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.

 

yet another 9-11 thread i guess...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
this is just a simple (i think) question:

if the whole "a boeing 757 did not hit the pentagon" theory / idea is true, then why wouldn't the US gov't (the "bad guys" in this theory) just simply crash the plane into the pentagon in the first place???

the "a boeing 757 did not hit the pentagon" theory / idea is way too much work for the US gov't, they should have done what the theory intended it to do...

right???

who knows...

just use this logic for this thread...

but, on the contrary, i am currently reading this and i am amazed...






posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Why aren't you posting this in the thread you found the article from?

This question was JUST discussed in that thread.

First off.......what covert operative would agree to suicide pilot the 757?

2nd off.....A 757 is not as maneuverable as a smaller craft and would put the operation in jeapardy.

The military precision required to pull off the amazing flight path and to hit the pentagon dead on in the area that was recently refurbished required an aircraft that could be maneuvered sufficiently by remote control.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
if the whole "a boeing 757 did not hit the pentagon" theory / idea is true, then why wouldn't the US gov't (the "bad guys" in this theory) just simply crash the plane into the pentagon in the first place???


As another line of thought, imagine that a 757 did hit the Pentagon, but that info suggesting otherwise was intentionally thrown upon us immediately afterwards, so that it could be shot down later in case too many people starting asking too many questions about 9/11.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
yeah...

i should have done that Jack Tripper...

if there was no suicide pilot flying the 757, does this meant that there were some on the planes that hit the towers???

hmmm...





posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL

if there was no suicide pilot flying the 757, does this meant that there were some on the planes that hit the towers???




i don't believe so.

i believe that all of the flights were swapped out for military drones.

there is plenty of evidence in support of this.

just browse this incredible site of hardcore researchers......


www.team8plus.org...



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
If all the flights were swapped out with drones, then how did they identify the remains of the passengers in the rubble?

Or do you think they switched out the passengers, killed them all, them planted the evidence at ground zero?


It would help if you could post some of this proof you claim is on that site.

As much as I would love to reads hours of the same old BS, why don't you point out this glorious proof.

[edit on 7-2-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

They See All
if there was no suicide pilot flying the 757, does this meant that there were some on the planes that hit the towers???


Remote piloting is old technology.


The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.


www.dfrc.nasa.gov...


Jack Tripper
A 757 is not as maneuverable as a smaller craft and would put the operation in jeapardy.


Exactly. To use a real 757 would introduce too many variables, they needed to use something with more precision and control.

[edit on 7-2-2006 by shanti23]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
A 757 might not have penetrated the Pentagon's quite solid concrete & kevlar walls, thus compromising the notion of airplanes being highly devastating weaponry, which appears crucial for the operation. In case the walls would've stopped the plane, the WTC's damage would've certainly come into question.

SANDIA once smashed an F4 Phantom into a concrete wall to determine how well nuclear powerplants were protected vs accidental crashes, the plane didn't fare too well. Of course a 757 is heavier, but it's larger also, therefore density shouldn't be much different.

So yea, that's one hypothesis



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If all the flights were swapped out with drones, then how did they identify the remains of the passengers in the rubble?

Or do you think they switched out the passengers, killed them all, them planted the evidence at ground zero?


It would help if you could post some of this proof you claim is on that site.

As much as I would love to reads hours of the same old BS, why don't you point out this glorious proof.



I don't believe they identified any remains of actual passengers at ground zero.

If they did it was merely dna samples and yes they could have easily lied about it or simply used samples from the "disposed of" planes that they brought to the lab.

I used the word "evidence" not "proof". Do you know the difference? Feel free to look them up at www.dictionary.com.

If you are truly interested you can search the site yourself. I posted the link for you but I am not here to hold your hand.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join