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: 14
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   
There was more than one car with a smashed windshield. I heard some people describing fighter jets around that time, yeah I heard them. They flew right over my school, they didn't make it in time for the Pentagon hit, and they ended up escorting the remaining planes to the ground out at Dulles Airport. These Photo's don't do justice at all. When you're really there in person, like I was, you're just amazed at how gigantic the Hole really was. Also, that part of the Pentagon had not been re-inforced yet. The rest of the building was, except for that section.




posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   


These Photo's don't do justice at all. When you're really there in person, like I was, you're just amazed at how gigantic the Hole really was.


That is so true.




Also, that part of the Pentagon had not been re-inforced yet. The rest of the building was, except for that section.


I think you have this part backwards, The section that was hit had just been completed and they were in the process of moving people back into that area.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
There was more than one car with a smashed windshield. I heard some people describing fighter jets around that time, yeah I heard them. They flew right over my school, they didn't make it in time for the Pentagon hit, and they ended up escorting the remaining planes to the ground out at Dulles Airport. These Photo's don't do justice at all. When you're really there in person, like I was, you're just amazed at how gigantic the Hole really was. Also, that part of the Pentagon had not been re-inforced yet. The rest of the building was, except for that section.


Yeah it's hard to judge the size of anything in a photo (or even at a distance in person) without something recognizable beside it as a reference point.

Just like, what the heck is this?? Click it and find out...



You're mistaken about that side of the Pentagon though (no big deal)- it was one of 3 completed (it was just being finished that week) with renovation.pentagon.mil..." target="_blank" class="postlink">upgrades to the exterior - if it had been one of the 3 sides not completed the damage would have been even worse.


[edit on 9-9-2004 by CatHerder]



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Good to see there is still an even balance between the level headed realists and the completely brainwashed.
Yeah, you got it, I am what you Nazis call a 'conspiracy theorist'. Labeled as such by your puppet masters and rulers of your establishment who attempt to cheapen the distinction between clear and reasoned thought and that of a slave and its intellectual master.

You have those who see through the smoke and mirrors and you have the brainwashed idiots barfing out their assertions that this was conducted by a pathetic group of terrorists who were too stupid even to fly Cessna's. Come on now.

By the way, to Bob The Builder, who seems to think he is all that; what makes you an 'expert'?

I guess a 'truly qualified' evaluation would not be welcome here and I presume that most with no desire in utilizing their own cognitive skills will settle for your inept version of reality. Your thesis on exterior wall construction is being confused with your time spent in the sand box yesterday and I suggest you concentrate on the facts, not what you would like to see as being the facts.

Don't fret, I understand. It is always hard accepting what we find to be opposed to our programmed thinking but you can be assured that there are many in your world who are empathetic with your condition.


What portion of the supposed 757 made the hole on the inner side of the 'C' ring? Are you telling me it was the nose of the plane? Made of lighweight materials carrying most of the delicate instrumentation equipment?

Show me inconclusive proof of where the two engines made impact on the building. If the nose of a 757 can penetrate 6 walls of even standard brick or block construction then surely 10 ton engines made of steel would scratch the exterior facade...don't you think professor?

I am tickled to death with all of your 'eyewitness' acounts and my dad saw it when he was cutting the lawn stories. HAH! Eyewitnesses have never sufficed to force a conviction on anyone in any crime whatsoever. If I am wrong then guide me in the direction to a clear and concise reference to that precedent. It is not definitive proof in any sense of the word.

If it did mean anything, then I guess this would be 'proof' of little green men in flying saucers as there are thousands of eyewitnesses to this phenomena. No definitive evidence, only circumstancial eyewitness reports. Don't get me wrong, as I believe in the little bast**ds but I am just trying to make a point, you see? Should we now not accept the fact that there are martians all over the place?

Landing gear hitting a taxicab? Good one. Could it not have been a piece of debris from something else? It looks like a car with a broken windshield, that is all. Proof only that the windshield was hit by something, not proof of what hit it.

Tell me how did the lawn out front of the building manage to come through unscathed when a 757 flew over top by just inches, exploded into bits and yet the grass was ever so inviting? Why did they feel the need to quickly cover the grass with gravel and sand? Oh, sorry....I guess they didn't want to ruin the lawn with all of the rescue vehicles coming to the aid of hijacked 757 that just crashed into the Pentagon. Right!

Not only that but why were the surface to air defenses that are stationed around the Pentagon prohibited from administering the death blow to the incoming behemouth that was a 757?

