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.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Nonsense. You are way off base.
1. Aldo offered the invitation to talk with CL on the phone. Not me or Rob.
2. I do not act like a "playground bully". Yes I strongly defend myself against unjustified/uninformed attacks. Clearly the existence of this thread proves I was completely right to do so with you. I suggest you leave the accusations alone since you are the admitted provocateur in this discussion.
What's with the constant flip flop of attitude about us?
Originally posted by Aldo Marquis
CL,
Columns 15-20 were intact.
They were blown UP and OUT from the base. It is insane to suggest that the right engine went through that.
Why is there no continuity to the "wing damage" when it tilted up it's right wing?. It looks as if the facade simply fell off in this section:
The biggest smoking gun besides the undamaged foundation and the no tail section damage is column 14AA.
THIS reduces the size of the "fuselage hole". It is clear that the two windows were blown out.
Would it be more likely or less likely to leave a segment of column hanging in the middle of the "fuselage hole". That makes it about what 18 ft?
The plane allegedly entered the Pentagon under an angle of 45 degrees, thus the effective horizontal lengths become
length_eff = length/cos(pi*45/180)
effective diameter engine: 11 feet
effective width fuselage: 17 feet
effective distance between the center of the fuselage to center of the engines: 30 feet
effective span 757-200: 176 feet
Now go look at the size of the hole that the second plane left in WTC2.
Think people
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
And as far as averaging me and Nick together and saying "we" admitted we were wrong, weren't you just ripping on Pinkus for conflating you and JDX to make a non-accurate blanket statement?
Originally posted by snoopy
Since we're talking about eyewitness testimony:
www.youtube.com...
Mr. WALTER:"...and I could see over in the distance the American Airlines jet as it kind of banked around, pivoted and then took a steep dive right into the Pentagon"
(this is completely irreconcilable with the official story.)
...
"GUMBEL: Did you see it hit the Pentagon? Was the plane coming in horizontally or did it, in fact, go on its wing as--as it impacted the building?
Mr. WALTER: You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that kind of obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in. I'm not sure if it turned at an angle. I've heard some people say that's what it did. All I know is it--it created a huge explosion and massive fireball..."
(Why was he less sure about details of the impact on the day after 9/11 when he was telling his story to the world?)
...
"GUMBEL: Tell me, if you could, about the manner in which the--the plane struck the building. I ask that because, in the pictures we have seen, it appears to be a gash in the side of the Pentagon as if the plane went in vertically as opposed to horizontally. Can you tell me anything about that?
Mr. WALTER: Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually sent on its side and in that way. But I can't tell you, Bryant. I just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion and--and a--the thick column of smoke and then an absolute bedlam on those roads as people were trying to get away."
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It would seem to me that it would be strewn across the facade with damaged part of the building being much more random and wide.
You see CL the damage is TOO perfect. It's too cookie cutter which makes it anomalous and not what we should expect from physics.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But there most certainly IS a bank in the eyewitness flight path that we report!
i14.photobucket.com...
(this is an old and preliminary eyewitness flight path estimate but close enough to get the point of the bank.)
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Of course any realizations would be too little too late of course, and I don't expect a course change
Then I am insane, because I not only suggest it but find it highly likely. “blown up and out.” I keep hearing this claim and haven’t seen it explained. It’s not evident. Is it supposed to be? Looks like down and to the left, probably about flush with building face.
Perhaps there was not too much continuity to the wing? First, unlike the left, it was cutting across the second floor slab with the final bank, meaning much tougher going. Second, the right wing had clipped 2 light poles (or was it three?) and it or its engine smashed the generator and got it smoldering. Or so we’re told. The ASCE decided in fact that the wings may have exploded prior to impact due to these facts, which matches many eyewitness accounts. This could also explain for the smallness of the hole (only 90 feet wide!), which is almost totally from the lack of the outer 2/3 of the right wing, which clearly did not enter. So where’d it go? Check the silver tinsel strewn across the lawn after and tell me how that can’t possibly be wing metal.
The right wing root and engine entered at about CL 16 it seems, obliterating it and causing those “columns” to drop down.
THIS dangler is your smoking gun #2?
1) Jim Hoffman: this “hanging object […] appears to consist in part of remains of the steel reinforcements that were part of column 14. […] it might have pivoted as the plane entered the building, and then fallen back into a vertical position.” [see link above]
2) Here’s how the plane is alleged to have entered – can any sharp poster here see any reason a partial column 14 might have survived the impact, attached at the top end but not the bottom?
