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.

 

Columnist Ted Rall: AA77 hit the lawn, not the building

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTHERS
By Ted Rall – Mon, Sep 12, 2011

Truthers are passionate and energetic. They send links to websites, books and DVDs questioning the series of events laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report and mainstream media accounts. They remind me that the Bush and Obama Administrations have gotten caught lying about the post-9/11 war on terror. Why, then, am I not open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job? Am I lazy? Or some government shill? (If so I wish they'd pay me.)

I am open-minded. And I don't trust our political leaders. So I read everything that people send me. I watched films like "Loose Change" and "In Plane Sight," a professionally edited documentary that relies on insinuation to argue that nefarious government somebodies fired something other than hijacked jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Example: "How can a Boeing 757, which is over 44 feet in height and 124 feet in width, simply disappear without a trace into a hole that is only 16 feet in diameter? Also, why is there no external damage to the Pentagon where the wings and the tail section would have impacted with the outer wall?"

Answer: The plane hit the lawn, not the building. The Pentagon is made of reinforced WPA-era concrete. The plane's wings were thin, light and full of jet fuel. They disintegrated upon impact.

Everything I've read and watched on Truther sites is like that: easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent three years in engineering school.) Therefore, with one exception, I believe the official story.

Hit the lawn? Where???





Everything I've read and watched on Truther sites is like that: easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture.

Notice he didn't included good eyesight.




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
These stupid comments are what has derailed much of the earnest momentum of the mighty work that Truthers have done to keep this tradgedy in the forefront.
It wouldnt matter if the guy got paid or not, because ipso facto, he IS a goverment shill......
For whatever reason his obviously spurious comment will be taken as gospel byu those who are not interested in opening up the huge can of worms which is 9/11
The erroneous statements made by many personalities on a public basis have done more to harm the truth movements chances of new investigations than anything they have done or said,



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


At best, I would say it may have grazed the lawn, but yeah, it definitely didn't hit the lawn.

He's not a government shill for thinking that though. According to the wikipedia gods, a shill is someone who is an accomplice to a government or organization without admitting a close relationship. You can't just accuse someone of being a shill because they disagree with you.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
lol, i dont think planes just disintegrate. no matter what they hit
2nd



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Maybe he can draw us a cartoon strip showing us how the plane hit the lawn and disintegrated. Evidently, this artist is not all there. Just like evidence of a large commercial airliner striking the Pentagon (or the pristine lawn) is not all there.
edit on 17-9-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   


Answer: The plane hit the lawn, not the building. The Pentagon is made of reinforced WPA-era concrete. The plane's wings were thin, light and full of jet fuel. They disintegrated upon impact.


Does that apply to the engines as well? Thin, light and full of jet fuel to the point the disintegrated before the engines hit the building? wow.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
These stupid comments are what has derailed much of the earnest momentum of the mighty work that Truthers have done to keep this tradgedy in the forefront.
It wouldnt matter if the guy got paid or not, because ipso facto, he IS a goverment shill......
For whatever reason his obviously spurious comment will be taken as gospel byu those who are not interested in opening up the huge can of worms which is 9/11
The erroneous statements made by many personalities on a public basis have done more to harm the truth movements chances of new investigations than anything they have done or said,


I usually avoid 911 pages because truthers let us say intense in there beliefs. But let me ask you this how is his theory any less plausible then yours? You know the funniest part about truthers you each have your own beliefs and often contradict one another its a missile no it was a plane it was explosives. You guys are your own worst enemy if there was proof then dont you think after thousands of people have dedicated there lives to this conspiracy something would have been found. Someone coming forward and saying yeah it was us that planted the explosives!! If the military shot a missile someone had to do it there would be people that knew dont you think they would have come forward. The only people that ever took credit and said we did it was terrorists.

So let me ask you this how can you be so certain of your conclusions when other people see the same evidence you do and get a different conclusion. If it was truly evidence then everyone would have the same conclusion. If evidence is presented there would be an investigation. Conjecture on the other hand just gets you laughed at.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jazzguy
lol, i dont think planes just disintegrate. no matter what they hit
2nd


Even given a much higher speed than the average plane crash? You must remember that most times, planes are attempting NOT to crash. These guys were pushing full throttle and doing their best to aim at their targets. That increases the kinetic energy by a whole lot, and can potentially lead to the plane being shredded/disintegrated beyond recognition.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Varemia because: fixed a question



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Well the aircraft did not directly impact the lawn, but it most likely slid on it at some point.

Aircraft are designed to make wheels-up landings while digging into the ground as little as possible. They distribute their weight across a long, wide, smooth area, and often do not do any damage. Prop planes do a bit more damage because the props themselves tend to rip up the turf.

If you look at the fire engines in the above picture, you'll notice that they are also not doing any damage to the lawn until late in the day after the ground was soaked in water and became muddy. Those fire engines, sitting on their thin tires, are placing more weight per square inch on the lawn then the aircraft would have.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I have a big problem with the phrase that claims can be "easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture." This is simply not true. Even all else aside, would this guy think that all of the architects, engineers, physicists, etc. whom are pursuing the claims of a government conspiracy from a factual, scientific, physical standpoint are just blowing hot air?

Oh wait I forgot, he went to engineering school for three years. He must be right, right? Haha, right.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
You don't need "a basic knowledge of physics and architecture".
You don't need to go "to engineering school for three years".