You people need to back away from your idiot boxes and turn the channel from CNN. May I suggest clear and reasoned thought generated from within your OWN MIND. Ask the tough questions, don't be afraid to think the unthinkable. Learn to believe that there are people in control making decisions and making things happen, that don't fit in with your conditioned version of reality and of which goes against everything we have ever been taught.

And another thing, you know why there are so many who think the way you do, who wave the flag, who love Jesus, who eat their Wheatties? It is a disease called patriotism. Being molded into behaving, into thinking, into acting, into accepting, into believing without logic all in the name of nothing. Detouring from this cleverly fabricated path and you are an outcast, a misfit, an un-American, a terrorist!

Support our troops? What the hell does that mean? It means nothing. Of course we support the men and women who march off to slaughter for the good of the elite. After all, it is all part of your patriotism, your military society, shaped and guided into never ending conflict. Otherwise, how else can the almighty US survive if it isn't off carpet bombing villages or spreading depleted uranium over the countrysides. Just lovely.


Support our troops = support our foreign policy.

You sheep police each other. It is unf'ingbelivable. Don't think this, don't think that... You are all un-American! I am too, and damn proud of it.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I thought the pentagon was not hit? Was it 'hit' on 9/11? Hmm..I thought they missed


SMR

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 02:08 AM
link   
FINALLY!!

Cant wait for this to get a reply from the 'smarty pants' crowd
I dont think you will get much from the LAWN issue.I have tried 3 times to get anything from it and nobody can give me an answer as to why it is not damaged in any way although this HUGE 757 flew what is said to be 2-3ft off the ground.Maybe it is an anomaly or something


Cant wait for the replies on this one.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Merovingian
[...much rant deleted]

And another thing, you know why there are so many who think the way you do, who wave the flag, who love Jesus, who eat their Wheatties? It is a disease called patriotism. Being molded into behaving, into thinking, into acting, into accepting, into believing without logic all in the name of nothing. Detouring from this cleverly fabricated path and you are an outcast, a misfit, an un-American, a terrorist!

[...much rant deleted]


I don't wave the flag, I don't thump the bible, I don't eat my Wheaties...

I'm a Canadian first of all, and more importantly I'm a reasonable thinker who refuses to be swept up in a conspiracy theory that has no tangeable evidence other than a bunch of people who rant and rave in a forum but offer *no proof* other than their ranting and raving and their pointing to other ranters and ravers who rant and rave on their websites and in their forums as evidence of the truth behind their ranting and raving...

I follow the facts; I don't give a damn about the US Government (but I sure like the US); I don't give a damn about left or right wing policies; I don't give a damn about "information sites" that offer no evidence but have lots of stories to tell. I couldn't care less about anything other than what is good [in decending order] for me, my family, my friends, the truth, my fellow man, and my 6 foot iguana (bet you thought I had a dog too...).

You see, most of what gets posted on the internet is nothing but a pile of made up crap that you have to sift through and discover the facts on your own and hope you don't get splashed while sifting. Too many people read forums and websites and come across a pure believer and just jump on board along with all the other lemmings and never try to discern what is fact and what is fantasy.

Do I think there are aliens on earth? Not sure. Do I think there is alien life, including sentient life? Absolutely. Do I believe they've visited or investigated Earth? Certainly. Do I beleive in ghosts? Actually yes, but I've never met one (probably just me wanting to believe there's more than "you live you die you rot..."). Do I believe in more than 5 senses? Yep. Do I believe a 757 hit the Pentagon? Totally; all the evidence I can gather freely, all the people I have no reason to doubt as eye witnesses say they were there, and I cannot logically see a good reason to stage an attack on the Pentagon in the way it was purported to be carried out by the conspiracy theorists.

Come on guys - you claim there is a higher government who is so all powerful that nobody can prove they exist, yet you think the government wouldn't have been able to create a more believeable "attacK' by oh... using a *real* plane and making sure huge chunks of it were still laying on the lawn for all to see? You think it wouldn't have been easier to buy a 757 (or just take one), shove a "missile" armed inside of it, and fly IT into the Pentagon? Wouldn't that make more sense than this huge convoluted story you have so much faith in?? Get real, this was a terrorist attack that is unlike any other terrorist attack and your brain can't wrap itself around the fact that there is a large number of people in the world who would like to see you and your family, kids, friends, etc dead.