3) Look at that fuselage top – it couldn’t permanently defy the 2nd floor slab, but couldn’t help but dent it at that spot either. ASCE agrees with me on this point that the slab shows signs of breaching there, as seen in the shot below – look at the glow in the center and notice the floor seems to start a ways in. Therefore C14 would have had no floor to anchor to.
4) Oddly enough, there is another famous shot that shows no column at all in that very spot. Pentagon photoshopping? Or dropped dangler? If this was such a mighty column that would have barred entry to a 757, then why did it disappear on its on within 20 minutes (before collapse)?
Original photo:
Response? Am I wrong? Did smoking gun #2 fall away of its own accord?
I don't even know that formula to couble-check. I'm sure it's right. Actually the angle was more like 39 deg I think, but I use 45 also so I can use the Pythagorean theorem to find that the core, from one outer engine edge to the other is about 50 feet, needing thus just over 70 feet of space to fit into the outer wall – both engines and fuselage, more or less, on floor one, where columns were removed for over 90 feet by my estimates.
...about how different the situations were. A modern aluminum tube skyscraper (not talking core, just where the plane punched through) vs. a sturdy, classic column architecture of steel reinforced concrete. And also that the Pgon plane was likely blowing up before impact.
Food for thought.
Originally posted by Aldo Marquis
How do you know it was a 757?
How do you know it wasn't modified?
Our line is not meant to be 100% perfect, but rather as approximate as possible.
Sorry everyone, but it is what the plane did.
Originally posted by snoopy
Doesn't sound like changing his story to me, sounds like wishful thinking.
And you still have thousands of other people who were all there stuck in traffic.
At least 20 or so on record as claiming they saw it hit the building AND saw it clip the light poles.
You even have a guy saying he saw a light pole hit the taxi cab.
And yet not a single person out of thousands of people sitting there in rush hour traffic jams saw the plane fly over the building.
And as for your claim that the plane hitting the light poles would take the wings off? I think we both know very well that that simply would not happen.
Then you have all the debris scattered about the area that you expect us to believe was planted there at the moment of impact in front of thousands of people and no one happened to notice?
You have the phone calls from people on the actual flight,
and you have the bodies and wreckage and belonging from the flight itself.
So are we to believe that they took the actual flight, hijacked it and crashed it, then trucked over the parts and bodies to the Pentagon and placed them at the scene in front of thousands of people all between the time of the plane taking off and the explosion?
You have Terry Martin who saw the tail of the plane as it hit the building. While that may not be seeing the plane itself hit, if it flew over it would be pretty obvious, as it would be obvious to everyone else there. Just because some trees obscure the building for some of the people, doesn't mean it obscures the air above the building. And then you have thousands more people on the other side of the building, none of whom claim to have seen a large plane fliying over a couple hundred feet off the ground.
Then you have the security video, which if you don't want to believe is flight 77, absolutely shows something hitting the building and most certainly shows that nothing flew over the building instead.
But...you have 4 guys who think the plane flew on the north side...
Originally posted by Aldo Marquis
Yes that comment of yours sounds like wishful thinking.
Oh thousands? Really? You counted them? You have VDOT photos proving where the traffic jam was? Because Robert Turcios said traffic was moving regularly. James Cissell says it was stopped because of extra security around the Pentagon. And in Frank Probst military publication account, they say it was because of road accident. So which is it. Do you have proof of who was on the highway? Because we have PROOF Lagasse was at the Citgo.
Oh really? Care to list them? I can assure you that you are wrong.
Really? Who is that? Don't say it. Name it.
Rush hour? 9:38 am is rush hour? Thousands? Really where is this count of thousands? Do you know what the POV from the highways looks like? Do you know what a jet traveling 400-500 looks like? Do you understand that there was a cover story of a "second jet/plane"? Do you understand how distracting magic trick works? People who did not see the plane approach would be focused on the fireball not plane veering away. We have a reporter on scene who said, "one witness said the plane went to the side of the building and not directly in". He didn't interview them. You know why? Because they were trying to interview people who "saw" it impact. After two planes hit the tower in an apparent terrorist attack, who are you going to interview: a person who said it flew over/to the side and not in? Or a person who said they "saw" a plane hit? Think about that for a minute. Reporters work on a sensational story, es.Stephen McGraw
Oh great argument. Who said "take the wings off"? Would it be more likely or less likely to hit 5 light poles at 530 mph and have the wings stay intact? Do you think a pilot would knowingly do this in a test with these same type of light poles, because he "knows very well that that simply would not happen."?
Here is a plane at much slower speed hitting some type of poles:
www.livevideo.com...