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.
the rescue team that came in said when they shined the light up into the overhead, they saw portions of the plane cockpit from the landing gear.
at that time, as I learned later, was 9:38, which was the attack on the Pentagon. I heard a very large crump-thump noise. It was just a single noise. It wasn't a sliding-type impact or a succession of events or anything. It was just one loud, sharp report and at the same time, the lights went out.
This absolutely DOES NOT sound like an airplane crash - no engine noise, just a single explosion, yet if you believe the original story the airplane crashed through wall after wall, sliding along the ground at high speed, multiple fuel tanks exploding. There's no way it would have made only "a single noise".
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
the use of speculation is a great way to get ideas, find what to reseacrh... it is not necessarily truth but is a good way to start from scratch and investigate "directionally" from evidence to conclusion, and NOT having a conclusion and searching for things to fit your belief.
Here's a speculation:
What if a missile was inside the Pentagon before the explosion. We heard a single sound event, what if that single sound was explosives, which also set the missile into action?
If you operate from the idea "IT WAS A PLANE" then you lack the creativity to explore other options and speculations.
Originally posted by Reheat
To state that it would have been easy to plant aircraft debris in this man's office also among other offices in the same are is the epitome of absurdity. As if he wouldn't notice!
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
comment on the 9/11 threads, continually misdirecting, discussing other things, blatant lies (reheat), and purposeful ignorance.
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Originally posted by Reheat
To state that it would have been easy to plant aircraft debris in this man's office also among other offices in the same are is the epitome of absurdity. As if he wouldn't notice!
I didn't state that, I noted the section was under construction... depending on how you respond I might read the rest of your post(s).
Originally posted by Reheat
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
comment on the 9/11 threads, continually misdirecting, discussing other things, blatant lies (reheat), and purposeful ignorance.
Name one blatant lie. Just one is all I ask.
Then we'll go to yours. Mr. Thermo Klein are you a coward?
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by hooper
Another thing to think about on this, in case it was an actual argument you could learn from, and not just an effort to fight the OP... is that as the eye has a sample rate of around 25 frames per second (why we see flashes of pictures as a movie) the ear doesn't operate that way. There is no known "sampling rate" for hearing because we hear in a compressed wave form, meaning we can hear myriad things at the same time. A single sound comes roughly from a single event.
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Originally posted by Reheat
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
comment on the 9/11 threads, continually misdirecting, discussing other things, blatant lies (reheat), and purposeful ignorance.
Name one blatant lie. Just one is all I ask.
Then we'll go to yours. Mr. Thermo Klein are you a coward?
Thermo Klein (from the OP):
The area of the explosion was under construction, it would have been very easy to plant this landing gear strut amongst the explosives.
reheat:
To state that it would have been easy to plant aircraft debris in this man's office also among other offices in the same are is the epitome of absurdity. As if he wouldn't notice!
stating I said it was in the man's office is a blatant lie...
I got no more time for your BS.
This piece of landing gear found in the C-Ring near the exit hole has matching structures and a similar shape to a 767's landing gear's main shaft (right), the 767 having larger parts than a 757. (Source of 767 part photograph: PentagonResearch.com)
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat
it's clear from reading his interview that they're NOT talking about the same hole
have you read it yet!??
ya, some guys used a pole to make their way through a hole, and they made it prefectly round and large enough to fit a car in !!!!
There's more than ONE hole in the Pentagon there genius.
Originally posted by Reheat
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat
it's clear from reading his interview that they're NOT talking about the same hole
have you read it yet!??
ya, some guys used a pole to make their way through a hole, and they made it prefectly round and large enough to fit a car in !!!!
There's more than ONE hole in the Pentagon there genius.
Alright Einstein, if there is more than one hole, let's see it....No good photograph clearly showing another hole, it did not exist...
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Originally posted by Reheat
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat
it's clear from reading his interview that they're NOT talking about the same hole
have you read it yet!??
ya, some guys used a pole to make their way through a hole, and they made it prefectly round and large enough to fit a car in !!!!
There's more than ONE hole in the Pentagon there genius.
Alright Einstein, if there is more than one hole, let's see it....No good photograph clearly showing another hole, it did not exist...
nice job on the critical thinking... if there's a hole in the C-wing, then there must be holes leading from the initial explosion site TO THAT POINT. There's more than one hole - you are wrong. If you wish to follow that you are right, then you disprove the fact an airplane crashed there and went through mulitple walls - gotta love it, reheat wrong either way
guy thinks an airplane crashed through 6 walls and left one hole.... amazing.
edit on 22-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
There's more than ONE hole in the Pentagon there genius.
nice job on the critical thinking... if there's a hole in the C-wing, then there must be holes leading from the initial explosion site TO THAT POINT. There's more than one hole - you are wrong. If you wish to follow that you are right, then you disprove the fact an airplane crashed there and went through mulitple walls - gotta love it, reheat wrong either way
guy thinks an airplane crashed through 6 walls and left one hole.... amazing.