The saddest part? You're all following a french wacko who first invented the story, and you're wandering along blindly thinking it's facts when it's just some arsehat trying to undermine the truth.

Sorry, no links in this post - I'm beyond looking, I've already found 500+ sources that support reality on this subject.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder


The saddest part?



The saddest part is that everyone here feels the need to be so god darn rantish. I am not following some 'French wacko' , I am asking the unanswered questions. Unlike many people I'm sure, I have read through every page of this thread. Most of the time people are just barking information at one another that the other person/s are unwilling to accept anyway. Whats the point. I have been trying to look at the video, because if anyone can conclusively prove/disprove what ever that obect is, bingo! You make assumptions about what theories people subscribe too.

The strange things are.

1/ white smoke, at the frame the video captures it best there is a large cloud (some mistook for a white plane object, a global hawk possibly)
It's hard to tell what part of that object the smoke is trailing from, it seems to be the back but you cannot tell.

2/ The tail shape that is captured is not definitive as it doesn't capture anything comparable to a 757 in size, colour, markins, shape.

3/ The trajectory seems inplausable at such speeds or/ without some kind of disturbance to the ground, turbulance to plane or whatever.

take another look. Can't you see why some of us want to see the other footage. Or just want to look a little harder at the days events to try and find anything that may explain.




I know there is wreckage comparable to a 757.
I know a load of people saw the plane.
I know there was a big fire.

I am just trying to fill in the other gaps. Truly kill the pentagon theories. Untill everything is covered, it will never go away. As long as people have questions then the conspiracy lives on doesn't it?

People have to look outside this line of thought and have a look at how the government has acted through all of this.

The Commission is restricted to $3 million for their investigations. By comparison, the government spent over $47 million by March of 1999 investigating Clinton's Whitewater and Monica Lewinski dealings

On the Chicago Board Options Exchange during the week before September 11th, put options were purchased on American and United Airlines, the two airlines involved in the attacks. The investors who placed these orders were gambling that in the short term the stock prices of both Airlines would plummet. Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks.

Yet these 19 young single, unemployed, "classic overstay candidates still received their visas." I am holding in my hand the applications of the terrorists who killed my husband. All of these forms are incomplete and incorrect.

But, the terrorist's luck didn't end at the ticket counter; it also accompanied them through airport security, as well. Because how else would the hijackers get specifically contraband items such as box-cutters, pepper spray or, according to one FAA executive summary, a gun on those planes?

www.disastercenter.com...

The terrorists got lucky. They were ignored by intel, allowed through the airports, allowed to stay in America and learn to fly (not take off and land just fly)

The 911 comission was severly restricted, it was a joke. Why would this happen if they had nothing to hide?

Obviously alot of people knew this was going to happen. The people who made all those illegal transactions before and during the attacks all the way down to those smiling Isrealis who were filming the thing fron Jersey, with joy. Things are being hidden, many things, and to find them out you have to go through everything. Until the questions are answered. It's not just the apparently 'crazy' theories of how a 757 didn't hit, it's about everything that surrounds it. If the government truly were telling the truth then things would have been handled differently. As usual, they are up to something.

I suppose you could say, why would they stop 9/11 when it has been so crucial to everything that this administration has wanted to do. .


SMR

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Not alot to add here tonight but wanted to give a link to a very good video with very VALID and FACTUAL points.
Let me know what you think.I am going to post this in the WTC 7 thread as well as it has EVIDENCE on both accounts.
Painful Deceptions: An Analysis of the September 11 Attack
This is a 40 minute segment of Eric Hufschmid's new video.
www.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
This is a 40 minute segment of Eric Hufschmid's new video.
www.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   


Then he goes on to spout and endless stream of fallacies "how did all the pieces from both the towers end up at perfect lengths so they fit on the trucks with only a few having to be cut?


To add to this. It only makes too much sense that the beams and many other pieces would fit on a truck considering the fact they were brought to the site during construction on ....GASP.....a truck.

Its not like they forge enormous steel beams in place on a construction site.


SMR

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   


1.) Every frame except for one frame in the Pentagon video shows a sooty red fireball. Frame 2 (the first explosion) is clearly overexposed - check out the bright color of the grass and even the side of the entry gate AWAY from the explosion (the one facing the camera). It's far far brighter than all other frames.

If you had paid attention,he says it could be overexposed.But that still does not dispute the fact that it was a totally different type of blast.It is science,not theory!The bright color is not going to last the whole time.It is an instant blast of color as any type of explosive.Set off a firecracker and film it.Watch it frame by frame and you will see.



