Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

In Depth Look At The Pentagon Witnessess On 9/11

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 
My bad on replying to the wrong person!

I was simply using the materials supplied by THEDMAN above pertaining to Mr Wallace's testimony.

Using the info quoted in the above post, Mr Wallace's statements would appear to be inaccurate and would be thrown out in a court of law.




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by snowcrash911
 
My bad on replying to the wrong person!

I was simply using the materials supplied by THEDMAN above pertaining to Mr Wallace's testimony.

Using the info quoted in the above post, Mr Wallace's statements would appear to be inaccurate and would be thrown out in a court of law.



WRONG.

First of all, witness testimony is never completely inaccurate, but I haven't seen you identify anything inaccurate (about Alan Wallace) yet. People misrepresenting him don't count, as you may imagine.

It is Pentagon no planer claims which wouldn't even be considered in a court of law, but declared 'frivolous' without reservation. In fact, that is exactly what happened to April Gallop's lawsuit.
edit on 21-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
You want our thoughts? All right, here are my thoughts. To quote Julian Assange, founder of Wkileaks, there are enough REAL conspiracies going on to worry about, without needing to conjure up these make believe ones. Enough people specifically saw that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, plus aircraft remains were strwen all over the place, plus remans of the passenegrs and their belonging were found...plus they even found the black box to irrefutably determine that it was in fact flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. We know this because we irrefutably know that planes were ireefutably being flung onto OTHER buildings at the same time.

What disgusts me about this conspiracy mongoring is that the US gov't has a notorious track record in slipping on banana peels and tripping over their own shadow plus there's a notorious track record of people in charge covering up their foul ups to avoid the choppijng block.. Simply look at "Fast and Furious" where border agents were murdered by guns the geniuses at the ATF specifically allowed Mexican gangs to smuggle across the border, and now that it's time to pay the consequences nobody in the ATF knows nothing about nothing. I ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY GUARANTEE there's likewise more incompetency and blunders leading up to and during the 9/11 attack than what they're admitting to and we need to document what they are so that it can't happen again. You conspiracy mopngors are nothing but a dog and pony show takign advantage of the vaccuum of information to side track us into following you down those rat holes of "lasers from outer space", "hologram planes", "secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists", etc of yours.

Besides, it's blatantly obvious all you're doing is swallowing some drivel one of those internet con artists is pushing on those damned fool conspiracy web sites. We know that becuase this whole "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" baloney was invented by that French author Thierry Meyssan in order to sell a bunch of conspiracy books. How much did you pay to find out the "REAL truth" that only drug dealing college kids making internet videos in their dorm room seem to know?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 
I'm simply stating that THEDMAN's post quotes attributed to Mr Wallace's story make his description of his account seem inaccurate sir. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please reread the quoted material THEDMAN provided in his post and you will see, I'm right.

As for the Pentagon witnesses in general, I agree with the OP as to the vast majority of the "witnesses" statements that have been made public as either inaccurate or full of problems.

Many of the witnesses, were not even in position to see the "plane" strike or had impossible statements in them. Several folks said the "plane' passed a few feet above their heads and we all know what the engine htrust would have done to those folks.(blown them away)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 


Nope:


.....few feet above their heads and we all know what the engine htrust would have done to those folks.(blown them away)


Not true.

Not for the airplane in motion. You are incorrectly comparing a case of static thrust situations, where the airplane is on the ground and not moving, when ALL of the exhaust force will then affect objects. In flight, the energy of the exhaust is propelling the airplane and there is minimal "extra" energy to "blow folks away".


Example:



And even slower, but still a high power setting during final landing approach:



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by snowcrash911
 
I'm simply stating that THEDMAN's post quotes attributed to Mr Wallace's story make his description of his account seem inaccurate sir. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please reread the quoted material THEDMAN provided in his post and you will see, I'm right.

As for the Pentagon witnesses in general, I agree with the OP as to the vast majority of the "witnesses" statements that have been made public as either inaccurate or full of problems.

