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.

 

A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

page: 7
64
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 03:55 AM
link   
There are undoubtedly video tapes of what hit the pentagon. Does anyone really think that the Pentagon wasnt completely covered in video surveillance? The fact that they pretended they didnt have any proves that the official story is false.




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: pirhanna
There are undoubtedly video tapes of what hit the pentagon. Does anyone really think that the Pentagon wasnt completely covered in video surveillance? The fact that they pretended they didnt have any proves that the official story is false.

They could fake a tape easy enough.
To me it indicates the opposite, that it wasn't an inside job. If it was indeed an inside job, a faked tape would have been released.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Sorry there was a swear word on that picture

edit on Sun20173V201722631 by DonVoigt because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: pale5218

I must respectfully submit that because there were so many ignored facts by officials, and sequestered evidence ignored by the "steering" committees involved in the official explanations, that everything or anything these officials and government people have stated are simply not credible in any way. Even if everything they said did actually happen, their lies and stories simply have no credibility either way. I also know from spending years actually building the wings for the Boeing company that they are not hollow. They have very strong front and rear extruded spars and the inboard ribs are not just thin metal like the baffle panels every 2 plus feet are. There are also fairly thick upper and lower rib strengtheners that would be like knife blades when hitting anything at the speed said was crash speed.

Those inboard ribs the wing skins are attached to and the wing skins near the wing's center section are insanely over designed for strength and robustness. They would have been a powerful sword when striking that building and there isn't a trace of damage in places that would have been obliterated if that aircraft actually struck at that speed. Not shattered into dust as they say happened.

The other factor that is rarely addressed is how the official stories have all been sold to everyone, by using peer pressure, emotional pressure, the fear of ridicule, and every other means of deceptive pressures to force that story on the public or be the target of a political form of excommunication on naysayers, unbelievers, and even people asking too many uncomfortable questions.

Whether or not the official story is true, the stench of a dirty rotting rat is quite prevalent and still smells today just as strong.


I think what you have stated about the credibility of the officials statements is the crux of entire story. I went back to work the following days of the event and heard first hand from people I worked with on how it unfolded that day from their perspective. It didn't completely jive with what was officially stated but I think early on I didn't think much of it.

I started lurking ATS long before I joined and I have read many of the details that showed discrepancy. I personally can dispense of many of the details by reason alone but like I said, this is something an individual has to accept, or not.
But this is not all explained away for me, there are still nagging questions. This is why I read the post for any new information.

Up until the a the last few weeks, I was in the " not a B757 camp" because to me some of the details didn't sit well. I posted this information because knowing ATC and the radar presentation, this is irrefutable to my understanding.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: firerescue


Some Good Pic.s and Video of the Pentagon on 9/11 here . It's Very Hard to Believe a 757 was Involved .....




www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


I can comment on the chart that has the flight path from the north with a right 270 turn into the building. This video of the replay clearly refutes that diagram as false.

It did not come in from the north and there is enough transcripts and dispositions from the controllers that it came in from the west leading to the point it enters the replay.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: DickBrisket


What happened if you were there??

Would you have the balls to tell the family of the passenger of that plane that their families died there?

Why are you so blind?

I can't believe that brains like yours are allowed to serve or carry a gun... you can distinguish between a plane and a missil...



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Charly182

Brilliant contribution!!! /extreme sarcasm



...and, on only your 2nd post!! WOW!



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee





They have a missile defence system there now don't they?
Wonder if they upgraded the entire exterior of the Pentagon to deal with the threat of a carbomb.



Missile defenses...???

Pentagon is about mile from Reagan National airport, right on flight path

Now how does one distinguish rouge B 757 from normal air traffic.

What happens when you hit it?? where does it come down>>>??



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Imagine how shock I was if that stupidity made me comment, now is just losing time as you did with me


edit on 12-3-2017 by Charly182 because: Typo



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And you probably are that type of "person" that put on value others for the "quantity" of comments or how old are they or if they arrive first somewhere??

Bravo

edit on 12-3-2017 by Charly182 because: Typo



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

Wrong. I asked a captain at the airport waiting for a flight. He actually answered my question. I asked if a 757 could be brought down from 8000 feet to 30 feet off the ground at speeds claimed by the official report. He laughed and said the airframe could not handle those stresses. Remember the plane was supposedly going so fast it disintegrated the passenger seats and most of the plane. All BS. The hole in the wall is too small. One small hole made by the body of the aircraft? Please. The engines alone are like bowling balls hanging on the wings. Those alone would pile through cement before a hollow tube of aluminum. Force=Mass x Acceleration. What planet did you test your physics on? And if you question my numbers look at the hole in the picture. Actually looks as if the hole is ground level up.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: Snarl

Now this is getting interesting


I'll throw something out there that might surprise you.

The GOFER06 flight was able to continue on his way after the Pentagon crash. It just so happens his route of flight took him northwest near through PA. He was asked by the Cleveland Center controllers to verify a reported crash area. He reported smoke over the crash site. UAL93 was the crash.


ETA This was a coincidence, I don't anyone going away with the idea there was something nefarious about this.


Are you serious, is that true...? ( Yes it is )

That is so 'convenient' that I actually believe this to be a coincidence - anyone planning a cover up would go "nah, nobody'll fall for that!" and decide to go with two different guys.

