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: 15
1
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 12:31 AM
link   

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.


HAHAHAHA
Thanks SO much for pointing out the insanely OBVIOUS. How does that little bit of info discredity SMR? I love your debating tactics. When someone brings up something that discredits the official story, you like to then retort by just describing to us what we all see and/or read and/or hear with technical terms so as to look more professional, and you really don't even tackle the actual subject or detail in question.

So Kix brings to our attention the piece of debris in the above pic and how it's inconsistent with an AA 757. He goes into how the colors don't match especially. Haha, and then you try and make him look foolish by saying.."oh, well see, you're looking at a 3d object in only 2d, causing a distortion....." HAHAHAHAHA! So tell us something we DON'T know! I don't think that your incredibly helpful insight with that proves that an A is on that piece of debris. Also, you completely and (conveniently I might add) neglect the most CRUCIAL part, which is about the colors! Then you ALSO ignore a very important point he touched on, which is the absence of any markings on the grass from a 757 flying 2 feet above it! But I have to hand it to you, you sure all taught us about how a photo is a 2d representation of a 3d object. We have a regular old EINSTEIN with us!

Also, another example of your supreme debating method is in another thread, where someone shows that one pic of a person standing in the hole of the tower where the jet went through. The reason why they posted it, was because it defys the claims that there was an inferno warping steel that whole time because there were people in that area not burning alive, yet the tower was supposed to have been warping from thousands of degrees of heat.

Haha, and then so you come along and retort by talking about the size of the hole. You explain to us yet again what is obvious in your sophisticated method of wording by declaring how many beams were severed and broken in that pic and about the hole. You don't even talk about how the person could be there. Not until I called you on it to actually acknowledge it! HAAAAHAAAAHAAA! Good job. Keep it up.




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.


Ok, you can at the same time, look for a pic of an AA 757 that gives proof that that little piece DOES indicate a match. By the way, where are your qualifications????





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.


Haha, very nice. The outer layer is brick! Could it be maybe....limestone...cut into bricks? If you look at the bricks of the outer layer that are BROKEN, they are the SAME color inside than out. So they aren't GLAZED. I can't believe that even matters. Only you would want to point that out. And wow, bricks FLAKED! How amazing. I suppose limestone doesn't flake? There you go again..........



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.


This part I'm not going to argue much because I'm not an expert on construction materials. Although, whether concrete or plaster and brick, it still penetrated mulitple walls in addition to the first heavily reinforced wall. This is still significant.




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.



Oh, well actually, the sign is there cuz they don't want anyone blocking the big doors that lead to fantasyland, which is where the story comes from.




posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 01:22 AM
link   
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.

[addition] However - after reviewing the original image and other images of the 757, I believe the example here is incorrect. The portion of the "n" in American is not from the front right of the plane, it is from the mid-front left of the plane (the n in American) is further back on the plane on the left side of the aircraft, and the dynamics of the crash (the plane impacting at an approximate 50 degree angle lends to the left side of the plane being more likely to shed some of it's outer shell in the impact and explosion. The right side of the plane would have more or less been damaged beyond recognition in the front right area (which by logic and reason would have taken the brunt of the impact with the wall). I will post an updated image with the n compared on the left side of another American 757 air liner with my response I'm busy working on. (It's difficult using a forum to reply to this instead of just making a quick web page, that could offer a more dynamic presentation, and linking to it - but I would prefer to keep this discussion here on ATS). I also have some compelling evidence from the Boeing factory I would like to share in regards to plane parts visible in various other images.


[edit on 10-9-2004 by CatHerder]


SMR

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Im gonna retract my 'OWNED' reply untill I can compare with images which I did not,leading to me speaking before I looked into it,,shame on me


If found to be the needle in the hay-stack,I will concider myself OWNED and we can go from there.But I should have looked into this rather than post an immediate response.

[edit on 10-9-2004 by SMR]



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 01:39 AM
link   

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.


First of all, I apologize if you feel like you've been attacked personally. If it was something I wrote, I didn't want to do that.

