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: 78
100
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank The missile may be what hit the generator on its separate flight path, It also is what is responsible for all the damage other than the initial face impact of the global hawk. [edit on 4-7-2005 by slank]
WHICH IS IT!!? It can't be both! Either your fantasy missile hit the generator and blew up, or it hit the building and blew up (in one single direction so all pillars were damaged in the same way -- there was NO internal blast damage to the right of the impact area like a bomb or missile would do). If it did hit the building, what hit the generator? If the Global Hawk hit the generator and not the missile, what smashed the facade of the building for over 120 feet long? If the global hawk did that, what hit the generator? How can you explain this Slank? How can the missile be in two places at once? You cannot alter reality to suit your purpose! I am waiting for your intelligent response. I'll give you a couple days to gather your evidence that solves these 2 issues. If you manage to come up with a solution, I'll have a few more to ask. But I assure you, there is no way in hell a missile and a Global Hawk did all that directional damage to the Pentagon and the generator outside.




posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank . The video, however imperfect it may be, certainly appears to be an actual video of the real-time event. [edit on 4-7-2005 by slank]
Good point. Now, please explain how the Global Hawk (which has a top speed of 404mph at altitude [that means it can't fly 404mph near the ground where the air is more dense]) can get from there to the wall in the time required. In order for this to happen, based on the length of a Global Hawk and it's supposed position in the frame, it would have had to be travelling at over 650mph (this has been shown numerous times in the past). Please do explain. [edit on 4-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I just don't see the point of using a Global Hawk at all. I mean, these aircraft are brand new, in 2001 there were only a handful of prototypes in existence, and they cost something like $20 million each. Why waste an expensive prototype when you have a whole fleet of perfectly usable QF-4 or QF-9 drones, at a fraction of the cost? (And don't even go there, a Global Hawk is just as dissimilar to a 757 as a QF-4.) No, it was a 757. Any other alternative anyone can present here just doesn't make any sense. [edit on 4-7-2005 by Blackadder_no]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
The reason that theres no evedence of a757 but a couple of small evedenceds parts of tail and stuff is because they have to keep people believing it must have been a 757 so planted those things the damaged wheel well I think a global hawk could would have been fitted with wheels that match a real 757 to throw people of, when exaiming evedence one weighs it on a scale if the side supporting the oficial story weighs more than the official story is correct, if the "conspirousy side weighs more than 9/11 was a conspirousy, Now the evedence that this was a inside preplaned attack to start a war in Afgahnistan and Iraq for oil and carve up the MidEast to make "GreaterIsreal" clearly out weighs what the bogus "FANTASTIC" Bush story is, he wants people to believe the CIA made mistake on WMD's, he wants us to believe official story of 9/11, if he realy cared about your country (USA) he wouldn't be passing laws (Patriot Bill/Homeland Security) that pretty much push your "Constitution" aside for some sort of "NEW WORLD ORDER" all the evedence suggests, that not that U.S.A. was attacked by real terrorists on 9/11 Read ALL of this and not just part of it then tell me what you think freedomfiles.org... [edit on 4-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank also by automating as much as possible that lowers the number of conspiritors that have to be involved. [edit on 4-7-2005 by slank]
Wahhhhh? So what did they do with over 300 people from 3 flights? How did they manage to "fool" airport staff into thinking the actual pilots (people who show up to work each day and are known by other staff members who talk to them every day) were not replacements? Or, how did they manage to convince 4 flight crews to follow some master plan of deception? How many people would it take to carry over 60 bodies into an office building where actual live people are working? How many people would it take to carry in all the parts of the wreckage into an office building where actual live people are working? How would they do the above 3 things without being seen? How would they perpetrate this in front of the Pentagon security staff? How many people are involved in flying a Global Hawk? Where did the Global Hawk come from? The Air Force says all are accounted for. When did the Global Hawk get large enough and fast enough to be an attack craft and not a high altitude "glider" like it is designed to be? (source: www.northropgrumman.com) When did the Global Hawk get larger than a private plane? Does this really appear to be a large aircraft to you? Seriously? (click for large version) Do you even know what a Global Hawk looks like in comparison to the side of the Pentagon? Do you even know how many Global Hawks were in existence on September 11th, 2001? On April 20, 2000, Global Hawk Air Vehicle No. 4 deployed to Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., to participate in two exercises that included its first trans-oceanic flight to Europe, and first mission flown in one theater of operations while under control from another. (source) That's the 4th Global Hawk made (April 20th 2000) A Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle, the sixth to be produced for Northrop Grumman Corporation's high-altitude, long-endurance reconnaissance system, successfully completed its first flight Tuesday, April 23, 2002. The air vehicle took off from Northrop Grumman's final assembly facility in Palmdale, Calif., and landed four hours and 27 minutes later at the Birk Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The UAV reached an altitude of approximately 61,000 feet during the flight.