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: 217
100
<< 214  215  216    218  219  220 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret 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....
Actually the TF33 (engine used on the AWACS) leaves a black or light brown trail. The only engine that used to release large amounts of white smoke were used on the L1011. They frequently had static oil leaks that would pool oil in the engine, so when they started the plane almost disappeared behind the white smoke. AWACS in flight: L1011 engine start (just because it's cool): [edit on 7/20/2007 by Zaphod58]




posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor 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?
I think it' either AROUND, or right next to, the camera you're seeing from in the other video. Two cameras, one behind the other. Same field of view in the distance, slightly different in the foreground. map and links I put together. I think this also answers, or might help clarify, most of your other questions too, except...

• 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?
I don't know. What's a tank bloc? What is the object entering frame? All other evidence I've seen (lots, including anything almost anything you can toss my way), it's most likely a low-flying AA-painted 757 with passengers. Sorry, I know that's boring...



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Actually the TF33 (engine used on the AWACS) leaves a black or light brown trail. The only engine that used to release large amounts of white smoke were used on the L1011. They frequently had static oil leaks that would pool oil in the engine, so when they started the plane almost disappeared behind the white smoke. [edit on 7/20/2007 by Zaphod58]
looks white enough for me...but i'm sure you've got the more knowledge...(not sarcastic)



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Yes, the white smoke. Here's clearly seen white smoke behind a black plane (left) compared to a different plane, the same white as the smoke, or maybe the same smoke behind an invisible plane, captured in the other camera (right):
Oddly enough, the transitory white smoke is quickly replaced with gray smoke that lingers for several frames after the black/white/invisible plane has passed.
What's up with that? Man this Pentagon case is weird with all this magic plane/smoke stuff. Must be something spooky going on... looks like a missile to me. Viva la video analysis! We got those liars now!



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by spacevisitor 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?
I think it' either AROUND, or right next to, the camera you're seeing from in the other video. Two cameras, one behind the other. Same field of view in the distance, slightly different in the foreground. map and links I put together. I think this also answers, or might help clarify, most of your other questions too, except...

• 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?
I don't know. What's a tank bloc? What is the object entering frame? All other evidence I've seen (lots, including anything almost anything you can toss my way), it's most likely a low-flying AA-painted 757 with passengers. Sorry, I know that's boring...
Caustic Logic, Tank bloc must be card reader cabinet right? [I hope that’s the good expression] I didn’t realise that there where two camera’s pointed at the same area, but then again, Where is the centre standing traffic pylon that is clearly visible in the second film at precise 00:06 video.google.nl... when the police car passes the tank station at precise 01:04 in this film? video.google.nl... They must be visible in both camera’s. Look at this link, 911research.wtc7.net... • Look again close to the horizon of each camera at the right side of the pentagon, with the trees and some sort of building in both images. • Then look to the detail [tree and some sort of building] above the appearing nose and fuselage of the Boeing 757 and compare it with the detail of the other camera. To me they look exactly the same. • Why then, is the nose and fuselage not visible on both images? • Compare the size of the nose and fuselage with de size of the pentagon, to me it looks as a much smaller plain then a Boeing 757. • How come that the quality of the footage from both “Pentagon Security Cameras” [that must be state of the art camera’s] is so poor?



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor Why then, is the nose and fuselage not visible on both images?
Because the cameras are not running at 30FPS like we are used to in most video cameras. They do that with security cameras to save storage space on the recording media. So if the recorded frames are not in exact sync then one will pick up frames that the other one missed.

Originally posted by spacevisitor Compare the size of the nose and fuselage with de size of the pentagon, to me it looks as a much smaller plain then a Boeing 757.
The Fuselage of a 757 is roughly the same diameter as that of a DC-9, both planes will fit neatly into a single commercial story building with their landing gear up. For a better comparison of the size, look at the trees in the background, those trees are at least 30 feet high, yet the tail is visible over the tops of them. It’s a matter of perspective, and that the cameras were not set up to record something that was at a great distance from them. Those cameras are made to film the occupants of the vehicles which are passing within a few feet of the lens.

