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.

 

The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

page: 19
285
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: sweetypie215

Plenty of wing impact pictures here ......

Impact hole was measured at 96 ft wide - about the distance of the heaviest section of wing, ie the largest sections
of the wing spars and ribs

911review.com...




posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ParasuvO

So they disagree that there were 7 bases on alert?

Just because they are military doesn't mean they have their right to their opinion removed.


They disagree on the likelihood of the entire scenario, and why almost every single protocol everyone trained on was NEVER FOLLOWED.

Then NO INVESTIGATIONS NOTHING.

Never before had these men ever seen such things happen, and then suddenly in one day 10's of thousands of instances of abnormal and illogical responses.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

yeah, it seemed too good to be true to me as well, that's why I was hurriedly asking for more info.

Zaphod was kind enough to provide the original discussion about this .gif that landed in the hoax bin:


originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

It's been around a couple years.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


what DOES interest me about this image, even if it is fake, is that it appears to show a very blurry depiction of what the official story literally states - namely that the plane skidded on the lawn before it hit the pentagon.

I find this one little tidbit alone to be absolutely absurd and laughable. the .gif is just as fake as the OS.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Can you imagine the uproar of Bush saying he watched the first plane hit the building ?

If it was TRUMP !



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
There was a special about 9/11 years ago. One of the guys on the show was the guy who sat in the Pentagon for months afterwards, modeling and figuring out exactly what occurred. He was a specialist in that sort of thing, obviously nothing exactly like -that-.. but similar accidents. He actually had a very good explanation in regards to how a plane, due to the speed, fuel, the reinforced walls, etc... would cause the exact effect you saw.

Obviously it was not a missile at any rate. The knocked-over light poles, not to mention the eye witness testimony, sort of kill that theory. Why people discount eye witness testimony baffles me. Yes, people can mistakenly identify something as something else. But.. a close thing.

If YOU saw a object flying that close to the ground, do you think you'd mistake a jetliner with a missile? How many seconds do you think it would take to identify a plane flying overhead? I can't speak for others, but I think I could easily determine in under 2 seconds, whether a flying object within even 1000 feet of me, was a missile, plane, helicopter, or something else.

Test yourself. The next 10 times you hear a sound in the sky, look up.. and see how many seconds it takes you to determine what it is. Usually within 1 or 2 more seconds, I have identified if it's a private jet, a military jet, a passenger jumbo jet, and often can even determine certain companies by their distinctive colors. I would sort of notice if a "plane" flying at a few hundred feet was actually really thing.. and missing stuff like.. wings.. and a tail like a jet has.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

please show us the eyewitness report that saw the airplane skid on the lawn prior to impact.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

The simulation data being used on 9-11 wasn't even removed (turned off) until after the attacks were over.

edit on 2/20/2017 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a good thread done years ago that clearly proves no plane hit the Pentagon.

The OS of the Pentagon alleged plane crash doesnt stand up to scrutiny when all the debris were removed, it proved there was no damage to the Pentagon concret floors, nothing not even a galge in the cement.

It is impossible for a huge aircraft weighing tons, sliding in on the ground floor and not leaving any damage to the concrete floors.


very high resolution version here


very high resoltion version here

Something to think about.





edit on 20-2-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

It's a great conspiracy I've got to tell you that, but also at the right time when there's so much discussion going on about left, right Trump, CIA and the Russians and all.

If the MSN is going to use this against whatever party they can destroy, then we also being dragged along those tides.

Personally, I think the Russians like to say after the West helped them " We only have one other question " we lost two of our p-700 nuclear torpedoes ? " Just to be old Russia again not wanting to cuddle with the west.
edit on 0b00America/ChicagoMon, 20 Feb 2017 14:11:00 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoMon, 20 Feb 2017 14:11:00 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a good thread done years ago that clearly proves no plane hit the Pentagon.

The OS of the Pentagon alleged plane crash doesnt stand up to scrutiny when all the debris were removed, it proved there was no damage to the Pentagon concret floors, nothing not even a galge in the cement.

It is impossible for a huge aircraft weighing tons, sliding in on the ground floor and not leaving any damage to the concrete floors.


very high resolution version here


very high resoltion version here

Something to think about.



