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.

 

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

page: 216
100
<< 213  214  215    217  218  219 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly You made my day ANOK,"causticfox" now there's alot of 757 hit the Pentagon wrapped up in one word
LOL always glad to make some ones day…But I just remembered I was thinking of Cameronfox, my mistake...

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret p.s. ANOK...was that a sarcastic 575 instead of 757?...or just a dislexic post??
Yes lol a dyslexic typo. Too late to edit now. "Ground effect…full trim…and some strength…" Hmmmmm from that I’m assuming you have no experience with aircraft? In a sense you are right, but you are forgetting the guy that supposedly did this was flying a 575 (sic) for the first time. He had no prior experience in this aircraft, and we’re supposed to believe he pulled off an extremely difficult maneuver perfectly. How did he know how much to correct for the flight characteristics he encountered, when he had never encountered them before? One twitch would have put the plane on the ground way before it hit the pentacon. Allah must have really been with him that day…
[edit on 15/7/2007 by ANOK]




posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   
The massive engines, that left no impact marks on the walls, gut sucked into the fuselage-sized hole in the wall, and must have compressed into the fuselage so as not to leave any marks, then vapourised. Now just accept what the govt shill is paid to say and dont ask any stupid questions. We are talking magic, here not science. From act one, scene one it is ALL magic.. An Arab, last reported dying of kidney failure in a ME hospital, shuts down the half trillion dollar US air defenses with his laptop...etc [edit on 15-7-2007 by ThomasT]



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   
^ Ah the magic of Allah and his merry terrorists, what powers they do posses. The power to render the united states government completely useless and defenseless. The power to turn seemingly ordinary common garden Boeing 757's into building destroying missiles that turn the laws of physics on their heads. The power to pilot any vehicle like a superman with instant reflexes, and super knowledge of how to handle said vehicle in all possible situations without ever having piloted said vehicle before this magic day. Praise Allah! It was the jet fuel you dummy!



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by piboy Can you be more specific about the above pictures' "engine parts?" Where does it go in the picture below? What piece is it, and how large is it? (I am trying to determine scale). What are the large holes part of? I can't tell what that is part of. Are the remains of the other parts visible, like the casing? [edit on 14-9-2004 by piboy]
Hi piboy, I know my answer is very late and maybe you have your anwser already but this is where you get an possible answer to your question on this one. home.comcast.net...



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   
What you see is what you get. The cockpit of a Boeing 757 allegedly made that exit hole. Where is it? It's a big thing with windows: [edit on 17-7-2007 by ad19t]



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ad19t What you see is what you get. The cockpit of a Boeing 757 allegedly made that exit hole. Where is it?
First off, no one has ever claimed that the cockpit of the aircraft made that hole. I have mentioned several times in this thread that the forward cargo doorway made that hole. It can be clearly seen to be the cargo doorway as they have that ring of small holes above the area where the cargo bin light panel is located.

