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.

 

Reno Air Show Crash Proves Shanksville and Pentagon

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by samkent
 



In both the Shanksville and Pentagon cases it still remains highly unlikely if not virtually impossible for standard passenger planes to have been involved in those 'attacks'.

And what personal expertise are you applying to come to this conclusion?



Had we ONLY heard from eye-witnesses on the morning of September 11, 2001 and THEY were broadcasting the news, we'd all know and agree that passengers planes were not involved in Pennsylvania and DC.
But instead, the mass media TOLD us what happened (despite countless eye-witness contradictions) and also had names of the perps before lunch time!

Really? Is that how it works on your planet - people interview themselves and post directly to national news feeds? There are numerous interviews where the eyewitnesses were simply asked to describe what they saw. Also, if you would be so kind as to list the "countless" contradictions please.




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
It wasn't the planes lack of parts that convinced me it didn't hit the Pentagon, it was the lack of long burned skid marks on the lawn. Look at crash pictures of crashes of that type of craft and you Always see them, even on concrete. The Pentagon had nothing resembling what you normally see.


Whatever made you say that the plane hit the ground and skidded before hitting the building. The eyewitnesses certainly didn't see it that way - they said it went right into the building.



You're right about the skid marks however.........

Architects, engineers and pilots (and the average 10th grader) have ALSO said that a 757 passenger plane can NOT physically nor scientifically nor logically fly 10 feet above the ground, for several 100 feet, hit 5 objects at a high rate of speed and remain straight!


It's Sunday. Must we argue over something so obvious? How about Elenin? Now that's more debatable than this silly thread.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 




News used to be derived from people to let other people know what was happening that was relevant. It was a recap of events that happened to the North East West and South of the readers that they would otherwise not know about.

So much has changed.
The government now OWNS the friggin media who tells us (not reports to us) what supposedly happened.


Once upon a time if there was an accident on the corner of Oak and Main in 1946, the press would interview the witnesses NOT the maker of the vehicles!

The media IS owned by the government who are the Makers!

Give it up.

It was a missile in both cases.

Shut off your televisions. Burn the newspapers. Close your eyes and wake up!



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Well, aside from the fact that light poles aren't "10 feet" above the ground, the ground the light poles were on were not level with the Pentagon lawn, AND the height and angle of descent as described by witnesses doesn't support "10 feet" above the ground...then maybe you should discuss Elenin.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by userid1
 




News used to be derived from people to let other people know what was happening that was relevant. It was a recap of events that happened to the North East West and South of the readers that they would otherwise not know about.

So much has changed.
The government now OWNS the friggin media who tells us (not reports to us) what supposedly happened.


Once upon a time if there was an accident on the corner of Oak and Main in 1946, the press would interview the witnesses NOT the maker of the vehicles!

The media IS owned by the government who are the Makers!

Give it up.

It was a missile in both cases.

Shut off your televisions. Burn the newspapers. Close your eyes and wake up!


So, in other words...you've got nothing. Thanks for that...



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

You're right about the skid marks however.........

Architects, engineers and pilots (and the average 10th grader) have ALSO said that a 757 passenger plane can NOT physically nor scientifically nor logically fly 10 feet above the ground, for several 100 feet, hit 5 objects at a high rate of speed and remain straight!



AA 77 was traveling at 740 feet per second as it approached the pentagon.

The first pole that AA77 clipped is shown in the photo below (red arrow right) This pole is 1059 ft from the wall of the pentagon according to google earth.

So Truther, show us your math skills. How many seconds did AA 77 spend skimming the ground.



I'm a pilot and I have no problems with any of the manoeuvres preformed by planes or pilots on 911.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by seenavv
While I don't agree with the OP's evidence if you really believe a plane hit the pentagon why were we given a few seconds clip in which you can't even tell whether or not it was a plane?

Why did the FBI scramble to the hotel, freeway cams, and gas station and sieze the footage and never release it ?


A) the Pentagon didn't aim a camera at every blade of grass and garbage can. The Plane hit an open wall that had little to no human traffic so that area was handled entirely by security guards...and it isn't me who "believes a plane hit the Pentagon". All the eyewitnesses who were there at the time said it was a passenger jet so I have to side in with them.

B) Yes they were. Even that is a lie those damned fool conspiracy theorists are pushing out. The footage from the Citgo station has been released and a 30 second Google search will allow you to find it. It shows absolutely nothing usable either.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I am listening to George Carlin and rather than participate in this asinine and insane "yes it did/no it didn't' banter anymore.....I'm just going to quote him
"I've become a spectator. I don't have an emotional stake at the outcome anymore"


Frankly put: I don't care anymore.