WOW.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Here is another example showing how a real plane would damage real concrete.

i14.photobucket.com...



edit on 20-2-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

I am not at all surprised to see the landing gear myth on 911myths. They make it up as they go.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: everyone

Hole in C Ring wall was left by piece of landing gear

The landing gear is one of the strongest things on the aircraft - it must be able to resist being slammed into
the runway at speeds above 150 mph thousands of times

www.911myths.com...

www.curezone.org...

911research.wtc7.net...



LOL, what are these sources?!

for anybody who wants to give this comment any sort of credit whatsoever, please take a look at what his sources look like:



CureZone



9/11 Myths Pic NO LONGER CITED



9/11 Myths Page Not Found

so uhh.. i don't mean to 'jump the gun' or anything but.. it looks like you just exposed yourself.


Indeed, his sources are the real myth here.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
Here is another example showing how a real plane would damage real concrete.

i14.photobucket.com...




Lol are you serious?

No plane hit the building because there weren't skid marks on the concrete foundation INSIDE the building?

Then you show a picture of a what was clearly a plane hitting the runway, unobstructed, at a downward angle.

Compared to the plane that hit the Pentagon, striking walls, furniture, wiring etc... with a direct strike essentially parallel into the building...

Can you see how there is no comparison?

Or would you like to explain how an ICBM WOULD NOT leave any visible damage? I would assume an ICBM going off on the ground floor of any building might show some visible signs of at LEAST heat shock, cracks, anything really...

Or again, would you like to explain to me how the explosion captured on CCTV looked exactly like a plane exploding (huge, slow moving ball of orange flame) VS a missile strike (blink of an eye flash, massive plume of smoke and debris, no flames) Can you explain that?

Don't think so...



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Psychonautics

You have not debunk anything here.

Having an "opinion" is one thing, now go debunk with credible sources how a jumbo airliner can slide in on the ground concrete floors without leaving so much as a scratch?

Seriously, "opinions" are not the facts here. Photos of the Pentagon after clean up, proves no heavy airliner crashed into the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Psychonautics

please show us a video of a boeing plane hitting the pentagon.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Psychonautics

please show us a video of a boeing plane hitting the pentagon.



He can't because the CIA still refuses to release the video from the 80 $20.000 cameras that were on the pentagon. He can show you a couple of doctored frames that claims to show a boeing but does not show a boeing.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I don't subscribe to the OP's theory but I would credit him/her for the serious work that they have put into an original and thought provoking post.

I don't share the view that the tragic events of that fateful day were the culmination of some elaborate, machiavellian plot by those on the inside. Frankly, I find that a little disrespectful to the fallen.

Anyway, I don't have anything bad to say of those who hold a different view to my own. You have the evidence and you believe what you believe.

My own view in respect of the OP is twofold and relatively pragmatic.

Firstly, if the intention was for a missile strike to resemble a plane crash surely it was easier to crash a plane? I mean if you had the means to steal a missile, then you sure as hell had the means to crash a plane.

Secondly, if it was a missile strike or an explosion, why go to the effort of making that look like a plane crash after the event. Surely if the alleged plan was for it to look like a plane crash, then the conspirators had the means to crash a plane? I mean why run the risk of being exposed by doing anything other than crashing a plane?

Anyway, what really worries is me the tone of the debate that is raging on these boards. There is a sense that people are genuinely angry that others do not share their beliefs - that if you shout loud enough and attack another person's credibility then you can make them submit to your view?

Surely there is too much of that level of debate going on in the world already and ATS should be a safe haven to that?

I think where the OP should be applauded is the way in which they challenge us to consider the role that Russia plays in the world.

There is every possibility that a secret war is being fought under our noses and in plain sight and that the opposing forces in that war enlist, equip and facilitate all manner of pawns to inflict damage on each other. There is also every chance that those pawns are smore and mirrors to what is really going on and what is really at stake.

If you are after the truth maybe the starting point is to ask the question: who are the friends of our enemies?
edit on 20-2-2017 by Inc_9x because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2017 by Inc_9x because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Oh and by the way, there are a lot of calls on both sides of the discussion for "evidence".

I think it's safe to assume that if there was definitive evidence one way or the other, there would be no room for discussion in the first place.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Oh and by the way, there are a lot of calls on both sides of the discussion for "evidence".

I think it's safe to assume that if there was definitive evidence one way or the other, there would be no room for discussion in the first place.



new topics

top topics



 
285
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join