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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
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.




posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
AA77 didn't hit the lawn. When the plane hit the concrete facade the heavier items (I.E. Engines, landing gear) penetrated into the building while the lighter items (I.E. the hollow wings) shattered like glass and was thrown all over the lawn. The following animation is the best explanation I've seen, and it's based upon the visual evidence-



It also explains some of the inconsistancies the conspiracy people are wallowing in in the hopes of sowing discord- one eyewitness claimed to have seen the engine trailing along the ground, but the black box recovered from the debris noted the engine began smoking after hitting one of the light poles, so it's almost certainly the case this witness saw the smoke and presumed it was from dirt being kicked up from the engine being so close to the ground.

All this "noone saw what hit the Pentagon" is conspiracy mongor revisionism anyway as the Pentagon was in the middle of an industrial park surrounded by highways, office buildings, and parking lots, so hundreds of people specifically saw the plane hit the building. Plus, wreckage from an aircraft was thrown all over the lawn so claiming that secret agents ran out and planted the wreckage in broad daylight in front of 1,000 rubber necking eyewitnesses without anyone noticing anything is beyond absurd.

This "no plane hit the Pentagon" bit isn't even remotely believable at this point.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Yeah, that MilSpec grass just shredded and ate the plane.

Military grass takes no sh#!

psik



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

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.



Apparently your lack of "evidence" is only surpassed by your lack of reading comprehension. I asked you to refute anything *I* said about the Pentagon. I've never said anything about the on-site camera pictures. Pathetic attempt - as expected.

BTW - explain away the eyewitnesses to the actual impact - there were dozens. Go ahead, amuse me and explain them ALL away...



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Wait 'til they start making golf courses out of the stuff!



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

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?


Well, it's one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios. If I leave, then the conspiracy minded will just circle-jerk to the max, becoming more and more ignorant as faulty evidence is accepted as fact. If I stay, then I get accused of being a government agent.

I post similar opinions in each thread, because in my mind it is common sense, and I feel like I am helping people understand what happened by inserting my perspective. If you only see a problem from one direction, you could be missing an entire side to the story.

I would definitely say I have learned many new things. My knowledge of physics and mechanics has increased significantly, and I've begun to have a basic understanding of how equations are utilized. I have certainly questioned the official story many times, but every time I become skeptical, some fairly undeniable evidence shows up that disproves it and supports the official story 10-fold.

I've seen many conspiracy-minded folk just dismiss evidence left and right, yet embrace even the fringe videos with faked audio. I feel like if I can educate people and steer them away from ignorance, then I have done good. It makes me feel good to hope that those around me have a wider perspective of the world, because I have fallen for too many tricks in my life. After the second or third time of being deliberately deceived by rhetoric, a person becomes wise to the fancy words and avoidance schemes. This is why I do this. But I also only try to post when I feel like I can contribute.

If I can't add anything, then I avoid the thread. If you look at my post history, while I spend most of my time in this forum, it is only because I have knowledge on things in this forum. I occasionally post my opinions in alien threads or on metaphysics, or history, but to be honest, I don't have enough on-the-spot info to seriously contribute.

Here, I have the ability and the gall to post an unpopular viewpoint in a sea of conspiracy theorists. I may get ignored, and my posts may be ridiculed, but if you don't keep trying, and if you don't keep learning from your mistakes, then you are no better than a mindless drone, sitting at home all day and consuming everything the world gives you to consume. You need to be more than that. You need to be alive.

And that's about all I have to say on that.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:08 PM
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?


Bingo.......I like your logic sir/madam
Most important is the fact that the stone work was similar if not identical in both buildings.
Not to mention the B 25 was at cruising speed or less from what I have read.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:11 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.

we are talking the Pentagon here not the towers.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

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.

defcon5, you stated that the plane most likely slid on the lawn at some point.

Now, when asked for further details, you don't want to discuss it?

Seems strange to me.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

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.

Could you possibly supply a link to support the above supposition?
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

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?


You don't need to label people who disagree with you into one big group. It's not like we're working together or communicating amongst each other to conspire against the "truthers" here.

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.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   


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.


So we have four potential scenarios here from OSers:

1) The airplane hit the lawn
2) The airplane grazed the lawn
3) The airplane did not hit the lawn.
4) The engine was trailing along the ground.

Which OSer would like to take a stab at scenario #5 or is four enough? Maybe you should take a straw poll and see if you can decide on one conclusion...or would you rather keep three or four possibilities open, as the OS continuously evolves into more and more inexplicable nonsense?
edit on 19-9-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
"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."
I wish I knew where to find a lawnmower that will do that kind of close shave at over 500 mph.
It would leave me a lot more time for the important things in life like BBQ and beer.


Maybe one of the razor companies would like to know where the technology is to get a "fast close shave" but leave no evidence of the said shave.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Really - who cares? Is there any doubt flight #77 hit the building? Or is that not the most important point here?



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
It is self-healing lawn.

Just like the fuel tanks on some military aircraft.

You don't think the US D. Dept. is going to by the residential model of anything, do you?

That is special lawn they have there.

Ever noticed a gopher anywhere near the Pentagon?

Well, of course not. I don't want to have to explain the whole plot of Caddy Shack but if you watch the movie and really pay attention the official story will make perfect sense to you.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 



Until the videos are released that show the plane hitting the lawn or crashing directly into the pentagon; the official story is going to be suspect by any thinking person.

The animations just seem so lame when videos exist. What are they hiding?



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   


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.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


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.

Read them all - long before you posted - and how does this address my question?



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.


Please provide evidence that the dozens of eyewitnesses that actually saw the plane and the impact are fictional accounts.
The debris means nothing to you either - right?
The DNA evidence has no bearing either?

Overwhelming evidence that it was a plane and you got what to prove the evidence to be false?

I'll wait for your reasoned an unimpeachable response/evidence - thanks.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

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.

Again, this is not an exercise in probability. Either the alleged AA77 touched the lawn, or it did not.

The point is not moot. It would be prudent for investigators to know the exact path of the alleged plane's approach, to study the effects of the resulting damage.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join