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: 19
62
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."

- Adolph Hitler.

-----
(snip)
-----

edit on Tue 21 Jun 2011 by Hellmutt because: T&C § 19) Advertising




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Originally posted by DIDtm
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?


So common sense tells you all the witnesses are lying? Is that how you employ common sense?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Originally posted by DIDtm
Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by DIDtm
 



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.


And yet we still have those pesky witnesses who saw the plane don't we? I seem to remember a PROFESSIONAL airline pilot stating for a fact on Ventura's CT show that it was impossible to go 500mph in a 757 as the "wings would rip right off". Curiously, Venturas crack interior designer turns right around and hits 500 mph in a simulator before rolling it over on its back. Why would a simulator allow the trainee to achieve a speed "guaranteed" to cause catastrophic frame damage?

Point is - opinions are opinions - not facts.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Originally posted by DIDtm
Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by DIDtm
 



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.

Actually, what I read is that they were able to match DNA for all passengers and flight crew - but not for the remaining bodies/remains which, though deduction, they attributed to be those of the hijackers. Still not seeing any holes...


edit on 21-6-2011 by userid1 because: clarity

edit on 21-6-2011 by userid1 because: clarity



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by DIDtm
 


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?

Can you tell what hit where from these pics - I can't except in general terms. www.oilempire.us... You aren't suggesting some silly Wiley Coyote cut-out silhouette are you?


How did the wings, presumable take down the light poles, when something as insignificant as a bird puts holes in them?

Interesting. Actually, I'd never heard of a bird strike "penetrating" a wing. Lot's of stories about engine ingestion - but not that. If you have a link - could you provide - I'd like to read and see the pics. Thanks. Other than that - I can't speak with any authority on it. I would suggest however, that it doesn't seem all that illogical to me that it *could* happen. The streamlined form of a bird - particularly it's beak penetrating aluminum definitely seems possible, especially as someone here or on a related thread point out that a tornado can drive a piece of straw into a tree. But a one foot round aluminum tube hitting a wing and penetrating? I'm sure there's some sort of physics equation with mass and velocity that could settle it one way or another.


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?

I had to look for the video on that one - it had been so long. I see that the building collapsed along the concrete seams of the building that happened to be adjacent to unburned areas. What's so unusual about that? Maybe I'm missing your point. Please reword for my benefit.


What caused the hole in the 5th ring of the Pentagon? And please dont tell me the nose of the plane.

I think you mean the third ring AKA the "C" ring. The fifth ring would either be the "A" ring or the "E" ring depending on where you start counting (btw - it's usually inside out). The "C" ring is where all those punch out pics came from. Nope - not going to suggest the "nose" did it. How about general heavy debris (both plane and building) from inertia?


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

That's his statement - not mine. Why not take it up with him? Think he's still an active reporter and presumably has an e-mail address at his current employer's organization.


....leads me to this...........WHY IS EVERYONES WORDS THAT DAY ALWAYS CLAIMED AS MISQUOTED, OR OUT OF CONTEXT?

Who else's was? Really, I hadn't heard that there was a rash of these complaints. I'm more than willing to read up on them if you'd be kind enough to point me in the right direction with a few links.


Where are the marks on the ground that would have been made by the jets in the photos?

I don't know that anyone officially said the engine(s) dragged across the ground. However, there's pics in this link where it is believed the engine did strike something on the ground. (scroll halfway down to save time) www.abovetopsecret.com...


Where are the videos of the plane hitting the Pentagon? Dont tell me they dont have any...oh wait...maybe they dont.

I don't know why you find that funny. Everyone kept screaming for the Citgo tapes since they'd "prove" it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon. Well they were released and they didn't show anything at all. www.judicialwatch.org...


Just a few....want more?

Lead on MacDuff...


There is no proof either way of what did or did not hit the Pentagon. Neither way!!!!

Again, how do you ignore the eyewitnesses?

edit on 21-6-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Not that I dont believe you, actually your explanation was very well thought out and explained. I am definately going to think twice before I even mention the words 'ground effect'


But in your explanation, you say its not that noticable an effect. I am sincerely curious, how does the aircraft in the following video work? Those wings seem far too short to fly, and in fact it can only achieve an altitude of 10 feet at the most, but it is labeled a "Ground Effect Vehicle" or "WIG": Wing In Ground-effect.



I guess intuition would lead me to the following conclusion: The aspect ratio on these WIG vehicles is FAR lower than the aspect ratio on the wings of a 757, (whereas a glider has very high aspect ratio, long skinny wings to reduce parasitic drag). I would imagine WIG vehicles have short stubby wings for a reason, reasons that probably lead to negligible ground effect forces in a 757 (never mind the sheer size of the plane).

