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.

 

9/11: A Boeing 757 *DID NOT* Strike the Pentagon

page: 15
2
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shugo
So, are people going to begin saying that American fighters attacked Pearl Harbor as well? The US knew about it too?


This is off-topic, but...

I've never heard anyone argue that US fighters attacked Pearl Harbor, but the idea that the US knew that the attack was coming is pretty old news. There have been History Channel documentaries on it and everything. David Ray Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor, is even named to give the impression that the US at least knew 9/11 was coming (thus, it was the new "Pearl Harbor").

If you look into the issue, from what I understand, it pretty much comes down to this: The US intercepted the codes that detailed the attack on Pearl Harbor about a year in advance. It's known that there was a statement that it would take about 6 months to decipher the code; a pretty routine job. So, about 6 months after the code was supposed to have already been deciphered, some aircraft carriers are sent out on exercises and Pearl Harbor is then bombed by the Japanese. And of course we were always taught that it was lucky coincidence that those bombers were out on exercises.

It's also well-known that FDR wanted war, though hardly anyone else did. He wanted to quickly take out Hitler, because he knew if Hitler took Europe, he would come to the US, and there would be no stopping him at that point. So an increasingly popular view is that FDR and the military knew it was coming, and prepared, and just let it happen, so that the population would easily allow the US to enter war with not only Japan, but Germany as well.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by bsbray11]




posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shugo

Originally posted by ResinLA
I think EVERYONE can agree, there is no plane in the Pentagon explosion frames. The only support I need to back up my claim would be to post frame by frame of what I saw. Unfortunately for you, I am not advanced enough to perform this procedure, sorry.


You *think*. However, there's more proof of yes it did, than no it didn't.


So, are people going to begin saying that American fighters attacked Pearl Harbor as well? The US knew about it too?

Please, how can "EVERYONE" agree, if I for one, don't? While I do have to say, I can't change your opinion, there's no proof of such a theory. I am interested in hearing why you *think* it was some kind of missile? Or are you the same kind mentioning about the pod thing...must we go into Missile Science 101?


Proof? What proof? Do you even know what the definition of proof is?
I didn't say I KNOW everyone can agree, I said I THINK. There is a difference, so stop trying to argue about irrelevant stuff.
I already said why I think it is a missile, because I saw it with my own eyes on the Loose Change video. Are you even reading my posts? Or are you just another that likes to argue just for the heck of it?



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ResinLA
Proof? What proof? Do you even know what the definition of proof is?
I didn't say I KNOW everyone can agree, I said I THINK. There is a difference, so stop trying to argue about irrelevant stuff.
I already said why I think it is a missile, because I saw it with my own eyes on the Loose Change video. Are you even reading my posts? Or are you just another that likes to argue just for the heck of it?


Pishaw.

So you're blowing up for me stating my backed opinion on the matter now. I simply stated that you said "EVERYONE WOULD AGREE".

How is that irrelevant? I think it's very relevant, as you seem to be sticking so close to that one little idea, it must be.
You saw it, doesn't mean it happened, a lot of things can muck up what you see, so does that mean that everything is fake? No. The only way to know anything is to have actually been at the scene of the crim so to speak.

Now you can go on and on all day about how you think it was a missile, but the fact of the matter is, is when things are on tape, and they ARE confirmed real, you can't say a thing about it anymore. Why? Because, that's as hard of proof as you're going to get. 100% pure analysis, not some civilians who don't know anything about visual. In otherwords any analysis done by anyone other than a person who was there, or someone already working on the case from the second it happened, is a crock of BS, why? Because they don't know what happened right then, right there, they weren't there to see the actual event, why and how should they know.

Same goes for you bsb, how would you know unless there was someone working on the event, there to tell it etc? What links do you have to give me to a plausable source that can vouge for your story, excluding the history channels mush pot story that I don't even know existed? If you can find links, I'd be happy to read them.

My point in the matter, I've got sources right here, each called CNN, BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc.

I may have to agree to disagree, or I may not, but I certainly don't appreciate people coming out and throwing funk pot stories like this when all they have are some civilian accounts of the matter, not from people working on the issue.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shugo

Originally posted by ResinLA
Proof? What proof? Do you even know what the definition of proof is?
I didn't say I KNOW everyone can agree, I said I THINK. There is a difference, so stop trying to argue about irrelevant stuff.
I already said why I think it is a missile, because I saw it with my own eyes on the Loose Change video. Are you even reading my posts? Or are you just another that likes to argue just for the heck of it?


Pishaw.

So you're blowing up for me stating my backed opinion on the matter now. I simply stated that you said "EVERYONE WOULD AGREE".

How is that irrelevant? I think it's very relevant, as you seem to be sticking so close to that one little idea, it must be.
You saw it, doesn't mean it happened, a lot of things can muck up what you see, so does that mean that everything is fake? No. The only way to know anything is to have actually been at the scene of the crim so to speak.

