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.

 

Let's kill the Pentagon Missile attack once and for all.

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I see we are finally making some ground towards the silly 757 hit the pentagon theory. If you could only go a little further into the picture regarding the WTCs and the silly pancaking trussel theory( WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7) and realize that islamic terrorists have yet to benefit from this Reichsteig Fire we call 911. I know alot of defense contractors that have benefitted though, I know alot of very wealthy people in the 30+ billion net assets class that have benefitted.

but by all means,,,laugh a little more, snicker a little more about conspiracy theories, black helicopters,lizard men, NWO and chemtrails etc. I want to make sure it is thoroughly out of your systems before the briefing to its reality comes around.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by project_pisces]




posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone
These planes have these things called computers. It enables them to be flown without a pilot.

Seeing as how I build embedded devices for a living I kind of knew of the presence of embedded devices on airliners…..thanks for the insight though.


Originally posted by earthtone
"The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully …..

And you are quite right, I should have been more specific…..an actual link to a reputable source, not some letter posted by a raving lunatic……
Just as an aside the NSA doesn’t train electronic warfare specialists, and never has, the military does….MOS stands for Military…..the NSA uses the GS rating. www.nsa.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.nsa.gov... do you see electronic warfare specialist anywhere on the page…I’ll give you a hint it’s not ….and as far as his description of an electronic warfare specialist it is so far off it’s not funny ….Oh and how is it so obvious that those planes were above 1.5g….go watch some planes leaving airports, that will really start you thinking……my god you’re onto it, all air travel is a hoax perpetrated by the government to make us think we are alive….



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
The plane that punched through the Pentagon punched through 3 rings, each ring containing 2 walls, that is, the plane punched through 6 walls of steel reinforced concrete. Neither of the planes that hit the WTC exited the other side of the WTC, therefore 1 wall of the WTC must have greater stopping power than 6 walls of the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by infernal
The plane that punched through the Pentagon punched through 3 rings, each ring containing 2 walls, that is, the plane punched through 6 walls of steel reinforced concrete. Neither of the planes that hit the WTC exited the other side of the WTC, therefore 1 wall of the WTC must have greater stopping power than 6 walls of the Pentagon.

Well, I remember when I watched it that lots of stuff came flying out the other side, and there was plenty of plane debris on the ground next to the WTC as attested to by the 1st responders, but that is beside the point.....the center of WTC was comprised of a cluster of elevator shafts. The walls to the shafts would in all probability be much more 'stiff', in all likelihood steel reinforced concrete. As I believe there was 8 elevators that would raise the likelihood of the planes encountering 16 wall simplistically speaking.


[edit on 6-9-2004 by keholmes]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   
The first one more clearly shows the debris coming out the far side of the building. Interesting part to me was as it came through the building it appeared to be a smallish round hole…..hmmm….and even more astonishing was the lack of a tail section and wings, left behind…..hmm….I think something might be afoot here. Also I think someone called it a missile. And should we really trust those eyewitness accounts I think it was far more likely that it was a global hawk. I mean really, how many of those witnesses could really tell if it was an airliner or not. We should all band together and insist that the government show us the missing footage.
eagle.westnet.gr...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...

However, I’m sure you’ll like this proof that the aliens did it, more.
www.realufos.com...



[edit on 6-9-2004 by keholmes]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by infernal
The plane that punched through the Pentagon punched through 3 rings, each ring containing 2 walls, that is, the plane punched through 6 walls of steel reinforced concrete.


Sorry, but that is completely wrong. As I understand it the outer wall was reinforced, but the inner walls were simple masonry construction. This is clearly visible in the photo



As you can see there was a layer of outer, face brick over a interior wythe of common brick. The structural support is from the columns not the walls. Note that the steel bars you see are the black iron lath supports for the plaster walls and ceiling.

How many times have you seen a picture of a car accident where a car runs into and through a brick wall?