Originally posted by ad19t It's a big thing with windows:
AH...Right... I can always tell a truther by their ability to twist the facts
, here lets take a look at your picture URL minus the tags, shall we? www.airguideonline.com/pix/A300nose.gif Key words being A300, or Airbus 300… I at least hope you realize that an A300 is a widebody aircraft, and a B757 is a narrow body aircraft. A B757 is only a few feet bigger in diameter then a DC-9, while an A300 is about the same diameter as a DC-10.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5 Geez man, that must have taken quite a while to put together, but excellent job either way. Good movie and outline on the crash itself, it makes it real clear that this was a 757. You can make out that distinctive, almost Mickey Mouse face look to the cockpit quite clearly. It�s also quite clear in the pictures of the holes that tube shape of the body had compressed some on impact making the fuselage wide at the sides. I can also attest to the fact that those are the rims off of a 757, I can even dig around in find a picture to match �em. I hope I didn't put that bee in your bonnet to make you type all that up.
while i appreciate the information laid out thoroughly i think perhaps you should take a look at this link. though you have some points, you are missing the explanation of the security camera footage that captures a distinctly traceable plume of smoke...youll understand after you watch wats at this link. www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThomasT The massive engines, that left no impact marks on the walls, gut sucked into the fuselage-sized hole in the wall, and must have compressed into the fuselage so as not to leave any marks, then vapourised. Now just accept what the govt shill is paid to say and dont ask any stupid questions. We are talking magic, here not science. From act one, scene one it is ALL magic.. An Arab, last reported dying of kidney failure in a ME hospital, shuts down the half trillion dollar US air defenses with his laptop...etc [edit on 15-7-2007 by ThomasT]
I couldn't have said it any better. 19 Middle Eastern men were controlled by a man suffering from Kidney disease, managed to shut down a multi billion dollar defense system, hijacking 4 planes on the same day with out any shoot down procedures being followed. You have intelligence gathering institutions like CIA, NSA, FBI, DoD and many others and all of which managed to fail in there intelligence gathering techniques which they are supposed to achieve. Come on people wake up, honestly. Do you people honestly think a 757 hit the pentagon head on, if the whole plane entered the building, we should see a hole in the front wall the size of the plane, like in the WTC attacks. We don't see this plane print on the Pentagon front wall do we?
Also, why would a terrorist perform a difficult maneuver to strike the portion of the building that was sparsely occupied, nearing completion of renovation, that would cause the fewest fatalities? Of the 100's of video camera's in the the area, not one was released showing a Boeing 757 hitting the pentagon, instead we are shown videos and images that show absolutely no plane on an explosion. Show me a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon? Some peoples ignorance is truly encyclopedic. BeZerK [edit on 17-7-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx while i appreciate the information laid out thoroughly i think perhaps you should take a look at this link. though you have some points, you are missing the explanation of the security camera footage that captures a distinctly traceable plume of smoke...youll understand after you watch wats at this link. www.youtube.com...
While I appreciate the link I really don’t have the time to watch another truth movement propaganda film. If these truth movement guys spent as much time learning something about real aircraft as they did making movies, none of us would be having this conversation; however truth is not really what they are after to begin with which is why they are always making movies. If you want to sum up the smoke bit of the movie for me, then I’ll answer it; but you should at least know something first. Engines smoke when they are damaged, it is a sign that oil is being burned by the engine along with fuel. I have personally seen them do this after a hotstart, also the Jetstart units (which are a small jet engine) pump out white smoke when they first start up. If the claim is that it was a missile strike based on the smoke plume that is not a very convincing argument IMHO.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear The originator of this post of the 757 crashing into the pentagon deserves an honorary position on the Warren Commission. Like the Warren Commission report there will be a majority who will believe it hook, line and sinker until gradually the truth will begin to emerge...maybe 30 or 40 years from now.
my friend how can i say it better? *bows in humbleness*



