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.

 

Pentagon "plane" crash - Where is the plane?

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


What was going to stop it from hitting the Pentagon?

And why do you think jet should have broken up?



Well I think the military should have stopped it.

And I think moving at over 500 mph that low would cause the plane to start braking up because of greater air pressure.


A claim that has yet to be proven in the slightest manner. Even inexperienced pilots know that VMO is meant to be able to be surpassed safely, simply not recommended or allowed. The point is that it's not sustainable for long periods of flight. None of the planes on 9/11 were at those speeds for very long.




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


What was going to stop it from hitting the Pentagon?

And why do you think jet should have broken up?



Well I think the military should have stopped it.

And I think moving at over 500 mph that low would cause the plane to start braking up because of greater air pressure.


A claim that has yet to be proven in the slightest manner. Even inexperienced pilots know that VMO is meant to be able to be surpassed safely, simply not recommended or allowed. The point is that it's not sustainable for long periods of flight. None of the planes on 9/11 were at those speeds for very long.


I just started to read a book called Until the Fires Stopped by Charles B. Strozier, And This is what he writes..

'United Flight 175 is especially unstable as it roars into its target. In fact, the United plane comes close to falling apart from the vibration caused by being flown at high speed at such a low altitude, where the air is thicker.'

Does this sound right to you?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   


I like this photo the best when it comes to the PENTACON.


Remember the big fireballs at the wtc?

Remember the fireball we saw on the two frames allegedly showing a "plane" hitting the Pentacon??

Does this photo correspond with those supposed fireballs?Note the PC on the desk and the book on top of the chair...this is where "they' would have you believe the "plane" cut through the building.
Note the total lack of fire internally.

I don't give a monkey's how many staged photos you show me of wreckage so small as for it all to fit on my lounge floor...its all lies.

If wtc1 and 2 collapsed because of fire, wheres the fire on this photo?Why didn't it also collapse ?

After all, if that claptrap is good enough for wtc's 1 and 2, why does the same bullish#t not hold up to scrutiny here?

Bring whatever excuses to the table as you wish.

No plane hit the pentagon.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist




Prove its not real!


The plane and explosion were photoshoped on to this photo by Pier Murru, an Italian Thruther

The original photo was taken by Scott Cook from his office window.

i277.photobucket.com...


QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Apr 6 2009, 08:24 AM)
That is photoshop. That is a picture from our website. It was example of what we thought the plane did. This image was created by Pier Murru, Italian 3d computer animator and pentagon researcher.


He also did this composite photo showing the actual damage to the pentagon, that I posted recently.



edit on 7-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
Remember the big fireballs at the wtc?

Remember the fireball we saw on the two frames allegedly showing a "plane" hitting the Pentacon??

Does this photo correspond with those supposed fireballs?Note the PC on the desk and the book on top of the chair...this is where "they' would have you believe the "plane" cut through the building.
Note the total lack of fire internally.

I don't give a monkey's how many staged photos you show me of wreckage so small as for it all to fit on my lounge floor...its all lies.

Ten years and you still can't figure out which floors of the Pentagon the plane hit?


If wtc1 and 2 collapsed because of fire, wheres the fire on this photo?Why didn't it also collapse ?

The fire in that photo was on the bottom 2 floors, with some spreading to the roof on the most affected section.

It did collapse.

Deny ignorance, don't embrace idiocy.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 






The fire in that photo was on the bottom 2 floors, with some spreading to the roof on the most affected section.

It did collapse.

Deny ignorance, don't embrace idiocy.


Then we certainly won't be embracing your statements.

Fire doesn't magically skip floors. If the fire spread to the roof then it obviously spread to all the floors.

Look at these pictures before the collaspe. You can clearly see all the floors are on fire.

The most affected section is to the right of these fires. Your statements are false and incorrect.






posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I don't understand,
I don't understand,
I don't understand,

The two cases of the plane parts seem to me as if they were planted.



