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.

 

Animation Video for Pentagon Proof, best ever made - and why it's wrong.

page: 12
19
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by hdutton
 


Again, you are assuming that it is a conspiracy. You are also being highly condescending and have provided no actual information in your post. You apologize, but practically sarcastically. For that reason, my good sir, I must decline your humble apology and ask if you would, pardon my French, get the hell out.



I see you noticed my sarcasm but obvoiusly did not comprehend the intent of my other remarks.

As to there being a conspiracy. I think you should look up the deffinition of the word. There was a plan by two or more of those involved. That is a part of the deffiniton of the word conspiracy. It does not matter if they all died, or if more people, yet unknown, are still alive.

As to any efforts on my part to "get the hell out".

I would hope you are speaking of my starting on some type of journey as apposed to transporting hell from here to some other location.

It has been some time but, I have been there - done that- but did't like the tee shirt.

As an after thought --- I did not know I could read French so well !
edit on 22-3-2011 by hdutton because: spelling




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Since your picture only goes just above the 2nd floor and the left part is covered with smoke it's sort of irrelevant (probably why chose it
) but there's your answer: the "tail" went through the part that's marked, and the engies damaged the spots circled. This is according to the video that follows NIST airplane location. Since the picture you insist on using just shows SMOKE where the plane allegedly went through it's pointless... please don't think that just because you can't see the wall, that it's not there... it IS there, as other photos show.


What the hades does NIST have to do with the Pentagon? All photos at that time and of that section of the building are obscured by smoke and water spray. Duh', the building was on fire. I am going to ignore your insane obsession with the tail of the aircraft from now on. You have been told several times now by several people that the tail is constructed of composite material. Do you understand that composites don't behave like aluminum in collisions with hard objects like limestone block and reinforced concrete. They also burn quite easily.

You obsession with this makes me believe you are the reincarnation of Killtown.


Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Have you wondered WHY you prefer a smoke-covered picture compared to one that shows the portion of interest?? Since we're talking about the upper floors, it would be better to actually see the upper floors, even if the ground floor is covered by water/foam spray.


You hypocritically criticize one photo that is partially obscured by smoke and water only to display another photo partially obscured by smoke and water. I mistakenly thought the discussion was about "NO HOLE" momentarily forgetting your obsession with the tail.



Originally posted by Thermo Klein
the 500 pilots thing - here's your final answer, even though I've already wasted time telling you twice... I had heard it somewhere on ATS over the years, I don't have a source, so please ignore it. I was not lying. I may have been incorrect and if you want to attempt to prove my information is false go for it, but stop saying I was lying. 500 pilots? I DON'T KNOW... forget it. I've said plenty of times to forget it, it's not sourced so let's scratch it from the conversation, please. by the way - it had nothing to do with my conclusion, it was a casual statement.


First of all, if you previously mentioned the source as ATS, quote it. Otherwise, it is not true. Even assuming it is true that's your first major problem. Just like you, others post a tremendous amount of total BS here. To even consider quoting what someone has posted here is quite unbelievable and explains a lot about your gullibility, critical thinking and academic ability.

I don't try to prove negatives, it's not very productive use of time. Since you've finally offered a weasel type explanation I won't obsess about it any more. I was quite important in the context of the discussion at that time because you attempted to use it to prove that the 3 pilots here who disagree with your delusions were wrong. Wait a few days and others won't be able to understand what you did and it will be forgotten. Yea, but some of us are wise to your silly game.
edit on 22-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


Seriously, you're not contributing anything to the conversation at all.

We're talking about the pentagon and the damage to it, discussing whether it makes sense that a plane hit it. We are trying to take into account the time that the firefighters were fighting the fire, the subsequent minor collapses caused by the rapid cooling of material, and the video and imagery depicting a trajectory by which the plane had to have gone if it hit the pentagon.

Others are claiming that a missile makes more sense, though an explosion from a missile would seem to me to be far more damaging to any building rather than less damaging.

Now will you stop acting like you are such a know-it-all and actually get on topic? I'll report your next post if it has nothing to do with this thread.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
For comparison to above, and to prove the wall is still there despite being covered by smoke in your photo.




