Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

100% conclusive evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon.

page: 29
24
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 
Thank you for presenting yourself exactly as you are. Good luck winning hearts, you silver tongued rascal.




posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I have to know... Was the OP serious???



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


ILL WRITE WITH CAPS SINCE SOMEBODY HAVENT OPENED THEIR EYES YET. THE 9\11 INSIDE JOB IS NOW A WELL KNOWN FACTOR FOR THE US GOVERNMENT,3 YEARS AGO WE ALSO GOT INFORMED THAT THE US MIGHT END UP IN COURT DUE THE 9\11 INSIDE JOB.That has now happened,the US has now a postponed court issue that might end badly in the future. BUT since the 9\11 job was for the better good of US economy,it will prolly be postponed forever.

You are right,the conspiracy is OVER, the 9\11 inside job is now a fact. F.A.C.T- an event that actually happened,the evidence has been sent to the high court,nothing more to argue about. The 9\11 event has given the US a huge profit for the next 20 years. And if you read some american history or even world history,you will be aware of that this isnt the first time. World leaders all over the last 5000 years have sacrificed the lot of few for the better good and future for the rest. EVEN HOW BAD IT IS. Its sad,but thats how it works.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Archirvion
 


So do you have anything to add in the form of evidence rather than your incohert drivel posted?



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 




Thanks for the overwhelmingly "conclusive evidence"! I must admit, it's pretty hard to argue with a cartoon. After a long 10 years, I can finally put my mind to rest.


This explanation resorts to using a 'cartoon' in order to help simple minds (who otherwise would cry conspiracy) put the pieces together. It has always been so frustrating to me that every conspiracy explanation involving the Pentagon is so loosely constructed and substitutes unreasonable assumptions when filling in unknowns. They never compare apples to apples. So, if you cant even understand this 'cartoon', i dare say you are a lost cause.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 

It's fine to stall, if your objective is to crash. You just have to plan it to hit your target before the plane hits the ground.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 

The reason that wings can hit and knock down a pole without themselves breaking has to do with kinetic energy. The wings are traveling at full speed with plenty of kinetic energy. If you have analyzed things crashing into other things, you will have noticed that the one with the speed seems to inflict more damage to the stationary object than you would otherwise expect if they were both traveling at the same speed. Besides that, those poles are designed to break easily for safety reasons.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


I have explained elsewhere that the reason the wings did not break, although the poles did, are two: One is the kinetic energy of the wings. The other is that those poles are designed to break easily for safety reasons.

As far as the difficulty of flying that low goes, yes, it is very hard to fly at a steady speed that low, due to turbulence, harmonics, etc., but this plane was not doing that. It was descending rapidly, not flying steadily.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Kinetic energy was in the airplane's favor.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


I agree it makes for a compelling re-creation. In any event, I know it happened. I was in the wireless industry then and had a friend installing an antenna on the roof of a nearby apartment building in Alexandria and the plane came right over his head and scared the crap out of him.


I personally know two other people who saw the plane. And they don't take kindly to telling them that they mistook a painted missile for a plane, because they have enough experience to know better.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

The damage is too low for the wings to have done it, the plane would have to have been actually on the ground with the engines digging into the grass, yet there wasn't any damage to the lawn at all. Does that tell you anything?


Anyone who has actually visited the Pentagon knows that the first floor is actually quite high. This is not an ordinary building. The plane was coming down at enough of an angle, in addition to the height of the first floor off of the ground, that it was quite possible not to hit the ground with the engines until the crash happened.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sorgfelt
 




If you have analyzed things crashing into other things, you will have noticed that the one with the speed seems to inflict more damage to the stationary object than you would otherwise expect if they were both traveling at the same speed.


Uhm, not if you you believe Newton, or Einstein for that matter. From the perspective of the wings it is the light poles that are moving.

In terms of the laws of physics there is no difference between the two perspectives.



Besides that, those poles are designed to break easily for safety reasons.


This is true, but you are you contending that the plane would be undamaged because of this?

Have you seen what bird strikes do to a plane?

Breakaway or not, the poles still have substantial mass.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by sorgfelt
reply to post by ANOK
 


Kinetic energy was in the airplane's favor.


The airplanes Ke could not cause the nose to penetrate the wall, but the engines not to and somehow not be all over the lawn in front of the hole. Ke would effect the whole plane.

Those engines have a lot of mass, yet they made no holes and somehow, apart from three parts, disappeared. The planes nose made of carbon fiber somehow did breach the wall.

You can't tell me something is not wrong with that.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Are you aware that FOI request was filed for a video that clearly shows the pentagon blew up on its own no plane is see in the video so the official story is all bunk. Its hard to find this video on the net but its in the public domain. When you control law enforcment government media cia fbi its easy to make up lies. The 3 frame video released by the Feds is laughable. The video released from the foi is awesome and proves there never was a plane.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by MrWendal
 


We saw the impact.. to answer the poster above..
I have typed out my description of the day 10 different times under 2 different names here on ATS. I do not have any plans to get into a pecker measuring contest over facts and theories. Believe me or don't, I dont give 2 flips, just know that all of you with these facts, are like me showing you the bible as proof of god.. complete BS!!!



no, but if you're gonna come to a discussion board and tell a story that supports the OS, you better be prepared to answer questions and give more details without attitude or defensiveness.

So no doubt if you "SAW" the impact, you should be able to corroborate the SAME basic details that others had ESPECIALLY Mike the reporter.

you should also be able to give a detailed POV which so far i haven't seen yet.

be able to address Lloyds obvious contradictions and virtual confession

be able to address the hole before the collapse and fact the plane didn't fit.

be able to address the contradictory testimony of witnesses

why the lawn was virtually untouched

show exactly how and where CIT's presentation and argument is wrong on about the NOC flight path.

explain how the punch out hole was created

and where your witness account was recorded and if not, why.


If your'e a legitimate witness, these basic issues should be very easy to do



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
100% conclusive evidence that what hit the pentagon was and in fact an airplane.


clear as day.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)


yup, now i've seen everything. 100% conclusive evidence of a plane??? just


in actuality this is 100% conclusive evidence proving that those defending the governments OS either have zero critical thinking skills, are out of touch with reality and physical laws that govern our universe, or are just shills.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111Shills. Despicable, worthless, waste of skin shills, who will eventually hang themselves. They may have fooled our generation, but how about the next one?
 



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Why, oh, why do so many Internet Aviation Engineers forget about the solid bulkhead behind the nose cone.....the bulkhead that can, and will, penetrate into solid objects......



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
The flight recorder data is so bogus you'd have to be a completely deluded al-Qaeda conspiracy theorist to believe it. It's almost comical actually... even an experienced fighter pilot couldn't have pulled those maneuvers off. 9-11 was an inside job.




posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 



Why, oh, why do so many Internet Aviation Engineers forget about the solid bulkhead behind the nose cone.....the bulkhead that can, and will, penetrate into solid objects......
I have a question about the hole you're referring to.
How is it that after the nosecone of a 757 penetrates three layers, it just disintegrates in the open air? It was still pretty intact based on the circular hole on the third layer, so how does it make it through all of that brick/cement, and only after it makes it through does it get destroyed? Did the sunlight and fresh air cause it to vaporize? Why is there not a mostly intact 757 nosecone on the other side of that hole? Why don't we see something that looks like this?





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join