Now about those pics. Do you think that the size is proportional there? Look at the pic of the debris (the full pic) and notice it in relation to other objects in the background like the people. Not only that, but it's in the extreme foreground, meaning that if you put it in the background with the people, or if one would walk up and stand next to it, you'd see that it's much too small for it to be the piece that you are showing it to be. Also, you can relate it to the grass around it. Look at how many blades are next to it. Do you think that it would still fit? Put those same blades up against that section of the plane. I'm having trouble justifying those proportions in my head. If I'm missing something or not factoring something in, let me know.

Haha, and also, Howard was just talking about how the red is only curved because the piece is twisted, and therefore wouldn't be curved if the piece were still intact. He was just trying to explain to us that it should be an A if it were still straight. He was so nice and even taught us today about how photos are 2d and how reality is 3d and all about distortions. (Hehe, sorry couldn't resist it Howard!
)

So there seems to be confusion between the two of you, let alone with between you guys and us. I'm really not trying to be nasty or anything, just pointing out some problems.

Thanks for the time and input on that though.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 01:43 AM
link   
The video concerning the Pentagon missile attack, followed by controlled demolitions, is quite convincing. What about the rest of the story?

G.H.W. Bush, 9/11/1991:




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...."


Exactly ten years later we have the events of 9/11/2001.



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."


portland.indymedia.org...

If you are interested in seeing GHW's speech, there is a video that is downloadable located at the link above.

Most recently, on Sept 8 2004: Snip of transcript from "Hardball with Chris Matthews":



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?

GRAHAM: Yes.


www.msnbc.msn.com...

Always follow the money.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   
.
Now let me get this straight. Because there is one rather tiny piece of a 757 laying on the lawn and the rest of an ENTIRE 757 has EVAPORATED into thin air without any scorching of the grass we are supposed to buy lock stock and barrel the PR version of what happened on 911.

Thx for the pointer.
I think I'll keep my opinions to myself.
.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Fifteen pages later and nothing has been killed! Face it, folks, this will only be settled when real evidence is provided. It's up to the US Government to provide the evidence to support their claims.

I'm not convinced this was a 757.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Let me add something to this tired discussion.

On September 11th, my daughter Katelyn was getting ready to return home from a school trip to....you guessed it.....Washington, D.C. She was part of a chorus group who sang for members of the Congress during the previous week. They had all travelled down to Washington via tour buse the previous week-end.

Anyways, that morning, the students were getting ready to head back north, and were all in the parking lot loading their bags and suitcases into the bus. The hotel was in Arlington, not far (about 2-3 miles) from the Pentagon. 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.

My daughter clearly remembers the aircraft as a large airliner, on which she has flown many times in the past. She knew immediately that something was not right about that airplane, and she said she was not surprised when she heard the boom and saw the smoke - she thought the plane might have been out of control, or was at least being flown very recklessly. She never suspected that the Pentagon was hit, however, until they heard about it later on the radio.

I have absolutely no reason to doubt her word. Its good enough for me.


kix

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   
If some of you want it...I can show you 10 diferent photos of Landing gear of 757 (I know it quite well since Mexicana AeroMexico and Delta fly757 to Mexico City quite often and have seen those dozen of times).

Well back to topic...

Ok the only part where those markings could have come is...the LOGO you think I did not see that myself?? BUT you see there is one small problem, the painting in the wrecked part is WHITE RED and GRAY (REread the painting part in my thread) the upper part of all 757 in American Airlines fleet is polished metal covered with a non carcinogenic paint (per FAA and EPA rules), the result is a silvery color thta has been traditional in AA for more than 50 YEARS, Even the Airbuses that AA has have to be painted in a very special way since the skin if Airbuses is more opaque, but thtas another thing...BACK TO TOPIC, That part could not an its not from the upper fuselage of an AA 757 and more over LETS PRETEND it is can you explain how a part that is less than 15 feet from the nose of the plane is there AND NOTHING ELSE (like the rivets themselves?) or the lower door (reinforced) or the 2 doors next to the logo (quite sturdy).....yeah I know its the 4 dimensions working on this punny 3 dimension universe, also if there was such a fireball why this part is "PERFECT" no charred anything???