Now you can go on and on all day about how you think it was a missile, but the fact of the matter is, is when things are on tape, and they ARE confirmed real, you can't say a thing about it anymore. Why? Because, that's as hard of proof as you're going to get. 100% pure analysis, not some civilians who don't know anything about visual. In otherwords any analysis done by anyone other than a person who was there, or someone already working on the case from the second it happened, is a crock of BS, why? Because they don't know what happened right then, right there, they weren't there to see the actual event, why and how should they know.

Same goes for you bsb, how would you know unless there was someone working on the event, there to tell it etc? What links do you have to give me to a plausable source that can vouge for your story, excluding the history channels mush pot story that I don't even know existed? If you can find links, I'd be happy to read them.

My point in the matter, I've got sources right here, each called CNN, BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc.

I may have to agree to disagree, or I may not, but I certainly don't appreciate people coming out and throwing funk pot stories like this when all they have are some civilian accounts of the matter, not from people working on the issue.



Man, you sure like to argue, eh? Just like I said.
Have you even seen the Loose Change video? Where they put all the frames into a small video clip? You can abviously see something looking like a missle, headed directly for the target. And whats more? As soon as that missile is no longer in view, the explosion occurs. Hmm... Let me guess, I was seeing a bird right?
Please watch the vid before replying to my comments.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ResinLA
Have you even seen the Loose Change video? Where they put all the frames into a small video clip? You can abviously see something looking like a missle, headed directly for the target. And whats more? As soon as that missile is no longer in view, the explosion occurs.


And who made this video? "hmmm?"

It "looks like a missIle", doesn't mean it is. Do you know anything about aerodynamics?



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shugo

Originally posted by ResinLA
Have you even seen the Loose Change video? Where they put all the frames into a small video clip? You can abviously see something looking like a missle, headed directly for the target. And whats more? As soon as that missile is no longer in view, the explosion occurs.


And who made this video? "hmmm?"

It "looks like a missIle", doesn't mean it is. Do you know anything about aerodynamics?



Dont know who made the video. Does it matter? Im talking about the Pentagon frame sequence. Not the video itself. I dont think the people that made it would try to make it look like a missile was present.

Again, did you see this video?



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ResinLA
Dont know who made the video. Does it matter? Im talking about the Pentagon frame sequence.


Yes it does matter, if they're some civilian with no experience with video or graphics, something that would make me believe them, why bother?

Why should I watch a video analyzed by an ameture?



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
It could not have been a missile that hit the Pentagon. The impact hole was too large for it to have been a missile. Plus, if it was a missile, wouldn't they have been taking a chance of hitting a civilian vehicle given the number of vehicles that were going by on the beltway at that time.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I don't think anyone is claiming that it was "just" a missle anymore.

The consensus is that it was probably a military drone perhaps packed with explosives that perhaps fired an air to ground missle on impact.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

I don't think anyone is claiming that it was "just" a missle anymore.

The consensus is that it was probably a military drone perhaps packed with explosives that perhaps fired an air to ground missle on impact.



Why?

Why would it need to fire an air to ground missile on impact? That makes no sense whatsoever.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Why?

Why would it need to fire an air to ground missile on impact? That makes no sense whatsoever.


It makes total sense, try thinking about it howwerd, kevlar strengthend walls...Without the missile they would have had an awful mess to clean up on the lawn, couldn't have that now could we



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   
No, ANOK*, it doesn't make sense. Do you honestly think that the kevlar strengthened walls would have withstood the impact of a 757 flying at over 400 mph?



*Edited because my point was made, although ANOK failed to see it since his post still refers to me as “howwerd.”






[edit on 7-2-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
You realise a missile is a vehicle for delivering a warhead to it's target?
Why bother firing a missile from a vehicle which is impacting it's target milliseconds later?



[edit on 7-2-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No, ASSNOK, it doesn't make sense. Do you honestly think that the kevlar strengthened walls would have withstood the impact of a 757 flying at over 400 mph?


Is it standard procedure to call vulagar names on this board?

That was uncalled for and extremely rude.

Since it's obvious you haven't been paying attention but prefer to senselessly attack......a lot of people do not believe it was a 757. A lot of people believe it was a much smaller drone craft to increase precision. The ATG missle would have opened up a hole so as to increase damage to be more consistent with a 757 and to allow for the entire smaller craft to completely enter he buiding so there would be less visible evidence/debris in the front of the building.

Besides, if you believe it was a 757.......the obvious question would then be.....how DID the kevlar strengthened walls withstand it's impact so well?




posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Meh. Ain't worth it.

[edit on 2/7/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Since it's obvious you haven't been paying attention but prefer to senselessly attack......a lot of people do not believe it was a 757.

When you say "a lot" you mean "a lot of people who frequent certain websites" don't you? I bet if you did a random survey of people round the world and asked them what hit the pentagon on 911, 99.99% would say a passenger jet. Even amongst people who believe it was a government conspiricy the majority think it was still a 757 that did the damage.



The ATG missle would have opened up a hole so as to increase damage to be more consistent with a 757 and to allow for the entire smaller craft to completely enter he buiding so there would be less visible evidence/debris in the front of the building.

