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.
I firmly agree. We need to fully examine the above OP photos. With all those vertical supports still standing, exactly where is a hole big enough to accomodate an entire 757, and leave nothing evident on the Pentagon campus lawn of an impact or explosion of a 757? How did all those parts get on that lawn long after but not seen above in that photo?
Next, let�s look at the Pentagon. "http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/Pentagon3.jpg" border=0> "http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/small-757.jpg" border=0> Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites)
Why sure, here you go. Woops, wrong photo...this is the faked 757 damage shot. Let me keep looking for the missle pic. That'd be under "M" right?
Originally posted by Caustic Logic Can anyone get a photo that shows the undamaged wall behind that spray? this is the next step in solving the mystery. Maybe there are signs of the missile damage down there... [edit on 6-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]
That is not what I stated. I specifically stated, on well more than one occasion, vertical supports where individual holes exist aka rough framing of any building under construction. Which one of those holes "swallowed" an entire full size Boeing 757? I am still awaiting that answer, without any avoidance tangent to the answer.
Originally posted by Caustic LogicYes indeed - just this 15-foot hole with all walls intact.
Since my contention has always been no 757 impacted any Pentagon wall, much less was "swallowed" whole by the Pentagon, which one do you pick?
Originally posted by Caustic Logic reply to post by OrionStarsYou choose dude. The big one or the small one. Which is 'alleged?'
What does quantum physics have to do with seeing or not seeing holes in a wall? Either the holes are visually there or are not. Which one of those visually seen holes in the photo would accommodate an entire full sized 757, without taking out any vertical supports surrounding those holes? I contend none of them. Which do you contend would?
Originally posted by Caustic Logic reply to post by OrionStarsYou choose dude. I don't know quantum physics good enough.
You from another thread:
Originally posted by OrionStars What does quantum physics have to do with seeing or not seeing holes in a wall?
I read: If the supports were not there the building would fall immediately ergo they must be there. And in this thread:
If those vertical supports were missing, the lateral load bearers would have immediately badly sag or completely collapsed long before they did. So sayeth the laws and principles of physics and quantum mechanics, when vertical load bearing support is compeletely lost under the lateral load bearing support.
So the missing columns are actually 'rough framing' like on any building. That would fall instantly? I'm confused now. BTW: How many 'holes' are there? Cite a number and if possible tell me what's dividing one 'hole' from the one next to it. My own answer: One. It was this shape: i128.photobucket.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/> Nothing there to divide it up into multiple separate holes. [edit on 6-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]
I specifically stated, on well more than one occasion, vertical supports where individual holes exist aka rough framing of any building under construction.
If that is what you wish to contend, that means at least 124 ft 10 in had to plow to inside those primary perimeter vertical load bearers. Taking out at least 9-10 primary perimeter load bearing vertical supports on impact and beginning penetration, along with taking out at least that much all the way to the other side, while knocking out another hole on the inside to the outside, including primary perimeter vertical supports. That means as that alleged plane is being "swallowed" and digested", that part of the building is collapsing behind it. Those are primary, not secondary, load bearers at perimeter wall and internally, throughout the ground level of that side of the Pentagon.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic The question was for you but here's a clue: I'd look at the section with eight columns and 12 wall panels missing. Hint: it's on the ground floor. Hint: it has room for engines. Hint: it means there I S tailfin damage, in the form of the smaller hole above. Are you really contending that's standard frame construction, no walls or supports and only in the spot right beneath the 'alleged impact?'