Many of the witnesses, were not even in position to see the "plane" strike or had impossible statements in them. Several folks said the "plane' passed a few feet above their heads and we all know what the engine htrust would have done to those folks.(blown them away)


I've transcribed Jeff Hill's entire interview with Alan Wallace, and as such, got a real good idea of what Mr. Wallace saw and went through. Wallace is a stand up guy, I dare say a hero. Witness inconsistencies? Who could have guessed? Have you read the academic literature on the subject?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 



flames kept burning which they had a tough time putting out, and it reignited the next day after all that spraying. I'd say that's pretty abnormal for a airplane crash considering the 24 hour attention it had from the firefighters


Considering had some 5500 gal of fueling the fires is not unusual as is the size of the Pentagon combined
with the incredible amount of debris in the way made it difficult to gain access to the fires

As for fires reigniting - guesss never heard of a re-kindle . Happens unless get every ember which is why
firefighters spend lots of time doing overhaul. Its a back breaking tedious process - many firefighters are
injured trying to open up walls and pull down ceilings

Considering size and scopr of fires would expect flare ups from "hot spots"



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 

Like many "truthers" seem to have problems with reading comprehension

Did you miss the part that the fire truck (Foam 161) WAS PARKED AT THE HELIPORT!

The HELIPORT which was just outside the impact point, the truck was caught in the blast and sprayed with
burning jet fuel.

Allan Wallace trued to pull truck away from, only to discover it was damaged and on fire. At this point
attempted to extinguish the fire



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

Thanks for not addressing anything I pointed out that was erroreous in your first post!

As for the effects of a big jets thrusters at a "few feet over my head", well I see for a posted YT vid, it did cause the person holding the camera to waver at 50-70 ft above them. What happens at 5 ft? Does your semblence of what you may have thought you saw get thrown off?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 


For Pete's sake man did you watch the jet flyby? Those people at the Pentagon watched it go in.

I have relatives on Sint Maarten, and I've asked about it. I can confirm Proudbird's point.



A plane on the ground, with engines running at full thrust? yes, it will blow over people and cars. When it's flying, that thrust is converted into forward momentum for the aircraft, there is nothing left to blow anything over.

You watched a high powered, high speed jet pass over a daredevil by a margin of a few feet. You've lost the argument. Stop being obtuse. Stop believing BS. Accept you were wrong, man up and admit it.

Or... embarrass yourself further. Notice the "ass" in embarrass.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by pshea38
 


I used to be skeptical of the official story that a plane hit the Pentagon until I saw the damage left in a truck from the right engine and some sort of cement garden thing by the left engine. They both left semi-circular damage just like it would look if an engine went through them. I don't see how that could be faked.


Once in a great while, I try to show someone something really obvious that they don't see. I usually get nothing but grief for it, but sometimes I just have to do it, because it bothers me that people are so blind to the really real world. So, I will suggest to you: 1) go look online at videos (multiple) that you can find of the facade of the Pentagon west side before it collapsed. Ask yourself how a 757 can fit into that hole without leaving any parts of itself behind, like its enormous and heavy engines. I don't even need a 2). - If you aren't an idiot (literally), you will see that it's not possible.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Snowcrash
 



1) go look online at videos (multiple) that you can find of the facade of the Pentagon west side before it collapsed. Ask yourself how a 757 can fit into that hole ....


The total width of the breach was about 95 feet. Total wingspan of the B-757 is 124 feet 10 inches. Majority of airframe and engines entered through the breach, that is the majority of the airplane's mass.

Read the Pentagon Building Performance Report.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 



What happens at 5 ft?


Video redux:



How many feet was that, do ya think??


Or:


(One guy ducked...."coward"...LOL!)


AND.....the cockpit camera view, same event, same airplane:


Want more???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, came back....found this montage, and thought I'd share for the adrenaline rush (and the music is hot, too):





edit on Sat 21 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


That's like apples and oranges.

You might as well showing us a video of dirt bike doing a backflip then claim a coach could do the same thing.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 
Okay Snow, I get that the plane wouldn't have blown any cars off the road. Still, as the big jet flying over the beach showed, there is some disturbance, definitely not enough to blow a car off the road.

That being said, the cameraman did lose sight of the jet for a second or two. The "jet" that supposedly hit the Pentagon was going faster of course. So witnesses caught a glimpse of the "jet" as it went over/by their heads and most obviously woulda been surprised by it doing so. As they swing their heads around to see the "jet", they see a explosion at the Pentagon. Their minds put two plus two together a assume this was the "jet" crashing into the Pentagon. Of all the witnesses, very few actually SAW the "jet" impact the building.

This whole discussion could be ended by simply releasing ALL of the multiple undoctored camera footage that may have camera the plane.