So you admit that the damage is "consistant with a 757"? In fact if you were planning this conspiricy and wanted it to look like a 757 had struck wouldn't it be best and easiest to actually use a 757? That way you wouldn't 't have all the witnesses saying that they saw a missile followed by a drone hit the building. Not that any of the witnesses reported such a scenario, which might give you a small clue as to whether it actually occured or not.



Besides, if you believe it was a 757.......the obvious question would then be.....how DID the kevlar strengthened walls withstand it's impact so well?

I think you answered your own question there.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No, ASSNOK, it doesn't make sense. Do you honestly think that the kevlar strengthened walls would have withstood the impact of a 757 flying at over 400 mph?


Is it standard procedure to call vulagar names on this board?


That was uncalled for and extremely rude. ?


I agree, that is why I don't like it when people mangle my screen name.


Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Since it's obvious you haven't been paying attention but prefer to senselessly attack......a lot of people do not believe it was a 757. A lot of people believe it was a much smaller drone craft to increase precision. The ATG missle would have opened up a hole so as to increase damage to be more consistent with a 757 and to allow for the entire smaller craft to completely enter he buiding so there would be less visible evidence/debris in the front of the building.


And far, far more people think that it WAS a 757 and this is just a lot of conspiracy B.S.

You, yourself seem to be agrreing with that position in this post, where you stated:

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
A general "cover-up" of negligence is accepted by most and was the entire white-wash mission of the 9/11 commission.

This poll merely shows that they succeeded.

The results would completely flip if it was worded:

"Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job and was not perpetrated by osama bin laden and 19 al quada hijackers?"







Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Besides, if you believe it was a 757.......the obvious question would then be.....how DID the kevlar strengthened walls withstand it's impact so well?


It did? Then why is there a hole in the wall where the fuselage hit?



[edit on 7-2-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke


When you say "a lot" you mean "a lot of people who frequent certain websites" don't you? I bet if you did a random survey of people round the world and asked them what hit the pentagon on 911, 99.99% would say a passenger jet. Even amongst people who believe it was a government conspiricy the majority think it was still a 757 that did the damage.


Sorry but I was referring to people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. I understand that there is a divide within the movement in this regard but that does not change the fact that plenty or a lot within the movment do NOT believe it was as 757.





So you admit that the damage is "consistant with a 757"? In fact if you were planning this conspiricy and wanted it to look like a 757 had struck wouldn't it be best and easiest to actually use a 757? That way you wouldn't 't have all the witnesses saying that they saw a missile followed by a drone hit the building. Not that any of the witnesses reported such a scenario, which might give you a small clue as to whether it actually occured or not.


No I did not admit this. You put those words in my mouth. I said appear to be "more consistent" with damage of a 757. And you might think it would be "easier" to use a 757 but my guess is that you have not tested which would be "easier" to run by remote control in a covert illegal operation that requires military precision down to the inch. And you are quite wrong about the witnesses. Plenty of them did report a smaller craft or missle like object. There are many conflicting eyewitness accounts at the pentagon.




I think you answered your own question there.


Well no because I believe it was HowardRoark that claimed that we should expect a 757 traveling at 400+mph to go though the reinforced walls. Although I agree with him on this point; the initial damage simply doesn't reflect this reality.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

That was uncalled for and extremely rude.


I agree, that is why I don't like it when people mangle my screen name.


So if you agree then it is quite obvious that you owe Anok an apology. If you don't agree perhaps you need to review the rules.



And far, far more people think that it WAS a 757 and this is just a lot of conspiracy B.S.


More vulgarity references and even unnecessary demeaing classifications. I figured people at this site would be open to alternative theories. I assume you are a regular poster here since you have so many "points". Are they typically this tolerant of people like yourself that seem to prefer rudeness and ridicule to civil discussion?


You, yourself seem to be agrreing with that position in this post, where you stated:

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
A general "cover-up" of negligence is accepted by most and was the entire white-wash mission of the 9/11 commission.

This poll merely shows that they succeeded.

The results would completely flip if it was worded:

"Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job and was not perpetrated by osama bin laden and 19 al quada hijackers?"




Yes well of course I understand that the general population doesn't subscribe to this belief as the psyops and media manipulation has been extremely successful. But as I explained to the other gentleman.....I was referring to "a lot" of people within the 9/11 truth movement.






Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Besides, if you believe it was a 757.......the obvious question would then be.....how DID the kevlar strengthened walls withstand it's impact so well?


It did? Then why is there a hole in the wall where the fuselage hit?


So now you have come full circle and understand what purpose an ATG missle would have served. Congratulations!

p.s. The hole was too small to be damage consistent of a 757. Although the fuselage is 13 feet the engines hang at least an additional 5 feet below the fuselage meaning if the impact point would have had to have been higher. Plus you are failing to account for the wings and the tail of the craft.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
So if you agree then it is quite obvious that you owe Anok an apology. If you don't agree perhaps you need to review the rules.


He can start by apologizing for mangling my screen name.



-- anyway, I edited the original post a while ago, so why are you harping on it?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join