The reason you don't understand is because you are a Truther. Truthers can not take two pieces of evidence place them together and come to a rational conclusion. Penny Elgas's statement, the piece of debris, and the mark on the pole, all fit perfectly together to draw the conclusion, that, the debris is genuine and not planted. But you are not capable of doing that.



So tell me how was damage to the top of this tree faked ? Was it a top secrete undercover team of US government topiary agents that, trimmed the tree, ground up the branches, and spread them over the road ?



The piece of debris Aziz is holding came from the under side of the leading edge slats BTW. Also consistent with the wing striking a lamppost.

The car in the top right photo below was hit with a slat extension motor, part of the extension rail is still embedded in it . Was this planted too ?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus

Fire doesn't magically skip floors. If the fire spread to the roof then it obviously spread to all the floors.



Flaming Jet fuel landed on the roof and face of the building during impact.

You really are smart for a truther.
edit on 7-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Are you really that stupid or just pretending to be dumb?

Did you even look at the photos I linked to?

Are you trying to say that only the bottom 2 floors and the roof were on fire?

How ignorant can you be?

Your insults about Truthers only reflect your naive perspective and limited ability to think for yourself.

Your photo with little red arrows pointing to supposed damage to a tree and light pole are ridiculous.

As are the other photos you posted which show nothing to even suggest that they were taken at the Pentagon. Those photos could have come from anywhere. But you just believe anything you're told like a good little boy.

If you believe that you'll believe anything.

Which you've just proven by your statement that jet fuel somehow jumped from the explosion inside the building to the roof avoiding the upper floors.


You really are not very bright for an OS'er

ETA:

BTW, while you're at it. Take a look at the photo you posted. You know the one with the little red arrows pointing to the tree.

You can see fire on the upper floors. Next time you want to make outrageous claims just to back up one your ignorant OS'er pals. Try using some better logic than the ridiculous theory you just threw out there OK.

Jet fuel landed on the roof ....





So tell me how was damage to the top of this tree faked ? Was it a top secrete undercover team of US government topiary agents that, trimmed the tree, ground up the branches, and spread them over the road ?


What damage? Where are the branches on the road? Why do all you OS'ers try invent evidence that doesn't exist? Oh yeah, I forgot. The entire OS was invented.
edit on 6/7/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
If wtc1 and 2 collapsed because of fire, wheres the fire on this photo?Why didn't it also collapse ?


Looks to me like they wanted to save some $$$ on the reconstruction. Demolitions don't get any more controlled than this photo you have posted.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by maxella1
I don't understand,
I don't understand,
I don't understand,

The two cases of the plane parts seem to me as if they were planted.



The reason you don't understand is because you are a Truther. Truthers can not take two pieces of evidence place them together and come to a rational conclusion.


So what is your reason for being here if Truthers are so dumb? Why even bother debating? Why take the time to come on to this message board daily and argue with people who you say have no competency? I just don't get it.

::shakes head::



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by maxella1
I don't understand,
I don't understand,
I don't understand,

The two cases of the plane parts seem to me as if they were planted.



The reason you don't understand is because you are a Truther. Truthers can not take two pieces of evidence place them together and come to a rational conclusion.


So what is your reason for being here if Truthers are so dumb? Why even bother debating? Why take the time to come on to this message board daily and argue with people who you say have no competency? I just don't get it.

::shakes head::

He's either doing the typical psy-ops that he was trained to do, or he's just a deluded human who sees in others his own shortcoming and that of any OS'er:

The inability to "take two pieces of evidence place them together and come to a rational conclusion". In other words, to connect dots......



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Are you really that stupid or just pretending to be dumb?

Did you even look at the photos I linked to?

Are you trying to say that only the bottom 2 floors and the roof were on fire?

How ignorant can you be?

Your insults about Truthers only reflect your naive perspective and limited ability to think for yourself.

Your photo with little red arrows pointing to supposed damage to a tree and light pole are ridiculous.

As are the other photos you posted which show nothing to even suggest that they were taken at the Pentagon. Those photos could have come from anywhere. But you just believe anything you're told like a good little boy.