My guess is thatit was an aircraft or missile of some short that had depleted uranium at its nose, it pierced cleanly the outter wall and exploded right afterthat to create big damage and debris.

I am not a airline expert but I have quite a long history of airliners experience and cockpit time and also I ma quite failiar with Boeing planes and manefacturing process.

I woul recoment you to go to a Waldenbooks, chapters or if you dont like to go out in AMAZON buy the book
Boeing 757 by philip Birtles MBI publishing company or from motorbooks dot com.

Sit a while see the 270 plus photos and make YOUR desicion do not buy the Official version.

Ah one last thing the photo with the worker is more evidence to our "version" even if its not 3 layerd even if its not reinforced, even if it not metal, ITS A DAMN BRICK WALL 6 had to be broken to and if there are so "Fragile" where the hell are the sturdy pieces of the 757 like the engines......opsss

Just as a side note yesterday GWB spoke in some little town in his campaign for reelection critizincing for taxes and budget to JK, he said "do the math" (meaning Kerry will bankrupt the USA and put higher taxes) I JUST LAUGHED this guy is a profesional liar he broke the US singlehanedly in 3 years and WILL put higher taxes once in office (his Dad did it before election and lost so he wont make the same stupid mistake), wake up and make your own opinions dont dare to ask the untinkable or tho think the unquestionable.

Now, where are my points? he he he he he



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I also agree with it. I can't find any evidence anywhere contradicting the pictures.


SMR

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   


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.

But never actually SAW the plane hit.
I have kids too,4 of them.I understand the reasons for not wanting to doubt what your own kids say.But this would not be 'proof' of any kind in any court,let alone a society that is having problems with the story we are being told.

As for the images.
Though a good attempt,they do not fit as they have been in the images posted.It was apparent to me that the comparisons do not match.It shows that it came from the front of the plane,and if you think about it,if the plane hit nose first,most if not all of that area would be gone.Hitting nose first would have pretty much destroyed it along with probably atleast the first half of the plane at that speed of impact.
I then thought maybe it came off the other side where the 'n' would be about a quarter way down.Again,this area is still very close to the nose area and again,such an impact would have destroyed this area into nothing.
Here are 2 links to AA 757's both right and left sides.
SIDE ONE
SIDE TWO
You have to use logic here to understand something.The speed at which they say it was going,and then the force of impact.No matter if the plane left mass amounts of evidence or it vaporized and left nothing,the impact from going head on would crush,destroy,whatever you want to call it,ATLEAST a quarter of the planes length.Thus leaving nothing left of the front part of the plane.
One small scrap servived all that and no more?If it hit so hard and flung this ONE small piece,yet everything else is gone,why is the damage so minimal on this 'lawn piece' ?
This can simply not happen.

Im going to look into this piece of lawn debris more to see if any measurements can be done.Would be nice to compose this into a 3-d wire frame and then wrap it on an image of a plane.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   
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]


SMR

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   
And what do you think?
I find it iteresting to hear new views as well.Maybe new light by those who have not spoken.
I believe that the only way is to have video.But I dont think we will get any seeing as they were taken away by the feds.
So we must use what is available to us to prove either way.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   

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]


Yeah, well that's where pride gets you. I myself though, have wavered back and forth a couple times due to some of the arguments posted, so I'll be willing to admit if I was wrong. I already did it once when I thought Bush was awesome.......and he turned out to not be that at all. I was dead wrong with that. Currently though, the official story is the vastly weaker side in this debate so far. This is why I'm on the side I'm on. Catherder may have something though with matching that debris to the 757, but it's hard to tell. We'll see where it goes.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Yeah, well that's where pride gets you.


Yeah, you're right about that SimpleTruth. Right now I'm leaning more towards the side that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. At this point I just don't see it logical. It just doesn't fit.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Personally, I'm going to have to see a crapload more evidence to even consider the PR version of the story to be viable. There is no way that it was a 757. None.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Heres the biggest evidence nobody tries to explain. This is proof it was a plane.

