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: 79
100
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Here are some important questions that you have no answers too, 1. www.rense.com...




posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I don't have answers for them because I was too busy laughing as I read them.
I can answer a few of them right off the top of my head though. Here's a couple of answers for you. 6. Why did passengers or crewmembers on three of the flights all use the term boxcutters? Because boxcutters and razor blades were legal to carry on the plane at the time, and that was what they used to take over the plane. A boxcutter is perfectly capable of slitting someones throat and killing them. 7. Where are the flight recorders? The NTSB has them as they do with every crash of a commercial plane that has a black box. 15. Why was no plane seen at the Pentagon? There were plenty of people that saw the plane hit the Pentagon. The only video camera that was pointed at it took one pic every 2 seconds, and the plane was moving too fast to be caught on tape. 29. Why would the hijackers use credit cards and allow drivers licenses with photos to be zeroxed? Why not? They weren't coming back from their mission and by the time anyone thought to look for them it was too late. 30. Why did the hijackers force passengers to call relatives? To increase the terror of the attacks by knowing that your loved ones were on the planes that were going to be crashed. 31. How did the hijackers change the flight plan without law enforcement or the military try to stop them? They didn't CHANGE the flight plan. The flight plan is a piece of paper that's filed with the direction you're going to fly. They took over the plane and just started flying it towards the targets. There was no change to the flight plan that was filed. 37. Why did Atta leave his bag at the airport and the employees didn't put it on board? Probably because they didn't search it in time for it to make the flight. 40. Why did Atta leave his drivers license in a rental car? Why would he need it again? 45. Why were the Black Boxes never recovered ? How is it that they were "never recovered" and then three questions later they ask why the FBI didn't release the data from them? It's gotta be one or the other. If they have the data to release, then obviously they recovered them. 48. Who video-recorded the first plane hitting the tower? Why did he disappear from the media? Two brothers making a video about a rookie firefighter. They didn't "dissapear from the media" in fact they were interviewed and showed their video a few months later. 55. How could the hijackers disable the defense systems? What defense systems? Commercial airplanes don't have any. I have never seen a picture of the Pentagon that shows that they have any. [edit on 5-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

If the fireball outside the pentagon is presumably jet fuel exploding,
Nope, the Fireball was caused by explosives detonating, the redness of the fireball and how it starts off white points towards a huge amount of oxygen being inside the fireball, with explosives (military) the oxygen is attached directly to the full source.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
wow 81 pages of discussion. I sure this has been rehashed many times, but what about the civilain eyewitnesses who saw a plane fly into the building ? including the aircraft controller, who presumably knows what a commercial airliner looks like ? if it was a misssile, what hapenned to the crew and passengers ? they took off from an airport, and then what, the CIA shot them down or forced them to land and then murdered them all ?



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder What happens to blades doing 32,000 rpm (the turbines) when they hit a sold concrete and rock object at 500mph? Do they just bounce off? No, they shatter. What happens to many chunks of metal (lets say a car engine) when it impacts another solid object (lets say another vehicle) at far slower speeds (lets say 120mph -- two cars going 60mph in a head on)? Have you ever seen the results of such a crash? Much of the engine is mangled, torn, etc. Why is it so hard to imagine an engine going 500mph into a reinforced object would also sustain tremendous damage? Please explain.
Yes, how true. But please do show me a picture of the wall with 2, 9ft in diameter holes left by engines that weigh nearly 6 tonnes each. Wouldn't 12 tonnes of steel and titanium alloy going 500mph leave some sort of impression on the pentagon wall yet I have to find a picture that shows 2 engines that went into the wall. All what was seen right after the crash is a 16ft hole that goes, wasn't it like 3 of the outer rings. No other holes. The engines, wings, fusalage, tail, all just magically fitted into 1 hole roughly 16ft in diameter. Thats harder to believe than the "conspiracy theory".

What you are referring to here is where they had ran new water pipes into the building during rennovations - it isn't on the flight path it's more than 20 degrees off the flight path. It's also visible in sattelite photos for more than 2 months prior to the attack. It's a coincidence and nothing more. Just another silly thing for conspiracy theorists to point out as "evidence". I'd equate it to something as silly as "why were the freeway paint lines painted only 2 days before, was it to give the plane a perfect path to follow?" (which didn't happen btw, just an example). THis has been covered many times in previous posts.
Fair enough. And why would a C-130 be flying over head?? Making sharp turns at low altitude? And could you please explain why the people below are getting off this bus and walking toward the pentagon? (Later shown to be picking up the debris of this 757). I am especially intrigued by the guys in plain black and white suites.
Who are these people?