I said my piece/peace, I know my truth and it's up to you to be okay with yours. If you think this happened the way it was told then, more power to you.

See you on the flip side!
edit on 25-9-2011 by Human_Alien because: grammar



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 




Architects, engineers and pilots (and the average 10th grader) have ALSO said that a 757 passenger plane can NOT physically nor scientifically nor logically fly 10 feet above the ground, for several 100 feet, hit 5 objects at a high rate of speed and remain straight!


It's Sunday. Must we argue over something so obvious? How about Elenin? Now that's more debatable than this silly thread.


You should really stop reading the crap they peddle at those conspiracy sites.

Here is a 747 low pass.

Here is an A310 low pass.

Here is a DC10 low pass.

Watch those videos and tell me how they cannot knock down light poles and fly hundreds of feet.
Remember most light pole are designed to break off if a car hits them, never mind a big jet.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Post after post on here comment on the lack of air craft debris at both Shanksville and the Pentagon.

Here

But when you look at the photos of the aftermath in Reno you see the same pattern of obliteration of the airplane. One might even make the claim that the remains would fit the back of an oversized pickup truck.

And Here
Where’s the tail section? Truthers make the claim that the tail always survive a crash. But do you see and hint of a tail? No it shreds too.

Here too

This shows that when an airplane hits a hard object at high speed the plane shreds into very small pieces.

edit on 23-9-2011 by samkent because: (no reason given)

I see what you are on about but there are recoverable pieces of aircraft after these crashes, 9/11 there was nothing to recover, just an engine that absolutely does not come off a plane of the reported size.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 




It's a combination of everything though.

Of course planes land/fly at low altitude. But show me an airplane maintaining that speed and altitude piloted by an amateur person and HITTING 5 objects along the way and not breaking stride or skipping a beat................AND going through 6 layers of reinforced concrete and steel in the MOST secured and protected building on this planet!

Got a YouTube video showing that?
Didn't think so.


(I think we're getting a bit off topic. Sorry)
edit on 25-9-2011 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2011 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The Pentagon impact and the impossibility of manoeuvring a 757 from it`s well documented points of importance, made easy........

Analysis of image 1 of the cctv.

Here below the image, with art lines added in yellow. The presumed trajectory of the plane has been cut into three zones :

From the right edge of image up to the yellow cabinet (35 pixels, 6,2 % of image width).
Behind the yellow cabinet (46 pixels, 8,1%).
From the yellow cabinet up to the front of the pentagon (89 pixels, 15,6%).

The camera's horizon has been drawn on the image, and also the realist approach trajectory in purple (see below in the text



The following image is extracted from an aerial view. Over it have been drawn the lines corresponding to the lateral limits of the cctv field. A line has been plotted, perpendicular to the axis of the camera, which corresponds to a vertical plane homothetic to the sensor of the camera. On this line have been reported the percentages measured on the previous image. Drawing the lines from the camera up to this line, the trajectory of the plane (confirmed by the impact zone in the pentagon and the struck lamp poles) is intersected



On this trajectory can be found :

95 m above the road, which is around 6 m higher than the ground of the heliport. The plane flies at the height of the upper part of the lamp poles which are located on the border of this road (cannot upload picture as image uploads are temp disabled atm)
65 m of embankment, to join the level of the heliport (slope 10%).
28 m above the heliport, in the visible zone on the right of the yellow cabinet on image 1.
35 m hidden behind the yellow cabinet.
72 m up to the impact point on the pentagon front, seen at the left of the yellow cabinet
84 m of deep penetration inside the pentagon, from the front up to the last "punch out" hole out of C ring.

These distances can be reported on a cut drawing along the presumed trajectory of the plane (in purple). Lamp poles have been plotted in blue, and the horizon of the cctv camera in yellow : an horizontal plane 1.3 m high above the heliport ground.



Facts :

The smoke on the right of the yellow cabinet on image 1 is 7 pixels high, i.e. 5 m at the distance where it is seen from the camera (275 m).
The horizon line is at around 1.3 m from ground (height of camera).
This smoke being below the horizon line, it so "penetrates" inside the ground of around 4 m.
The approximative trajectory underlined by this smoke implies that the plane, after having flown over the road (approximately at twenty feet high) has taken a steep descent along the embankment (on 65 m) and has made a brutal pitch change to fly under a level of 1.3 m above the ground (4 feet), and this up to the pentagon's front.

