9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 70 times

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:03 PM by piboy

Bob88, if you've never, ever seen an eye-witness account disputed, then what do you do with these two (of course there are more): "He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said" www.washingtonpost.com... ""It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building." www.time.com...

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:05 PM by CatHerder

I love it when people resort to posting garbage from the French fraud squad... (it's either their faked photos, or it's this half baked GlobalHawk theory) while trying "win" something they think is an argument. Did you buy their book while you were buying thier bs?

Keep them coming! It's good for laughs.

Howcome a 44 foot long plane is about 110 feet long in the photo? When you look at the original frames, and not the version of this animation where somebody has intentionally overexposed frame 2 to make it appear like it's an explosion rather than a fuel explosion you see something else. You can see the explosion is not white. It's a regular aviation fuel explosion that turns red and black 1/6th of a second later. (The plane was travelling at 512.9 MPH according to the flight data recorder recovered in the wreckage.

Please, compare his B to the above zoomed in cutout that has not been altered from the original in any way shape or form. If this was a bomb, where did the WHITE faked explosion go to? All the sites that say a bomb did this, or a GlobalHawk did that always point out the over explosed (altered) 2nd frame. I have the original unaltered frames here... The explosion:

It's not white.

It goes from yellow to orange to red to black.

It expands at the velocity expected from an aircraft moving 780 feet per second when it impacted the wall.

It is not round, it is oblong and expands in 5 seperate directions. Matter of fact it looks like a giant wave hitting a reef - or a giant wave of jet fuel hitting a wall. Frame following... (red/black sooty fireball 1/2 a second later)

I did the above just for LL1 since he wanted to see it.

Which part of the GlobalHawk was this from again? Oh, it picked up a powerup on it's way in after battling the last boss... I see. Now, please, one small favour. How did they sneak all these dead people into the Pentagon for civilian fire fighters to pull out?

(source) Seriously - did a 2nd global hawk parachute them in? And, I don't come up with anything I post in 5 minutes flat, like some fly-off-the-handle-teenagers we know... I actually read (pronounced red) about 50+ conspiracy websites, then I read all the government sites I could find, then I hit all the major (and not so major) news sources, then I started putting together FOR MYSELF what the real picture was. Was all this conspiracy stuff true??! Was it all just nonsense? Was it partial truths? I didn't know. So I spent about 2 weeks going over as much stuff as I could to educate myself before I started running off at the mouth like a soup sandwich. The thing I always came back to was this. Why screw around with a complex plan (with so many unknowns and such a large possibility of discovery) if you're going to attack your own Pentagon when you already have a perfectly good 757 to smash right in to the damned thing? And just for giggles: riddle me this. How can a Global Hawk go from frame 1 position to the wall of the Pentagon in 1/2 of a second (it's a 2 frames per second recorded surviellance camera). How fast does a GlobalHawk (a long-range UAV desiged to fly at altitudes of up to 60,000 feet and stay aloft for days) fly with those square wings (not swept back at all) designed for lift and not speed? Ah too slow, I'll answer this myself. It goes 404MPH top speed at altitude. There's no way it got from frame 1 to frame 2 in the surveillance footage in 1/6th of a second. The plane that hit the Pentagon was going +~500mph to cross from frame 1 to frame 2. The GlobalHawk weighs 8,490 pounds and carries a payload of 900 kilograms (2,000 pounds). (source) So, a 8,490 pound plane, with a 2000lb bomb did all that to the Pentagon.

I see. I honestly don't know if I should laugh at you, or just feel sorry for you. You spent 2 whols days without responding to my posts and THIS is all you could come up with? We both know you get a tiny little woodie trying "own" somebody on these forums. I grew out of that 20 years ago.

[edits: fixed spelling errors, and changed 1/6 to 1/2 (2 frame per second recorded camera, not a 6 frame per second)] [edit on 15-9-2004 by CatHerder]

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:11 PM by piboy

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by piboy if you've never, ever seen an eye-witness account disputed,
You've never seen or heard of multiple versions of the same account? Ask any police officer, the multiple versions they get for simple events are astounding... much less complex ones like this. Read my post above. ignorance embraced

you're preaching to the choir. that was my point. bob88 said he never heard of an eye-witness account disputed.

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:14 PM by LL1

Originally posted by piboy LL1, windows remain intact, but the wings burn up? Is that what happened?

On impact break up... www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:14 PM by piboy

Originally posted by CatHerder Which part of the GlobalHawk was this from again? Oh, it picked up a powerup on it's way in after battling the last boss... I see.

FOUL. You didn't show me where those parts fit on a 757, but yet you demand the same from this guy?

