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.
Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by userid1
OK, show me where the plane is in the FIRST photograph taken after the explosion. I dont have the resources to post that photo, but I'm sure you do. So, once again, show me the plane and not a wheelbarrow full of parts.
Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
I have serious questions for you to attempt to answer. What is it that you hope to accomplish on this site? What would satisfy you to the point of ceasing your posts? If as you say, the buildings collapsed due to fire, and a plane crashed into the pentagon, then what in the world are you doing here? Is there some other reason why you continue to repeat the same opinions, in every thread? Don't you think we know by now how you feel on the matter? Have you said anything new in the past year? Have you learned anything new? Last but, not least, do you expect us to believe you are for real? You pose as someone who, after serious thought has concluded that everything the govt. says happened, did. If that is the case, what satisfaction do you get from your participation in these forums?
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?
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.
Originally posted by defcon5
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.
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by thedman
Consider that the Boeing 757 hit with 100 times the energy of the B 25 - now tell us it wont leave a massive
hole?
Just like a bullet, the faster its going, the smaller the entry wound and the deeper the penetration.
Originally posted by defcon5
Well the aircraft did not directly impact the lawn, but it most likely slid on it at some point.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
AA77 didn't hit the lawn.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It also explains some of the inconsistancies the conspiracy people are wallowing in in the hopes of sowing discord
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by defcon5
Well the aircraft did not directly impact the lawn, but it most likely slid on it at some point.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
AA77 didn't hit the lawn.
So which is it - did the alleged AA77 touch/hit the lawn, or not? Two different beliefs being expressed by two different government story supporters gets kind of confusing.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It also explains some of the inconsistancies the conspiracy people are wallowing in in the hopes of sowing discord
I wonder if the inconsistencies shown by government story supporters creates any discord in their camp?
This is not an exercise in probability. Either the alleged AA77 made contact with the lawn or it did not. There is no room for arbitrary guesswork.
Which government story supporter will clear the matter up, leaving no doubts?
In my opinion, the plane probably didn't hit the lawn at all. It is a possibility that it grazed it, but that would not leave any evidence, so it is kind of moot.
Really - who cares?
Is there any doubt flight #77 hit the building? Or is that not the most important point here?
Really - who cares?
For starters, the person who started this thread and titled it "Columnist Ted Rall: AA77 hit the lawn, not the building". Since you've been MIA, you my want to get up to speed and read the first post to determine exactly what is being discussed here.
Is there any doubt flight #77 hit the building? Or is that not the most important point here?
Yes, there is quite of bit of doubt that a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon, since no credible evidence has been brought forth to validate this claim. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy looking at cartoons, photoshopped images, crappy low-res video frames and fictional witness accounts just as much as the next person, but this fabricated garbage would not even cut it as evidence in a Kangaroo Court.
Originally posted by Varemia
In my opinion, the plane probably didn't hit the lawn at all. It is a possibility that it grazed it, but that would not leave any evidence, so it is kind of moot.