The part of the trajectory masked by the yellow cabinet has a length of 35 m. It would be difficult for a plane whose length is 45 m to be masked completely by this cabinet, except it's tail which would appear above.

Conclusion......

Taking into consideration the height at which the 757 had to be to clip the lamp posts and the position it had to be to be in the CCTV`s field of vision, it would have to undertaken an impossible manoeuvre........




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by samkent
 




It's a combination of everything though.

Of course planes land/fly at low altitude. But show me an airplane maintaining that speed and altitude piloted by an amateur person and HITTING 5 objects along the way and not breaking stride or skipping a beat................AND going through 6 layers of reinforced concrete and steel in the MOST secured and protected building on this planet!

Got a YouTube video showing that?
Didn't think so.


(I think we're getting a bit off topic. Sorry)
edit on 25-9-2011 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2011 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)


A plane "crashing" at 500+/- mph - going through aluminum lamp posts designed to break away from a car going 35mph, through 3 layers (barely). If you think The Pentagon is the most secure building in the world - that shows just how much you don't know - you should try getting on a SAC base sometime.

Got a You tube video showing a missile?



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


I'm not going to pretend to understand the math you used to come to the figures you posted. However, you make the statement that the camera caught the smoke image @ 275 meters. This I do have an issue with...

Assuming the CCTV was basically on the "corner of the building (give or take a few feet based on the pic), and the length of any given side of The Pentagon is 921 feet (281 meters), then you're suggesting that the pic caught the smoke within 6 meters of the *far* corner of the impact side from the camera. Looking at the impact pics (found via google), I'd have to say that it looks like the plane impacted just a wee bit more than 20 feet from the far corner of that side of the building and that's where the initial smoke would also be - since the fireball was still erupting and the wind had no chance to take it anywhere.

Thoughts?



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by Seventh
 


I'm not going to pretend to understand the math you used to come to the figures you posted. However, you make the statement that the camera caught the smoke image @ 275 meters. This I do have an issue with...

Assuming the CCTV was basically on the "corner of the building (give or take a few feet based on the pic), and the length of any given side of The Pentagon is 921 feet (281 meters), then you're suggesting that the pic caught the smoke within 6 meters of the *far* corner of the impact side from the camera. Looking at the impact pics (found via google), I'd have to say that it looks like the plane impacted just a wee bit more than 20 feet from the far corner of that side of the building and that's where the initial smoke would also be - since the fireball was still erupting and the wind had no chance to take it anywhere.

Thoughts?



The smoke that was apparent when the alleged 757 came into view ie a damaged engine, and not smoke from the initial explosion.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 




AND going through 6 layers of reinforced concrete and steel in the MOST secured and protected building on this planet!

A 500mph jet has a universal access card for almost any building.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by Seventh
 


I'm not going to pretend to understand the math you used to come to the figures you posted. However, you make the statement that the camera caught the smoke image @ 275 meters. This I do have an issue with...

Assuming the CCTV was basically on the "corner of the building (give or take a few feet based on the pic), and the length of any given side of The Pentagon is 921 feet (281 meters), then you're suggesting that the pic caught the smoke within 6 meters of the *far* corner of the impact side from the camera. Looking at the impact pics (found via google), I'd have to say that it looks like the plane impacted just a wee bit more than 20 feet from the far corner of that side of the building and that's where the initial smoke would also be - since the fireball was still erupting and the wind had no chance to take it anywhere.

Thoughts?



The smoke that was apparent when the alleged 757 came into view ie a damaged engine, and not smoke from the initial explosion.


You can see engine SMOKE from those pics???. I can't even tell what the object is and you can see smoke? Smoke that occurs (presumably) from impact with a light pole less than a half second (at best) before? Even taking into account the intersecting points between the CCTV angle of sight and the Purple line of flight - it's still nothing close to 6 meters.

That's asking a lot for us to believe isn't it?
edit on 25-9-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


that doesnt it prove, if your forgetting what crashed in Reno was an old world war II era fighter, what supposed crashed at Shanksville and Pentagon was a full ton boeing commercial airliner, the derbis found at the Pentagon were to small to be that of a boeing.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
can anyone figure out the kinetic energy of a full fueled airliner doing 500mph?


seems like it would pack a serious punch at anything it hits.

which means there would not be a heck of a lot left of it, when it does.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 





that doesnt it prove, if your forgetting what crashed in Reno was an old world war II era fighter, what supposed crashed at Shanksville and Pentagon was a full ton boeing commercial airliner, the derbis found at the Pentagon were to small to be that of a boeing.


The debris at the Pentagon is inside the building and not on the lawn.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join