2.) Plane video used is from a test crash which was testing experimental "non explosive" (wasn't supposed to burn rapidly) fuel. Test was a failure, but it was a dirty fire. This video is from the mid 80's and it's been on NOVA and a half dozen other TV shows since... it does NOT show actual jet fuel.

Does it matter if the video shows a test that failed?It is still a plane crash that erupts in flames as it should.This does not match that of what hit the Patagon.What is in that video is what should have been had a plane hit it.It doesnt matter if it is slow or fast burning.



3.) Pentagon does not have steel beam construction. Because it was built during WWII they saved on steel (enough to build a battleship!) but using a concrete beam method and only rebar for the concrete. No steel beams, sorry, maybe next time he should do some reading of publicly available documents (in his local library even) before his next video.

Really?Your sure about that?
Thats is very brave to say that since you seem to be the expert around here.
The area that the plane hit was the LAST completed phase of a renovation that took place. The portion of the Pentagon where the plane hit was probably the most heavily reinforced. In the October 3, 2001 edition of Architecture Week, B.J. Novitski wrote that the impact of the plane was in "Wedge One," which had been strengthened by recent renovation, a project that was inspired, in part, by the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. He says that contrary to what is believed, the casualties among workers in the Pentagon were not low because of vacant offices, but because of the extraordinary structural strength of the building. Novitski says that about 80 percent of the workers in the wedge were on duty that day, but ..."the exterior walls had been reinforced with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor. Some of these reinforced walls very near the point of impact remained in place for a half hour before collapsing, allowing uncounted hundreds to escape." The hijackers chose one of the most reinforced buildings in the world to crash into.



4.) Building 7 sprinklers didn't work because the water was cut off (in the whole WTC complex) when the towers fell. This has been stated by officials more than once... (Same goes for Building 5 and 6) I like how he doesn't even know this... stellar research in this video so far.

Im not posative on this,but I dont think at the time those small fires where happening that any tower had fallen yet.I will need to find out when the building was noticed on fire or started,and when the towers fell.But I dont think any tower fell when those small fires started.So the sprinklers should have turned on.



5.) Fire didn't cause the buildings to fall down, it was the two tiny towers that fell down and smashed the underground supporting structures. Fire hastened it along.

You should be working for FEMA.



6.) "Millions of Americans helped the government break the law" now that's a pretty slick statement. Talk about a coverup of incredible proportions!

Do you know what he is talking about?Maybe a small statement other than sarcasm could enlighten us as to why you think that is a 'slick statement'



7.) Since FEMA doesn't know how building 7 collapsed, they are "stupid" they are "incompetent" they are "involved in covering up a scam". WHICH IS IT? Awesome story telling here.

All of the above.Hence why you should work for them since you know how the building fell and they dont.



8.) Claims because the top floor fell "first" it's obviously a collapse - he obviously has never seen a large building fall down - if you lose the base support it falls into itself from top down. And his amzingly ignorant statement about "does a building that falls down from a fire normally produce this much dust?" is the crem de le creme of ignorant statements in the video - ALL buildings produce a ton of dust when they fall down.

I myself have seen a demo in person in Vegas and it does produce a mass amount of dust.But wait,,,,,they are taken down by what?....EXPLOSIVES!!
When a building falls on its own,at that size of building 7,it is most likely to tilt and fall thus not having as much dust spew out.There are films on this,go look.They fall on thier own at an odd angle,not straight down.



9.) How did the guy film the building fall? "...decided to point his camera at building 7 as just the right moment ...who is this person?" Well, for starters they announced for about 4 hours prior that the building was unstable and going to fall, then about 10 seconds before it did fall (and a good 45 minutes after the order to leave it was given to firefighters) a loud siren was heard... and it was announced over the two way radios that it was beginning to fail (I heard this myself live on CBC Newsworld) and the building fell. Man, that cameraman must have been psychic!!

I will say luck of the draw on that one.Sorta like someone getting a snap of a UFO if you will.Any way to be suspicious about this is to see the persons full video of what he was taping.Maybe just taping and looking around and caught it.



10.) "Incredible secrecy surrounding this building" (Referring to Building 7) This only 3 minutes after he said "Millions of people are lying" - wow a million people is sure a large "secret".

I think you know what he means.I dont even feel like explaining this one.Just a lazy,sarcastic attempt on your part.