If you believe that you'll believe anything.


Hmmm, another "I believe everything those damned fool conspiracy web sites tells me completely" truther. I have a question for you, and it's a question I've asked many other truthers and every single one of them ran away from it like a three card monty player does when the cops show up. Maybe you can be the first-

From your own demeanor, it's blatant that you refuse to accept any photographs (and by association, any video that actually might exist) as evidence. It's blatantly obvious that you refuse to accept any eyewitness accounts as evidence. It's blatantly obvious you refuse to accept the information retrieved from the recovered black box as evidence. It's blatantly obvious you refuse to believe the phone calls from the passengers/crew of flight 77 as evidence. It's blatantly obvious your refuse to accept the passenger effects recovered as evidence. Heck, it's blatantly obvious you refuse to accept the evidence that even the lawyers defending Zacarias Moussaoui accepted as evidence. You simply brush them off as "suspect" and "possibly planted by sinister secret agents" without even a microbe of proof to back the claim up.

The question therefore is, what evidence WILL you accept that will legitimately show that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon that you won't brush off as "being planted by sinister secret agents"? Unless you're a complete fraud from asking for proof because you're going to cling to these conspiracy stories with the same unthinking fervor that a religious zealotto the story about Noah's Ark regardless of what anyone says, there has to be something on the face of the Earth you'll accept as legitimate evidence. Tell us what it is.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

I just started to read a book called Until the Fires Stopped by Charles B. Strozier, And This is what he writes..

'United Flight 175 is especially unstable as it roars into its target. In fact, the United plane comes close to falling apart from the vibration caused by being flown at high speed at such a low altitude, where the air is thicker.'

Does this sound right to you?


What do YOU think?




posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Hmmm, another "I believe everything those damned fool conspiracy web sites tells me completely" truther. I have a question for you, and it's a question I've asked many other truthers and every single one of them ran away from it like a three card monty player does when the cops show up. Maybe you can be the first-

From your own demeanor, it's blatant that you refuse to accept any photographs (and by association, any video that actually might exist) as evidence. It's blatantly obvious that you refuse to accept any eyewitness accounts as evidence. It's blatantly obvious you refuse to accept the information retrieved from the recovered black box as evidence. It's blatantly obvious you refuse to believe the phone calls from the passengers/crew of flight 77 as evidence. It's blatantly obvious your refuse to accept the passenger effects recovered as evidence. Heck, it's blatantly obvious you refuse to accept the evidence that even the lawyers defending Zacarias Moussaoui accepted as evidence. You simply brush them off as "suspect" and "possibly planted by sinister secret agents" without even a microbe of proof to back the claim up.

The question therefore is, what evidence WILL you accept that will legitimately show that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon that you won't brush off as "being planted by sinister secret agents"? Unless you're a complete fraud from asking for proof because you're going to cling to these conspiracy stories with the same unthinking fervor that a religious zealotto the story about Noah's Ark regardless of what anyone says, there has to be something on the face of the Earth you'll accept as legitimate evidence. Tell us what it is.


The only thing that is blatantly obvious is that a cover-up was carried out by the Government.

To answer your question..... THE CONFISCATED VIDEO THAT SHOWS A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON.

But of course we all know that doesn't exist.




it's blatant that you refuse to accept any photographs (and by association, any video that actually might exist)


By association I refuse to accept any video????


What video ?

It is blatantly obvious that you are trying to insert false facts where ever you can.

It is blatantly obvious that I do accept eyewitness testimony. I POSTED IT IN THIS THREAD ALREADY.

It is blatantly obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

It is blatantly obvious you spend every day on here trying to regurgitate the OS.

It is blatantly obvious you have no respect for the truth and therefore I have no respect for you.

ETA:

BTW, what "dammed conspiracy website" are you referring to? The photos I linked to were published by an OS'er and no matter how you like to twist the truth and other peoples words.

