Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by backinblack

 

The story mentions her body being pulled from the wreckage.

Sounds like the passenger bodies fared better than the plane. Kinda the opposite of the alleged Flight 93 crash (95% of plane recovered, only 8% of passengers -- allegedly).

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by backinblack

 

there are other stories about how credit cards and other stuff was returned to the families. In the case of this story, they were talking about a couple and their love.....mentioning the ring makes sense

No worries..I'd rather leave that talk alone to be honest..

reply to post by ATH911

Sounds like the passenger bodies fared better than the plane. Kinda the opposite of the alleged Flight 93 crash (95% of plane recovered, only 8% of passengers -- allegedly).

That's over 50,000 kgs of plane recovered..
I don't remember seeing that much..

reply to post by backinblack


have you ever been up close and personal at a plane crash?
do you know what will be left and wont be left? have you ever investigated an airplane crash
and the dynamics of it? a plane hitting a building at 500 mph is going to become part of the building
i am surprised there was as much debris found. i was expecting less.

reply to post by backinblack


the interia and speed of the plane hitting a solid immovable object (earth) and a building which was strong but not stronger then earth. flight 93 was coming in at an incredible speed and almost nose down. the dam thing was vaporized for the most part

i was at a plane wreck where the plane was somewhat intact and the bodies were gone except a head and some other parts. there is strange things that cannot be explained in some wrecks. we also found a barbie doll in a box completely untouched in the bag with the receipt.

i thought i would check out this thread again since i haven't in like, oh say 20 pages ago..... and it's the same arguments.

there is just no way in hell planes, or large portions of these huge planes just friggen disintegrated or 'liquefied' as it has also been described. no matter which side of the argument you are on i think everyone needs to actually think about this being given as reason for the missing/non-existent plane debris. Forget about 9/11 for a minute... playing by the laws of our physics, and what science has taught us, would metal/steel/6 ton engines ever be able to crash into something at 500m/hr and just disappear into nothing?

the answer is NO. this is just not possible. i don't care if the 9/11 Commission said hypothetically that a plane traveling at X speed and crashing into a non-moving target would cause the plane to vaporize because it's just totally wrong. go ahead and re-read that, and re-read over again, and then do it again. for this to be true the planes would have had to impacted their targets so hard that the vary atoms that they were made out of on the tiniest scale would have had to revert backwards into themselves forcing themselves to turn into black holes swallowing up massive amounts of the aircrafts, and then disappearing entirely with no trace of the inter-dimension black hole every existing at all.

well sorry we aren't living on star trek and that scenario cannot happen here on earth ever. i would love to hear about any other large passenger plane crash where parts of those planes vaporized into thin again. what about that apollo shuttle that took off and then blew up? did it vaporize when it fell back to earth? NO.

reply to post by surfnow2

reply to post by loagun


You just don't comprehend the physics, and the reality, do you?

It's been asked....maybe not of you, yet. How many airplane crash sites have you personally visited, in order to come to those conclusions? Do you not yet realize that there are many contributing factors, and that every crash scenario will be different? VELOCITY being a primary determining factor as to the overall destruction and fragmentation that the materials undergo. Much more is chaotic, and unpredictable....examination AFTER the fact helps in assessing how it occurred, by seeing the results.

Do you understand what fire does to the debris, when it is located in the major parts of any inferno?

reply to post by surfnow2


Saw a Lear 35 reduced to little more than "metallic confetti" - small fragments. Largest piece was 2 x 3 section
of tail fin and landing light, which hit a parked car 75 yards down road

Of the 4 people onboard could only identify half of someon'e chest, hand, minus fingers and several amputated
fingers. Rest was scraps of tissue - "human hamburger"

In describing Shanksville crash coroner Wallace Miller noted that extremities (hands and feet) seemed to survive
the destructive forces. Miller explained reason was probably that these body parts are bony which is overlaid
by tough tissue in form of muscle, tendons, ligaments and connective tissues (fascia). Also being at
extremeities will be easily disarticulated from rest of body.

reply to post by ATH911


Apologies I missed out the 'you' in my post. Sgt Williams and his team recovered those bodies from the aircraft strapped into their seats. How do you account for his and other accounts of the recovery teams finding such bodies?
Some 'believers' think that they are lying. Do you?

TJ

reply to post by tommyjo




This thread is going nowhere.
We will never be able to prove anything by speculations and thats what is happening here.

Unless something amazing happens with disclosure its going nowhere fast.

I personally think it was a drone that hit the building, can't prove it (EVER) but thats what i think.

Originally posted by surfnow2
flight 93 was coming in at an incredible speed and almost nose down. the dam thing was vaporized for the most part

I thought 95% of it was recovered?

.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes I do understand what fire would do to debris if it were located in major parts of an inferno. I imagine it would similar to the contents of a house left to burn to the ground. In the end you wouldn`t have much left at because the fire would have burnt almost everything it touched to a crisp and reduced it to a pile of ashes.....ashes would be left because fire doesn`t vaporize houses made of wood into thin air.