11.) Q: Why "only" this floor had it's own air supply? A: It was the emergency response center for the mayor and police/fire - NY was a prime target for a boilogical/chemical terrorist attack. Q: Why was it reinforced to withstand 160MPH winds? A: It was the emergency response center for the mayor and police/fire in case of a hurricane or other large disaster. (Seriously, this guy knows nothing more than how to narrate poorly, who did his research?)

I would agree there.But not on your small comment at the end.



12.) Claims they abandoned the "bunker" just when it would have been useful. Uh hey buddy? One of the largest towers in North America has fallen down and the 2nd one looks like it might come down too. Nobody knows in which direction - they're both 2.5 times as high as the building we're in and they're right across the street... maybe we should move a little further away? (Man, good thing somebody in the emergency response center was thinking!) Which, by the way, was just being finished and had never been used nor was it fully staffed at that point - ask Juliani who said so on 9.11 on every news channel on the planet before the first tower fell.

Uh hey buddy?Look at the post you made before this.
Also,you need to know something.
Before either of the twin towers collapsed, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his associates were told to leave the headquarters they had set up within Building 7."We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News that morning, "and it did collapse before we could get out of the building." Despite this, Giuliani fled WTC 7 at least eight hours before it collapsed. How did he know that the twin towers were going to collapse if it was such an unprecedented occurance? Why didn't the firefighters on the ground get the same warning?



13.) He claims the flight paths went directly"over" and towards building 7 "like they were following a homing beacon" - he is wrong on both counts and REALLY should invest in a map of NY City prior to 9/11. He's out by a whole 90 degrees. Who is this clown?

HUH?Prior to 9/11 - Did the building locations move on the day of the attacks

Maybe this image will work for you WTC



14.) "This type of steel does not shatter there should be large, twisted peices of steel assemblies in this rubble." RIGHT AS the camea pans over a bunch of twisted steel beams, and twisted assemblies - all twisted up like candy canes. LOL classic

If you look closely,MOST of the steel beams are NOT twisted.You saw twisted metal and a few small beams.Most of the steel beams are shattered into smaller pieces than they were in original size.



15.) He must have never seen a single video by multiple independent expert architechts and engineers explaining the process that caused the WTC towers to fall... amazing.

Im sure he has and I am sure if they were asked if fire could weaken these mighty towers and make them fall as they did,they would say NO.
NO building of that construction or similar has fallen like that due to fires.And the fires were NOT BIG ONES.Maybe you noticed the PEOPLE standing at the edge where the planes hit!



Then he goes on to spout and endless stream of fallacies "how did all the pieces from both the towers end up at perfect lengths so they fit on the trucks with only a few having to be cut? I watched 25,000 construction and demolition people converge on the rubble and I also watched around 500 crews constantly cutting steel, never stopping, always people cutting steel, cranes moving the parts, loading, cutting, moving, loading for SIX MONTHS. What planet did this guy live on when the WTC towers came down?

So the images of the rubble that CLEARLY show beams that are in small lengths BEFORE any cutting,hauling,whatever,are fakes?Im am not doubting you saw these events.But I too saw the horror on TV and in images.I saw and can provide video and images of what he is takling about PRIOR to any clean up work that took place.



Wow, conspiracy theorists like this must make clowns like Michael Moore proud - at least he tries to be a little more up front when he blatently bends the trouth and misquotes people and takes events and statements out of context. The guy who made this video didn't pull any punches. It's just "since I don't know about this, I'll just make some crap up and people will buy it!" ...and many will - for only $24.95!
And the final bit that proves his book, and his video are real? He only wants $24.95 for a copy of the video!
Thanks for the laughs, that was a great thing to wake up to. Way better than an old rerun of the Dave Chapelle show.

Do you have ANY evidence to debunk any of this?All I see from you is hear-say from YOUR so called experience and knowledge.Are you a 'jack of all trades' because you seem to have all the answers to that of a professional.Show me evidence of what you say.Dont TELL me what you seem to know.Show me how and where you get this info from.All us 'conspiracy theorists' have shown many pieces of evidence from video to images and even FACT reports and FILES realeased to the public.You show nothing but your own words.
I am glad you got a laugh out of it.Now make me laugh.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Wow. After catherder's last post, it seemed that he gained the upper hand and I was impressed. But yeah........SMR really tore his arguments apart, especially about the steel reinforced walls in the pentagon, among other things. Catherder, I'm afraid you may have to admit you were wrong on a couple of those points. Nice stuff SMR.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
If you had paid attention,he says it could be overexposed.But that still does not dispute the fact that it was a totally different type of blast.It is science,not theory!The bright color is not going to last the whole time.It is an instant blast of color as any type of explosive.Set off a firecracker and film it.Watch it frame by frame and you will see.