Has anyone mentioned that the area marked 'engine' is wrong? That is the area the right (starboard) wing impacted. That wing was knocked up by the impact of the engine with the generator while the left (port) wing dropped and impacted items on the ground.



And yes, those blast resistant windows did do their job.
Glatz

edit on 22-3-2011 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


A composite pic as proof??
What, you don't have a complete original??



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 911files
 


A composite pic as proof??
What, you don't have a complete original??


Oh what, you don't have a complete picture as proof?? Show part of the story and call it 'absolute proof' is of course rational in your world.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


If, based upon your opinion, I have truely not made any contribution to this thread, report my actions to whom ever you feel you should.

Judging from your own response, I may have succeeded in my attempts to find out those who are interested in seeking some truths and those who simply want to continue the same arguements which have gone on for ten years.

This aspect is the reason for my post here and in other 9 11 threads.

Regardless, I am atleast happier for my efforts.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


I've tried to get people here to work together, but no one can agree on even the basic ideas of 9/11. If we can't even agree on what hit the building, how can we work out any coherent scientific theories?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by hdutton
 


I've tried to get people here to work together, but no one can agree on even the basic ideas of 9/11. If we can't even agree on what hit the building, how can we work out any coherent scientific theories?


There doesn't need to be any scientific theories most of the answers have already been resolved, except for a very few.

The reason your idea will never work is because there are many idiots with a keyboard (IWK) who think they know more than people with expertise in the various areas that encompass the 9/11 scenario. It is further confused by people who should have the expertise, but are blinded by political views, hatred, or what $$ they can take from the gullible ignorant that they compromise whatever expertise they may have ever possessed in favor of those political views, to satisfy their hatred, or to make a meager living off of the gullible.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files


This link posted by 911Files should end this silly thread, but I'm guessing it won't. There are just too many experts here.....



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by 911files


This link posted by 911Files should end this silly thread, but I'm guessing it won't. There are just too many experts here.....


If an airplane crashes into the ground floor of a building at 300+ MPH the columns would not be there, and the tail would have either hit somewhere or remained outside. We disagree on this... which is one of the reasons the discussion goes on.

It's actually sort of funny in my opinion, I can't even imagine why someone would think an airplane crashed here because so much of the building remains. And some of you are just as strong and adamant about your opposite opinions.

It's easier bringing a group of Muslims, Jews and Christians to agreement (which is something I do in groups) because at least in religion there's some common spiritual ground... here we're arguing about apparent scientific facts that are mostly unprovable and unmeasurable.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by 911files


This link posted by 911Files should end this silly thread, but I'm guessing it won't. There are just too many experts here.....


If an airplane crashes into the ground floor of a building at 300+ MPH the columns would not be there, and the tail would have either hit somewhere or remained outside. We disagree on this... which is one of the reasons the discussion goes on.

It's actually sort of funny in my opinion, I can't even imagine why someone would think an airplane crashed here because so much of the building remains. And some of you are just as strong and adamant about your opposite opinions.

It's easier bringing a group of Muslims, Jews and Christians to agreement (which is something I do in groups) because at least in religion there's some common spiritual ground... here we're arguing about apparent scientific facts that are mostly unprovable and unmeasurable.


It's only unprovable and unmeasurable if you look up a goats butt with one eyeball and think your staring at a diamond.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


for the record, I don't know killtown and am not, nor have I ever been associated with that usename.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat
 


for the record, I don't know killtown and am not, nor have I ever been associated with that usename.


Did I say you did or were? Where? Your obsession with a tail reminds me of him because he is well known for obsessing about tails. There are other places to obtain information about tails, even to touch and feel one, Maybe you ought to try it sometime.

edit on 22-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
First of all, if you previously mentioned the source as ATS, quote it. Otherwise, it is not true. Even assuming it is true that's your first major problem. Just like you, others post a tremendous amount of total BS here. To even consider quoting what someone has posted here is quite unbelievable and explains a lot about your gullibility, critical thinking and academic ability.