As many other posters have pointed out before in the many other threads on this subject, there are NO impact holes on the Pentagon from the heaviest parts of the plane.......the engines, but we supposed to believe the nose/skeleton of a lightweight mostly aluminum plane could cause a hole in specifically reinforced/newly hardened wall of the Pentagon?

edit on 22-1-2012 by freedom12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
This whole discussion could be ended by simply releasing ALL of the multiple undoctored camera footage that may have camera the plane.


You have repeatedly been told (if you've paid attention) there is no more video. Your incredulity to not believe that is not sufficient for anything other than to continue under the delusion that there is...


Originally posted by freedom12
As many other posters have pointed out before in the many other threads on this subject, there are NO impact holes on the Pentagon from the heaviest parts of the plane.......the engines, but we supposed to believe the nose/skeleton of a lightweight mostly aluminum plane could cause a hole in specifically reinforced/newly hardened wall of the Pentagon?


Then where did the aircraft go? Is it still there? How 'bout you do this: From Alan Wallace's position calculate the g forces required to go anywhere else, but into the building. It couldn't have gone anywhere else and multiple people saw it enter the building, so you are wrong. All of the available overwhelming evidence vividly shows you are wrong. Your incredulity is simply due to your own ignorance, that's all... next >
edit on 22-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 

So where are the impact holes from the engines?

I clicked on you link at the bottom and briefly read it. So you are saying the 2 officers at the Citgo station are not remembering what happened right?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Insolubrious, the point of the videos was merely to illustrate that a jet in flight would not "blow over" things from the engines' exhaust, even when passing very, very low over them.

That's the point.

The maneuverability aspects of the fighters versus a transport category airplane aren't the point. The engine exhaust forces are the point. The fighter jets' engines put out a great deal of thrust, it cannot be argued??

It is far easier to find, online, a bunch of videos of fighter pilots hot-dogging their jets than it is to find larger ones doing the same thing.....although in the last video, there was a brief clip of a very large jet, a KC-135 (basically a modified Boeing 707) at VERY low altitude, VERY fast over the desert, filmed from the ground, but off to the side.

From 1:08 to 1:11 in the montage video (the one with the techno dance music soundtrack). That one is showing NO disturbance of the ground beneath from the jet engines' exhaust. It is a large, airline transport-sized four engine jet. Not only does it illustrate the lack of jet engine exhaust disturbance to objects on the ground, it ALSO dispels the common "truther" myth that it was "impossible" for American 77 to fly low in order to hit the Pentagon at the point where it did.

A Boeing 707 can do it. A Boeing 757 can as well. Also, there are many fun videos to watch, on YouTube, of similar low passes of other airliner-sized jets, just search in YT's search field.

edit on Sun 22 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by Reheat
 

So where are the impact holes from the engines?

I clicked on you link at the bottom and briefly read it. So you are saying the 2 officers at the Citgo station are not remembering what happened right?


Don't try to change the subject. I asked you to support your claim based on your own calculations. Now, hop to it or else your opinion is worthless as you don't have a clue what you're talking about. NONE

If you have a problem with what I've written and the calculation involved it will take more than "hot air" to refute it. If you're up to it prove me wrong...
edit on 22-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
ANYONE who believes that there is no video of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon is a flaming moron! Why would the gov't so quickly confiscate so many tapes, then not release their footage....if they were worthless? I've been around here and heard the absolutely absurd arguments and crap that some of you refer to as logic. This is so easy a child can figure it out, if you hide something and your version of events is scientifically proven and considered by most experts to be at the very least "nearly impossible", then its a pretty good bet that you are LYING. Now, if you have a long standing track record of lying about all sorts of things, and a long standing track record of killing people, as well as motive to both in this case...only a moron would have trouble figuring this out.

P.S. I've posted it before so I don't feel the need to kick that horse, but if you look through the threads right here on ATS you will see pictures of a CAMERA, directly above the impact at the Pentagon. You guys' ridiculous arguments as to why THAT camera didn't get any footage is the epitome of stupidity.

Its akin to proving that Santa Claus didn't bring presents to your house for Christmas. Your parents tell you that Santa Claus flew all around the world and delivered presents to every child, but something in your gut tells you that isn't possible. When you ask wildlife experts if Reindeer can fly, they laugh and say absolutely not. If you're smart enough you figure maybe your parents bought and wrapped these presents, so you figure out that receipts and bank records could possibly prove this to be true. Obviously, your parents have total access to these things and they tell you they looked, but there was nothing there to see. When you ask to see yourself, they tell you no and eventually they tear off the very corner of a receipt and say viola....see I told you!
edit on 1/22/2012 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join