Does it matter if the video shows a test that failed?It is still a plane crash that erupts in flames as it should.This does not match that of what hit the Patagon.What is in that video is what should have been had a plane hit it.It doesnt matter if it is slow or fast burning.




Again, in this thread someone attempts to compare apples and oranges. If you want to compare the color of the flames in a high speed film taken of a test plane crash in a desert with the 757 hitting the Pentagon that was caught on a security camera tape then you have to evaluate the various factors that can affect the image. As you no doubt remember from the Mars Rover threads, there are a number of things that can effect a recorded image. These include, but are not limited to: Film type, Camera type, the Spectral sensitivity of both the film in the test crash and the security camera at the pentagon, Color corrections made in the film development process, and of course exposure factors.

You need to evaluate all of these factors to determine if the two images are even comparable.


Secondly, you need to demonstrate that the unconfined, rupture of the the wing tank in the desert crash is physically, exactly the same as the high speed impact of the plane into the side of a building.

When the plane impacted the building, one of the first things to be destroyed would have been the crew's oxygen bottle, which located in the front of the plane. You have to account for the release of that pressurized oxygen and explain what effect that would have had on the subsequent fireball.




3.) Pentagon does not have steel beam construction. Because it was built during WWII they saved on steel (enough to build a battleship!) but using a concrete beam method and only rebar for the concrete. No steel beams, sorry, maybe next time he should do some reading of publicly available documents (in his local library even) before his next video.


Really?Your sure about that?


LOOK! Concrete columns!






I myself have seen a demo in person in Vegas and it does produce a mass amount of dust.But wait,,,,,they are taken down by what?....EXPLOSIVES!!
When a building falls on its own,at that size of building 7,it is most likely to tilt and fall thus not having as much dust spew out.There are films on this,go look.They fall on thier own at an odd angle,not straight down.


I have seen seven implosions. The dust is not produced by the cutting charges. It is produced as the concrete grinds and breaks up on the way down.

Gravity rules all. When a building this size collapses, there is only one way for it to go, straight down.

The firemen were monitoring the building for several hours. That is why they "pulled" (let's not get into that again, shall we
)

They had a transit aimed at the building and were watching a bulge in the side of the structure for several hours.


Why didn't the firefighters on the ground get the same warning?


Old radios.



Im sure he has and I am sure if they were asked if fire could weaken these mighty towers and make them fall as they did,they would say NO.
NO building of that construction or similar has fallen like that due to fires. And the fires were NOT BIG ONES.Maybe you noticed the PEOPLE standing at the edge where the planes hit!


And I'm sure if you bothered to look you would notice the incredible damage done to the structure of the buildings. Support columns were cut and floors were torn out. The buildings were doomed from the moment the planes hit.


So the images of the rubble that CLEARLY show beams that are in small lengths BEFORE any cutting,hauling,whatever,are fakes?Im am not doubting you saw these events.But I too saw the horror on TV and in images.I saw and can provide video and images of what he is takling about PRIOR to any clean up work that took place.


The steel beams in the building came in many lengths. Bend a box girder in half and yes, it might just snap in two.

If, as you seem to be claiming, these beams were severed by explosive charges, where did all of the shrapnel from those explosives going off got to? Certainly they would have gone through the windows and down the street?


kix

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Ok this thread is about the so called terrorist attack not the WTC 7 or other things so please stop kidnaping the thread.

ok Ill be more specific see this picture


As you can see this piece IS NOT FROM AN AMERICAN AIRLINES PLANE LET ALONE A 757 and the grass is intact a plane that weight 90 tonnes flying at 320 knots has t o make a wake turbulence equal to this weight to support itself. Please APPLY this weight to you grass or to your car and COME HERE WITH THE REPORT, bottom line cars would have been swept away (WHY DO YOU THINK AIRPORTS HAVE BARRIERS TURNED UPWARDS called deflectors) TO AVOID BLASTING A CRA OR A PERSON.

second one


See the 3 barriers (LAYERS IN THE BUILING) and the no park sign (CAN CARS PARK HERE???) no sign of the radome of the 757 that is made of composite kevlar and carbon fiber so where it is? ah it vanished just after it puntured the carboard wall!!!!




