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.

 

Supposedly A UFO Attack The Pentagon on 9/11

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Supposedly a UFO attacked the pentagon on 9/11
It’s hard to believe that.
But pictures never lie?

Hope the link below works

i21.photobucket.com...






posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
yup, its the old famous technique the nordics use, kamikaze style bombing. I'm surprised this wasn't picked up before, nice find !

I can't believe those rotten aliens got us at pearl harbor and now the pentagon



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
You don't expect any of us to believe you, do you? Videotape and eyewitness accounts prove that it was an airplane and not a ufo thank you very much. You need to start being more rational with your thoughts. Jump out of conspiracy mode once in a while.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
If you look down the lefthand side of the ATS Board home and look under most viewed you will see the 9/11 a 757 struck the pentagon topic.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
That's probably fake. I dont remember seeing it on any of the previous pictures.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I am sorry, but that is a fake. It seems real, but it is not.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
It looks like they just cut out the fuzzy plane image from the first screen and then just imposed it on other frames.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
This has to be the most utterly absurd theory regarding the 9/11 Pentagon attack that I've ever heard.

This same footage was used to try and prove it was a missile attack.

Trust me on this, it was a 757. How do I know this?

Well, for starters, at the time, I worked quite a lot in the DC area. I'd often travel down 395 next to the pentagon (the highway to the right of the posted footage). I traveled down 395 shortly after the attack (I was on the crew that erected the drape which covered the damage. The tops of the lightposts on 395 were sheared off where the plane flew through them. Had this been a missile, there would have been no shearing off of the lightpoles.

Now, let's look at the notion of it being a UFO. First off all, wouldn't a UFO more likely attack with a ranged weapon, rather than crash a craft into the Pentagon? If it was a ranged weapon used by the UFO, then why would the light posts along 395 have been sheared off? Secondly, what are the chances of even a hostile alien lifeform planning a random attack in perfect synch with a terrorist attack in NYC? Probably pretty slim. Besides, if it were a hostile alien lifeform, don't you think there would have been more attacks in the past four years? Surely they'd have the capability to bring a full attack to bear if they are capable of travelling between stars. Thirdly, why would eyewitness reports all claim to have seen an airplane (flying at that low altitude, it's extremely unlikely for someone to mistake a 757 for a UFO - unless these hyper-advanced aliens are flying around in perfect replicas of 757s. har har).

I think logic alone is pretty sufficient to prove that it wasn't a UFO attack.

Well, what was the long, thin object in the photograph? Most likely, it was a piece of the lightposts that were sheared off. At the time the attack occured (and can be seen in the photos) sunlight comes from low over the Pentagon. This would produce a bright reflection off of any metallic object (such as a dulled steel lightpost) flying across the sky in that location. This reflection, especially when captured on camera, would make the object seem larger than it was (take a look at lens flares and reflectivity regarding photo and video images). Finally, the object appears to rebound away from the Pentagon. Chances are, the force of the explosion caused this. The tops of thoe lightposts are relatively lightweight, and could have easilly been forced away by the shock blast of the explosion.

Well, where's the plane then? Why don't I see that? This is probably the simplest answer of any I've given on this. These images were captured by a security camera. The video footage that these images were taken from only captures about 2 images a second. A 757 at full throttle crashing into the side of a building (even a reinforced one such as the Pentagon) would have slipped by the camera in a fraction of a second - quite easilly in between frames of this camera. Considering the trajectory of the plane, and the dive it must have taken to hit the Pentagon, it's safe to say that it was travelling at roughly 500+ MPH. The distance shown in the camera image (from the Pentagon to the right side of the frame) is about 200 feet. 500 MPH translates to roughly 733 feet per second, meaning that it would have entered the frame and hit the Pentagon in about a quarter second - easilly after one frame was taken, and before the next frame would have been taken. Now, you have, according to the video, one invisible airplane. That is where the plane went, and why you can't see it in the video.

All said, it certainly wasn't a UFO.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
LOL!!!!

Now we know what really happened to Amelia Earhart. She was flying the UFO that crashed into the Pentagon!



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Good post, obsidian.


Pictures often lie, especially electronic ones on the internet on a random photobucket site. Pictures that don't actually show anything lie as well.

Dave_54: No. Just... no.

Thread closed.




top topics



 
0

log in

join