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 Realtruth
Talk about Freudian Slip! I would hope everyone would weigh in on this info.
Sorry Folks, no denying this information. I originally found this for my 757 didn't hit the Pentagon Thread, but I thought that it was so interesting and significant that I would start a new thread.
Rumsfeld - "The people who shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon."
[edit on 27-5-2007 by Realtruth]
Originally posted by sensfan
The motto of ATS is DENY IGNORANCE.
Ignoring evidence that doesn't fit ones agenda is about as ignorant as it gets.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I dunno what any of you are on about.
I clearly see a plane, amongst those tiny pieces of debri...
There's as much of a plane there as in the pentagon...
Funny, 4 planes were used, but only PROOF of 2 planes exists...
Originally posted by tribaltrip
Make your own judgements.
Video
Originally posted by esdad71
Billybob, why don;t you plot it out and prove it false.
"FBI Briefs the Media on the Crash in Pennsylvania", CNN, September 13, 2001
Originally posted by Zaphod58
The ground at both of those 737 crashes was mountainous terrain. Much harder than and Shanksville.
As for the debris 8 miles away according to reports it was all paper and insulation. The light weight materials that you would expect to find miles away from a big crash like this.
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by Anubis Kanubis
I wonder what debris from a commercial jet that had been shot down over farmland would look like?
If the plane had been shot down, or if it had been a controlled type crash, which is what we are used to seeing btw, then I would expect to see a lot more large debris. Specifically, when one is shot down, it’s going to leave some large debris scattered over a very wide area. This crash scene is consistent with someone putting a plane nose-first into the ground, at a high rate of speed. In that scenario there would only be very small pieces ejected from the aircraft, the major stuff would have been compacted down to almost nothing inside that hole.
Originally posted by greatlakes
15-20 feet length x 10 feet width impact site dimensions = Not consistent with an aircraft impact or auger into the ground.
Actually 15x20 is plenty large enough for a 757 fuselage, after all it’s not significantly bigger then a DC-9/MD-80 in diameter…
DC-9/MD-80 Cabin cross section:
External width: 10 ft 11.6 in (3.34 m)
External height: 11 ft 8 in (3.6 m)
Internal width: 10 ft 3.7 in (3.14 m)
757 Specifacations
Cabin Width =3.54 m (11 ft 7 in)
Note: I am pretty sure this is internal width
I don’t think that anyone here is going to argue that a DC-9 could make a similar sized hole in the ground. The only major difference between the two is that a 757 has a longer set of wings, bigger engines, taller tail, and a longer fuselage. The body itself of the aircraft is very small; it just looks large do to its engines and landing gear. Just look at the seating charts for both aircraft and you’ll notice that there is only one seat worth of size distance, which is less then 2 feet.
757 Seating Chart
MD-80 Seating Chart
Same thing applies to the whole in the Pentagon.
Originally posted by tribaltrip
Well i was doing my daily research in the whole 911 thing as always,
and picked up on a very odd video on youtube.
I know, i know, youtube may not be the best for qaulity but i must say the video shows some good evidence that there was never any plane there,
just a big hole and what looks like paper all over.
Make your own judgements.
Video
Originally posted by nightmare_david
A plane hitting nose first at a very high speed wouldn't compact it all within that hole. That's just ignorance on your part.
Originally posted by nightmare_david
You've watched too many movies
Originally posted by nightmare_david
The width of th hole doesn't even match the plane. The hole is WAY TOO SMALL for a 757/767 to have created it.
Originally posted by nightmare_david
A plane wouldn't be carrying enough fuel to burn as long or as hot as to completely disintegrate everything on impact.
Originally posted by nightmare_david
Everything jsut disintegrated....BS. Again, it take s large amoutn of heat to completely pulverize bone.
Originally posted by nightmare_david
You comment at the end about this same thing applying to the pentagon is also fileld with ignorance. You ever seen the size of the hole before the section collapsed
Originally posted by nightmare_david
It was only 14 to 16 feet wide. The same sized hole was found ont he back of this section.
Originally posted by nightmare_david
Let's talk about the very little fire damage done at the pentagon. People keep saying the fire disintegrated everything....more BS. There's photos taken after the collapse that show open books and wooden desks sitting next to the imapct area that don't have any fire damage at all. That's enough poof that there was no raging fire at the Pentagon like they say.
How on earth does it get explained then? As for reports of engines coming off, it can happen without use of explosives, but the only examples in the past have been at takeoff.
there are no pictures of a crash site. you(sensfan) have shown pictures that have no context. they prove nothing. they could have been photographed twenty miles from one another, for all we know.
let's focus on the ACTUAL footage of the tiny crater. there is no plane, there.
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Originally posted by tribaltrip
Well i was doing my daily research in the whole 911 thing as always,
and picked up on a very odd video on youtube.
I know, i know, youtube may not be the best for qaulity but i must say the video shows some good evidence that there was never any plane there,
just a big hole and what looks like paper all over.
Make your own judgements.
Video
Dear tribaltrip:
Your video is about the closest thing to a smoking gun we will ever find showing that there were no planes on 9-11.
Sure, truth deniers will say that there may not have been a crash at Shanksville but there still were those three flights into the Pentagon and the WTC’s. Or maybe not at the Pentagon either but definitively at the twin towers!! I don’t understand that kind of reasoning. If one story is clearly a lie – as your video link absolutely proves -- then shouldn’t this cast massive doubt on the other three events? Given all the outrageously suspect circumstances there as well, shouldn’t that be a no-brainer?
Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods