It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What really hit the pentagon. ?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2002 @ 03:07 AM
Boeing 757 or military craft?
Many eyewitnesses saw some kind of craft hit the Pentagon. Was what they saw a Boeing 757-200 or was it a missile?

Eyewitnesses confirm having seen something fly into the Pentagon. However, their accounts differ largely when it comes to describing the nature of the aircraft in more detail.

The full story. !

[Edited on 18-9-2002 by quaneeri]

posted on Sep, 13 2002 @ 03:46 AM
This is an issue that has nagged me since 9/11/01 and one of the most convincing pieces of evidence in the conspiracy theory.

Where's the plane debris? Why is the roof hardly damaged in all pictures taken immediately after the attack? Why is there no footage of the plane hitting (there were multiple angles of video footage of the planes hitting both WTC buildings, certainly someone in D.C. at least caught a snapshot of the plane making it's descent)? Why was/is there so little coverage on the Pentagon attack? How come the inner rings of the Pentagon are almost unscathed?

The lack of footage of the crash is what bugs me most. Being a former resident of Southern Maryland, I have been to D.C. enough times to know that there are tourists all around the place, not to mention businessmen and women, and residents who bike, walk, jog, or just wake up early. Surely somebody got at least a glancing shot of the plane or missle...

posted on Sep, 13 2002 @ 09:20 AM
What about the security cameras you know have to be trained on every inch of ground around the Pentagon? They should have caught something.

posted on Sep, 13 2002 @ 10:31 PM
In the twin tower disaster there were many plane parts recovered. !

But i don't remember seeing any plane parts from the pentagon crash.

no engine, no wheels, no wings, nothing.?

posted on Sep, 14 2002 @ 12:39 AM
Hrm, this again.

Firstly, pretty much all of the aircraft debris from the wtc was found after it had penetrated the tower and emerged from the other side, this didn't occur at the pentagon, so the debris was mostly inside the building. Nonetheless there are plenty of pics of the pentagon attack that show bits and pieces of plane debris around the place. Naturally these dumbass sites don't show that, does anyone know off the top of their head where they are? They've been posted on here before.

Secondly, one of the security cams did pick up the impact. But lets remember, security cameras are not designed for high speed filming, they are time lapse, as they have to run 24/7, so something coming in at hundreds of knots is not going to be picked up particularly well.

As for no tourist cameras, how much of a tourist attraction is the pentagon really? Looks like rather a bland building, also, in the circumstances surrounding the day in question, isn't it more likely most tourists were inside glued to the tv?

There are plenty of eyewitness accounts from the pentagon, and I'd imagine enough of them have enough of a military background to be able to differentiate between a massive passenger jet, and a 10 foot missile. As far as the discrepancies between the type of plane reported by people around D.C, in these situations there are always differing reports on the type of plane, sometimes massively differing. After the first WTC impact, an eyewitness on the phone to one of the major networks (dont remembre which one) was absolutely positive it was a light prop driven plane that had hit the first tower.

Remember guys, just because a web site is laid out nicely and looks smart, doesn't mean its any less full of #e than say,

posted on Sep, 14 2002 @ 04:26 AM
This is the first frame from the security camera. !

The next frame only shows a giant fire ball.

Is there a plane about to hit the pentagon in this image. ????

posted on Sep, 14 2002 @ 04:28 AM

posted on Sep, 14 2002 @ 04:29 AM

posted on Sep, 14 2002 @ 05:00 AM
As I said, time lapse cameras, they arent for high speed photography. What exactly are we proposing happened to the missing airliner, if it was a military jet that hit the pentagon?

posted on Sep, 16 2002 @ 01:12 AM

posted on Sep, 16 2002 @ 01:35 AM
How did the plane hit the pentagon, without the wings taking out the light poles on the way through. ????

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 12:09 AM
The Pentagon is much more solid than the WTC. The wings probably shattered on impact while the fuselage progressed forward inside.

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 12:32 AM
This may answer some of the questions.

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 01:26 PM
John OKeefe, 25-year-old Northern Virginia commuter, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying was "not much more than a football field away" on
. saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,
It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading

Eye witness accounts:

Here's a full transcript from one of the witnesses mention in the aforementioned link:

...or are these people in on the 'plot'

[Edited on 17-9-2002 by Bob88]

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 09:22 PM
O'Keefe is obviously a member of the collaberators attempting to drag this nation into a war by stirring protective patriotic sentiment that would be outlawed anyway if we'd just listen to the intellectually superior left-wingers!

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 11:37 PM
Do i beleive the pentagon was hit by a plane. (YES) !

But there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

posted on Sep, 18 2002 @ 01:55 AM
Finally some proof. !

A part of the engine from the plane that hit the pentagon.

One of the lighting poles brought down by the planes impact.

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 10:06 AM
what really happened... the pro-conspiracy sites all have all kinds of theories and some evidence and no real case, and the anti-conspiracy sites have about the same. this site had the best 'there is no conspiracy' theory for about 1/2 of the article untill 2 things stuck out like a sore thumb in my mind:

1: the video is doctored. the first sighting of it came out with the wrong date on it. the evidence on the tape is therefore invalid to argue any non conspiracy case.

2: even the small sample of quotes on this are contradictory, one says the plane flew head on, one says it veered, one says the landing gear was up, one doesent etc.

in general, ther are 3 known tapes. all 3 of these tapes were confiscated within minutes and never released (along with the black box recordings). if you think the government did not release them because they were worried about the reaction from 60 some families then you need take remedial 'get a clue' at your local community college and cancel your 'yes virginia there is a santa clause' lecture series.

im not saying it adds up to the fact that there is a grand conspiracy, im just saying that the story the public is getting is definately not the whole story.

and on a closing thought, how about that classic freudian slip rumsfeld made and mentioned "the plane we shot down over pennsylvania"?. that is just pain classic.

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 10:23 AM

Originally posted by jprophet420
and on a closing thought, how about that classic freudian slip rumsfeld made and mentioned "the plane we shot down over pennsylvania"?. that is just pain classic.

this is veering away from the pentagon a bit, but here's something that bothers me:

If They did shoot down 93, how does that fit in with They planned the whole thing, or They had foreknowledge, etc.

If They were involved in some way, why shoot down one of the four planes?

It only seems useful if you make it public and say "see, we shot atleast one of them down before they could crash into somewhere else." but they didn't.

Actually, as I was writing this I realized they could use one plane crashing to start this patriotic, overpowered-the-hijackers, story. But wow, that's a lot of people pullling strings behind the media to get the American Public into buying and championing a non-existant event...

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 10:40 AM
The aircraft hit the ground before actually hitting the pentagon. It it the ground about 40 yards from the building. It did hit the building though, after hitting ground first. I've visited the site and the memorial located inside the pentagon, and you conspiracy theorists are getting out of control with this. This is conspiracy paranoia at the height of ridiculiousness.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by TheBigD]

<<   2  3 >>

log in