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: 220
100
<< 217  218  219    221  222  223 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CatHerder
 
U think a boing 757 hit pentagon? What about those two "big" engines? What damage did those two engine do to pentagon? I dont see any.




posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CatHerder
 
Why are you still arguing this point? The pentagon has so many cameras stationed on the roof that if it was just as simple as a plane hitting the buidling there would be no reason to not release any of the tapes to the 911 commission or congress. That's what people should be trying to figure out...why those tapes werent released and why civilian cervailance tapes were confiscated. These ACTIONS ALONE PROVE THAT SOMETHING IS BEING HIDDEN FROM US!! And we are not talking about an assasination where the shot could have come from 100 different people...we are talking about the factual argument of whether or not an object crashed into another stationary object, which is simple because the object in this case is a huge 757 boeing jet!! So release the videos of the plane and end the skepticism.....



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
A 757 hit the Pentagon now eh? OK, so where are the engines at? Where is the wreckage of the plane at? Where is that large floor mainframe you used to explain the small hole at? Why is there a large huge coming out the backside of the Pentagon (assuming that the 757 did in fact actually “disintegrate” how would anything be left to punch through that back wall and where did that object goto)? All that was recovered was several small parts, some of which did not actually come back to a 757. Also, there is no evidence of any bodies being recovered from the Pentagon or Shanksville (other then the 100 people that were working inside of the Pentagon at the time of the crash). Sure there were bodies that had supposedly been recovered from someplace and had autopsies performed on them, but not from either of these two mentioned crash sites, (if there evidence of this why do you not show that in your report on this subject, this is a very important aspect of the there was a 757 into the Pentagon theory). Also to note there are approximately 80 CTV videos that would have information relative to the Pentagon crash that were collected by the FBI, yet they only released a couple of them, why, what is there to hide? If you release one of them you might as well just release them all, because they are all going to contain the same type of information. Also, what about the witnesses that claimed to have seen a white military craft flying around the Pentagon at the exact time of the supposed 757 crash into the Pentagon?



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
What about the hundreds of witnesses that actually saw an airliner circle and hit the Pentagon? And an aircraft hovering over Washington, DC/Northern VA? No shit! Really? I hardly see any of those every day... [edit on 25/12/07 by Nickdfresh]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Where are the dead bodies? Where are the voices of the families of victims that were killed in this situation? [edit on 7-1-2008 by TheoOne]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I can't remember if I posted to this thread originally, but I had a glance through it just now as I found it in My "Saved" stuff on U2U. I have never once Myself said that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon. I particularly do not care if the planes actually crashed into the Pentagon, World Trade Center Towers 1 or 2, or the Pennsylvania field. Don't think I'm being callous here. It's not that I do not care about those lives lost. The reason I said I do not care though is simple. I grew up watching terrrorism in all the newspaper headline and news stories on TV. I have grown accustomed to seeing it all of My life. I've become de-sensitized to it. What I care about most though, is that the politicians will utlize event such as these to pound on the drums of war and wave the flag and cry "patriotism" and get people to willingly give up their freedoms and Contitutional rights for the "perception" of safety. Safety, freedom, patriotism, terrorism, are all very emotional words. They hold a lot of meanings for people other than the Webster's dictionary definition. They are emotionally charged words that can lead to emotionally charged decisions that can lead to emotionally charged mistakes. If you are not careful about your decisions you could decide yourself right into your own prison cell through voluntarily giving up your rights. [edit on 29-1-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Folks, This has gone to over 200 pages...and I did not read all of them, all I needed to see was the OP's original page. Rarely have I seen a more coherent, and well-thought out argument on ATS!! I contribute, today, just to add what little I can, as a former airline pilot with 22 years of experience at a US Major, and over 8 years of earlier experience as a pilot to get that job... Looks like this thread stalled at the end of January. So, here I am to lower the nose and give it some airspeed. I invite everyone to stop, and look FIRSTLY at the OP's initial post, see what is there and THEN contribute your opinions and, if you have them, alternate theories that are supported by FACTS. OK, carry on!



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by CatHerder
 

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)
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?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
The photos did appear on preview but did not when posted. I can either duplicate the post, or posters can see the images on the OP, by looking for the photo, of all those clearly seen vertical supports still holding up the perimeter wall of the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Yes indeed - just this 15-foot hole with all walls intact. Huh, somehow I missed this damning photo in Cat Herder's OP from three-plus years ago. Thanks OS! Where are the wing marks to th sides? Where did the engines go? Where is the tail fin damage above the hole? Where is the landing gear damage beneath it? Why all those steel supports left standing and most important, why is the first floor made entirely of fire spray? 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]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

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]
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?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky 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?
Depends how you have them filed. This is a great shot tho of the undamaged outer wall. It is 'hindered," but still useful. Everyone knows the area right below plane impact was built without walls or columns. Therefore there is no damage. Why did the plane not fly into that hole and instead allegedly hit the second floor? Who knows but we have the proof now that no 757 went into that small hole above the big hole, and it's too late for the NWO.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Yes indeed - just this 15-foot hole with all walls intact.
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.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 
You choose dude. The big one or the small one. Which is 'alleged?'



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic reply to post by OrionStars
 
You choose dude. The big one or the small one. Which is 'alleged?'
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?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 
You choose dude. I don't know quantum physics good enough.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic reply to post by OrionStars
 
You choose dude. I don't know quantum physics good enough.
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?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
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?'



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars What does quantum physics have to do with seeing or not seeing holes in a wall?
You from another 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.
I read: If the supports were not there the building would fall immediately ergo they must be there. And in this thread:

I specifically stated, on well more than one occasion, vertical supports where individual holes exist aka rough framing of any building under construction.
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]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   

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?'
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.




top topics



 
100
<< 217  218  219    221  222  223 >>

log in

join