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: 18
62
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by nh_ee
 



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


Maybe you dont know (there's that research thing again ) that B757/767 contain a small turbine engine in the
tail

Its purpose is to be used on the ground to provide electrical power in order to conserve fuel - in flight its the
main jet engines which provide power. Running the main engines while waiting on the ground uses lot of
fuel

www.biggles-software.com...



It's called an APU - Auxiliary Power Unit. This unit is used to keep the lights on and run the AC/heat systems while sitting on the ground. In the event of a flame-out, it also powers the Air compressors that start up the engines. Yes, every commercial plane that I know of has these units.




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Coincidentally, according to what he was telling me when I worked for him, my cousin Herman was the head aluminum welder at the Pentagon after 9/11.

www.hardtopsbyherman.com...

I don't know whether multiple teams of aluminum welders were at location, but I thought that was interesting.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Like everyone else you don't read what people say, only what you think they say.

You CAN NOT see the impact point in those google maps pics, period.

You can see the pentagon, but that was not what I said, I said you can not see the IMPACT point.

The impact point was at the base of the building, you can only see about halfway up the building in those pics taken from the TOP of a VAN. If you are sitting low in a car you won't even see that much.

It's very important with eye witness statements to be extremely accurate. If they say they saw a plane IMPACT the building they are adding that AFTER the fact, making an assumption to fill in the holes.

Do you want to talk about the mounds built just before 911 and removed right afterwords? They did that for what exactly? Just for fun? Is it just coincidence that it blocks the view of the IMPACT point from the gas station, and other areas that DID have a direct view to the impact point?

Think, stop making excuses.


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



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
As I look at the 'birth' dates of these new backers of the OS, I have to ask why, after ten years they feel the need to come here and straighten me out, regarding the truth. These people aren't real. How could they be? Hell, one of them actually said the hole was caused by the landing gear, because they're 'really heavy' ! The whole bunch of you have ZERO credibility, and the more you post the more ridiculous you become. You are all traitors, and one day we will fry you blanks.
edit on 20-6-2011 by dillweed because: profanity


Yeah this new groups of OS are young kids that do not know how this government is run. They just watch some stupid You Tube Debunk videos and take it as truth. Once they realize that our government isn't for the people by the people, they will soon realize the true agenda. Till then, they will not listen to what the truth really is even it hit them directly in their faces...



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by nh_ee
 



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


Maybe you dont know (there's that research thing again ) that B757/767 contain a small turbine engine in the
tail

Its purpose is to be used on the ground to provide electrical power in order to conserve fuel - in flight its the
main jet engines which provide power. Running the main engines while waiting on the ground uses lot of
fuel


I can tell you for a FACT that combustion chamber section did not come from ANY APU, they do not have that type of combustion chamber, they have a spiral shape chamber to save space. The rotors (compressors) are also different, they don't have replaceable blades, the hubs and blades are a solid unit (APU's have no danger of FOD). APU's are not just like miniature jet engines, they are of a different design altogether.

All APU's are built this way...






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



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by nh_ee
 



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


Maybe you dont know (there's that research thing again ) that B757/767 contain a small turbine engine in the
tail

Its purpose is to be used on the ground to provide electrical power in order to conserve fuel - in flight its the
main jet engines which provide power. Running the main engines while waiting on the ground uses lot of
fuel


I can tell you for a FACT that combustion chamber section did not come from ANY APU, they do not have that type of combustion chamber, they have a spiral shape chamber to save space. The rotors (compressors) are also different, they don't have replaceable blades, the hubs and blades are a solid unit (APU's have no danger of FOD). APU's are not just like miniature jet engines, they are of a different design altogether.

All APU's are built this way...






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


I only have one question. How do you explain the people on flight 77 who are dead? The plane itself? The Captain of that flight, Charles Burlingame, bought a puppy from my wife several years before this happened, she delivered it to him during a stop over in Charlotte NC. After this happened, my wife contacted his family, and yes he was dead. Killed when HIS PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON.

Please people, find something that you can center your attention to that does humanity some good.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by matadoor
I only have one question. How do you explain the people on flight 77 who are dead? The plane itself?


Nice way to ignore what I said and change the subject, and a guilt trip attempt no less.


Why do I even have to know where the passengers went? That doesn't change anything. Use your own imagination mate.



Please people, find something that you can center your attention to that does humanity some good.


LOL, is that what you think you're doing?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by userid1
Simply put - you are wrong. You are discussing Washington blvd (Taxi location) - Interstate 395 runs right past the Pentagon - approximately 200+ yards away. Google it up for yourself.


