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 hole in the pentagon..is the big hole in the 911 story

page: 16
62
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


I don't know any experts who think it was a "different jet", a "flyover" or a "missile". Just conspiracy theorists.




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teohelm
The hole in the Pentagon is the major hole in the 911 story. I wouldn't throw my vacuum cleaner, which has a very distinct shape, through my wall, and expect it to leave a hole the size of a grapefruit while somehow having my vacuum disintegrate into nothing and leaving no trace of it's existence. i don't care how fast it's going. Sounds kinda funny, i know, but there ya go. Come on people.


Please look at these pics, the size estimates, and then tell me if you think your grapefruit analogy is still applicable.
www.oilempire.us...



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by CouncilOfNine
I have a video of the pentagon exploding and guess what?? there's not a plane in site........and witnesses say that the plane came down on a completely different flight path than so called evidence states, then it took off again just before the explosion.

edit on 20-6-2011 by CouncilOfNine because: (no reason given)


1 - Witnesses say that the PLANE...
2 - How many witnesses said the plane came down and took off again as opposed to the number of witnesses who said it crashed into the building?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GORGANTHIUM
reply to post by dilapidated
 


I have always said that a missle hit the pentagon.A certain office of us navy commnications was the target.They blamed that on bin laden to cover the real perpose of the attack by the cia.
edit on 20-6-2011 by GORGANTHIUM because: (no reason given)


Were you thinking of the Naval Intelligence office as opposed to Naval communications perhaps?
What does Navy intelligence (or communications - as if it mattered) and the CIA have to do with one another? What does the Navy and Al-Queda (or bin-laden as if it mattered) have to do with one another?
What about the eyewitness reports stating a plane hit the building?

Just curious.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by mac420
 


Here are pictures of engines recovered inside the Pentagon

www.aerospaceweb.org...


Wow, three parts from two engines?

Two rotor hubs out of a possible 24 (approx)?

One small section of the combustion chamber from one engine?

That does not make 'pictures of engines recovered'. Where is the rest? Where are the shatter proof engine casings?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by mac420
 


Here are pictures of engines recovered inside the Pentagon

www.aerospaceweb.org...


Wow, three parts from two engines?

Two rotor hubs out of a possible 24 (approx)?

One small section of the combustion chamber from one engine?

That does not make 'pictures of engines recovered'. Where is the rest? Where are the shatter proof engine casings?


Please provide some evidence that those engine parts got to the site and were photographed there by some means other than the crash of Flight 77 on September 11, 2001. Pending that evidence than it stands that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


It would have been hard for anyone to have seen the actual impact. Even Sean Boger said he fell to the ground and covered his head.

Did you know that just prior to 911 mounds of dirt were erected around the pentagon, making it impossible to see the impact point from anywhere but where Loyd's taxi was?





stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

Also many witnesses contradict the official flight path.

You can't see that this whole thing was a set up?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Please provide some evidence that those engine parts got to the site and were photographed there by some means other than the crash of Flight 77 on September 11, 2001. Pending that evidence than it stands that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.


Show me evidence that those part were not planted. Show me evidence that those parts came from flight 77.

Explain why, with all the photos taken that day, they only managed to photograph THREE engine parts.

I don't have to show you anything to have an opinion mate.


edit on 6/20/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by userid1
 


Also many witnesses contradict the official flight path.


If you will think about it - your statement pretty much answers your question about a plane hitting the building right there doesn't it?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Im on my moble right now, but there is an excellent video with the taxi driver admitting it was planned, and photo evidence contradicting his statement on where he was. Its in another thread on the last few pages. The most recent documentary video post. The taxi driver gave two different statements, one when he thought the cameras were off, and a different one when he knew they were on.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Show me evidence that those part were not planted. Show me evidence that those parts came from flight 77.

Would you care to show us evidence that those parts *didn't* come from flight 77? Didn't think so.


Explain why, with all the photos taken that day, they only managed to photograph THREE engine parts.

Can't answer that one intelligently - I don't have a degree in aeronautical engineering, structural engineering, metallurgy, or even physics. Do you?


I don't have to show you anything to have an opinion mate.

No proof, no evidence - not much to base an opinion on. How "married" to that opinion are you exactly?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Show me evidence that those part were not planted.

Ah, the old prove a negative demand! What else would you like to have proof of that did not happen? Maybe proof that little green men from Venus didn't plant the parts.

Show me evidence that those parts came from flight 77.

You know what we all have. FDR data that indicates that the last position of the plane, the DNA of the last known crew and passengers of the plane, the witnesses that saw the plane crash into the building, etc.