Originally posted by CatHerder it's a 6 frames per second surviellance camera

How do you know this?

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:15 PM by piboy

LL1, so the wings broke up? Can you explain? They hit the wall and shattered or something?

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:17 PM by CatHerder

Originally posted by kix Also in My opinion the Arcraft debris OUTSIDE are not from an AA 757 and ist not the saize, the paint and most impostant that part shuld have never been ended there because its on the front part of the alleged 757.

Please tell me what happened when this jet air craft ran into a wall.

Video 1

Video 2

Video 3

Video 4 (click for larger images, click links for videos)

Don't point out that it's a fighter jet. I already know it has stronger wings than a 757, and I already know it's physically smaller. Just tell me where the wings are, or uh, any part of it is. It was not going supersonic speed when it hit this wall - you can see it only accelerates for ~150m. Watch video 3 for a slowmo cam. [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:22 PM by piboy

Originally posted by CatHerder Please tell me what happened when this jet air craft ran into a wall.

Uh, don't we need a few more frames to set where everything lands? What does the wall look like after impact? The the entire plane go in it? Did it all burn up? Did some pieces bounce off? You can't tell because the frames only goi as far as the explosion.

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:25 PM by intrepid

Originally posted by piboy
Originally posted by CatHerder Please tell me what happened when this jet air craft ran into a wall.
Uh, don't we need a few more frames to set where everything lands? What does the wall look like after impact? The the entire plane go in it? Did it all burn up? Did some pieces bounce off? You can't tell because the frames only goi as far as the explosion.

You know, you ask a lot of questions but when things are put to you what do you do? More questions. I see nothing here other than someone wanting to be disruptive.

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:28 PM by LL1

[edit on 18-9-2004 by LL1]

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:31 PM by piboy

SkepticOverlord, I don't know what you are saying. I was repsonding to Bob88's comment that he has never heard of eye-witness testimony being disputed. I wrote that it commonly disputed. You write that police officers get mutiple versions of the same account, which I agreed with. Then you post the purpose of the site if to find truth. Ok. What did I do wrong?

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:33 PM by piboy

intrepid, I see a big explosion in that aircraft demolition test. I don't see what it's like after the dust settles. The camera is like totally far away, the resolution is not that good. I don't have photos of fireman right up against that wall. What are you expecting me to say? there's nothing left? that crash plane vaporized against that brick wall? I can't see that detail.

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:34 PM by LL1

The Wings Are: carbonflier.home.bresnan.net...

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:35 PM by piboy

LL1, I see that you are presenting information, but you keep alluding to what happened to the wings and the windows. Just spit it out. What do you think happened?

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:36 PM by intrepid

Originally posted by piboy Ok. What did I do wrong?

Skeptic, if you don't mind I would like to answer this one. You ignored another qustion further back:

Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by piboy I argue that we cannot definitely prove what happened one way or another without a real investigation, which would mean having access to all the physical evidence, all the surveillance tapes (pentagon and other buildings nearby), sworn affidavits from eye-witnesses with the opportunity for cross-examination. Otherwise we are spinning our wheels.
And you think we're going to get access to this stuff? No, so what's your point then?

Here you state that without the physical evidence we are "spinning ou wheels." I pointed out that you will NOT get that evidence, hence my question. As the point is moot, not getting the evidence, you continued questioning of this topic. I can see as nothing other than trolling.

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:37 PM by piboy

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord How will you ever know the truth, if you continue to manufacture fiction?

Please tell me where I've manufactured fiction?! I think that is very disingenuous. I have been questioning and scrutizing, but what have I manufactured? I am not proposing a theory. I am testing the ones that others propose. Seriously, what's with that accusation?

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:38 PM by LL1

Originally posted by piboy LL1, I see that you are presenting information, but you keep alluding to what happened to the wings and the windows. Just spit it out. What do you think happened?

If I'm presenting evidence of the interior of wings... The award presented for the company for developing the unbreakable/shatter-proof windows... Tell me where do you think I'm going with this...

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:38 PM by intrepid

Look above your last post for that answer.

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:41 PM by piboy

intrepid, do you think we have enough evidence (stuff that at least could be presented in court) to prove it one way or another? Do you think we have done a proper investigation of the crash, like what they do for other airline crashes? Are you satified with the newspaper accounts of all the eye witness accounts with no cross-examination? [edit on 14-9-2004 by piboy]

reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 11:44 PM by piboy

Originally posted by LL1 If I'm presenting evidence of the interior of wings... The award presented for the company for developing the unbreakable/shatter-proof windows... Tell me where do you think I'm going with this...

PROSECUTOR: See where I'm going with this, Judge? Do I have to spell it out for you? If you have a theory spell it out and we can test it.