Neither of the planes that hit the WTC exited the other side of the WTC, therefore 1 wall of the WTC must have greater stopping power than 6 walls of the Pentagon.


You are comparing apples to oranges here. The exterior walls of the WTC were closely spaced steel support columns. The planes used up a tremendous amount of energy punching though them on the initial impact. Furthermore, the floor slabs absorbed energy as they were torn though.

Anyway, you are wrong about the planes not coming out the other side, several pieces of airplane debris did exit the other side of the WTC in both impacts.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by keholmes
the center of WTC was comprised of a cluster of elevator shafts. The walls to the shafts would in all probability be much more 'stiff', in all likelihood steel reinforced concrete. As I believe there was 8 elevators that would raise the likelihood of the planes encountering 16 wall simplistically speaking.


Actually, the WTC was not a standard frame building. In most high-rises, the core area provides for lateral wind resistance with steel columns and stiff masonry walls. in the WTC, the lateral resistance was provided by the exterior walls. They consisted of closely spaced box columns and wide steel spandrel plates. The core area was conventionally framed, but no masonry construction was used, instead fire resistance was provided by double layers of 1" gypsum board. None the less, you are right, due to the elevator shafts, plumbing shafts, stair towers, etc, there was still a fair amount of steel in the core area. I am not sure what kind of diagonal bracing was the core area, but at any rate, there is a big difference between a masonry wall and a wall of steel columns 30" apart.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Just for the sake of argument ...

What if the military hit the passenger jet with a missle that caused it to shed parts onto and near the Pentagon and later crash into the Atlantic, while another missle missed the target and hit the Pentagon?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by project_pisces
I see we are finally making some ground towards the silly 757 hit the pentagon theory. If you could only go a little further into the picture regarding the WTCs and the silly pancaking trussel theory( WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7) and realize that islamic terrorists have yet to benefit from this Reichsteig Fire we call 911. I know alot of defense contractors that have benefitted though, I know alot of very wealthy people in the 30+ billion net assets class that have benefitted.

but by all means,,,laugh a little more, snicker a little more about conspiracy theories, black helicopters,lizard men, NWO and chemtrails etc. I want to make sure it is thoroughly out of your systems before the briefing to its reality comes around.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by project_pisces]


Are you blind or just choose to ignore reality? The terrorist attacks didn't benefit the terrorists?? The attacks of 9/11 have cost the USA and other western allied countries over $500 billion in lost GDP. The USA went from a positive growth economy to a recession due to it. The world-wide consumer spending levels on tourism still haven't returned back to 50% of what they were preceeding 9/11. Short route flights are still down 40% from pre 9-11 levels. The spin off effect from 9-11 has cost Canada billions of dollars, and almost every other developed, and undeveloped, nation has lost revenues due to a weak US economy.

Not even a year later, 9/11 had cost NY city alone over $95 billion. Over 72,000 jobs had been lost, New York's jobless rate climbed to 7.7% (almost 2% higher than the national averge). The New York stock exchange closed for 6 days, many top tier exchange firms were closedf ro weeks during their relocation to other offices. It goes on and on how much this benefited the terrorists. That was their whole plan - to upset economic stability in the west. source , effect of 9/11 on NYC, later source, by March 2003, over 2.5 million jobs had been lost directly due to 9/11, the damage to the economy will resonate for many years to come.

Even your pal Osama Bin Laden has stated on more than one occasion that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon exceeded their wildest dreams. READ THIS

At least get SOMETHING true in your posts. . . this spouting off made up crap to support your stories really gets old quickly. The credibility factor on many of these threads is often so low that it's not worth the mental pain to wade through them. If it's conspiracy that you need to get you through your day, maybe start chasing after something based a little closer in reality, there is a decenct thread on these forums about the Mossad being behind (or somewhat behind) the attacks of 9-11, you can read the thread here, and there are quite a few websites supporting this avenue of thought.