CREW
Charles Burlingame, 51, Herndon, Va.*
David M. Charlebois, 39, Washington, D.C*
Michele Heidenberger, 57, Chevy Chase, Md.*
Jennifer Lewis, 38, Culpeper, Virginia*
Kenneth Lewis, 49, Culpeper, Virginia*
Renee A. May, 39, Baltimore, Md*


PASSENGERS
Paul Ambrose, 32, Washington, D.C.*
Yeneneh Betru, 35, Burbank, Calif*
Mary Jane (MJ) Booth, 64, Falls Church, Va.*
Bernard Curtis Brown, 11, Washington, D.C.*
Suzanne Calley, 42, San Martin, Calif.*
William Caswell, 54, Silver Spring, Md.*
Sarah Clark, 65, Columbia, Md.*
Zandra Cooper, Annandale, Va.*
Asia Cottom, 11, Washington, D.C.*
James Debeuneure, 58, Upper Marlboro, Md.*
Rodney Dickens, 11, Washington, D.C.*
Eddie Dillard, Alexandria, Va.*
Charles Droz, 52, Springfield, Va.*
Barbara G. Edwards, 58, Las Vegas, Nev.*
Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, University Park, Md.*
Zoe Falkenberg, 8, University Park, Md.*
Dana Falkenberg, 3, of University Park, Md.*
James Joe Ferguson, 39, Washington, D.C.*
Wilson "Bud" Flagg, 63, Millwood, Va.*
Darlene Flagg, 63, Millwood, Va.*
Richard Gabriel, 54, Great Falls, Va.*
Ian J. Gray, 55, Columbia, Md.*
Stanley Hall, 68, Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.*
Bryan Jack, 48, Alexandria, Va.*
Steven D. Jacoby, 43, Alexandria, Va.*
Ann Judge, 49, Great Falls, Va.*
Chandler Keller, 29, El Segundo, Calif.*
Yvonne Kennedy, 62, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia*
Norma Khan, 45, Reston, Va.*
Karen A. Kincaid, 40, Washington, D.C.*
Dong Lee, 48, Leesburg, Va.*
Dora Menchaca, 45, of Santa Monica, Calif.*
Christopher Newton, 38, Anaheim, Calif.*
Barbara Olson, 45, Great Falls, Va*
Ruben Ornedo, 39, Los Angeles, Calif.*
Robert Penniger, 63, of Poway, Calif.*
Robert R. Ploger, 59, Annandale, Va.*
Lisa J. Raines, 42, Great Falls, Va.*
Todd Reuben, 40, Potomac, Maryland*
John Sammartino, 37, Annandale, Va.*
Diane Simmons, Great Falls, Va.*
George Simmons, Great Falls, Va.*
Mari-Rae Sopper, 35, Santa Barbara, Calif.*
Robert Speisman, 47, Irvington, N.Y*
Norma Lang Steuerle, 54, Alexandria, Va.*
Hilda E. Taylor, 62, Forestville, Md*
Leonard Taylor, 44, Reston, Va.*
Sandra Teague, 31, Fairfax, Va.*
Leslie A. Whittington, 45, University Park, Maryland.*
John D. Yamnicky, 71, Waldorf, Md.*
Vicki Yancey, 43, Springfield, Va.*
Shuyin Yang, 61, Beijing, China*
Yuguag Zheng, 65, Beijing, China*


Notice no one tries to explain what happened to these people annd their familes. Because thats where their stories falls apart. I can see all the blurry pics or so called experts talk about what a large plane crash into the biggest building in the world looks like. But they all cant explain this most basic of evidence.


www.september11victims.com...


SMR

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   

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]


So they would crash two planes into NYC but them use a drone or missile for some reason at the pentagon. But then crash the real flight 77 out at sea where no wreakage washes up anywhere. And then for the heck of it crash one plane into the ground in a field.

Thats makes perfect sense I dont know why I didnt think of that

[edit on 10-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Also what about the bodies of people from flight 77 that were recovered? Was that Global hawk packed with dead bodies? Or did the pick those bodies up from the ocean and bring them back to land.

This whole part of the story falls apart

[edit on 10-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join