolutely NO WAY to determine its target.....out of so many obvious potentials?? Think about it.....

Cheney felt that, no matter what, the WH was NOT going to be hit on his "watch" (since POTUS was, technically, out of the loop, so to speak, at that moment...CHENEY was "on scene", if you will....

(This is how I see it...with me so far??)

I think what is LOST in that exchange that Mineta relates is the tension....unspoken, unknown (unless one could dip into Cheney's mind....ooooh!! Ugly idea!! I wouldn't even send my best friend Spock in there!!) ....


Anyway.....Cheney was as clueless to the actual intent of the inbound (AND, yes...it gets confusing here....I have to check the times. Because, I am NOT an expert regarding timelines....only other details. There are a lot of aspects to this, and a LOT of misinformation to sift through...).

The preceding, IF the Mineta account took place AFTER the reports of AAL 77 impacting the Pentagon....then, Cheney would have, obviously, expected any other hijacked rogue airplane headed towards DC as a possible WH "bomb". I happen to think that the Capitol Building was more likely....only because it would be much easier to spot from the air. BUT the WH does have an iconic target on it's back too....


NOW....foregoing (hopefully) understood....from Cheney's and Mineta's point-of-view, hot in the action, and lacking vital to-the-minute info (stuff we can only get from Monday Morning Quarterbacking, after the fact)....I thin that Cheney took it upon himself (and later, when they had the chance, "backed up" by the POTUS) to order the secret Service to authorize NORAD to communicate to ANY interceptors that would manage to actually engage any rogue airplanes (which NEVER occurred)....that "all necessary means" be employed to "protect the House"...(the White House)....to include deadly force. (AKA, a shoot-down), if necessary.


Of course.....ALL of the above is moot, isn't it??? The interceptors didn't have time....it was confusing and chaotic, in the beginning, and that ate up many minutes of uncertainty.

Added to the true fact that the USA defenses, at that time, were NOT directed nor geared inward!!! It took a great amount of personal effort on the part of those involved to modify the established "rules" (the 'ROE', too) in order to adapt to the ever-changing, and sometimes confusing, sequence of events.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weed, this animated vid you posted CLEARLY shows the wings entering the building..

Do you agree with this vid??
A simple yes or no would be fine..



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


PLEASE, watch it again....and pay VERY close attention (@0:35) to the computer modeling of the FUEL, contained INSIDE the wings, and how it progressed.

bib....fluids behave VERY differently from solids....please keep this in mind, as you venture through life....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ON EDIT:

I see the computer depicted the very tippy-tip-tips of the wings continuing inside....sheesh! Is THAT your complaint???

There is no way the video recreation is expected to be 100% accurate to the EXACT circumstances.....not sure there is any computer in today's world capable of that. The "modeling" there may not have included the EXACT parameters for the buildings' facade, and columns and windows....and heights, etc.....the MAIN focus was on the central path of the primary mass, and the destruction there.

But, as in many other things....those who wish to nitpick, will pick nits....
edit on 15 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 


PLEASE, watch it again....and pay VERY close attention (@0:35) to the computer modeling of the FUEL, contained INSIDE the wings, and how it progressed.

bib....fluids behave VERY differently from solids....please keep this in mind, as you venture through life....
edit on 15 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Mate, I'm the better part of through this life with no issues..

So you are saying the fuel passed through the walls that were intact and the wing structures stayed on the outside..????
Keep it simple weed and less of the patronising please..It's boring....

Edit: I went back at watched VERY closely as you requested..
It definitly shows the wings penetrate the building.
In fact when the flames are gone the wing parts continue on..

Either say the video is right or wrong..
No BS weed..
edit on 15-2-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



I see the computer depicted the very tippy-tip-tips of the wings continuing inside....sheesh! Is THAT your complaint???


No weed, it was much more than just the tips..
But I'd like to know HOW the tons of fuel seemed to pass through the wall....
There was very little damage at point of impact of the wings..



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Incorrect...(good MORNING, BTW....we are at almost opposite timezones....since you're in Oz....for me, it's approaching 2200...almost beddy bye time...)

NO....the video clearly shows the FUEL patterns in a computer SIMULATION of the event. It is the best available....until the Starship Enterprise shows up with ITS very more sophisticated and ever, ever more exact scenarios...

...well...actually, there DO exist "supercomputers" even today. Maybe not in the realm of the Purdeu University, alas.... they used what they had, to hand, to the best of their abiity.

Sorry it wasn't good enough for your oh, so "exacting" standards!! (Insert "lol" here...)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join