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx while i appreciate the information laid out thoroughly i think perhaps you should take a look at this link. though you have some points, you are missing the explanation of the security camera footage that captures a distinctly traceable plume of smoke...youll understand after you watch wats at this link. www.youtube.com...
While I appreciate the link I really don’t have the time to watch another truth movement propaganda film. If these truth movement guys spent as much time learning something about real aircraft as they did making movies, none of us would be having this conversation; however truth is not really what they are after to begin with which is why they are always making movies. If you want to sum up the smoke bit of the movie for me, then I’ll answer it; but you should at least know something first. Engines smoke when they are damaged, it is a sign that oil is being burned by the engine along with fuel. I have personally seen them do this after a hotstart, also the Jetstart units (which are a small jet engine) pump out white smoke when they first start up. If the claim is that it was a missile strike based on the smoke plume that is not a very convincing argument IMHO.
well if you have enough time to write such a lengthy responce assuming its propaganda that im linking (which it is not) then you have the less than ten minutes this informative movie i presented to you to view it. fact is, there was no damaged engines,so why would your theory that a hot start or the oil leaking case the massive white smoke? and the fire ball? what about that? cordite burns bright, while the fuel which is the main component of the igniting fluids burns much more orange and red.there was no skids, there was nothing in any of the crash site to verify how TWO 6 ton engines of titanium alloy "incinerated" on impact/explosion. stop being so against the facts so clearly laid out. if you want to believe that it was a plane, thats all good and well. its your opinion and everyone has one about this on here but dont go prancing some facts that cut out the more important issues around and saying youve deffinitively debunked the conspiracy theory if you cant resolve the issues i kindly laid before you. i will say you gave it a good try though.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   
it is astonishing how firm some people hold their plane theories. why on earth would sac/norad let a plane theyve been tracking for hours get so close on a "collision course" bearing without some method of defense being implemented? how could anyone explain that away? we are the most technologically defended country on our side of the hemisphere and yet somehow a commercial airliner is purported to have slipped through the cracks? i dont know about the rest of you but for me thats a stretch. ill post the link to the source i found valuable evidence debunking or atleast in MY opinion debunking the possibility of a plane being the culprit once more and hopefully people will actually watch it before assuming they know exactly what im linking....unless your pyschic that is...its not truth propaganda...it really does come down to the science of things and the science of this crash doesnt add up like the movie shows...*points to the movie* www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by verfed I agree that an airliner hit the pentagon. There must be some good reasons why the DoD have not released the confiscated camera tapes and the black box.
An airliner hit the Pentagon? I was wondering if you knew where the 2 enormous RB-211's might have impacted?
??!! thats exactly what i keep saying! ok to recap...these two RB's they are 6 tons respectively, 6 tons folks, not just 6 tons, these are made with titanium alloy, so someone want to tell me how these two engines just "incenerated" like the official story reports, because ive seen lots of pics lately of all sorts of plane crashes from small to big and my biggest qualm with this detailed attempt at explanation is the shear lack of more wreckage and the supposed incineration of two very large and heavy engines before they got a chance to put two extra holes in the pentagon, one on each side of the already small for the model that supposedly hit hole where again iam suppose to believe the WHOLE plane exploded with so much force that only pieces small enough to be handheld remained?? come on. the effort and time put into that rather detailed post was nice but your really missing some points and i wont be swayed by such a thorough report that happens to miss the main arguments for the theory that your information is attempting to debunk...deffinitively prove to me that those engines could be incinerated and id be more than happy to take back everything. its just too bad we both know you cant.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I am saddened that there are those who will overlook obvious flaws in any argument for the pentagon being struck with a 757. why is it that its ok to overlook the almost impossible fact that in many flights that crashed,the engines never "disintergrate" so thoroughly that there are no identifyable chunks and pieces. That there is HARDLY so small of pieces left that you could carry them all by hand. dont get me wrong, im sure theres always the tiny pieces but just tiny pieces?
hitting poles by the way that didnt look damaged in the photos is another curious piece i havent heard any real light shed on. Oh and since im just a truth propaganda perpetuator, youll disreguard my plee for some reasonable explanations on the abilities of this terrorist guy to have the skill even if not the experience, to conduct highly manueverable alterations in his flight path that people whom flown these same planes claimed in loose change that they are not capable of doing at the speeds the official report claims and in addition his experience with the planes themselves did not lend him enough ability as a pilot of such a big bird to even have a hope in hell of trying on his first and last run with them. Lastly, i just want you all to know, im still waiting on someone to reasonable define how these engines that ive said over and over again weigh 6 tons and are constructed of titanium alloy could just fall apart so much or incinerate or whatever the new popular dismissive explanation lays out The likelihood of any crash into such a sturdy structure as the pentagon to me yields no reason why more bigger pieces couldnt be found in general, why there was an almost white blast instead of the red orange glow that occurs with the jet fuel of these planes, why the smell of cordite was in the air which just so happens to burn bright as that suspicious video shows, and why so many accounts of the testimony varies by such far degrees, from a very large plane like cat herder claims,to a helicopter circling the area, to a white naval cargo ship, to a small twin engine plane? if the explanation for this was so thorough,why does so much of the explanation leave out some valid points that i havent found a way to circumvent? hmmm.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
the video shows a candle and compares it to a fireball of a plane hitting a building.... Defcon you work for ACC right?...if so there's a possibility you've seen the AWACS engines....with the nice white trail comin off em......this video says it's impossible for a turbo fan engine to do that... according to the official story the right engine would have been damaged when it hit that shack knocking it around.... the pictures posted show half a "w"hole....half the lower part of the pentagon is blanked out by the fire hoses....how can we tell how big the hole is that way??