(source) So, as of April 23, 2002 Northrop Grumman had built a total of SIX Global Hawk aircraft. That's the sixth Global Hawk to roll out of production and do some tests. How hard do you think it was for the Air Force to account for the other 5 of them? Seriously, if a Global Hawk was used, that's one out of 5 in existence at that time. But wait, really only six as of April 23, 2002? No, actually only 4... As of March 2002 the Air Force inventory consisted of three Global Hawk Air Vehicles. Of the six that had been built, three were lost in mishaps.
  • One was lost in December 1999, when an official incorrectly programmed the UAV to taxi at 155 nautical miles per hour.
  • Another was lost 29 March 1999 when operators at Nellis Test Range, NV, inadvertently sent a self-terminate signal while Global Hawk was aloft and under the control of officials at Edwards AFB, CA. The UAV received the line-of-sight signal from Nellis, and crashed in accordance with the signal's instructions.
  • The probable cause of the 30 December 2001 crash of Air Vehicle 5 was a failure of the rudder actuator, which became loose while conducting a mission. Operators redirected the UAV to return to base, though during the return the rudder began flapping excessively, causing a catastrophic failure. Air vehicle No. 5 was the program's newest Global Hawk, and it had logged about 940 flight hours prior to the crash. (source)
So, out of 3 live, working, available, Global Hawks in existence (remember North Grumman only made 5 before September 11th, and lost 2 previously), one would have had to been stolen and then magically still be in the Air Force's inventory -- you realize they would notice these things right? Current Global Hawk Sepcifications: Length: 44.4 feet Wingspan: 116.2 feet Height: 15.2 feet (wheels down to top of tail) Body Height: 9.6 feet Body Width: 7.3 feet Users: U.S. Air Force, Joint Forces Command When fully fueled for flight, Global Hawk weighs approximately 25,600 pounds. More than half the system’s components are constructed of lightweight, high-strength composite materials, including its wings, wing fairings, empennage, engine cover, engine intake, and three radomes. Its main fuselage is standard aluminum, semi-monocoque construction. (source) So, tell me again how a lightweight, high-strength composite materials aircraft can impact the side of a reinforced concrete building and do all that damage? Its wings have no metal parts other than flight control arms / servos, its body is composite with standard aircraft aluminum semi-monocoque construction. Do you guys that keep claiming a Global Hawk was used against the Pentagon on 9.11 even research any of this stuff or do you all just keep right on talking out your asses and hope nobody else checks into anything? -- and then there's the damage -- Which part of the Global Hawk's wing did this damage that literally pushed columns 18 19 and 20 inwards 18 to 24 inches? It's clearly wing impact damage, but please explain how a composite wing, with no metal other than small internal parts did this much impact damage to the front of the Pentagon. This is to the right of the primary impact hole in the Pentagon incase you wre wondering where it relates to. (click photo to enlarge) [edited for a couple typos] [edit on 4-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
The Global Hawk was built with specific parameters. If you put bigger wheels, as was suggested, then you have to put a bigger engine in it so that it can carry the extra weight of the wheels. And you'd have to put bigger wheel wells in, which means you'd have to special build one that way, because I doubt you could modify one that was already built, as it would have all the fuel lines, hydraulic lines etc in place already. It would have to be a huge modification to make the wheel wells bigger. Everything you would change for it to carry "evidence" of a 757 you would have to change at least one other thing. If you just increase the wheel size, and are carrying explosives, again as claimed, then you're going to carry less of a payload, because of the added wheel weight. You can't just arbitrarily change something without balancing it with another change. If you WERE able to put bigger wheels, plus the same payload, you would either have an aircraft that wouldn't take off, or would take off, and be incredibly slow because of the weight issues, and hard to fly.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
