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: 11
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I just read a story from October 2003, that has the 911 commission having to SUPOENA the FAA to get the tapes of radar data from 9-11 2001.

1. Why was the FAA withholding these? This is just bizarre. Is there any reason other than 911 being a fraud for these to be withheld? Genuinely is there some other reasonable explanation for this behavior? One could say they were afraid of looking incompetent, except they already look monsterously incompetent in the current scenario that is presented.

2. Did the 911 Commision ever get them? Were they released for the public to see? Were they treated as classified by the commision if it got them?

msnbc.msn.com...




posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   

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.


Loki, you obviously have never worked in construction, have you? Brick walls are very easy to punch through.

First of all, the little inset on top only applies to the outermost wall of the outer ring. All of the exterior walls from then on in were just like the picture below

ONE MORE TIME!!!!



note that the wall is actually very thin. there is a single layer of face brick and a double layer of common bricks.

Note also that the section of bricks that blew outward is actually larger than the damaged hole in the plaster wall on the interior. Notice the straight vertical line where the bricks broke off. You can also see a pipe riser (with some old asbestos pipe insulation on it) on the left side of the hole. the straight cut in the brick wall is probably associated with the shaft for the riser.

Some of the interior walls may have been clay tile and plaster (not very strong), but it is more likely they were all drywall (about as strong as cardboard when it comes down to it).

So the only place you can find 24 feet of solid rock is in your head where you imagine it to be.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   
.
How far does the landing gear hang down from the fuselage? Why would the landing gear be down? If you are going to crash a plane what would the point be?

In any event, say the landing gear was down with the top of the fuselage at a maximum of 20 feet, minus 13' 2" for the fuselage itself that is 6' 10" left. 20 - 13'2" = 6' 10"

Is the landing gear longer than 6'10"? If it is there is absolutely NO WAY it was a 757, it would have absolutely had to have been a thiner profile craft.

Like say maybe, I don't know . . . a global hawk perhaps? with a missile attached?
.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
Like say maybe, I don't know . . . a global hawk perhaps? with a missile attached?
.


Don't be stuborn. It was a 757. There were enough eye witnesses that saw it.

Most people know the difference between a passenger jet




and a



global hawk



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   
The wreckage matches a Global Hawk, who says the landing gear was down, cant 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,its in the water

Howard check the wing span (sp) on both those birds


[edit on 7-9-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Do you mean widespread damage like this....








posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
Like say maybe, I don't know . . . a global hawk perhaps? with a missile attached?
.



Exactly how big of a missile do you think a global hawk could carry, if it were designed to carry one. Judging from the narrow wings and the fact it is designed as a reconnaissance plane I would have to say it would be a little bitty missile at best.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Skibum
first re-size those pics and a Global I belive has 100ft wing span, now I might very well be wrong I forget the specks but there on this thread



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Do you know what
theres no plane in your pictures



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   
don't get me wrong I love Americans
thier so easy to Con=NeoCon

[edit on 7-9-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   
"..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?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   

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?







it was done by the N.R,O,
same people that play with your space game



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
The wreckage matches a Global Hawk, who says the landing gear was down, cant 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,its in the water

Howard check the wing span (sp) on both those birds


[edit on 7-9-2004 by Sauron]



So, are you claiming that all of the eye witneses are idiots that can't tell a plane with a 100 foor wing span from one with a 200 foot wing span when it flies directly over thier heads?

If you truly think this, then I have to say that most people are smarter than you . . .




think that they are.




(give it up already, the global hawk/ missle theory has been completely debunked.)


SMR

posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Let's kill the Pentagon Missile attack once and for all
11 pages and still not killed.

I know Im gonna get crap for this,but here goes.

Lets take what evidence we have.
A wheel
A small piece of shrapnel
Other debris that is really undiscribale.

The wheel shown could have come from 2 different type of planes and this is a fact shown from photos.

The small shrapnel on the lawn is really odd.If it came from a 757,we should have a closer look.
If you notice,and look close,it appears to be about 3 - 4ft in length.www.ulrp2.com...
If you look at it and then look at images of an american airlines 757,you can see that the blue and red stripes in the debris image are much thinner than the ones painted on the AA plane.images.google.com...

All this GREEN debris that people are saying are plane pieces.There is no way from any of those images that you can say are ACTUAL plane-AA-757 pieces.They look nothing more than junk from some source of metal and fiberglass.

There are also people saying that the plane simply vaporized/disinigrated.
If this is true,then why are the same people saying they found charred bodies?
How can that pysically be?If a planes properties can simply vaporize and leave nothing behind,how in the world can a body stay intact?And these are the bodies of the plane and not of the people inside the pentagon they are saying.

If people look really hard at what images and not go on hear-say,you can find things that simply can not happen by laws of COMMON SENSE.
If you see a body with a small hole in it and someone tries to tell you it was done with a 44magnum,are you just going to say ok when you know that only a 22cal could make the small hole.
This is what we have.We have a hole made by a 22cal and they are telling us it was a 44magnum.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   

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:
thewebfairy.com...

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.

the man is right...


SMR

posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
(give it up already, the global hawk/ missle theory has been completely debunked.)


Thats news to me.
Would you be so kind as to show me a link to proov this?



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   

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.


It doesn't matter how long you stay away from this board, when you return there are the same old sorry souls spewing the same old sh**.

A taxi cab where the windshield was smashed in by the landing gear? Are you f'ing kidding me?


Funny don't you think....that this taxi cab was never shown on any of the corporately owned news channels? Oh yeah, maybe it was because he was an Iraqi taxi driver


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?

Sound good?
Now off you go.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Global hawk:

Dimensions
Length: 44.4 feet
Wingspan: 116.2 feet
Height: 15.2 feet


757:

Wing span 38.05m (124ft 10in)
length 47.32m (155ft 3in)
height 13.56m (44ft 6in)

Wingspan is remarkably similar however comparing legnth the 757 is almost 3 times longer than the global hawk. The reason the global hawks wings are that long is to create more lift to enable it to stay alot for several days using a minimum of thrust. It is designed for reconnaissance missions not combat. If it were to be armed with missiles, the size of the missiles that would fit on a global hawk would be quite small, probably not even large enough to do minimal damage to the pentagon.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   



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?

Sound good?
Now off you go.


Probably because the "sheep" aren't the ones making the insane accusations.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the accusation not the other way around.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join