[edit on 7-9-2004 by CatHerder]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by infernal
The plane that punched through the Pentagon punched through 3 rings, each ring containing 2 walls, that is, the plane punched through 6 walls of steel reinforced concrete. Neither of the planes that hit the WTC exited the other side of the WTC, therefore 1 wall of the WTC must have greater stopping power than 6 walls of the Pentagon.


You are just wrong - either deluded or lying. Why post stuff that you have ZERO evidence to back up? Why do so many of you people on this forum make stuff up to support your fantasies??

My lawyers' office is across the street from the WTC site. The FDNY and other services recovered engine parts, body parts, luggage, and even a child's doll from the plane that hit WTC1 - most of these items were recovered on the ground over six blocks away from the tower or in other buildings across the street and up the block from the buildings.

The tiny explosion on WTC2 - this is the OPPOSITE SIDE from where the plane hit:

Second Plane hits WTC video Can you SEE the explosion come out the other side?? Do you SEE the chunks of building, office equipment, office workers, and probably passengers fly out the other side??? Everyone else on the planet sure as hell can. Now, PLEASE tell me how this too is not a plane... Another source

Much Higher Resolution video (7.7MB) Do you not see the HUGE chunks of debris (including chunks of the plane) flying out the other side of the building?? Here is another video taken by a private citizen from the side opposite of where the 2nd plane hit he building: home video

There is no way in the world you can view this and still back what you posted. No reasonable way whatsoever.

LOOK AT THE PHOTOS POSTED BY 'conspiracy supporters" from the Pentagon.

Here is CLEAR evidence of 757 bulkhead debris.


And a chunk of the body on the lawn - yet nobody from the "the men in black blew up the pentagon with a magic missile and are now spying on my mother" group can ever respond to these clear photos of pieces of the commercial air liner. It's like discussing something with a child who has clamped their hands over their ears and are singing "la la la I can't hear you."



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:57 AM
link   
That's some very compelling evidence for the original story, CatHerder.

Good job on that. I'll admit that I don't have any way to refute the magnitude of what we're seeing here, but we have to consider a few things.

The pentagon is a far more structurally sound building, what with it being more squat, and it's walls more solid, and you also have to see that the plane flew into it at an angle, and flew in a pattern that would cut off a corner of the square building.

It's quite easy at that point for the plane to go directly through, but with the pentagon, you have to consider that it punctured 6 exterior walls very cleanly, and all the interceding interior walls as well. I simply cannot see that A 757 did this. Consider that the hole in the interior most ring is simply not wide enough for the 757.

also consider that in another post, Skadi the Evil Elf pointed out that the 757 was made of materials that are not likely to survive that long in such a brutal crash. My question to that is this: How then did it survive to make the hole in the 6th wall?

Several things just don't add up to me.

I seriously believe that the wings would have been sheared off nearly intact, if the official story was true. I don't see them anywhere among the wreckage.

I'll study more pics, and let you know what I come up with.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Okay, so here's what I've got.

Now, what i've done here is some research into the subject of damage assessment. And here's what I've got.



These are the specs of the Airbus A-300, a craft comparable in size to the 757, and in fact, it's even larger. The most intriguing part however, is something that you need to see to understand.

The recent Airbus crash that I mentioned earlier got me to thinking about what sort of damage was done to each crash site. I'm going to show you the picture of the airbus crash now.


As you can see here, the damage is quite widespread, covering, on the front street, the area encompassed by three house fronts, and the entirety of the road. Then there is the huge area that is the smoking crater, and you see in the foreground there one house on fire, and one completely annihilated. Now, observe along that back street, and the VERY widespread damage that is evident there. Amazing, wot? What you see here is damage spread across about, I'd estimate at least 5 acres, not counting what is obscured by the enormous plume of smoke.

Now, for the damage assessment of the '757' crash.

First, the specs on the 757.