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae

If the fireball outside the pentagon is presumably jet fuel exploding,
Nope, the Fireball was caused by explosives detonating, the redness of the fireball and how it starts off white points towards a huge amount of oxygen being inside the fireball, with explosives (military) the oxygen is attached directly to the full source.
In order for your theory to be valid, you have to show that the whiteness of the fireball was not simply the result of the camera CCD sensor being overexposed. Looking at the washed out images, I don't think that that would be possible. You would also have to rule out the effect of the oxygen generators located in the nose of the airplane.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Here's that article I read back in 03 talking about the passangers being put on one plane I had some discrepences when I wrote it yesterday because I have'nt read it in 2 years and BTW the person who wrote it is a sceientific researcher www.serendipity.li...



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark In order for your theory to be valid, you have to show that the whiteness of the fireball was not simply the result of the camera CCD sensor being overexposed. Looking at the washed out images, I don't think that that would be possible. You would also have to rule out the effect of the oxygen generators located in the nose of the airplane.
Also consider that the the high-speed impact essentially sprayed much of the jet fuel into the air in a way rather similar to when explosives are used (analogy: chucking a water-filled glass bottle against a brick wall). That alone would cause a brighter colour on the fireball at the beginning.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Zaphod58 here seem to think the Gov's gonna tell him "oh by the way we are the one truly responsible for 9/11, Zap all you're doing is repeating what the Gov says man, your not looking outside the box.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
As usual, I believe the evidence, which no one has disproven, instead of that several hundred people would be involved and NOT ONE person has spoken up about it so it's time to start saying things about me.
I love the way you single me out Siberian. Despite eveyrone else coming forward and saying that it WAS a 757, and the presentation of evidence put together, you single me out. nice. I'll believe you when you can find ONE witness out of the hundreds involved to come forward and say "I was involved in a conspiracy at the Pentagon." Just because your paper you linked to was written by a scientific researcher, that means it MUST be right.
But if *I* find one that was written by a scientific researcher who said it HAD to be a 757 that hit, I KNOW that there is no way you would believe it any more than you believe everything pointing to it being a 757. But because I don't, as usual, you have to start saying things about me. I'm through with you Siberian. Completely and totally through with you. As usual anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, despite the fact that half the time you have no idea what you're talking about. I KNOW the answers to those questions I provided were true because I KNOW how the system works. I used to fly, and I used to work airport security, and I've studied aviation related subjects my entire life, but because I posted them, it means that obviously I believe everything the government tells me. grow up Siberian. [edit on 5-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
holy cow, its been years since 9/11 and I have read quite a fair bit of material (skipped the 9/11 commission official findings though) on this topic and i think i actually learned something from your post. My hats off for the hard work and time it took to complete that project.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by ThePunisher This whole thread (79 pages) created by catHERDER. [edit on 3-7-2005 by ThePunisher]
Now that is some stellar edvidence you've prodivded as a "rebuttal"... So WHAT? What does my name (which I've had for many years, back from when, in 2000, EDS originally released their Superbowl commercial) have to do with the validity of the information contained in my posts?
Hey catHERDER, what was i meant to be trying to ''rebuttal''? SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 --PRESIDENT BUSH [SENIOR] PRESENTS SPEECH TO CONGRESS, "TOWARD A NEW WORLD ORDER" SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 -- MIGHTY BLOW STRUCK TO BRING ABOUT NEW WORLD ORDER -- PRECISELY 11 YEARS LATER TO THE DAY! BUSH [JUNIOR] PRESIDENT.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePunisher Hey catHERDER, what was i meant to be trying to ''rebuttal''?
Forum troll, nothing to see here, move along...