Wood doesn`t even compare in density or strength to steal and metal so you would think a blazing inferno burn it into nothing, but no that is not reality. After burning for hours, even fire cannot completely break down wood into nothing. There are always ashes left behind, and going back to the example of a house burning to the ground, laying amongst the left over ashes would be a metal fridge, stove, pieces of the toilet and bath tub, and of course the furnace from the basement.

This is all weaker material in comparison the what planes are made out of, but a burning house would also have a weaker fire then those that were ablaze on sept 11. So in comparison it would be equal which means no vaporization. If we go with the idea of the fires being so tremendously high in temperature then the metal, steal pieces would have all melted into large pools of debris, but not vaporize because it is just 100% not possible.

This argument may seem stupid to you because you really want to believe these planes smashed themselves into nothingness, but it is stupid for me because you should know a jumbo jet liquefying and vaporizing after a crash is just absurd.

If your beliefs were accurate, then by those laws the top 30 stories or so of the Twin towers should have each vaporized as well since apparently the 911 Commission stated the fires were so hot at the top of the building they turned the steal frames into spaghetti. Half of the rubble should have been vaporized into thin air upon impact with the ground.

The vaporization theory of industrial strength metals and steel, while supposed identifiable human body parts lay scattered in the grass as if though an invisible plane had just crashed will just never fly. Had the crash site where impact was made at the Pentagon or the other in the field been hot enough to vaporize the planes industrial strength body and engines, then no one would have been able to get near it, let alone be walking all over and threw the crash sites moments after as video taped because the temperature`s would have then had to of been at par with lava. The Pentagon for Christ sakes would have had an extensively large portion of itself `vaporized` away taking whole walls, rooms, and floors.

This wast`t a magic trick. The plane cannot be the only variable that disappeared into thin air, leaving behind everything else. No, sorry.

reply to post by loagun


Maybe you too need to go back to the posts I made about this a few pages back:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you have any questions feel free to ask. Most of them should be answered in the two posts above.

reply to post by stewalters1

I personally think it was a drone that hit the building, can't prove it....

What "you" personally think? Based on what evidence? In view of the VAST mountain of evidence to the contrary (Boeing 757, operating as American Airlines flight 77) and the no...none, zero, nil, zilch, nada evidence of ANY debris or parts or components that even resemble a "drone".

Did eyewitnesses see a "drone" Any of them? Of the people who were found and interviewed on record....

136 saw a plane approach the Pentagon.

103 saw the plane HIT the Pentagon.

26 were certain it was an American Airlines jet.

7 were savvy (knowledgeable) enough to recognize it as a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One was an Air Traffic Controller at the Pentagon heliport.

ZERO saw a missile hit the Pentagon.

ZERO saw a Global Hawk or other type of military aircraft hit the Pentagon.

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

Haven't even, in this single post, mentioned yet the other witnesses, from the air, from the Control Tower at Washington National Airport (barely over one mile away) and the biggie, to me....the (digital) Solid State Flight Data Recorder (SSFDR).

Link (I can help you to interpret much in there, that is technical. Or, perhaps you personally know a local airline pilot...he/she will understand it too. Even if they're not qualified on the Boeing 757/767 equipment):

www.ntsb.gov...

AND, this one, has merged with information on United 93 as well:

www.ntsb.gov...

edit on 8 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

reply to post by weedwhacker

reply to post by weedwhacker




Certain people with a lot of money and resources want you to believe the " evidence " they have put forward, if i had a few trillion dollars i could make you believe anything.

They do this for a living........,

reply to post by stewalters1


Then you may be interested in many OTHER "claims" of John Lear.

You will find the threads that he participated in here on ATS (before he left in a huff of ego). They are in archived form, and labelled under his name. And I was in there, for a while too...HE (and his bogus "claims") is what drew me here to ATS in the first place, October 2007.

Was Googling on the silly Apollo "hoax" conspiracy crap, found his name...recognized it immediately as the son of the "Great" Bill Lear, and Learjet fame......and was appalled to see a man of his stature and knowledge and experience spewing utter crap......initially, about the Moon (and "soul collectors", and a "shirt sleeve environment" and gravity "66% of Earth's")....but, he ALSO had, if those weren't silly enough, the outlandish "no plane" stance....in NYC, with the space weapons and the "dis-integrator beams" (DEW, or directed energy weapons, to be precise).

THAT is our "hero"?

The man delights in pulling people's legs. He's an expert prankster, and for some reason gets his jollies that way. Personally, I don't derive pleasure from fooling people.......

reply to post by weedwhacker

8 witnesses were pilots. One was an Air Traffic Controller at the Pentagon heliport.

Didn't Sean Boger's testimony contradict the official story in relation to the flight path of flight 77..?
That throws a HUGE spanner into the OS theory..
Mind you, he's not the only one that disputes the flight path..

But then I guess you will say he was mistaken on that bit but the rest of his statement is correct..
Must of been one of the "optical illusions" you are so fond of..