THE PHOTOS DON"T LIE

There is no commentary attached to the photos. So your opinion that


another "I believe everything those damned fool conspiracy web sites tells me completely" truther.


Is another completely fabricated figment of your imagination


edit on 6/7/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
He's either doing the typical psy-ops that he was trained to do, or he's just a deluded human who sees in others his own shortcoming and that of any OS'er:

The inability to "take two pieces of evidence place them together and come to a rational conclusion". In other words, to connect dots......


There is a world of difference between picking up a piece of plane wreckage, looking at it, and thinking "a plane must have been here", and picking up a piece of wreckage, looking at it, and thinking "sinister secret agents planted it here to get me to think it came from a plane to cover up a secret plot to take over the world".

One is looking at the evidence and coming to the most obvious logical conclusion, and the other is, well, actually, I don't know what the hell it is, but it certainly isn't "connecting the dots".



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





One is looking at the evidence and coming to the most obvious logical conclusion


The real evidence that you conveniently seem to forget and always want to ignore WAS CONFISCATED by the FBI.

The most obvious conclusion is that there was a cover-up.

You are neither Good, nor are you Old and I'm damn sure your name isn't Dave either.

Is there anything about you that doesn't wreak of falsity and farce?

You continue to proclaim and exaggerate the most extreme "Truthers" theories. Which we all know didn't come from a real Truther. Any theories like



a secret plot to take over the world.


Came from your mind. Not one real Truther has stated that theory.

Truthers may have said it was a false flag event to start a war for money and power.

But that does not "connect the dots" with them trying to take over the World. We all know they make money pitting two sides against each other than they do unifying anything.
edit on 6/7/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 


Wow. 3 in one sentence.
"MOST"..."OBVIOUS"...and "CONCLUSION". All yours.

Its not the "most" by a longshop....nor the most "obvious"...and certainly not any "conclusion"...by anyone other than your deluded self.

Sorry. Deal with it...or as Jack said..."You cant HANDLE the truth!"

PS. I dont know where the plane "is"...but know where it was. In the side of the Pentagon.
edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


You're the deluded one here.

Do you have anything to offer to this topic and conversation ?

Or are you just a cheerleader trying to learn the ropes from the peanut gallery?


This reminds me of you @ .36 sec mark


edit on 6/7/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/7/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus

The only thing that is blatantly obvious is that a cover-up was carried out by the Government.

To answer your question..... THE CONFISCATED VIDEO THAT SHOWS A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON.

But of course we all know that doesn't exist.


That makes no sense. If you're going to brush off photographs of wreckage then why would you accept any video of a plane hitting the Pentagon that caused the wreckage shown in the photos? Video is just a series of photographs arrayed in sequence.

It seems to me you're just making up excuses for why you shouldn't have to give up your conspiracy claims. Out of the thousands of other pieces of evidence showing that a plane hit thre Pentagon from wreckage to passenger effects to the black box, the one and only, single, solitary thing that will be enough to convince you is- SURPRISE- the one thing you know full well doesn't exist. What would make such video footage legitimate and yet everything else phony?





By association I refuse to accept any video????


What video ?


I would like to say "any video that proves what you don't want to be true", actually, but I will wait for your response to the previous question before saying it.


It is blatantly obvious that I do accept eyewitness testimony. I POSTED IT IN THIS THREAD ALREADY.


Then please explain why you accept testimony of eyewitnesses saying that a plane hit the Pentagon and yet you're insisting the photographs backing up their testimony that a plane hit the Pentagon are fake. It's like believing someone who said they saw a zebra at the zoo, but claiming a photo somebody took of the zebra is phony. You're making even less sense than you did before.


It is blatantly obvious you have no respect for the truth and therefore I have no respect for you


Rather a suspicious tone to take against someone asking honest questions about how you came to your conclusions. People ask me how I came to my conclusions all the time and I have no reason to hide my reasoning. It's lies, and never the truth, that needs to fear critique, as Patrick Henry once said.



new topics




 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join