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 GenRadek
Logically thinking, there would not be a complete wingspan size hole in the Pentagon.
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Thermo Klein
4) That's been explained by dozens of scientists... use google.
I assume you're addressing my #4 - that it takes 3000 degrees Fahrenheit to soften steel but the Twin Towers only got to around 1100 degrees.
That's simple physics, your argument of "use google" ... well
I found this on Google once - it's 1,000 Engineers, Scientists, and Demolition experts all backing the story that explosives were used.
www.ae911truth.org
The story you're telling just doesn't add up...
Crash of AA 77 that went into a building and basically stayed intact. It didn't even hit the ground at a steep angle because there would have been MAJOR damage to the ground. No pieces to identify the plane can be found.
Planes do not dissolve on impact (except in this case)
Black boxes stay intact at crashes far, far worse than this.
There's no explanation for a dissolving plane and flattened and burned CVR.
The wings didn't, as Viking guy pointed out, punch a perfect hole into the Pentagon and the hole isn't big enough for them to fit... so where are they? They SHOULD be outside the building! But they're not because no airplane actually hit the Pentagon that day.
In its report on the CVR, the NTSB identified the unit as an L-3 Communications, Fairchild Aviation Recorders model A-100A cockpit voice recorder; a device which records on magnetic tape. The NTSB reported that "The majority of the recording tape was fused into a solid block of charred plastic." No usable segments of tape were found inside the recorder.
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by TinFoilBat
No fire ?
Again get your eys checked ......
Notice the soot staining on the wall above the hole? How do think you
got there?
How did the plane smash through the building and still have enough force
to knock hole in C Ring wall?
Well if did any REAL research rather than parroting drivel from conspiracy sites would have found this.....
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by thedman
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9deb5955a169.jpg[/atsimg]
As for shredding into tin foil bits?? Planes don't do that...
If your final thought, looking at this picture, is that a Boeing 757 crashed here then you're sticking to your story for some reason other than fact.
[edit on 2-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Impressive article! Given the exact circumstances the authors provide it exhibits a very plausible means for Tower 1 and Tower 2 to have collapsed straight down. So as I see it, you have given me two authors providing a plausible and scientific description how it happened... and I have given you 1,025 professional engineers with similar credentials saying the opposite. I really do appreciate the scientific citation!
Now how about Building 7? You may recall it DIDN'T get hit by an airplane, so it didn't have the exact circumstances your two authors provide. Yet, it imploded at free-fall speeds when every other steel framed building in the world that caught fire hasn't. Why?
Originally posted by Lillydale
Logically thinking, any wing parts not entering the building would still be outside of it.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Lillydale
Logically thinking, any wing parts not entering the building would still be outside of it.
Logically thinking, any large components of aircraft such as wing parts that were involved in a crash would certainly not remain in their original aircraft wing shape.
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by thedman
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9deb5955a169.jpg[/atsimg]
As for shredding into tin foil bits?? Planes don't do that...
If your final thought, looking at this picture, is that a Boeing 757 crashed here then you're sticking to your story for some reason other than fact.
[edit on 2-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]
Does it look like a Boeing 757 crashed into this small, unburnt, 10ft deep hole??
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
On the other hand I've heard so many conflicting aspects of this, such as chemical analyses by numerous independant companies that found exploded and unexploded nanothermite.
DOES THIS LOOK LIKE THE SCENE OF AN AIRPLANE CRASH?
If a scientist says it's weapons grade nano-thermite explosives chalk that up as one side of the story.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Thermo Klein
DOES THIS LOOK LIKE THE SCENE OF AN AIRPLANE CRASH?
Yes.
There - now what are you going to do? I say it looks like an airplane crash site. Therefore it must be, correct? Or are we going only by your opinion?