Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What really hit the pentagon. ?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
It may be quite a long read but this should put a stop to all of the doubts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...





posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   
look, i want someone to disprove any or all of the things i mentioned in that last post. I read that entire article and none of the things i mentioned are disproved by the article. there is definately cover up as to what really happened.

something that i failed to mention in the post is if the plane took the tragectory given by the 911 report the pilots and every passenger would have lost conciousness prior to the impact, thereby removing any possibility that hijackers flew the plane all the way.

so does that mean it was a missile? no. does that mean it was a smaller plane? no. does that mean it did not happen the way it was presented? yes, w/o a doubt.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
there is definately cover up as to what really happened.


Find someone who was outside the Pentagon at the time, and I am sure they will become enraged that you say that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Find a witness because many people saw a plane hit the Pentagon. And then your next conspiracy will be that they used holographic imagery to make it appear like a plane, and then this conspiracy theory will enter a new phase of ridiculious.

What is it that leads people to theorize these things? Next thing you know all the suicide bombings in Israel are theorized to be the result of a massive Israeli government cover-up to create instability in the middle east and the way they conduct the supposide suicide bombings is lasers from satellites pointing missiles to the location where the want the bombing to happen. How about taking that ridiculious conspiracy theory and elaborating on it?


Why would they send a missile to the Pentagon, and send a real plane to the WTC? Remember the videotapes of the plane hitting the WTC, were those fake? Don't answer that I fear the response you will give.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by TheBigD]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   
.
I will throw out one more theory.

It was a simultaneous missile and global hawk strike on different trajectories.

The missile went in along the oblique angle to the pentagon face and did the internal damage, the global hawk was for 'show' and hit the pentagon perpindicular to its face creating the nice spherical fireball.

I would guess a free flying missile is going to be very difficult to see.
A reason the global hawk would not have been seen by radar is because its transponder was shut off.
.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
if it was a plane ... where were the dead bodies?



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Look, what hit the pentagon makes no difference, nor does who is blamed for it.

For that matter, the WTC makes little difference because the arguement is not what when or how about that day.

It's really "My government isn't working for it's own interests" fighting the "My government is working against us."

The proof has been dumped with so much garbage and internet screwjobs that it'll leave your head spinning just to get around it.

So I say who cares what happened on 9-11. People died for no good reason. Period.

~smacks people on the head~

Time to pay attention. We have a country where most legislation in influenced (or proposed) by corporations rather than voting. The power is not in our hands and the media creates the reality we see (and by the banter around here during election time, you just might agree). The media (which is but a small subset of our entertainment) really caters to those buying airtime.

There seemed to be professional mouthpieces for the big two working here and across America spouting the same bogus lines with little meaning behind them.

What's needed is an honest look at America by those who understand that humans are flippit and will generally cast their fate to the wind. Freedom is the goal, and how we choose to get there is our choice.

SO, we can continue to talk about nothing, or we can try to reign in the fed. Trust that the latter will bear more fruit in the end.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   

The power is not in our hands and the media creates the reality we see (and by the banter around here during election time, you just might agree).


I agree that some people allow the media to create their reality. There's a very simple answer to "taking back" your own perception of reality: Turn it all off.

MK



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBigD

Originally posted by jprophet420
there is definately cover up as to what really happened.


Find someone who was outside the Pentagon at the time, and I am sure they will become enraged that you say that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Find a witness because many people saw a plane hit the Pentagon. And then your next conspiracy will be that they used holographic imagery to make it appear like a plane, and then this conspiracy theory will enter a new phase of ridiculious.

What is it that leads people to theorize these things? Next thing you know all the suicide bombings in Israel are theorized to be the result of a massive Israeli government cover-up to create instability in the middle east and the way they conduct the supposide suicide bombings is lasers from satellites pointing missiles to the location where the want the bombing to happen. How about taking that ridiculious conspiracy theory and elaborating on it?


Why would they send a missile to the Pentagon, and send a real plane to the WTC? Remember the videotapes of the plane hitting the WTC, were those fake? Don't answer that I fear the response you will give.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by TheBigD]

ok, i never said any of that crap. i said that the only video is known to be doctored as it was released with the wrong date, the eyewitness reports are contradictory, and that there are 2 missing videos of the incident. those things alone prove

Originally posted by jprophet420
there is definately cover up as to what really happened.

also, there are several other inconsistancies and lack of evidence. first of all, the autopsy report for flight 77 has no arab passangers, and neiter does AA list of passangers. secondly cell phones do not work at 30k feet- period- and at least some of the reports require for that to have happened. and finally the paths that the planes took according to air traffic control would produce a gforce that would render any pilot (and passenger) unconcious.

the dna/passenger list could be a fake, but the last 2 are scientific fact.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Everyone, wake up n smell the coffee it was a plane



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
i found 7 major inconsistancies in the official story, and yet never said it wasnt a plane. i dont drink coffee. you need to learn to think for yourself and question authority.

pearl harbor - the government was highly invloved and knew about it, but people just believed the official story. maybe the government was not involved this time but the official story is still a lie, like it or not.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
i found 7 major inconsistancies in the official story, and yet never said it wasnt a plane. i dont drink coffee. you need to learn to think for yourself and question authority.

pearl harbor - the government was highly invloved and knew about it, but people just believed the official story. maybe the government was not involved this time but the official story is still a lie, like it or not.