And now, a picture of the point of impact on the pentagon.




It seems to me that the initial puncture of the outer wall is somewhat smaller than what you'd expect from a craft the size of the 757, especially since the fuselage is larger than the hole it supposedly created. Now, granted, the entirety of the hole is obscured by the plume of smoke, but you can see here that the inital damage, not residual at this point, is SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than what one would expect from such a disastrous...well...disaster. As you can see here, on the first floor, most of the chain link is still intact, which says to me that the massive 124 foot wing span of the 757 never actually struck the fence. I'm left to believe that there WAS no 757 that struck the pentagon. I can only assume that it was either a much smaller craft, or even a missile, which would account for the massive, yet very centralised damage to the structure.

As for how the pentagon was 'supposed' to stand up to such an attack, take a look at this:



From the diagram we see that the object would have had to puncture through 24" of construction material at each outer wall...that means if you multiply that 24" by six, you end up with a grand total of 24 FEET of SOLID ROCK, as well as any number of interior walls that the object would have to plough through. I just cannot believe that a 757, made of (As Skadi pointed out) lightweight aluminium that would not hold up to that pressure, could have such destructive capability. Also, that to me leaves out a smaller aircraft. Personally, it's back to my theory of Tomahawk Cruise missile. I simply cannot see any other explination.

My final assessment of the damage?

This type of damage, in my untrained opinion, could not have been caused by a 757. My research has shown that the damage was much more likely to be more widespread, and such precision damage carried out could only be the result of a missile attack. Thanks for reading.

Peace.

[edit on 9-7-2004 by Loki]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   
The thing you are overlooking, like most people do when comparing one crash to another, is the dynamics involved.

The crash you are showing is of a plane that went down due to mechanical failure - and had a flight crew doing everything in their power to keep from crashing. It was not going full throttle - aimed directly at it's target (the 575 was). Even still, the plane that crashed in your photos landed on structures made of wood, made for habitation of individuals (light consumer-grade building materials) and the devestation is quite large (as is to be expected.

I think we can all agree that the damage in your photos appears to be a 1 city block, by 1.5 city block area correct? (this isn't accounting for the engine and tail section whcih landed in other locations from the primary crash site).

Image is also a link to larger image(source)

Lets check this out on any map server - for my example lets just use something simple like MSN's MapPoint You can see that the area we're talking about is approximately 80m x 80m (it's less, but I'll use the larger area just for comparison's sake. While I couldn't get an exact pointer on the intersection at 131st and Newport Ave., you will be able to easily click on it and zoom in fully to check distances.

Now, lets put the Flight 587 crash area over the Pentagon.


You've already stated, and I agree, that the Airbus is a much larger plane than the 757, the damage area is smaller for the Flight 587 crash but the impact area of damage on the pentagon is relatively similar - the larger damaged area was from the fire inside the multiple connected building (I'm sure you'll agree that it would have been a very difficult fire to battle in comparison to a normal building fire).


(click for a much larger 300dpi image)

I can appreciate your argument, but it's really not a good scientific method to compare one plane crash to another. There are completely different crash dynamics involved. Esepcially when you consider that the 757 that hit the pentagon was going full throttle and it intended to hit the building and not avoid a crash like the Airbus in Flight 587 would have been doing. That being said - I really don't see how Flight 587 offers any "proof" that an airplane did not hit the Pentagon, on the contrary I think it actually lends more credibility to the fact that a 757 did indeed ram the building. Just like the dozens upon dozens of witnesses have stated and have gone on record as stating - on the other hand I've yet to see ONE single credible source from a witness of the suicide crash to say it was anything other than a large commercial airliner - please feel free to prove me wrong on that. (although I have seen people state it as fact without a single shred of evidence to back them up)

I've also read other statements that were bandied about as "proof" of a conspiracy such as "Why would they put sand on the lawn so soon after the crash other than to hide any damage to the lawn from the airplane/missile/etc, or to hide the fact that there was none?" This is just stupid, really poor thinking. Answer: Access to the site. You can't drive over the lawn with heavy fire vehicles and construction/demolition equipment, you'll get stuck eventually - so, just like any other construction project on the planet you build a nice stable gravel road to the site... (this one always irritated me so I thought I'd mention it here).