Being sincerely inquisitive though, if ground effect is such a minuscule force as you mentioned, how do the vehicles in the video achieve flight? Also, the video I provided is just one example of many different vehicles available on youtube.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by DIDtm
Originally posted by userid1

Besides common sense?


So common sense tells you all the witnesses are lying? Is that how you employ common sense?



Nope. Not lying. How many of the witness actually 'saw' the plane 'impact' the building.
Ive been over them person by person debating this with G.O.D. And there wasnt very many.
From the testimonies I read, there were none.

Also...many witness's witnessed two planes.
The descriptions were all different.
Whos testimony are we supposed to take as literal?
The guy who saw the plane hit the ground before hitting the building.
The guy who saw a passenger plane...not jet.
The guy who saw it fly over. (cant remember his name, but if you need it, ill find it)
The guy who saw a missile?
Or any other ones who saw something different than we are told?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by DIDtm
Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by DIDtm
 



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.


And yet we still have those pesky witnesses who saw the plane don't we? I seem to remember a PROFESSIONAL airline pilot stating for a fact on Ventura's CT show that it was impossible to go 500mph in a 757 as the "wings would rip right off". Curiously, Venturas crack interior designer turns right around and hits 500 mph in a simulator before rolling it over on its back. Why would a simulator allow the trainee to achieve a speed "guaranteed" to cause catastrophic frame damage?

Point is - opinions are opinions - not facts.



Youre right. Opinions are opinions.
Just like NIST and their opinions of how the 2(3) WTC's fell.

So, again...what happened when it hit 500 mph?
A PROFESSIONAL airline pilot couldnt control it? Is that what your implying?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by DIDtm
Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by DIDtm
 



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.

Actually, what I read is that they were able to match DNA for all passengers and flight crew - but not for the remaining bodies/remains which, though deduction, they attributed to be those of the hijackers. Still not seeing any holes...


edit on 21-6-2011 by userid1 because: clarity

edit on 21-6-2011 by userid1 because: clarity


Im not on my computer, at a friends house while this storm blows through.. so I cant provide links, but theyre out there in numerous places....Ive read many times that they matched the DNA with the hi.jackers. That is how they know that it was actually them...and not using stolen names/passports.
Remember they found one, unscathed...when it was supposedly in the cockpit of one of the flights that hit the WTCs.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Originally posted by DIDtm
Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by DIDtm
Originally posted by userid1


Nope. Not lying. How many of the witness actually 'saw' the plane 'impact' the building.
Ive been over them person by person debating this with G.O.D. And there wasnt very many.
From the testimonies I read, there were none.

Here's one: www.youtube.com...
Here's another: video.google.nl...#
Another: video.google.nl...#
Another: video.google.nl...#
Sean Boger who was in the Pentagon Helipad ATC tower during the impact - see page #11: www.thepentacon.com...


Also...many witness's witnessed two planes.

Define "many" - I only came across a couple, and I believe they were describing the C-130 in the area.


The descriptions were all different.

No, from what I've seen/read - most were pretty specific that it was a commercial jet.


Whos testimony are we supposed to take as literal?

How about the majority of the eyewitness acoounts?


The guy who saw the plane hit the ground before hitting the building.
The guy who saw a passenger plane...not jet.
The guy who saw it fly over. (cant remember his name, but if you need it, ill find it)
The guy who saw a missile?

Over one hundred witnesses and you're talking about "The Guy..." - as in a single different guy in each scenario?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by DIDtm
Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by DIDtm
 



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.


And yet we still have those pesky witnesses who saw the plane don't we? I seem to remember a PROFESSIONAL airline pilot stating for a fact on Ventura's CT show that it was impossible to go 500mph in a 757 as the "wings would rip right off". Curiously, Venturas crack interior designer turns right around and hits 500 mph in a simulator before rolling it over on its back. Why would a simulator allow the trainee to achieve a speed "guaranteed" to cause catastrophic frame damage?

Point is - opinions are opinions - not facts.



Youre right. Opinions are opinions.
Just like NIST and their opinions of how the 2(3) WTC's fell.

So, again...what happened when it hit 500 mph?
A PROFESSIONAL airline pilot couldnt control it? Is that what your implying?


Keep WTC separate please - things get too confusing otherwise.

To recap - PROFESSIONAL pilot tells amateur pilot before entering flight sim that flight 77 couldn't maneuver at those speeds - "the wings would come off". Amateur is able to get simulator to replicate 500 mph during maneuver before dumping it. Why would a simulator allow a speed/maneuver that would cause catastrophic damage to the plane while still in the air (i.e. - wings would separate from plane in mid-air)? Again - opinions...



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by DIDtm
Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by DIDtm
 



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.