It is just flat out impossible for it to have been a Global Hawk. This has been put to rest more than once. Feel free to review my preceeding post the next time somebody tells you it was a Global Hawk. And please do click on the links provided and read the content therein (sometimes Northrop Grumman's website is slow to respond and you might have to click on those links a few times or refer to them at a later date/time). It is just flat out impossible to have been a Global Hawk.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Just read the article, now I'll try and find were I read what happend to those passangers, but back in 03 I read a Dr. who wrote on the net that the two planes that went into the WTC and the Plane that crashed in Pennsylvannya were brought to some plance in the north east, then all of the passangers on both the planes that were to go into the WTC's were forced off the Planes and put into the Pennysilvannya plane by U.S. Special Forces, then the Special forces made all the passangers make the "Famous" WE ARE BEING HIJACKED" calls, right after that the Special Forces exited off the planes and the doors were shut and locked , then Leathal Gass was pumped in to the plane and Killed all the passangers, the plane was fitted with remote controll scensors so it can be remote controlled into the ground in Pennsylvania, mean while at the same time powerfull explosives were being fitted on and in the two WTC planes, after all was completed the all the planes were remote controlled to thier destinations, the first two to the WTC's, the other one into the ground in Pennsylvania, I (SiberianTiger) give you all my word that I'm not making this up, thats the scenareo I read by a doctor back in 2003, and I believe something to that effect IS what happend on 9/11. [edit on 4-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Now you have even MORE people involved in this conspiracy. There is just NO WAY you could have the THOUSANDS of people that would be required for this conspiracy, and NOT ONE PERSON come forward and say something, almost 4 years later. You would have to have all the firefighters/rescue personnel at the Pentagon, plue the military that worked there, plus the SF guys that took everyone off the planes, plus the NTSB investigators/rescue crews/medical examiner etc in Pennsylvania. Not to mention the fact that there was NO TIME for them to land the planes in the Northeast, take everyone off, put them on one plane, fly the two into the WTC, the one into the Pentagon, and then into the field. Have you actually LOOKED at the timeline from 9/11? The time from when the planes took off to the time they hit was WAY too short for them to have flown somewhere, offloaded, taken off again, and flown to their targets. The first flight UA175 took off at 7:59 am. AA11 took off at about the same time. UA175 was hijacked between 8:13 and 8:21 am. Forty-five minutes later it crashed into the WTC. The flight started out flying towards the West Coast. They would have had to turn around, fly to the Northeast, offload, load them up with the bombs, take off again, and hit the WTC within 45 minutes. Not possible. There is NO WAY that a 767, or 757 could fly fast enough to get to the North East, land do all that, take off again, and hit the WTC within that time frame.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
What I'm about to say I'm not saying it cuz YOU brought up the time table question, I'm saying it cuz I have felt this way scince I read that article way back in 03, I don't believe the "official" time table given to the public about 9/11, remember it's the Gov thats giving it to us, remember "IF YA DON'T TRUST THE MESSENGER, WHY TRUST THE MESSAGE.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Because the timeline is verifiable by other sources than the government. EVERYBODY knows what time the planes hit. We WATCHED them hit, so all we had to do was look at the clock, and you have the time of impact. The flights were delayed that day, but there is a published flight schedule for each airline that would show the normal departure time for those flights, and it's a simple matter to find out from airport records, or even just find people that were at the airport and ask them what time they left. The ground crew for the airlines is going to know what time they pushed the planes back from the gates, there are usually at least a few people sitting by the runway with scanners taking pictures and watching planes take off, and they are going to hear them cleared for take off. It's all EASILY verifiable information if you don't want to go by what the government tells you. You don't have to know what time the planes were hijaced to add 2+2 and come up with 4. You already KNOW the time of impact for each flight, you go back to the airport and you can track down the departure time for the flight, unless you are also going to say that the ground crew, dispatchers for each airline, and the tower controllers were ALSO in on the coverup. [edit on 4-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Yup!! and I'm not joking eigther, here let me give you some info that"ll have YOU thinking , this time you'll read with your own eyes Gov Officials and other officials saying 9/11 was inside job, 1. rense.com... 2. www.rense.com... 3. this one will truly leave your jaw gappeing rense.com... [edit on 4-7-2005 by SiberianTiger] [edit on 4-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
ST, You know, I have no problem visualizing you reading Rense with your "jaw gappeing." I believe that those articles have all been dealt with as the B.S. that they are.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Let it die, man! It's over.....