Originally posted by spacevisitor How come that the quality of the footage from both “Pentagon Security Cameras” [that must be state of the art camera’s] is so poor?
Because, as I mentioned above, they are simply cameras to monitor traffic flow at a guard shack; meaning they are on time delay and not set up to film at a distance. Also the color on at least the one camera seems to be a bit off, almost like they adjusted the color/contrast to keep the sun glare down some, look at the color of the grass it looks a bit off to me.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor Caustic Logic, Tank bloc must be card reader cabinet right? [I hope that’s the good expression] I didn’t realise that there where two camera’s pointed at the same area, but then again, Where is the centre standing traffic pylon that is clearly visible in the second film at precise 00:06 video.google.nl... when the police car passes the tank station at precise 01:04 in this film? video.google.nl... They must be visible in both camera’s.
I disagree. The security bar raises at 0:06 to let the cop car thru, visible from the camera inside the booth (video 2). Watch its shadow - starts out and ends lines up just past the concrete base. Nideo one is I'm pretty sure from atop the "center pylon?" where the security bar is attached - the bar is not visible because it's to the immediate left of the camera - look at the bottom to find the curb of the concrete base and the bar shadow there - oops, not visible, must be just off frame. So pylon thing, beneath camera, bar thing a few inches left, card redaer/whatever pylon thing a few feet to its right, all off frame. ETA: Here's the map I made to illustrate field of view - the "blocked area" is the part in video 2 along the horizon behind the (center pylon?) that most people think the "black plane" is hiding in. I think the plane is the white stuff in both shots and that little if any of it is hidden.
But this one is odd...

Look at this link, 911research.wtc7.net... • Look again close to the horizon of each camera at the right side of the pentagon, with the trees and some sort of building in both images. • Then look to the detail [tree and some sort of building] above the appearing nose and fuselage of the Boeing 757 and compare it with the detail of the other camera. To me they look exactly the same. • Why then, is the nose and fuselage not visible on both images?
Good question. I think they somehow used non-comparable frames here - both cameras clearly show the "white blur" for a single frame (fast plane + slow camera). Odd cause WTC7.net are usually really good. For the comparitive frames w/blur in both, see my post a few up from here. Good eye too noting that whatever that is on the far right is the same in both, giving us effectively the same field of view, and thus two easily comparable frames of the plane, tho only slightly offset and covering only a portion of its final zoom across the lawn.

• Compare the size of the nose and fuselage with de size of the pentagon, to me it looks as a much smaller plain then a Boeing 757.
Possible - just remember distance - by the official story and my math about 600 feet from plane to cameras, and the fisheye effect evident...

• How come that the quality of the footage from both “Pentagon Security Cameras” [that must be state of the art camera’s] is so poor?
They might chose to release their bad outdated camera footage as a ploy to convince everyone they have shoddy cameras and need more funding. But they eren't really that bad anyway IMO, not that I'm an expert in video, just not great at capturing details on fast-moving brilliant silver objects hundreds of feet away. [edit on 21-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 04:34 AM
link   
at best if you take the images from those cams and you try imagining a missile taking the place of the plane,you get very unlikely turn outs. so its more about what type of plane hit rather than missile vs plane. though its interesting to note that the camera footage from the hotel for instance that overlooked the whole sequence of events was confiscated and they wont release whats on it. i ask why? especially in the wake of the publically known conspiracy theories that loose change helped to perpetuate. dont get me wrong folks, loose change has issues in regards to the info they allege as fact, but if they really wanted to prove beyond all doubt that the model they claimed slammed into the pentagon as detailed in the official report, why not just be like,"oh you dont think it was a 757 huh? explain this then" if they wanted to put it to rest that would be the easiest way to do so i think. unless they had stuff in the tape that would present more issues than solutions. *twiddles thumbs*



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx if they wanted to put it to rest that would be the easiest way to do so i think. unless they had stuff in the tape that would present more issues than solutions. *twiddles thumbs*
I don't think "they" are worried about putting this to rest. The more we are divided on the issues the better for "them". While we argue the anomalies "they" prepare for the invasion of the next money making adventure in the Middle East.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
as sad as it is im sure your atleast half right on that



