A 757 did not hit the pentagon!!!!!

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   
If a 757 really did hit the pentagon, then I have some questions to ask.

1. If the wings of the airplane really did hit the pentagon, but not make a hole, wouldnt the engines make a hole?

2.wouldnt there be debree from the wings and the tail

3. isnt the fuel of the plane in its wings? if so then when the wings shattered hitting the pentagon, wouldnt fuel spread everywhere creating a much larger fire then was seen.

4.where are the seats of the passengers?

5.where are the passengers or the remains of them?

6. where is the luggage of the passengers?

7. How come the hole is so small? usually the airplane is way smaller than the hole. look.
www.psywarrior.com...

8. how come the security tape date is sept 12?
ops.fhwa.dot.gov...

9. why doesnt the plane in the security tape look like a 757?
www.physics911.net...

10. some wittnesses said that the plane hit the ground before hiiting the pentagon if so, then why does the grass look so good?
911research.wtc7.net...

11. how come the hole inside was so small?
snopes-911pentagon.brad.com...

12.wouldnt it be hard to fly a 757 2ft above the ground going around 350mph? dont forget the ground is not perfectly even.

13.how come this piece of debris is not burnt? no black marks? if you put a spoon over a candle fire for a second it gets black. The pentagon fire is much hotter www.pentagonlawn.net...

14. as you can see the N on AmericaN is by the wing of this 757
www.auctiontransportation.com...
the wings carry fuel. why is the debris in #13 so unharmed?

On the other side of the plane the N is near the front. but in both cases, if the debris flew that far (look at pic. in #13) wouldnt it go through fire first?
photos.airliners.net...

could the gov. have placed that piece there?

15. how come there arent any photos of 9ft wide engine debris

16. why arent there more photos or videos of the crash? isnt the pentegon supposed to have high security?

17. what about survelence cameras from other places or citizens? there had to have been at least one citizen who recorded it, or one survelence camera from another place.

18. The last BIG question! If a 757 really did hit the pentagon, then why doesnt the government give us more evidence?

I dont want to believe that it was an inside job, but evidence points in that direction. If I had more proof, then maybe I would change my mind.


[edit on 30-6-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Have you checked this post out yet ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Pigpimpin...I see the future....I see a locked thread in your future...yes...



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
i actually agree with him

i think catherder is a disinfo agent Or horribly misinformed

i think the evidence speaks for itself...
Being there isnt any!



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I see learning to use the "search" function as a vital step in your career, Grasshopper. It's been discussed unto death. The details you find so troubling have been addressed countless times, and in spite of the reality of the details (including all the people dead on the plane AND eyewitness reports... like my brother's, who saw the plane go overhead just seconds before it hit), the disinfo agents still come up with the 'it's not true' scenario.

I think if we could take them in a time machine back to that time and show them the hit, they would not change their stance. They'd insist it was a hologram or something equally silly.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I just wanna see a video of a 757 hitting the pentagon where you can actually tell that its a 757. Then I will be convinced.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
what about the eyewitnesses who saw it , and clearly saw a plane ?

what did the CIA do with the bodies of the registered passengers and crew of the 757 if it was a missile ?



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigPimpin
I just wanna see a video of a 757 hitting the pentagon where you can actually tell that its a 757. Then I will be convinced.

Well, have you seen a video of a missle or whatever hitting the Pentagon?


Anyway, like what others have said, your concerns have been addressed many times already.


jra

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
What happens when you shoot a tin can at highspeeds against a brick wall? Well the wall will take some damage (depending on how thick it is) and that tin can will most likely disintegrate.

The Pentagon is a very sturdy building. I'm not sure about all it's construction materials, but it has lots of marble and other hard/dense materials in it's constriction. An airplane doesn't have that. It's just an air frame with a thin aluminium skin more or less.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001


do you think an air traffic controller know what a plane looks like ?