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Ug. You can't prove anything by showing that a theory is consistent with the evidence. You have to have evidence that rules out all other theories.

You cannot prove that it was flight 77 by comparing the pentagon crash to other crashes.

The burdern of proof is on the government to present evidence that it was flight 77, not that it could have been flight 77 (this is the same problem of all the debunking sites).

You also don't need to propose an alternate theory to prove that it wasn't flight 77 (if, in fact it, wasn't). You don't need to explain what really happened to plane, or what it really was that hit the pentagon, or how the Bush administration could have pulled it off. All you have to do is show that the evidence does not support the official explanation (which is another thing the debunking sites rely too much on: if we can't find flight 77 in the ocean, then it must have hit the pentagon, or whatever).

It really is not hard to prove the pentagon crash either way, flight 77 or missile.

We are forcing ourselves to come a conclusion with incomplete evidence.

C'mon, don't we have any lawyers here? Gather the evidence and show it to the public! I am willing to accept either theory, I just want a real investigation like they do with all other airplane crashes! Why is this one being treated so differently?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
The reason there isn't a "crash investigation" by the NTSB is that this isn't a crash. This was a hijacking that turned an airliner into a missile aimed at the Pentagon, witnessed by dozens of people, and accepted as fact by anyone rational. This is a terrorist act, not unlike a bombing, and that's why it is being treated as such. The focus is on catching the perpetrators of the crime, and not on "proving" a 757 hit a building when that's already accepted as fact.

I'm sure one day there will be a more compelling statement backed by physical evidence, and on that day the lunatic fringe will still be screaming "cover up!" But that's par for the course.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Hmm...interesting stuff, catherder.

Can you help me?

I'm looking for someone to explain away the hole that has a smaller diameter than the fuselage of the 757 in the outermost wall.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I suppose maybe it's not the scale of the damage thats a odd, but just the strange way it did it. The impact holes are pretty strange, seeing as the plane disintegrated. I wish they would release the footage that they are holding back. That would be nice.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone

IT WAS A PLANE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT WAS A PLANE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT WAS A PLANE !!!!!!!!!!


Thank you.

There was a plan.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder
The reason there isn't a "crash investigation" by the NTSB is that this isn't a crash.


Really? No crash? (I know what you mean, it wasn't accidental).

So, if I'm a big airliner, and my plane crashed, I'll just say it was hijacked! Then there won't be an investigation.

But even if I accept your argument, that would only explain why the NTSB isn't doing an investigation, not why there isn't an investigation at all.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder
This was a hijacking ... and accepted as fact by anyone rational. The focus is on catching the perpetrators of the crime, and not on "proving" a 757 hit a building when that's already accepted as fact.


How is it that a person that wants the crash to be investigated like any other crash is irrational? How is it that a person who is not satisfied with the govenment telling him it was flight 77 is not rational?

How would our courts be if we took this same approach?
PROSECUTOR: "Your Honor, any rational person would clearly accept this anonymous photo and this newspaper article as evidence that John Doe committed the crime. Ignore that fact that we have no sworn testimony from the witnesses, and we haven't proved that John Doe was at the scene of the crime, but our law enforcement officials say he did it, so let's not go crazy and say he didn't. I mean, where else could John Doe have been at the time of the crime?"

JUDGE: "You're right, Government-Appointed Prosecutor. Our focus should be on punishing this guy and preventing this type of thing from happening again, rather than actually prove that John Doe did it."

There's nothing irrational with demanding an investigation. What's irrational is demanding that there be no investigation like they do with all other crashes.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join