Explain why, with all the photos taken that day, they only managed to photograph THREE engine parts.

Well, lets be clear. These are the photos that are posted on the internet. The internet is not the total sum of all knowledge of mankind. There may be more photos. That being said, why would they be spending time photographing the engine parts?

I don't have to show you anything to have an opinion mate.

Well, saying its an "opinion" implies that there may be more than one valid view of the facts, there is not. Flight AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. To say that there is room for another "opinion" is like saying that there is room for opinion about whether or not the earth is still spinning on its axis.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Penta-CON



Yep, one jet engine rotor translates to only ONE engine. And it is too small for a 757 engine...

Whatever crashed into the Pentagon on 911 apparently only had one engine. And was considerably smaller than a 757.

This is where the Globalhawk or Cruise missile hypothesis makes more sense than a 757.

Simply due to the fact that they only have 1 engine.

And furthermore, the wing spar area of ANY plane is it's stongest point and resultantly would have punched a considerably larger hole than what we have in the facade and walls of the Pentagon.

Wing spar is where the wings are attached to the Fuselage.....also why this area over the wing is considered the safest place in any aircraft in which to survive a crash.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by userid1
 


Did you know that just prior to 911 mounds of dirt were erected around the pentagon, making it impossible to see the impact point from anywhere but where Loyd's taxi was?


I'm not sure you're familiar with the area - but this mound of dirt would only block the view of one specific set of witnesses - the permanent residents of Arlington National Cemetary. You seem to using the term "around" pretty loosely. Here are some before and after pics - any thoughts? pentagon.spacelist.org...


You can't see that this whole thing was a set up?

Based on your "evidence" - no.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by ANOK
 


Im on my moble right now, but there is an excellent video with the taxi driver admitting it was planned, and photo evidence contradicting his statement on where he was. Its in another thread on the last few pages. The most recent documentary video post. The taxi driver gave two different statements, one when he thought the cameras were off, and a different one when he knew they were on.


Yeah Lloyd's whole story is questionable to say the least.

Coincidence that one of the only spots you can see the impact point from was the spot where his taxi was supposedly hit by flying light pole, that did no damage to the car other then a broken windshield? Loyd got a brand new taxi out of the deal btw, all for a damaged windshield.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee

And furthermore, the wing spar area of ANY plane is it's stongest point and resultantly would have punched a considerably larger hole than what we have in the facade and walls of the Pentagon.

A hole like this perhaps? www.oilempire.us...


Wing spar is where the wings are attached to the Fuselage.....also why this area over the wing is considered the safest place in any aircraft in which to survive a crash.

Hmmm...500mph, aluminum plane, solid object - that's some safety designing right there!



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Coincidence that one of the only spots you can see the impact point from was the spot where his taxi was supposedly hit by flying light pole, that did no damage to the car other then a broken windshield?


Huh? There's nearly a 180 degree view of the impact point - including several raised points of observation like an interstate 200 yards away as well as office buildings and hotels.
You're really not familiar with the area at all are you?
edit on 20-6-2011 by userid1 because: clarity



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by CouncilOfNine
I have a video of the pentagon exploding and guess what?? there's not a plane in site........and witnesses say that the plane came down on a completely different flight path than so called evidence states, then it took off again just before the explosion.

edit on 20-6-2011 by CouncilOfNine because: (no reason given)


1 - Witnesses say that the PLANE...
2 - How many witnesses said the plane came down and took off again as opposed to the number of witnesses who said it crashed into the building?



My niece was giving a presentation in a conference room that had a clear line of sight to the Pentagon. She physically and personally watched the plane impact the building.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by matadoor
 


Thank you.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
Would you care to show us evidence that those parts *didn't* come from flight 77? Didn't think so.


LOL. That doesn't make you right you know. The government is the one who was responsible for showing evidence to prove their claims, until they do I will question their claims, is that OK with you?


Can't answer that one intelligently - I don't have a degree in aeronautical engineering, structural engineering, metallurgy, or even physics. Do you?


I was a jet engine mechanic for six years in the Navy. I worked 'I' level maintenance on T-56 turbo-prop engines, NEC 6418, before that I was in an EA-6B squadron ('O' level maintenance). I have a two year degree in engineering fundamentals, that included psychics I and II.

If you can't answer a question intelligently, then why are you dismissing everything as if you already know all the answers?

No proof or evidence of what exactly, that there are not enough part for two jet engines? Am I supposed to take it on faith that those THREE parts were all that there was left of TWO jet engines?




top topics



 
62
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join