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret the video shows a candle and compares it to a fireball of a plane hitting a building.... Defcon you work for ACC right?...if so there's a possibility you've seen the AWACS engines....with the nice white trail comin off em......this video says it's impossible for a turbo fan engine to do that... according to the official story the right engine would have been damaged when it hit that shack knocking it around.... the pictures posted show half a "w"hole....half the lower part of the pentagon is blanked out by the fire hoses....how can we tell how big the hole is that way??
lets take this one step by step. 1. the candles flame adheres to the same rules of behavior as the jet fuel which was allegedly so hot that it incinerated (apparently given that you believe the official story) the more predominant majority of the plane in question and the candle is a simpler example of how such a substance acts under particular conditions...lets try not to be so thick headed and turn the light bulb on up stairs. 2. The official story also claims that the plane smashed into the lawn before hitting the pentagon, yet no skid marks? no indication whatsoever that the plane hit the ground and skid forward so how are you going to critique the possibility i lay before you with an already flawed description of what is purported to have transpired? If the right engine was damaged, and i believe it would have or atleast the plane itself would have taken massive damage upon impact with the ground and consequently it should have had damage to the engines by some capacity from the impact directly or indirectly, the few seconds it would have taken, nay the slice of a couple seconds (at best) it would have taken to slide into the pentagon would leave a sparse opportunity for such smoke to emit in such a plume as to present a logical alternative to what im proposing. I think its time to reiterate my on going standpoint that i am not suggesting that my ideas or opinions are solid facts, but i do not believe that they can be disproven with the information presented and if they can by new evidence id like to hear it. One more thing. over and over i hear details of importance being criticized and such but when is anyone going to explain where those two 6 ton engines went in the commotion? did i mention they were made with titanium alloy which i infer would prove a hard case to explain by disintegration and/or fire (i did mention it, for those who havent kept track. im begging you to logically explain with good evidence how they happen to not have made any impact craters in the respective sides of the main hole and for that matter where any of their heavy pieces went...im not talking about some bite size crap, i mean where is the comparisons to other similar crashes where thes engines despite a similar fire and impact remain for the most part intact...BEGGING, dont forget that, i said begging.)



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx lets take this one step by step. 1. the candles flame adheres to the same rules of behavior as the jet fuel which was allegedly so hot that it incinerated (apparently given that you believe the official story) the more predominant majority of the plane in question and the candle is a simpler example of how such a substance acts under particular conditions...lets try not to be so thick headed and turn the light bulb on up stairs.
so you're telling me that something with a constant non-explosive fuel source is comparable to something with a limited explosive fuel source?..candle wax versus jet fuel?...

2. The official story also claims that the plane smashed into the lawn before hitting the pentagon, yet no skid marks? no indication whatsoever that the plane hit the ground and skid forward so how are you going to critique the possibility i lay before you with an already flawed description of what is purported to have transpired?
i have not seen any aerial photos of the area prior to them cleaning up.....

If the right engine was damaged, and i believe it would have or atleast the plane itself would have taken massive damage upon impact with the ground and consequently it should have had damage to the engines by some capacity from the impact directly or indirectly, the few seconds it would have taken, nay the slice of a couple seconds (at best) it would have taken to slide into the pentagon would leave a sparse opportunity for such smoke to emit in such a plume as to present a logical alternative to what im proposing. I think its time to reiterate my on going standpoint that i am not suggesting that my ideas or opinions are solid facts, but i do not believe that they can be disproven with the information presented and if they can by new evidence id like to hear it. One more thing. over and over i hear details of importance being criticized and such but when is anyone going to explain where those two 6 ton engines went in the commotion? did i mention they were made with titanium alloy which i infer would prove a hard case to explain by disintegration and/or fire (i did mention it, for those who havent kept track. im begging you to logically explain with good evidence how they happen to not have made any impact craters in the respective sides of the main hole and for that matter where any of their heavy pieces went...im not talking about some bite size crap, i mean where is the comparisons to other similar crashes where thes engines despite a similar fire and impact remain for the most part intact...BEGGING, dont forget that, i said begging.)
there have been photos released....if you choose not to believe that...fine...you have every right....but i ask you to show me a definate picture of the hole without anything in front of it....no water spray....no fence...no building....how can you say the engines made no hole when you can't see the whole hole? i dont believe the official story to the T...i think they even miss dotted some I's.....the government will never tell you everything right away...does that mean 14 Pissed off extremists didnt do it?...no....it just means theres more than meets the eye....i do believe a 757 hit the pentagon...



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx fact is, there was no damaged engines,so why would your theory that a hot start or the oil leaking case the massive white smoke? and the fire ball? what about that? cordite burns bright, while the fuel which is the main component of the igniting fluids burns much more orange and red.there was no skids, there was nothing in any of the crash site to verify how TWO 6 ton engines of titanium alloy "incinerated" on impact/explosion
I have answered every one of these questions in this thread already, many with pictures to back them up. Let me quickly recap for you, but I am not going to go into much detail as I just don’t have the time. The engines were damaged by the light poles, and the number 2 engine most likely ingested light pole parts causing the blades to begin sheering off inside the cowling. This made it begin to smoke. There is nothing wrong with the color of the fire that I can see, it looks constant with fuel pit fires that used to be set at the airport for fire training. Aircraft are designed to make wheels up landings, their bottoms are smooth and the weight is widely distributed over a very wide, flat, smooth area. I have shown many pictures of belly landed aircraft where there is no damage to the cement or to grass. Also you should realize that the fire trucks in those photos are similar in weight and that weight is condensed into smaller wheels, yet they do not make any marks until later in the day when the ground is saturated with water. The number 2 engine was damaged prior to impact. The engines themselves are mostly empty airspace on the inside. The only bit I would expect to see intact are the heavier central core pieces such as the compressor disks. We see these present in the wreckage, as they should be. I would not expect to see engines sitting there in a big piece, they are not built that strong. The problem that many of the guys like Anok have with this, is that they are used to working on smaller diameter, and thus stronger, military engines. These are different then the large turbo fan engines on a 757.