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Is this a miracle? What I find so strange about this piece of wreckage what looks like a piece of the fuselage, • How come that it lays so far from the impact site? • If an explosion is the reason, how is it possible then, that the paint on this piece of wreckage looks untouched, not even a slightly burned. • And how is it possible that it has almost its original shape, because as said, on the moment of impact the whole plain disappeared in that small hole in the wall and everything was crust to almost nothing. [edit on 24/7/07 by spacevisitor]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I think that these are the 2 earliest pics of the Pentagon on 911 clearly showing the hole caused by "whatever" it was. I say "whatever" as I am not convinced that it was a plane but am always open to new info and facts.
I think that this picture is taken pretty close to the trajectory of the "whatever" It does show the light pole downed and some bits of wreckage that could be the light pole debris, its hard to tell when zooming in. What I don't understand is if that was a plane that hit and went into the building then what caused the fires on the left side. They are a long way from the hole?



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
im saying just from looking at those pics (see above) that the man has a point about that particular piece of reckage...it was a huge explosiion if the kinetic energy and the jet fuel pounded the face, and despite everything else, if the impact disentegrated the plane to tiny pieces i dont think any piece left would look like that, what do you guys make of this?



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
It’s a part of fuselage from above the fuel tanks/wings. It was obviously ejected when the wings exploded. Fuel is also the reason why there is fire to the sides of the main impact hole. Most likely fuel that was forcefully ejected from the wing vents on impact with the generator or wall.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5 It’s a part of fuselage from above the fuel tanks/wings. It was obviously ejected when the wings exploded. Fuel is also the reason why there is fire to the sides of the main impact hole. Most likely fuel that was forcefully ejected from the wing vents on impact with the generator or wall.
There was no explosion on the outside of the wall. Look the info from CatHerder in his first post.

Originally posted by CatHerder In layman's terms the crash dynamics worked like so: A large hollow tube, with a belly full of luggage, a passenger bay with 60 people, and wings full of fuel smashed into the side of an almost solid object while moving at a tremendous speed (somewhere around 350-400mph). When the 225,000lb+ plane hit, it smashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like one massive column of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into liquid, it just acted like one physically - mountainslides act the same way, a million tons of rock acts like a large field of liquid during a landslide even if no water is present). All the small parts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor There was no explosion on the outside of the wall. Look the info from CatHerder in his first post.
Even if there wasn’t there is still going to be gas out there. Hitting the generator would have caused fuel leakage from both the engine and the wingtip fuel vents. I have seen planes with too much fuel spill overflow just from the bouncing of the wings while they taxied out to the runway.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:22 AM
link   
defcon5, Look again closely to the details in this very sharp image. Look to the paint as well at the inside as the outside. It is clean and undamaged as brand-new. I ask you, is this possible by such an destructible event as this?



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor defcon5, I ask you, is this possible by such an destructible event as this?
I cannot answer that as I don’t know exactly where that is located in the overall crash area. The areas hit by the wings left a very thin horizontal mark on the walls, the height of the leading edge of the wing, that I have seen in other photos. As to the fuel, it goes everywhere, and if the original firefighters did not immediately realize what it was, or did not have the proper equipment or training and started spraying it with water it would have actually spread the fire to other locations as the burning fuel floated on top of the water. Besides all of this, I don’t see what the photo or question above has to do with the original question I was answering.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor Look to the paint as well at the inside as the outside. It is clean and undamaged as brand-new. I ask you, is this possible by such an destructible event as this?
Oh, sorry I misunderstood what you meant, your talking about the aluminum, not the building…
Yeah it would have been ejected so quickly, that it twisted and tore in areas, but did not have time to burn. Aircraft aluminum can actually burn down to nothing as we have seen in the DTW DC-9 fire, however it also does not show stains very well either. So even if it was exposed to some heat it would not have effected the coloring much. Normally that areas of an aircraft that are exposed to heat only get a bit duller in appearance but they really don’t change color much in my experience around them.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor Originally posted by CatHerder ....and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring.
I think the plane acted like liquid is BS, but that aside what happened when it ran out of inertia? Where did the plane go? And no, fire would not have completely destroyed the plane. There's lots of plane parts that would not melt into nothing by a jet fuel fire. Specifically engine parts, like the casings, the rotor shafts and rotor hubs. These parts are made from alloys designed to withstand the engine temps. Catherders thread has already been de-bunked. abovetopsecret.narod.ru... [edit on 25/7/2007 by ANOK]



new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 214  215  216    218  219  220 >>

log in

join