I heard once on ATS that the current US President is Barack Obama, and the one before him was George Bush - I don't recall who said it.

Not having a reference doesn't make it untrue, it means it should be challenged. You've challenged this same idea for post after post after post after post. I am not going to tell you I lied simply because I don't have a source, I've even admitted I don't know if it's true, and recommended you drop it. WHY WON'T YOU DROP IT!!!
you win!!!!! Forget it ok?

I can't make it any more clear - the casual statement I said before, that 500+ pilots agreed on something... I've forgotten now even what it was after so many crazy posts by you, it is irrelevant. It was not sourced, you challenged it, I said forget about it, YOU WIN!! ... what more could you possibly want from me?

If you want to look it up yourself and challenge it, go for it - there's nothing more I can offer you. If this 500 pilots thing were a boxing match, I gave up in Round 1... you won, but you kept punching, you won... Round 2... all the spectators left ... Round 3... Round 4... still kicking me.... Round 5... I gave up FOUR rounds ago - just shut up already! YOU WON!



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reheat, you are very good at purposefully derailing a thread, over and over you bring up things that are so irrelevant that I feel inclined to make a statement, post pictures, etc to bring the subject back... imagine someone actually interested in this subject having to read all your junk about 500 pilots... the subject of this thread, deja vu, is where the airplane hit the Pentagon and a comparison of real life to the 911CS video...




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat
First of all, if you previously mentioned the source as ATS, quote it. Otherwise, it is not true. Even assuming it is true that's your first major problem. Just like you, others post a tremendous amount of total BS here. To even consider quoting what someone has posted here is quite unbelievable and explains a lot about your gullibility, critical thinking and academic ability.


I heard once on ATS that the current US President is Barack Obama, and the one before him was George Bush - I don't recall who said it.

Not having a reference doesn't make it untrue, it means it should be challenged. You've challenged this same idea for post after post after post after post. I am not going to tell you I lied simply because I don't have a source, I've even admitted I don't know if it's true, and recommended you drop it. WHY WON'T YOU DROP IT!!!
you win!!!!! Forget it ok?

I can't make it any more clear - the casual statement I said before, that 500+ pilots agreed on something... I've forgotten now even what it was after so many crazy posts by you, it is irrelevant. It was not sourced, you challenged it, I said forget about it, YOU WIN!! ... what more could you possibly want from me?

If you want to look it up yourself and challenge it, go for it - there's nothing more I can offer you. If this 500 pilots thing were a boxing match, I gave up in Round 1... you won, but you kept punching, you won... Round 2... all the spectators left ... Round 3... Round 4... still kicking me.... Round 5... I gave up FOUR rounds ago - just shut up already! YOU WON!


Still you pretend this was simply a sourcing issue, not a falsehood. It was not a sourcing issue at all. It is BLATANTLY FALSE. I dare say you can not find more than 5 pilots what have addressed the issue of how AA 77 was flown, let alone 500+. Some things are so outrageous as to defy calling them a simple failure to source. This is one of them. You are simple unwilling to FACE FACTS and are still trying to blame it on lack of source. At least you're admitting failure. I suppose that's good enough for now. BTW, there is another one in another thread that's gone on for two days now. It's not a failure to source either.
edit on 23-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


If you think I'm wrong, then prove me wrong already - you don't have the proof or you would have posted it rather than wasting so many threads on demanding something from me.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat
 


If you think I'm wrong, then prove me wrong already - you don't have the proof or you would have posted it rather than wasting so many threads on demanding something from me.


It doesn't work like that Sparky. You don't want to admit you're wrong just like above, blaming it on the lack of a source. I will prove you wrong in due course, on my schedule, not yours.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


actually I just don't wanna waste my time searching for, counting, and copying the names of 500 people!
there may not be 500 people; I don't know, neither do you.

The point of this thread is the comparison of the 911CS video to reality. A number of pilots who could or could not do something is irrelevant.

The video showed the airplane crashing into the 5th window left of a main column. The window didn't break... that's called evidence, son... window didn't even break? then NO AIRPLANE hit there, the video is wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join