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret Defcon you work for ACC right?...if so there's a possibility you've seen the AWACS engines....with the nice white trail comin off em......this video says it's impossible for a turbo fan engine to do that...
I am not sure what you mean by ACC. I used to be a ramp supervisor for an airlines, and I worked on 757’s and 767’s. I have never been around AWACS aircraft, though I have worked 707’s which I believe are the same airframe, and I have also worked Dash-8’s which are similar in construction to Navy E-2 Hawkeyes. All engines smoke when there is oil in the fuel, I don’t care if it’s a piece of ramp equipment, a car, a turbo fan, or a turbo prop. Many aircraft engines pump out a nice puff of whitish/gray smoke when they first start as well. If you look as far back as WWII you can see that the military used to do this on purpose with tanks to create smoke screens. I worked on more 737-300’s then any other aircraft, and they used to puff whitish smoke on engine start all the time. I would guess this was from small amounts of oil pooling while the engine was off, then igniting with the fuel on start up.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5 I am not sure what you mean by ACC. I used to be a ramp supervisor for an airlines, and I worked on 757’s and 767’s. I have never been around AWACS aircraft, though I have worked 707’s which I believe are the same airframe, and I have also worked Dash-8’s which are similar in construction to Navy E-2 Hawkeyes. All engines smoke when there is oil in the fuel, I don’t care if it’s a piece of ramp equipment, a car, a turbo fan, or a turbo prop. Many aircraft engines pump out a nice puff of whitish/gray smoke when they first start as well. If you look as far back as WWII you can see that the military used to do this on purpose with tanks to create smoke screens. I worked on more 737-300’s then any other aircraft, and they used to puff whitish smoke on engine start all the time. I would guess this was from small amounts of oil pooling while the engine was off, then igniting with the fuel on start up.
sorry....i must've mistook you for someone else....ACC is the Air Combat Command in the air force...some one here claimed they were part of it...and i thought it was you...(AWACS flies under their command)...I've seen the AWACS doing touch and goes, and there's plenty of white smoke comen off them as they come in and go....



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Is this not very very strange? This are the official 911 pentagon films, right? Can somebody explain this to me. Watch this film first very closely. Video1 of American Flight 77 striking the Pentagon 11S / 911 video.google.nl... My first question is, • Where is the centre standing traffic pylon that is clearly visible in the second film at precise 00:06 when the police car passes the tank station at precise 01:04 in this film passes? • How can it be that it looks definitely zoomed in this film[what must be impossible], as it is not in the second film? • Why are the clouds and reflections in this film not showing in the second film? • Look then at the moment that the nose of the plain comes in the frame at precise 01:26. Magnify it and then ask yourself, is this the nose and fuselage of a Boeing 757? And where is the tank bloc? • Look also very close to the right of the horizon and remember this detail at 01:26 when the so called nose and fuselage of a Boeing 757 appears. It must be at the left side of the tank bloc[ I don’t know how you Americans cal it]???? Look then to this film. Video2 of American Flight 77 striking the Pentagon 11S / 911 video.google.nl... • Look again very close to the right of the horizon and compare this detail at 00:25 with the detail where I pointed at in the first film. It is now at the right side of the tank bloc[ I don’t know how you Americans cal it]???? • How come that in both films the angle of the camera is so different if not impossible, in the first it looks like a fisheye lens ? It can absolute not be so, because it is zoomed in, that is impossible because in the background of the horizon at the right you see the seem tree and building in both films but there is a very different size. • How come that in this film you see not the frame with the image of the appearing so called nose and fuselage of a Boeing 757 that you see clearly visible in the first film? video.google.nl... In this film you clearly see the police car passes the tank station as well the three traffic pylons. You see clearly visible three traffic pylons. Watch the in the centre standing traffic pylon, it is clearly visible all the time when the car passes.




top topics



 
100
<< 213  214  215    217  218  219 >>

log in

join