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 Thermo Klein
reply to post by JohnGeeTee
This has become a question for Psychology because the question isn't whether there's no evidence, it's about peoples denial of the Original Story and their fear of changing a worldview to include a corrupt government.
Originally posted by TrowaBarton
Originally posted by hdutton
O K. Let's all agree that four (4) planes were highjacked on the morning of Sept. 9, 2001.
Sorry can't agree with that
As long as we keep arguing about this, the longer those responsible go unpunished.
I would hope you will atleast agree with me about that.
The events of that day can not be changed so we should put our energies into finding those responsible and bringing them to justice.
Originally posted by hdutton
O K. Let's all agree that four (4) planes were highjacked on the morning of Sept. 9, 2001.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Thermo Klein
I implore you to look at the photos on this site:
911research.wtc7.net...
You can clearly see the hole in a few of the photos, and they even have imagery of the plane on the inside of the building as well as bodies of the passengers.
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat
The "Crash site"
there comes a point when a person should reassess. What would be mandatory for an airplane to have actually crashed into the Pentagon and blow through numerous internal walls?
1) an airplane
2) a hole in the Pentagon
3) enough kinetic energy to allow the debris to crash through each successive wall.
4) wreckage - since this is a crime scene we would need to have enough wreckage and serial numbers to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
agreed?
If ANY of those four are absent then we don't have a conclusion that an airplane crashed here.
The above picture and associated video show WITHOUT DOUBT that no airplane entered the Pentagon in that spot. An approximately 12-foot wide airplane fuselage traveling at 300+ MPH would at very least crack the cement.
reheat, I'm not sure why you can look at that picture of the crash location and still think an airplane crashed there, or why if the blast proof windows kept the airplane OUTSIDE the explosion happened INSIDE, or why you choose to keep that side of the argument... that's up to you and not really my problem.
Originally posted by GenRadek
So I should ignore the large wide hole below the windows, because the windows on the second floor werent damaged, and therefore, no plane hit that wall? But what about the large hole? Why is it on the first floor and in the right location of the impact?
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
How about the tail? did it somehow double over, shrink... how do you explain that we're looking at a hole that doesn't even have a mark on the wall where the tail WOULD HAVE hit??
Originally posted by Reheat
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
How about the tail? did it somehow double over, shrink... how do you explain that we're looking at a hole that doesn't even have a mark on the wall where the tail WOULD HAVE hit??
Oh, the tail again. Yes, there is significant damage where the tail hit, you're just ignoring it or trying to shift it to another location on the facade..
The tail or more appropriately, the vertical stabilizer and horizontal stabilizer, is largely made of composites. It would not be expected to survive intact in an impact of this nature and the ensuing fire.
there is significant damage where the tail hit, you're just ignoring it or trying to shift it to another location on the facade..