Actually, what I read is that they were able to match DNA for all passengers and flight crew - but not for the remaining bodies/remains which, though deduction, they attributed to be those of the hijackers. Still not seeing any holes...


edit on 21-6-2011 by userid1 because: clarity

edit on 21-6-2011 by userid1 because: clarity


Im not on my computer, at a friends house while this storm blows through.. so I cant provide links, but theyre out there in numerous places....Ive read many times that they matched the DNA with the hi.jackers. That is how they know that it was actually them...and not using stolen names/passports.
Remember they found one, unscathed...when it was supposedly in the cockpit of one of the flights that hit the WTCs.


Again - let's keep this strictly about the Pentagon to avoid confusion. If you have some sort of official statement that the Gov't was able to identify flight #77's hijackers from DNA testing - I would like to see that. (Whenever is convenient for you to post a link.)
Thanks.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 
That's a really good picture of yourself in your avatar. Still I think your funniest bit is the one where you explain how ' heavy debris' punched that hole thru multiple rings of the pentagon, and then vaporize right after. Keep talking, you are hysterical!



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by userid1
 
That's a really good picture of yourself in your avatar. Still I think your funniest bit is the one where you explain how ' heavy debris' punched that hole thru multiple rings of the pentagon, and then vaporize right after. Keep talking, you are hysterical!



If you could just show me where - exactly - I said that heavy debris punched through multiple rings. I believe I said it likely is what punched through the C ring exit hole. I also don't have any recollection of suggesting that anything "vaporized" at any time.

Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

As for my avatar - yeah, you can call me Al.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by DIDtm
Originally posted by userid1

Besides common sense?


So common sense tells you all the witnesses are lying? Is that how you employ common sense?



Nope. Not lying. How many of the witness actually 'saw' the plane 'impact' the building.
Ive been over them person by person debating this with G.O.D. And there wasnt very many.
From the testimonies I read, there were none.

Also...many witness's witnessed two planes.
The descriptions were all different.
Whos testimony are we supposed to take as literal?
The guy who saw the plane hit the ground before hitting the building.
The guy who saw a passenger plane...not jet.
The guy who saw it fly over. (cant remember his name, but if you need it, ill find it)
The guy who saw a missile?
Or any other ones who saw something different than we are told?


The "two planes" included the C130 that followed AA 77 in.

Can you please identify the witness who saw the plane fly over and the one who saw a missile ?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Well based on the videos released you don't have to be a genius to see this guy is right. Maybe a RC plane crashed into the pentagon but not a 747. Not enough material is left from the plane.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tachyeon
Well based on the videos released you don't have to be a genius to see this guy is right. Maybe a RC plane crashed into the pentagon but not a 747. Not enough material is left from the plane.


Nobody said it was a 747, and what percentage should be left exactly ?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Wrong plane model. Still should have been far more material left than what was in laying in front of the pentagon. I notice how you peps always say eyewitness reports are no good in UFO cases but when it comes to 9/11 you claim they are the holy grail. So if eyewitness reports prove 9/11 happened how the government explained it then all the UFOs reported by pilots, police, civilians, etc are true.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1



Again - let's keep this strictly about the Pentagon to avoid confusion. If you have some sort of official statement that the Gov't was able to identify flight #77's hijackers from DNA testing - I would like to see that. (Whenever is convenient for you to post a link.)
Thanks.


In a hurry right now...but this is one of the stories..


The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.


Excuse me while I vomit.......LIKE WERE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THIS SH@T?

Found HERE

But I'm sure that simple google searches will yield plenty of results...as with you other questions.

Lookie here what google also provided for me................a thread, right here, on ATS regarding DNA.....
Have a look.
edit on 22-6-2011 by DIDtm because: add another link

edit on 22-6-2011 by DIDtm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by userid1



Again - let's keep this strictly about the Pentagon to avoid confusion. If you have some sort of official statement that the Gov't was able to identify flight #77's hijackers from DNA testing - I would like to see that. (Whenever is convenient for you to post a link.)
Thanks.


In a hurry right now...but this is one of the stories..


The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.


Excuse me while I vomit.......LIKE WERE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THIS SH@T?

Found HERE

But I'm sure that simple google searches will yield plenty of results...as with you other questions.

Lookie here what google also provided for me................a thread, right here, on ATS regarding DNA.....
Have a look.
edit on 22-6-2011 by DIDtm because: add another link

edit on 22-6-2011 by DIDtm because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry - this is now the third request to keep the discussion limited to the Pentagon and flight # 77. All my responses have been limited to that, and in the interest of clarity - perhaps yours should be as well.

Until I hear differently, I will assume that the items I read about how they deduced which were the hijackers remains of the pentagon plane still stands.




top topics



 
62
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join