No one at this time can say for sure what exactly hit the Pentagon - if anything.
Any wreckage was removed and disposed of before you could say "inside job".
All available videos have been hidden away or most probably illegally destroyed.

But all that is needed is a little common sense to realise what didn't hit the Pentagon



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Well the aircraft did not directly impact the lawn, but it most likely slid on it at some point.

Does the official story state that the plane slid on the lawn?

Isn't the official story that the plane allegedly hit the first level of the Pentagon?

How well does a plane need to 'bounce' off a lawn, if it has partially 'slid' upon the lawn?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


If a Boeing 757 cant penetrate the outer wall of the Pentagon going 500 mph explain how a B 25 which hit
the Empire State Building in 1945 could leave such a large hole?

www.youtube.com...

The outer walls of both the Pentagon and Empire State Building were made of the same Indiana limestone

Consider that the Boeing 757 hit with 100 times the energy of the B 25 - now tell us it wont leave a massive
hole?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911
 


If a Boeing 757 cant penetrate the outer wall of the Pentagon going 500 mph explain how a B 25 which hit
the Empire State Building in 1945 could leave such a large hole?

www.youtube.com...

The outer walls of both the Pentagon and Empire State Building were made of the same Indiana limestone

Consider that the Boeing 757 hit with 100 times the energy of the B 25 - now tell us it wont leave a massive
hole?


Plus it burned for, what 11 hours if my memory is correct. Empire state building didn't fall.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by jazzguy
lol, i dont think planes just disintegrate. no matter what they hit
2nd


Even given a much higher speed than the average plane crash? You must remember that most times, planes are attempting NOT to crash. These guys were pushing full throttle and doing their best to aim at their targets. That increases the kinetic energy by a whole lot, and can potentially lead to the plane being shredded/disintegrated beyond recognition.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Varemia because: fixed a question


Please source where you get the ridiculous notion that a plane would disintegrate leaving not even an engine behind nevermind the black box disintegrated as well.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by jazzguy
lol, i dont think planes just disintegrate. no matter what they hit
2nd


Even given a much higher speed than the average plane crash? You must remember that most times, planes are attempting NOT to crash. These guys were pushing full throttle and doing their best to aim at their targets. That increases the kinetic energy by a whole lot, and can potentially lead to the plane being shredded/disintegrated beyond recognition.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Varemia because: fixed a question


Please source where you get the ridiculous notion that a plane would disintegrate leaving not even an engine behind nevermind the black box disintegrated as well.


That's a lie. They found parts of each thing, and they found the black boxes, though the voice recorder at the pentagon was damaged. They had all the flight data and such.

Why don't you source where you got your ridiculous notion that everything disintegrated completely without trace?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911
 


If a Boeing 757 cant penetrate the outer wall of the Pentagon going 500 mph explain how a B 25 which hit
the Empire State Building in 1945 could leave such a large hole?

www.youtube.com...

The outer walls of both the Pentagon and Empire State Building were made of the same Indiana limestone

Consider that the Boeing 757 hit with 100 times the energy of the B 25 - now tell us it wont leave a massive
hole?


Plus it burned for, what 11 hours if my memory is correct. Empire state building didn't fall.


You appear to have not done any research at all.

A B25 is way smaller and slower than a 767/757, and the Empire State Building was built primarily of concrete and limestone.

The towers were built of steel, with small layers of concrete on each level, and a drywall-encased core. Very different stuff going on there.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911
 


If a Boeing 757 cant penetrate the outer wall of the Pentagon going 500 mph explain how a B 25 which hit
the Empire State Building in 1945 could leave such a large hole?

www.youtube.com...

The outer walls of both the Pentagon and Empire State Building were made of the same Indiana limestone

Consider that the Boeing 757 hit with 100 times the energy of the B 25 - now tell us it wont leave a massive
hole?


Plus it burned for, what 11 hours if my memory is correct. Empire state building didn't fall.


You appear to have not done any research at all.

A B25 is way smaller and slower than a 767/757, and the Empire State Building was built primarily of concrete and limestone.

The towers were built of steel, with small layers of concrete on each level, and a drywall-encased core. Very different stuff going on there.


My disclaimer is correct in stating that I might be wrong. But, unfortunately so are you.


The frame is made from structural steel gridels, the outer structures external is lime stone panels. the foundation is reinforced concrete.


The exterior of the building was built using Indiana Limestone...it was not primarily concrete and limestone. But, you were correct, I was WAY off for the burn time. I wonder why they designed the WTC's to withstand a hit from a 707 because of the Empire State Building incident when the 747 was already in production?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
Plus it burned for, what 11 hours if my memory is correct. Empire state building didn't fall.

If you have ever been on any of the WWII bombers, such as a B-17, B-25, B-24, or even a B-29, they are extremely small aircraft. They also run on Avgas instead of JP.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Does the official story state that the plane slid on the lawn?
Isn't the official story that the plane allegedly hit the first level of the Pentagon?
How well does a plane need to 'bounce' off a lawn, if it has partially 'slid' upon the lawn?

I really don't want to reopen this argument, so I am just going to state facts in here and you guys can take them however you want in regards to whatever theory you support.

The fact is that:
1) Planes are designed to bellyslide as I described above.
2) Those firetrucks are extremely heavy, and their weight is concentrated in a smaller area.
3) The fire trucks are not rutting up the turf until later in the day when the ground was wet.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join