It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Loki
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.
Originally posted by slank
Like say maybe, I don't know . . . a global hawk perhaps? with a missile attached?
Originally posted by ShawNee922
"..And if it was a missile, would it have been fired by our forces ( following the general line of thinking that 911 was government created ) or could it actually have been fired by terrorists from the ground? "
Are you serious?
If it was fired by 'terrorists' from the ground then the powers that be would not have to fabricate a plane story...
Where is the Jet now?
Where are its passengers?
Originally posted by Sauron
The wreckage matches a Global Hawk, who says the landing gear was down, can’t if it was traveling at a high rate of speed, I only know this because I fly flight Sims unless it over-ridden but a Global Hawk painted why not there not small, put a warhead in it,? Well why not? People say they seen a plane, the Global Hawk looks like a plane, and if you ask where is the real flight 77,it’s in the water
Howard check the wing span (sp) on both those birds
[edit on 7-9-2004 by Sauron]
Originally posted by piboy
There was a site that took all the eye-witness statements and analyzed exactly what they said. The site showed that often the newspapers would paraphrase some things and directly quote others. Like this:
John Doe was there. When the 757 flew over, he could hear the engines roaring. "It came in very low. I thought it would land on the road."
In this fictional example, John Doe doesn't say he saw a 757 flying low. He saw "it" flying low, but we assume that he meant a 757 because the newspaper supplied that information. (Actually he didn't even say it was flying). And the newspaper said that he heard the engines, but it is not directly quoted.
The website had a large number of witness accounts, and they showed that no one was actually quoted as saying they saw what looked like an American 757 and that they actually saw it hit the Pentagon.
Some people may have seen something that looked like a plane, another perhaps said they saw the explosion, another perhaps saw a plane going toward the Pentagon and then heard an explosion (but didn't see it), and another might have said that something buzzed their office window, but no one was directly quoted to have said that they saw a plane that looked like American Flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon.
I can't remember where that site is. There are so many flight 77 sites now that I can't find it.
So when you read eye-witness accounts, you have to read exactly what they were DIRECTLY quoted to have said they saw. Paraphrasing must be taken with a grain of salt.
Now with this approach, go to the eye-witness account pagse and re-read the accounts. Here's webfairy's:
Finally, what do you do when the accounts conflict? What about the accounts of the plane hitting the ground first? Creating a crater in the lawn?
Why does all this matter and why nitpick? When people are called to testify in court, they are told to say in their own words exactly what they saw. No paraphrasing. No summaries by others. No retelling the story with an assumption of what really happened.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
(give it up already, the global hawk/ missle theory has been completely debunked.)
Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
I practically live right down the street from the Pentagon. It was a plane, because many of my friend's fathers worked there, and witnessed the entire event, also, I remember a few cars, including a taxi cab, where the windshield was smashed in by the landing gear on the plane. There is no way a Missile or anything else could have done that damage.
Instead of us 'conspiracy theorists' having to prove that it wasn't a plane why don't all of you sheep who see it the other way, prove to us that it was a plane?
Now off you go.