Can you see the impact point from the highway?



Can you?






edit on 20-6-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by matadoor
Please people, find something that you can center your attention to that does humanity some good.


And what would this be? As I get older, it's not as clear as it used to be...



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


Dude look at the elevation those pics are taken at. Look at the cars. Now imagine you're sitting in a car, can you still see the IMPACT point, hmmmm?

I don't think so.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by userid1
 


Dude look at the elevation those pics are taken at. Look at the cars. Now imagine you're sitting in a car, can you still see the IMPACT point, hmmmm?

I don't think so.


I could see exactly all the same things from my Isuzu Trooper.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by userid1

BTW -since you're whining so much about lack of response to your questions - we're still waiting for a reasonable one to the following:

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by userid1

Yup and no one is taking yours either. I provided you a link showing aerial shots of the Pentagon (before and after I believe) disproving your "around the Pentagon" comment and you give us a *blog*?


Arial photos do NOT prove you can see the impact point from the road, or anywhere else at ground level, that is ridiculous.

Why don't you want to discuss the dirt mounds erected just before 911? Don't you wonder what they were for? I don't see any explanation coming from anyone?


Boy I just love it when people act like they know so much more, when they really dont.

ANOK, have you ever been around the Pentagon? At all? I have. Driven and rode the bus right past it in the morning, afternoons, and evening. I had clear views of the impact area many times, from different areas, highways, and byways.

Here is a view from I-395 headed eastbound:


In fact, this would be the BEST place to see any magical flyovers. It shows the top half of the Pentagon, exactly right where the plane would have to fly over. Funny how not a soul right here, with a perfect view, mentioned a plane fly over the Pentagon.



Look, another view of a possible flyover. I dont know how one would miss a plane pulling a high-g pull up and over the Pentagon with a view like this. Or are you one of those believers that thinks once the plane went to a certain height low so no one can see the impact zone, clicked on the cloaking device and flew away.


Pretty reasonable question wouldn't you agree? And he addressed your point directly when he asked how someone wouldn't notice a high-G pull out. If you're going to try and discredit some of the witnesses because they're "filling in the gaps" - tell us how they could be so wrong in filling this one in? What about the witnesses who eyeballed it right in as they had an unobstructed view?

Here's the deal with the "dirt mounds" - nobody except you really cares. You really *are* making a mountain out of a mole hill. The pic of the guy standing on the dirt and looking at the impact point is *directly* in front of Arlington Cemetary - not the Citgo. I pointed this out earlier and you had no comment. IF (and that's a BIG "if") there was dirt in front of the Citgo - it *only* blocked the citgo and nothing else, not the hotel behind the Navy annex, not the Navy Annex, not anyone on Washington blvd, no one on I-395 traveling in either direction, not the hi rise offices across I-395, etc. In other words - what would be the point of *just* blocking the Citgo?
edit on 20-6-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Well when will people on here use a bit of reason before posting threads like this were the walls of the Pentagon built exactly the same way as the twin towers? so do you really expect them to look the same after impact, its like firing bullets at a tank and a normal car and being surprised when the damage is not the same.

Look at this image below missile or plane?




Ask the kamikaze that flew it.

A nice round hole as some commented about the Pentagon! Body of plane went through.

You have to compare like with like!!!! Both towers were the same construction and different from the Pentagon that's why the results were different.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


in that picture, you can still see exactly where the wings dented the side. and also, we're talking about a commercial airliner, its a little bit bigger =P at the very least, where the engines hit would be visible. titanium-steel alloy doesn't magically evaporate.

besides, something punched through all 6 walls of 18" reinforced concrete. how could something so easily destroyed also keep going through?
edit on 21-6-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Think about this. The Pentagon has the most closed circuit cameras of any building in the world. No clear footage was ever released showing a comercial airliner hitting the building. The first images from the "crash scene" shows the wall where the plane supposedly hit. The wall is still standing. There was a small fire on the first floor. The plane is four stories tall. The Pentagon only five stories. 20 minutes later, the wall collapses. Thats the picture every one remembers, the collapsed, gaping hole in the side. No one seems to remember the 20 minutes first responders stood there looking for a plane that never hit. It went over. Three bulidings were demolished in New York City. World trade centers 1,2,and 7. Building 7 stood 47 stories tall. It was never struck by a plane. It contained the Enron papers. What was the biggist story before 9/11...



