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 HowardRoark
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by CatHerder
I'm going to follow up with a longer more researched post in response to the posts here (that have turned into a personal attack for some strange reason) in a while, but I thought I'd post these images in the meantime.
The only reason I want to post this image is because the original poster who tried to compare the wreckage to the tail section obviously cannot see where the part of the airplane wreckage belongs in relation to the American Airlines markings. The tail is not the only part of the plane with clear markings...
Hope that helps some of you to understand where this part of the 757 originated from.
1. Bush Sr., Speech to Congress, September 11, 1991:
"...what is at stake, is more [pauses, looks dismissive of this idea] than one small country. [Smiles.] It is a big idea. A new world order. Where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace, and security, freedom, and the rule of law.....out of these troubled times, our fifth objective, the new world order, can emerge....Now we can see a new world coming into view, a world in which there is a very real prospect of a new world order...."
CSPAN, September 12, 2001, CFR co-chair Gary Hart, the day after 9-11-01:
"There is a chance that the President of the United States can use this disaster, to carry out what his father, a phrase his father used, I think, only once. And hasn't been used since. And that is a new world order."
Senator Bob Graham, former chairman of the Intelligence Committee
MATTHEWS: Do you think that the United States government somehow was involved in the attack us on?
GRAHAM: I think the United States government has made a decision, at
least this administration of George W. Bush has made a decision that it is
more important to protect Saudi Arabia and its involvement in 9/11 than it
is to let the American people know-
MATTHEWS: OK, in plain terms. Saudi Arabian government?
Almost all of the students noticed the airliner that was flying low and fast near the river, heading from north to south. It banked away to the west and minutes later they all heard the large BOOM and saw the smoke coming from the area of the Pentagon.
Originally posted by mrmulder
Well it's obvious the Pentagon debate is never going to end because we have two sides to this:
1. One side believes a plane did hit the Pentagon
2. The other side believes a missile or something else hit the Pentagon
What's not surprising is each side firmly believes in their "view" no matter how much info they present or how much they talk about it. It's interesting to hear the debates nonetheless.
[edit on 10-9-2004 by mrmulder]
Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Yeah, well that's where pride gets you.
Originally posted by SMR
That does NOT prove anything other than there was a plane with those occupants and they are ASSUMED to be the ones that crashed into the Petagon.For all we know,if you go with the missle/other craft theory,that the plane they were one could have made a flight out to sea and downed.It would not be hard to accomplish that at all.The ocean is huge and taking a plane out there and having it shot down by military planes can be done with no peeping eyes.
[edit on 10-9-2004 by SMR]