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.

 

Have I found a photo of some wreckage of an aircraft at the Pentagon?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Have I found some wreckage of an aircraft at the Pentagon?

Take a look at the 13th photograph on the following webpage.

Then take a look at the 12th.

www.hoaxofthecentury.com...

Let me have your thoughts.

Some of you may find the remainder of this website extremely interesting.




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Alpha20mega
 


Nothing against you, but, that website is crap. The wing flaps being hoisted in pic 13 are much larger than those on an A-3 or a EB-66. That yellow tow bar in pic 12 is made up of 2 parts each about 4 inches wide. The black section of the crane in pic 13 is about 14 inches wide.

I worked on and around A-3s in the Navy.
edit on 15-9-2011 by JIMC5499 because: typo



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I see a picture of an aircraft and a picture of some wreckage.

To answer your post yes you have found a photo of some wreckage.

It would help a lot if you outlined a little more about what you think you have found and a possible conclusion or do you want everyone else to do the work ?


edit on 15-9-2011 by studio500 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
This thread needs to be posted in response to the truther on the recent posts... here goes his evidence that a plane actually hit the pentagon...



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
It appears to be wing parts.

Somehow, I doubt the truthers will believe it to be so.


S&F



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Alpha20mega
 


The Pentagon event of 9.11 is the linchpin in uncovering the truth because... it simply did not happen as it is told to have happened.

What is most amazing is that those seeking the truth allow themselves to be waylaid and rerouted to the twin towers and WTC 7... where arguments can go one for eternity without ever producing indisputable proof.

The Pentagon event is the key to unraveling this story... it holds all the opening moves required for a winning closure. Unfortunately, those powers that be have successfully diverted us all back to New York, time and again.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
There have always been photos of plane wreckage at the Pentagon, though no truther who buys in to the Pentigon missile story wants to admit it, and some how allot of them want to state that there is no photographs of wreckage. There are also testimonies of people seeing the plane fly over their head just before crashing. I will admit that 9/11 could and should have been prevented, but so many people want to focus on a pointless fairytale aspect. People should be mad as hell about what our government aloud to happen that day and standing up, instead they waist their time arguing about rather or not a plane was involved.
edit on 15-9-2011 by spiderbadarse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I work in the Aerospace industry with an engineering degree. Those are not even shaped like wings. They are not smooth or shaped like an airfoil (referring to the profile, that is). The shape looks more like that of a structural beam. This is a very uneducated connection.

Take a look at the 16th image and associated description:


In this photo the wall gouge made by the left A3 Skywarrior engine is highlighted in YELLOW. That engine lays on the ground highlighted in BLUE. The WHITE TRUCK is highlighted in RED. The A3 Skywarrior fuselage portion is highlighted in GREEN:

LMFAO!!!
edit on 15-9-2011 by TomServo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by spiderbadarse
 


That's not really true.

Of course there was wreckage photographed, but just look at the wreckage.

Two rotor hubs, a piece of the combustion chamber, and a bunch of airframe that look nothing like it came from a plane that impacted a building and exploded.

Where are the rest of the engine parts, like the other 20+ rotor hubs, the two titanium rotor shafts, the titanium shatterproof engine casings?

We see about 2% of a Boeing jet in the released photographs.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Alpha20mega
 


Lets be honest, there is absolutely no evidence that a Boeing hit the Pentagon.
But that doesn't exclude the possibility that a smaller aircraft or missile did.

There are believable reports that some sort of aircraft flew into or over the Pentagon.

The wreckage in photograph 13 looks like one wing of the A3 in photograph 12 - no doubt.
It certainly doesn't look like a "structural beam".

The remains of a small engine were found, too small to be from a Boeing, but would fit an A3.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Alpha20mega
 


Well if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck. However which aircraft would have been able to punch through all 3 walls of the pentagon, if any? Would any aircraft have been able to? And if not, what does that mean? Planted explosives?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Well if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck. However which aircraft would have been able to punch through all 3 walls of the pentagon, if any? Would any aircraft have been able to? And if not, what does that mean? Planted explosives?


How many times do you have to be told that there were internal walls in the 2 lower floors of the PENTAGON !

The plane punched through the E ring (Exterior wall) - there were no walls (there were support columns) until
some of the debris punched through the C Ring wall to the interior roadway (A-E Drive)



According to the argument, the object that produced the hole had to travel through five masonry walls: The facade and inward-facing wall of the E-ring, two walls of the D-ring, and two walls of the C-ring. That would seem to be too much material for any component from a passenger jet to penetrate.

This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Pentagon's design. In fact, the light wells between the C- and D-ring and D- and E-ring are only three stories deep. The first and second stories span the distance between the Pentagon's facade and the punctured C-ring wall, which faces a ground-level courtyard. There are no masonry walls in this space, only load-bearing columns. Thus it would be possible for an aircraft part that breached the facade to travel through this area on the ground floor, miss the columns, and puncture the C-ring wall without having encountering anything more than unsubstantial gypsum walls and furniture in-between.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Alpha20mega
 



Lets be honest, there is absolutely no evidence that a Boeing hit the Pentagon.
But that doesn't exclude the possibility that a smaller aircraft or missile did.
I wouldn't go nearly that far, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that a Boeing hit the pentagon. Check this thread out.


There are believable reports that some sort of aircraft flew into or over the Pentagon.
I've heard of no such reports.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Only a missile, perhaps fired from the A3, would have the slightest chance of punching through multiple walls.

The "object" almost shown in the single image released by the Pentagon fits the size of an A3.

Explosives were used and there are multiple witnesses to this.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Those photos have been known for years to 9/11 truthers who believe some kind of plane much smaller than a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Whether they are consistent with an A3 SkyWarrior is debatable. The identification of the plane is not important. The crucial point is established, namely, that the wreckage is not consistent with a Boeing 757.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Those are not aircraft parts. They have neither taper or sweep, or even an airfoil. They are square and flat.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Just the fact that they have people looking at and analyzing long distance, low resolution photos of the evidence at the Pentagon is enough to tell you that the Official Story of a large commercial airliner impacting with the building is complete rubbish. A guy who can't fly a Cessna crawls out of a cave to perform an impossible corkscrew maneuver just feet off of the ground? Sure...no problem...piece of cake.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join