Still, though, the same Airforce officer used to lend credence to both crashes... I cannot that it does not make my conspiratorial heart beat a little faster!



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ansuzrune
a reply to: pale5218

Wrong. I asked a captain at the airport waiting for a flight. He actually answered my question. I asked if a 757 could be brought down from 8000 feet to 30 feet off the ground at speeds claimed by the official report. He laughed and said the airframe could not handle those stresses. Remember the plane was supposedly going so fast it disintegrated the passenger seats and most of the plane. All BS. The hole in the wall is too small. One small hole made by the body of the aircraft? Please. The engines alone are like bowling balls hanging on the wings. Those alone would pile through cement before a hollow tube of aluminum. Force=Mass x Acceleration. What planet did you test your physics on? And if you question my numbers look at the hole in the picture. Actually looks as if the hole is ground level up.


Well like I said I'm not a pilot but those speeds aren't outside the operating speed of this aircraft.

I didn't test any physics, not part of the thread but if I did it would be on Earth



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: DupontDeux

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: Snarl

Now this is getting interesting


I'll throw something out there that might surprise you.

The GOFER06 flight was able to continue on his way after the Pentagon crash. It just so happens his route of flight took him northwest near through PA. He was asked by the Cleveland Center controllers to verify a reported crash area. He reported smoke over the crash site. UAL93 was the crash.


ETA This was a coincidence, I don't anyone going away with the idea there was something nefarious about this.


Are you serious, is that true...? ( Yes it is )

That is so 'convenient' that I actually believe this to be a coincidence - anyone planning a cover up would go "nah, nobody'll fall for that!" and decide to go with two different guys.

Still, though, the same Airforce officer used to lend credence to both crashes... I cannot that it does not make my conspiratorial heart beat a little faster!


He was quiet a ways from the site, I believe the distance was 25-30 miles away. Not part of the story other than a coincidence.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
2 things.

1: the WTC towers were not hollow. this is an insane misconception and believing such things would convey an arrogant dismissal of the obvious - that being the reinforced steel core of their construction. the steel was also much thicker on the bottom of the building vs. the top of the building, to allow for further structural integrity and sway.



2. everyone here who believes a 757 was manually controlled and flown into the pentagon faces a logical dilemma.



nobody here can confirm the exact angle and process for a 757 to cause what we see above - as has been said time and time again, the pentagon videos that would show this and put the matter to rest are to this day withheld from the public.

the pentagon report, NTSB and 9/11 commission report all contradict each other when describing AA77's flight path, both through text and visual simulations.

OP - even if a pilot saw a 757 crash into the building, there are still many obvious holes and intentionally unanswered questions.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
2 things.

1: the WTC towers were not hollow. this is an insane misconception and believing such things would convey an arrogant dismissal of the obvious - that being the reinforced steel core of their construction. the steel was also much thicker on the bottom of the building vs. the top of the building, to allow for further structural integrity and sway.



2. everyone here who believes a 757 was manually controlled and flown into the pentagon faces a logical dilemma.



nobody here can confirm the exact angle and process for a 757 to cause what we see above - as has been said time and time again, the pentagon videos that would show this and put the matter to rest are to this day withheld from the public.

the pentagon report, NTSB and 9/11 commission report all contradict each other when describing AA77's flight path, both through text and visual simulations.

OP - even if a pilot saw a 757 crash into the building, there are still many obvious holes and intentionally unanswered questions.



I have read the reports, confusing why different versions. Not sure how early some of these reports came out and lingered even after investigation.

This lines up exactly how I understood the flights path from the west , Indianapolis Center into Washington Center, into IAD airspace and the 360 overhead turn.

I'll repeat, I don't have all the answers, this only sheds light on what I think is the path and report by the C130 pilot.

ETA This is not a simulation, this is the actual radar display with the flight path as well as all the other aircraft in the area at that time.
edit on 3/12/2017 by pale5218 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Just to add, it was the thread from a few weeks ago that led me to the 911datasets site.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

Pale, let me clarify - I'm not challenging what you're asserting.

I believe that the information you found is valid reporting. I simply question as to whether or not it actually solves any of the mystery. I don't believe that it does.

The contradicting reports can be found by anyone here, and to this day they remain unchallenged and unaltered. again, you would think that everyone directly involved with the pentagon would want to quickly clarify what happened and put this matter to rest. that is not the case. they instead take every opportunity to obfuscate what should be obvious.

If I knew you in person I'd confidently bet you $20 that digging further into the pilot and the conditions under which he was reporting will yield questionable and suspicious results.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: pale5218

Pale, let me clarify - I'm not challenging what you're asserting.

I believe that the information you found is valid reporting. I simply question as to whether or not it actually solves any of the mystery. I don't believe that it does.



I think it does, BUT that's me. I know people have to formulate their own belief and that's ok, I do understand.

To me, this is as good as a video, with audio.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

why? because a pilot states he personally saw it and that there's a flight path to corroborate the eyewitness account?

there have been military personnel, both active and inactive, that have stated what they saw on the ground was not an aircraft, let alone a 757.

were they all lying, then?




top topics



 
64
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join