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePunisher SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 --PRESIDENT BUSH [SENIOR] PRESENTS SPEECH TO CONGRESS, "TOWARD A NEW WORLD ORDER" SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 -- MIGHTY BLOW STRUCK TO BRING ABOUT NEW WORLD ORDER -- PRECISELY 11 YEARS LATER TO THE DAY! BUSH [JUNIOR] PRESIDENT.
that's right. and don't forget the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, eleventh hour peace agreement. it's just a coincidence. go back to sleep. 911 days later, madrid bombings, on 3/11, was it? just a coincidence. anthrax mailings clear certain members out of the house, while the patriot act is passed. no worries. move along. anthrax determined to be US military grade, lab specific. the one death from anthrax mailings was a journalist who reportedly had compromising photos of bush and his gay lover(mayor of knoxville). huh? what were we talking about? i forgot. anthrax? oh yeah! what were we talking about? bin laden video ....faked. captured saddam .....fake. poor scapegoat guy. nick berg ...covert, BRUTAL propoganda. abu gharib ......guilty of war crimes guantanamo bay ....guilty of crimes against humanity downing street memo .....guilty of treason tower collapses and pentagon strike .....debatable, HAHA! a little bit, anyway the $20 paper airplane showing a near perfect illustration of the towers burning ....coincidence it's pretty obvious that thousands of people ARE 'in on it'. the bolsheviks did it with ten percent of the population, i hear. why can't even less do it now, with the incredible mind control powers of popular media, and the awesome, godlike abilities of BIG MONEY. oh right. because, 'we' are supposed to be a bunch of stupid 'chattle'. oh yeah, and to 'stay on topic', it doesn't matter if a plane hit the pentagon, or a missile hit the pentagon. it was the death blow to the once great america. the leader is good. long live the great leader.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
First of ALL I wasn't trying to attack you, I was and AM trying to show that if you look at things from another angle what (You and others who believe the Gov's story) are actually doing is just repeating what the Gov told everyone happend on 9/11, that's all man relax. Here's an example, the U.S. Gov want people to believe fantastic things, like 1. They want people to think that The Iraqi Army was affraid to fight them when the Invaion of Iraq happen, then the Gov wanted people to believe that the Iraqi civilians some how musterd up the courage to stand up and take on the U.S. Military (Insurgents), then we are told a few months into the ocupation than Uday and Qusay have been killed then a months later the tales get more and more FANTASTIC with the supposed capture of Hussein all of these are lies man, look at all the evedence that suggests U.S. Military in Iraq lies 1. Fake Uday and Qusay vialls.com... 2. Fake Saddam vialls.com... more fake Saddam www.vialls.com... and the biggest of 'em all vialls.com... this is the "Evedences" that lets our commun scences tell us "I think we're being lied to" you see Zaphod58 why I and thousands of other people (not just Russians) don't believe the offical storIES of U.S. Gov about 9/11 AND Iraqi War. [edit on 6-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Good questions, but easy answers though.

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas Yes, how true. But please do show me a picture of the wall with 2, 9ft in diameter holes left by engines that weigh nearly 6 tonnes each. Wouldn't 12 tonnes of steel and titanium alloy going 500mph leave some sort of impression on the pentagon wall yet I have to find a picture that shows 2 engines that went into the wall. All what was seen right after the crash is a 16ft hole that goes, wasn't it like 3 of the outer rings. No other holes. The engines, wings, fusalage, tail, all just magically fitted into 1 hole roughly 16ft in diameter.
That's fairly easy. Not only can I show you the pictures where the engines went in, I can show you the pillars they hit as they penetrated the office space and the most likely spot where they ended up within the Pentagon. (I just happened to have been working on this information as a response to a different post but it'll respond to both posts just fine here.) It didn't all just fit into a single 16-foot hole, and the photographs support this, as does the damage to the building. Here is a photo of the front of the Pentagon before it collapsed and immediately after the first firefighters arrived and started extinguishing fires on the Pentagon facade. You can see at pillar 17 that it is smashed (all concrete is gone) and only the metal rebar spiral remains (bent to the left and inwards significantly). This was taken within 5 minutes if the plane hitting the Pentagon. [click photo for larger image] Here is another photo of the front of the Pentagon before it collapsed. This one taken from the left of the damage zone, and before firefighters extinguished external fires. This was taken within 3 minutes of the plane hitting the Pentagon. [click photo for larger image] You can see pillars 9, 10 and 11 are all but gone (they're completely obliterated with only partial spiral rebar remaining). You can also see that both pillars 9 and 10 are forced inwards and to the extreme left of their original position. The following graphic shows each column in relation to its position on floor 1 of the Pentagon, and the level of damage each pillar sustained. I have added what I feel is the best actual engine path after impact (the port engine hit the both columns 9 and 10, the starboard engine impacted column 17). You can see the path the engines took based on the damage to columns in their path. There are indeed minor changes to direction of each engine (they slammed into and off of large concrete pillars with internal spiral rebar). What makes total sense though is, when you check which columns along the engine impact path took what level of damage, everything fits perfectly. [click graphic for larger version] The above two photos (both clickable for larger versions) show the following: The graphic on the left shows column damage (direction, shape, and type of damage), the graphic on the right shows the damage zones within floor 1 of the Pentagon. After the starboard engine impacted the generator, part of it probably deflected upwards and left this imprint in the rock fact at the 5th floor (you can also see a fair number of other "scars" on the Pentagon from the impact of various parts -- a lot of people just fail to notice how much rock is missing from the facade of the Pentagon on the lower 2 floors in all the photos of the attack scene as well). The starboard wing also sustained damage from the impact with the generator and most likely partially detached from the main body. This would further account for the upward angle and the wing imprint on the right side of the impact hole on the Pentagon. It also makes total sense that the engine would lose some of it's energy (momentum) from this first impact with the generator and it would be expected that the starboard engine would not penetrate the Pentagon as deeply as the port engine. The column damage within the Pentagon supports this premise. -- The information I've based the above on is all available online already in an independant non-government study called The Pentagon Performace Report done by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute. The link to this online PDF is available from a government site, or from the ASCE themselves if you'd prefer to pay $39.00 for it ($29 if you're a member). I just thought I'd mention this so everyone is aware that this is not a government publication but a publication by the ASCE. This is a publication done by civilians in the days following the attack on the Pentagon (within days). These are people who were granted access to the building to perform an inspection and assessment of the area impacted to see what was useable and what had to be replaced/upgraded/demolished. They also took the time to do core samples of pillars and test concrete and steel in many locations in the Pentagon to see just how strong the building was and how much of the concrete damage was from fire compared to impact. Read the document, it's superb material and it's extremely informative. What I have done with the above photos, and the information contained in the report is extrapolate based on pillar damage and impact evidence in photos what path(s) the engines took. Everyone is, of course, welcome to point out any mistakes or comments regarding this edivence and the conclusion I arrived at.