"you need to learn to think for yourself and question authority. "---Isn't this the reason most of us write on this forum? It is for me.

I understand the way the government led, wanted, and tempted the allies of the Third Reich to attack us. The conspiracy theory about missles hitting the Pentagon, which some have suggested here is entirely absurd, in my feeling. What is the better question is how the Bush's and the Bin Laden's are connected through the Carlyle Group which profited from war. I find that the better question, and how even during the Clinton years that a war with Saddam Hussein was requested by many members of the Carlyle group back then, and even our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield. There is documentation of that. So, it is not a question of how we were attacked. Why would the leaders attack us with our own missiles as suggested when they have ties with people in the terrorism business through the Carlyle group, or to put it frankly, the Bin Laden's? A strange connection, wouldn't one say? Though they will get away with what they have done, throughout history shadows are casted upon these type of things.
As George Orwell once wrote, "To a surprising extent the war-lords in shining armour, the apostles of martial virtues, tend not to die fighting when the time comes. History is full of ignominious getaways by the great and famous. "--George Orwell

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. "--George Orwell

"Winston could not definitely remember a time when his country had not been at war. " George Orwell, 1984

P.S.--I am sorry if I misread your meaning in relation to other postings, JProphet.



[edit on 7-1-2005 by TheBigD]

[edit on 7-1-2005 by TheBigD]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
sorry, i get a bit snippy sometimes. its why i dont drink coffe, lol. yes, the point is to question it till we know what happened for sure. I dont think it was a missile either but if no one would have questioned it we'd be even more in the dark.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
sorry, i get a bit snippy sometimes. its why i dont drink coffe, lol. yes, the point is to question it till we know what happened for sure. I dont think it was a missile either but if no one would have questioned it we'd be even more in the dark.


No harm done.
I think the government/leaders don't give a dam* about the "means" as long as it satisfies the "end result", if you know that old saying. Thats my own personal belief in the supposide democracy we live in. I plan to leave this democracy and go somewhere without much conflict, like perhaps Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Bhutan, etcetera. Does anyone feel like leaving too?



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I have a friend who works in D.C. and was on the highway that runs past the Pentagon when a plane flew into it.

It freaked him out and he almost wrecked his car when it flew over his head. He heard a crash. Sure enough when he looked in his mirror the Pentagon was on fire.

So, unless this plane "pulled up" and turned on a cloaking device after firing it's photon torpedos, I tend to believe it was a plane.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   
This is a lame debate. i don't even see the point in arguing about what hit the pentagon. that still dosn't change who's behind it or why? i dont' think the government would be as sloppy as to shoot a missle at the pentagon when people with camera's risk shooting it. but i'm not saying the government was behidn 911, no thats a different thread.


but they were........




posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
the topic of the thread is "what really hit the pentagon". so far, no one has posted a video and there are 3 known videos, possibly more. untill an UNDOCTORED video is released (it don't have to be in this thread but it would be nice) EVERYTHING is up in the air. if you would like top post something either constructive or debunking, feel free.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I agree completely that it's more important that we find out who was behind it rather than what hit the Pentagon...

But just for fun, if it wasn't a 757, it could have been a UCAV equipted with electrochromatic plating for optical camoflage and fired a missile at the pentagon.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
yeah, it could have been a lot of things that hit the pentagon if it wasnt a 757. i used to believe it might not be but i think it most likely was. assited or not and alone or not i cant say...

i aslo find it amazing that only one video camera in a city as big as NYC caught the first plane hitting. that vid is so vauge it could have been a firetruck that hit the first tower (not literally but you get my drift).

thats what makes it deel orchestrated to me, coz every eye in the world was on the second plane when it hit, almost as if they wanted the image of a 757 hitting the tower burned in our brains so we would not question the other 3 flights.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
thats what makes it deel orchestrated to me, coz every eye in the world was on the second plane when it hit, almost as if they wanted the image of a 757 hitting the tower burned in our brains so we would not question the other 3 flights.


As I watched the second plane hit on live TV, I thought to myself, "this is the best produced terrorist attack ever". The timing with the news cameras was impeccable, and the graphics people etc. must have been really on the ball, cause there were "attack on america" news banners, with pics of hijackers, ominous special report music feeding us the reality like shellshocked sheep sucking on the news nipple. Maybe I'm just a suspicious person, but it felt staged from the first image I saw.



originally posted by TheBigD
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.


Really? I thought part of the conspiracy theory was the fact that the lawn was undamaged. I've never heard that the plane hit the ground first.

*edit* Also, if it did hit the ground first, there would have been plane parts everywhere.

Also, another question for the conspiracy folks. It seems like WTC were the real targets - I have heard the theory that the other two planes were backups in case one or both of the first two planes missed the towers - as I understand the second plane almost did. When both planes hit their target, then flight 77 was "flown into" the pentagon, and 93 was "brought down" by heroic passengers. The theory goes that 77 and 93 were WTC backups that weren't needed.

Anybody with thoughts on that idea?

[edit on 13-1-2005 by yellocake]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
yes indeed. i think th 3 flights that hit hit where they were supposed to and flight 93 was headin for the good ol white house.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by jprophet420]






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join