The so calles landing gear rim is not from a 757, BEFORE YOU RETOR WITH SOME FOOLISH ANSWERS SEE IT FOR A MINUTE, the space for the holes is simetrical in the "accident" the 757 is asimetrical, and there is more space beetween the center hole (the trunnion hole) than the one of the "accident" also it doesnt have a lip for containing the punctured flat tire EXPLAIN THAT, also the brake of the 757 is carbon brakes to withstand high temps WHERE IS IT...ok if you say oh it blew away or it was burned down in the fire EXPLAIN THE PRISTINE aluminium WITHOUT ANY SMOKE of the Wheel.....




Here you are

All even add ore things:

The 757 has 187 Seats why we cant see ANY OF THEM they are made from a base of aluminium and a fire retardant material, if the 757 crashed al least one in the tail should have jumped out of the plane >>NOT A SINGLE FREAKING SEAT.
When I went to the wreckage of Mexicana 930 there were seat destroyed even with parts of bodies still attached.....mmmm
Nopart of the engines that have the fan blades made of titanium......OPs the disapeared !!!

I hope someone votes me way above cause man those guys who believe anything they tell them have all the Darn points.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by kix]


kix

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   
By the way the rim of the 757 is convex It protuds from the center and the one in the BOGUS FAKE photo of NOT A 757 (most probably) is flat in the surface not convexe or concave.

oh...! wait American Airlines puts aftermarket wheels in their 757s to give them a racier look!


SMR

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   


If you want to compare the color of the flames in a high speed film taken of a test plane crash in a desert with the 757 hitting the Pentagon that was caught on a security camera tape then you have to evaluate the various factors that can affect the image. As you no doubt remember from the Mars Rover threads, there are a number of things that can effect a recorded image. These include, but are not limited to: Film type, Camera type, the Spectral sensitivity of both the film in the test crash and the security camera at the pentagon, Color corrections made in the film development process, and of course exposure factors.

That was noted and taken into concideration.



Secondly, you need to demonstrate that the unconfined, rupture of the the wing tank in the desert crash is physically, exactly the same as the high speed impact of the plane into the side of a building.
When the plane impacted the building, one of the first things to be destroyed would have been the crew's oxygen bottle, which located in the front of the plane. You have to account for the release of that pressurized oxygen and explain what effect that would have had on the subsequent fireball.

That is very possible.......but
Explosives are made up of fuel and oxygen.Ask any explosive expert.
Charcoal and Sulfer are the fuel and Potassium Nitrate is the oxygen.Thats an old concoktion though.Today,the military uses more advanced explosives like RDX which is more powerful. RDX is made up of oxygen attatched to hydrocarbon.



LOOK! Concrete columns!

Did you read correctly?Allow me to remind YOU of this little topic.
He stated,and I quote: "3.) Pentagon does not have steel beam construction. Because it was built during WWII they saved on steel (enough to build a battleship!) but using a concrete beam method and only rebar for the concrete. No steel beams, sorry, maybe next time he should do some reading of publicly available documents (in his local library even) before his next video.
I then asked if he was sure about that and replied with " ..."the exterior walls had been reinforced with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor.
He says no steel beams,I show proof of there being steel beams.I never said there were no concrete columns.Read carefully next time.



I have seen seven implosions. The dust is not produced by the cutting charges. It is produced as the concrete grinds and breaks up on the way down.

I dont believe I said anything about cutting charges creating dust.Again,read more carefully before putting words into peoples mouths!



I stated:quote: Why didn't the firefighters on the ground get the same warning?

You stated - OLD RADIOS
Come on man,,,really now.Old radios prevented warnings even though all other transmissions went through.Your grabbing at straws now.



And I'm sure if you bothered to look you would notice the incredible damage done to the structure of the buildings. Support columns were cut and floors were torn out. The buildings were doomed from the moment the planes hit.

I never said I didnt see all that damage.The topic was that the heat and fires were so intense,that IT was the cause of the buildings falling.
As for the damage causing the fall.Let me go into detail.
The planes hit and did do alot of damage.But not enough to create the falls.If you look at images,most of the floors that are hit,in the areas,there is still plenty of structure left to support the top.The plane debris and fire did not go everywhere like people think it did.If it did,the you have to explain the people that are able to walk around and explain the fires that images show of small to NONE.There is enough 'ground' to support the building.Not ALL beams and supports were damaged in the areas hit.