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Let me be honest when I say, who gives a flip if the eyewitnesses did not see the exact ground level impact area? I mean really, ANOK, you are going to nit-pick over something stupid like this? It wouldnt take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened to plane if they were on the route I posted overlooking the Pentagon, and watched it coming in fast, low and nose pointed down, and so what if the actual impact site was not visible directly? What, you think the plane just magically vanished as it got out of view, cloaked itself, and pulled off a 20G climb, and the pyrotechnics went off to hide it?


So stop trying to discredit the eyewitnesses that views like the ones I posted, because only an ignorant fool would discredit their accounts of the plane impact, just because they didnt directly see the plane hit the ground floor area. People saw a plane aim low and fast for the Pentagon, and they saw it hit. End of story. Show me ones that saw it fly over. YOU cant.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
In the UK I watched 9/11 televised as it happened. What I cannot understand is the lack of debris from a plane that size spread over the ground. The thing about plane crashes is that they create a terrific mess with debris flung far and wide, often the debris is on fire so leaves scorch marks on the ground.

The other thing is that usually planes don't drop out of the sky like a bird learning to fly and land, they glide in. As this plane went down, surely its wing span alone should have damaged or marked a clear line of approach. The angle must have been pretty level because I didn't see any gauges in the ground made by either a wing or landing gear.

I looked at the Amsterdam crash where a jumbo went into a block of flats, the devastation was dreadful obviously because of it being a bigger plane and not a re-inforced building, but again the debris was everywhere. I do feel that showing odd bits neatly stacked up proves nothing, in fact I was surprised everythng was moved so quickly because of investigating the crash for further bombs etc.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Oannes
 



The Pentagon has the most closed circuit cameras of any building in the world.

Really? And how do you know this? You would need access to an accurate database of all the buildings in the world and the number of CCTV cameras installed therein. I don't believe for a minute there is such a thing. Does the Pentagon have a lot of CCTV cameras? Sure. But that does not mean that every square inch of surface is recorded. Don't forget that CCTV's are often a substitute for human surveillance and there was no shortage of humans needed to surveil the building.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Have any of you kind folks seen this thread?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pretty compelling stuff.

LET THE FLAMES BEGIN!!!



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Fine - then be specific.

Start with the question -do you have any proof/evidence that it wasn't a plane that hit the building? Or is that not where the "holes" are?


Besides common sense?


How about the hijacker wasn't a good enough pilot to *crash* a plane - is that where the "holes" are?


Every person is a good enough pilot to 'crash' a plane. However, if you listen to 'PROFESSIONAL' airline pilots claim that the maneuver that was done was next to impossible for a beginner pilot to perform...well that would be one little hole.


How about the body identification - "holes" there?


Lets talk about body identification. Ill even give on one point, that the government was able to obtain DNA from the passengers and airline crew that were on board that plane along with the employees within the building....BUT...where did they get the DNA to match to the 'terrorists'? They, after all were identified too.
That makes 2 little holes.


Maybe the "holes" are in who was killed on the ground?


I already addressed this is in the previous comment...Lets move on.


Cite the "holes" and let's move on from that point.


Well..you mentioned two of them, but here are some more.
Where is the visible damage to Pentagon that would have been made from the wings and the tail?
How did the wings, presumable take down the light poles, when something as insignificant as a bird puts holes in them?
Why, when the building collapsed, were there no signs of smoke or fire damage to the outer most part of the part of the building that was still standing. With wooden items and a book.....did you read that?....BOOK....remained unscathed?
What caused the hole in the 5th ring of the Pentagon? And please dont tell me the nose of the plane.
The first reporters there claimed they saw no evidence of a plane crashing there....Sure...tell me he meant 'no evidence of a plane crashing 'outside' the Pentagon....and he was misquoted....leads me to this...........WHY IS EVERYONES WORDS THAT DAY ALWAYS CLAIMED AS MISQUOTED, OR OUT OF CONTEXT?
Where are the marks on the ground that would have been made by the jets in the photos?
Where are the videos of the plane hitting the Pentagon? Dont tell me they dont have any...oh wait...maybe they dont.


Just a few....want more?


I have no problem with people asking questions - but when an answer is provided with evidence, it's difficult to remain patient when those answers are so dismissively tossed away, particularly when there's absolutely no proof to contradict them.


There is no proof either way of what did or did not hit the Pentagon. Neither way!!!!
You can believe a story if you choose to, but when I have SOOOO many other questions regarding so many other facets of what are claimed that day...I find it insulting...I find the explanation given to us a joke. There are WAYYYYY to many conveniences and coincidences we are told happened.




top topics



 
62
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join