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Howard when has ANYONE in the U.S. or the WORLD EVER once "PROOVED" THESE ARTICLes wrong?!! are YOU saying RIGHT HERE ON ATS that The NY Times didn't report on Sept 15, 2001 that Paul Wolfowitz said "The Pentagon was tracking the Plane that crashed into Pennsylvania and could have shot it down" many are wondering if they could shot that plane down "why in sam hill didn't they shoot down the plane that crashed into the Pentagon then uh?" I"ll (SiberianTiger) tell you why the U.S. Gov it's self remote controlled that Aircraft (what ever type it was) into the Pentagon THATS WHY!! Howard you are either "HIGHLY misinformed about these article supposedly being debunked, or your a "DISinformationalist. so prover your case buddy YOUR the one that stated these articles were disproved, SHOW US!!!!!!!! [edit on 4-7-2005 by SiberianTiger] [edit on 4-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger Howard when has ANYONE in the U.S. or the WORLD EVER once "PROOVED" THESE ARTICLes wrong?!! are YOU saying RIGHT HERE ON ATS that The NY Times didn't report on Sept 15, 2001 that Paul Wolfowitz said "The Pentagon was tracking the Plane that crashed into Pennsylvania and could have shot it down" many are wondering if they could shot that plane down "why in sam hill didn't they shoot down the plane that crashed into the Pentagon then uh?" I"ll (SiberianTiger) tell you why the U.S. Gov it's self remote controlled that Aircraft (what ever type it was) into the Pentagon THATS WHY!! Howard you are either "HIGHLY misinformed about these article supposedly being debunked, or your a "DISinformationalist. so prover your case buddy YOUR the one that stated these articles were disproved, SHOW US!!!!!!!! [edit on 4-7-2005 by SiberianTiger] [edit on 4-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]
Two edits and I still didn't get anything out of it.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Howard says these articles were disproven and I (I know they havent been) so I'm playing along with his claim and asking ( or shal I say challenging him) to prove that the articles have been debunked as fiction?? [edit on 4-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I find it interesting that there are so many claims, but so little proof to back them up. Osama Bin Laden met with the CIA, where are pics of the meeting? Did the CIA rep show up wearing a hat and jacket saying "Hi, I'm in the CIA." Did he just HAPPEN to be known to the French that saw him? All of these meetings that took place, but not one picture of them happening to back up the claims.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
There are no pics of CIA working with BEN LADEN in the 80's but the CIA said he was on thier payroll!!



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Notice what you just said. The CIA said he was on their payroll in the 80s. Not a French website, or a French newspaper, that mysteriously is able to identify a CIA agent, just by looking at him. I'm a lot more likely to believe the CIA admitting something like that, than a newspaper or website that can identify an undercover agent on site.



new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join