The steel beams in the building came in many lengths. Bend a box girder in half and yes, it might just snap in two.

These are steel BEAMS that are 4" thick in some areas.Bend,yes.Twist,yes.Snap,,,NO.This is a low carbon steel.It bends,not snaps.Also,Im not saying it should bend at the seams it was welded at.Beams had snapped in the middles of them.Whole one piece beams were found snapped in half.



If, as you seem to be claiming, these beams were severed by explosive charges, where did all of the shrapnel from those explosives going off got to? Certainly they would have gone through the windows and down the street?

As it did.I dont argue that.Much shrapnel was thrown 100's of feet away.Look at the images.

To many contradicting stories and reports dont add up to video and images.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Ok this thread is about the so called terrorist attack not the WTC 7 or other things so please stop kidnaping the thread.

ok Ill be more specific see this picture


As you can see this piece IS NOT FROM AN AMERICAN AIRLINES PLANE LET ALONE A 757



Nope. Not even close. First of all it you look at the piece of debris on the ground, you will note that it is curved, bent into a U shape from the impact. The photograph is a 2 dimensional image of a 3 dimensional object, thus you get distortion. What looks like a curved line only looks that way because the piece of aluminum it is on is curved.

Secondly, The AA logo on the plane stretches across both the fin and the rudder. Are you an airframe mechanic certified in 757s? If not, then I will not accept your claim that there are no rivet holes in the rudder assembly. The same thing goes for the wheel. Any given series of aircraft has numerous variations. Unless you can unequivocally prove that the picture of the intact landing gear is the exact same assembly that was on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, then your comparison has no validity.



second one


See the 3 barriers (LAYERS IN THE BUILING) and the no park sign (CAN CARS PARK HERE???) no sign of the radome of the 757 that is made of composite kevlar and carbon fiber so where it is? ah it vanished just after it puntured the carboard wall!!!!



You are so far off base on this one it is laughable.


Lets look at the pictures of the outermost exterior wall of the building.

edit: linked so as not to blow the margins.

www.geoffmetcalf.com...


Notice the large squares of stone? That is your Indiana limestone facade. Each panel appears to be about 16" x 24."



Now look again at the close up of the punch out of the exterior wall in the inner ring.




look closely at the outer wall. As you can see it is a single layer of face brick. It is a glazed, light collored brick to match the exterior limestone, but it is not limestone. In fact, if you look carefully at the top of the hole, you can see how the bricks flaked apart from the impact.

Behind that is a double wythe of common brick.

Finally, what you are calling reinforced concrete is not that at all. that is just a plaster wall of the type commonly built up until 30 years ago. The metal bars are a black iron framework that has a metal mesh attached to it. You can see the metal mesh on the left side of the hole. The plaster is applied to this mesh. You can see where the plaster still remains on the side of the hole.

What is interesting is that the pipe (which is covered with asbestos insulation BTW) that is on the left side of the hole and the plaster and mesh are visible in such a way that sugests that when the wall broke open from the impact, it made a bigger hole on the outside then it did on the inside. Notice the straight line of bricks along the left side of the hole. That and the presence of the pipe suggests that there was a pipe chase hidden behind the wall at this location. The chase was probably set into the exterior brick wall in such a way as to weaken it significantly at this point.


As for the "no parking sign," I don't know why it is there. My first guess is that there is a fresh air intake for the building nearby.





[edit on 9-9-2004 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 9-9-2004 by HowardRoark]


SMR

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Good points KIX!
I missed a few of those myself.
That scrap metal on the lawn is a good comparison.I said it didnt match at all due to the width of the stripes,but you pointed it out even better.

I think the WTC stuff came in because of the video link I put and a 'Mr. smarty pants' brought it into disscusion so I replied.
I then had to disscuss it more since I assumed it was directed to me with the bold YOU with my quotes.

I think we should get back to JUST the Pentagon issue and take the WTC talk to the other threads on that topic.It is a thread-cap really.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
By the way the rim of the 757 is convex It protuds from the center and the one in the BOGUS FAKE photo of NOT A 757 (most probably) is flat in the surface not convexe or concave.

oh...! wait American Airlines puts aftermarket wheels in their 757s to give them a racier look!



Like I said, unless you are a certified airframe mechanic with a detailed cataloge of every modification and variation of the 757 ever built, then you have proven nothing.




top topics



 
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join