Conclusion
I highly doubt that local firefighters would be involved in any sort of a coverup. I highly doubt that local police officers would be involved in any sort of a government cover up. Cops and firemen are just average Joes like you and me, who go home to the wife and kids, and just try to make a living and have a good life for their families (I have many friends in both professions - of course the firemen are usually more stable marriage-wise because of their job but that doesn't make the cops any less human than you or I). The men and women who pulled over a hundred people (dead and alive) out of that building would more likely than not have noticed somebody carrying over 60 bodies into the middle of the fire they were fighting. To say that the plane that hit the Pentagon was not filled with every single person who died in this terrorist attack (not counting the unfortunate people inside the building) is one thing and one thing only - ignorant.

Review the facts

Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)

Rims found in building match those of a 757

Small turbine engine outside is an APU

Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine

Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos

Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo

Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211

Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes

Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object

Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion

Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner

Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon

60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage


SMR

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
This topic is about a 757 NOT hitting the pentagon.Why would someone need to look at a page that supports the opposite? They obviously already looked at that other thread, and felt the need to post a countering presentation.

Many say use the search.Well fact is, before CatHeader made his thread, there were 5 threads already discussing the Pentagon/757 issue.I didnt see anyone telling him to use the search feature.They had just about the same info ( as he was the one to post it ) in there as his presentation.

If this were to be locked, then 95% of threads here should be as well, as they cover the same thing, as many say, over and over.
How many Bigfoot Patterson films threads do we need debunking or otherwise.How many UFO threads that have damn near the same posts in them do we need?
Point is, we have some threads that weigh larger on the debunking of an issue while the smaller parts of the thread go unread, not replied to, and dismissed.
Is it really fair to only have one side of things all the time?

I see no reason why a thread, that of the opposite to a huge topic, should be shut down.I didnt think that was what ATS was about.


Sorry to threadcap, but it pisses me off that so many are always inclined to tell people to use the search.I can understand on some issues, but taking a good look at reasoning for such a thread should be looked at more carefully.

Sorry BigPimpin



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
This topic is about a 757 NOT hitting the pentagon.Why would someone need to look at a page that supports the opposite? They obviously already looked at that other thread, and felt the need to post a countering presentation.

How long is the other thread?

Currently - 77 pages, 1522 posts long. Do you think all 1522 posts are people agreeing a 757 hitting the pentagon?
No.
EVERY concern presented in this thread is also being or has been discussed in the other thread. Every one of them.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Why is this an open thread? Aren't there dozens of existing ones that have exhaustingly covered these very same arguing points???


SMR

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
ThatsJustWeird,
Point being, there were 5 other pages before CatHearder posted his thread that had the same info as he posted in his thread.I didnt see anyone telling him to use the search.I didnt see anyone saying his thread was going to be locked.

Maybe some of you need to use the search and see for yourself that there were in fact threads already talking about the 757/Pentagon issue, but the thread CH made didnt get one person saying to use the search or that it would be closed.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
ThatsJustWeird,
Point being, there were 5 other pages before CatHearder posted his thread that had the same info as he posted in his thread.I didnt see anyone telling him to use the search.I didnt see anyone saying his thread was going to be locked.

Maybe some of you need to use the search and see for yourself that there were in fact threads already talking about the 757/Pentagon issue, but the thread CH made didnt get one person saying to use the search or that it would be closed.

Check the dates man. CatHearders thread was started before the big thread.

And oh, what's this! After the big thread was started there's no more posts in CatHearders thread



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by BigPimpin
I just wanna see a video of a 757 hitting the pentagon where you can actually tell that its a 757. Then I will be convinced.

Well, have you seen a video of a missle or whatever hitting the Pentagon?


Anyway, like what others have said, your concerns have been addressed many times already.


Yes I have seen the video, but there has to be another one, because it is unclear what is hitting the pentagon in that video. The pentagon should be one of the places with the most security cameras in our country, and there is only one video? what about other buildings around the area of the pentagon, no video? no security camera tape? What about tapes from civilians? or at least a tape with the 757 flying by?
I know the government knows about this conspiracy, because they seem to know about many other things, so they should release more tapes!!!

[edit on 30-6-2005 by BigPimpin]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Frequently, FREQUENTLY Discussed in the thread that was mentioned. Please add to the discussions there.

Thread closed.





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join