And why would a C-130 be flying over head?? Making sharp turns at low altitude?
That's also easy, and it's been responded to by numerous sources, including the pilot himself (and another member of that flight crew, but I would have to look back to find their names for you). That was one of the aircraft in the area that was asked by air traffic controllers to see if they could get a visual on a non-responsive AA flight 77 which was entering their airspace. The C130 tried to catch up to the 757 (which it had visual on for quite a while) but simply could not outpace it's 490-510mph speed. If you really want, I could go look up the information for you and quote sources. (spent about 3 hours doing yardwork in 90 degree weather just now so I'm not very motivated at the moment lol)

And could you please explain why the people below are getting off this bus and walking toward the pentagon? (Later shown to be picking up the debris of this 757). I am especially intrigued by the guys in plain black and white suites.
Who are these people?
I'm pretty sure that they're Pentagon security. The white shirt, black pants and tie, people on the Pentagon grounds are all civilian employees with low level security clearance (so they can move around most low security parts of the Pentagon - i.e. the access points). These are the same people who guard the entrances (parkades, doors, etc) and patrol the grounds. I'd really like to find more of this particular video as it is one of the videos (I think) that shows them picking up various pieces of the fuselage incuding one substantial sized one (half as high as the man who is picking it up) and it has an "e" or a "c" on it in red paint outline with white. It's one of those images that I've seen low res crappy stills of and don't place any value to without seeing the original source. Although I may be mistaken and it might be from a different press recording. (really don't know) [edit on 6-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   
No, you weren't trying to attack me, just single me out.
It might help if all of your "evidence" wasn't either blaming Israel for everything, or laughable, or even READABLE. Most of the pages of your "evidence" have portions of the pictures over the text, so you can't even READ it. And what he DOES say is the most laughable thing I've ever read. So the terrorists are using micronukes now huh? *snort* You ARE aware of the fact that micronukes give off a nice large radiation spike, and WILL cause radiation sickness right? Where are the people dying of radiation poisoning? Where is the other evidence of a micronuke? Oh, wait, the Zionists set it off, then killed everyone that might get sick and denied that they were even there. And they're brainwashing all of the Iraqi children.
When you get some REAL evidence come back and talk to me. until then, this is my last answer to you on any thread you post.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
See this is what make me think your a Disinformationalist, why are you writting here that he said "Terrorists" are seting off Micronukes, when he never did?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Ok, I said I wouldn't answer, but I'll answer this one. WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, where is the evidence of a micronuke being set off? WHERE is the radiation poisoning, WHERE is the evidence of a nuke going off? Or do they have magic nukes that don't give off radiation anymore?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger First of ALL I wasn't trying to attack you, I was and AM trying to show that if you look at things from another angle what (You and others who believe the Gov's story) are actually doing is just repeating what the Gov told everyone happend on 9/11, that's all man relax. Here's an example, the U.S. Gov want people to believe fantastic things, like 1. They want people to think that The Iraqi Army was affraid to fight them when the Invaion of Iraq happen, then the Gov wanted people to believe that the Iraqi civilians some how musterd up the courage to stand up and take on the U.S. Military (Insurgents), then we are told a few months into the ocupation than Uday and Qusay have been killed then a months later the tales get more and more FANTASTIC with the supposed capture of Hussein all of these are lies man, look at all the evedence that suggests U.S. Military in Iraq lies 1. Fake Uday and Qusay vialls.com... 2. Fake Saddam vialls.com... more fake Saddam www.vialls.com... and the biggest of 'em all vialls.com... this is the "Evedences" that lets our commun scences tell us "I think we're being lied to" you see Zaphod58 why I and thousands of other people (not just Russians) don't believe the offical storIES of U.S. Gov about 9/11 AND Iraqi War. [edit on 6-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]
I'm not a moderator, and I don't want to act like a moderator... But please, could you guys move this nonsense to a different (or new) thread? I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the topic of this one. It gets confusing trying to respond to posts when I have to wade past paranoid delusions.



new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join