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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Pentagon Attack - Where we draw the line

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 12 2003 @ 11:18 AM
We all know how dumb terrorists can be.
They blow themselves up right so they can't be too smart.
So just to ensure they get it right...

4 days before 9/11

posted on Oct, 12 2003 @ 09:08 PM
Interesting. But where did you get it? Do you know it's real? It's obviusly from before the attack, as there is no damage to the building (you don't see the whole building though), but it could have been alterd.

From what I remember from the media, it sure looks like it's exactly where the plane hit.

posted on Oct, 12 2003 @ 09:12 PM
what is that white lin on the grass in the circule "supposed to be"?

posted on Oct, 12 2003 @ 09:12 PM
where does the pic come from?

posted on Oct, 12 2003 @ 09:21 PM
It's a satellite photo. The actual photo is huge and is of the whole building. You guys can't even believe in a white line, sheesh.

Click on the First Pentagon Photo

posted on Oct, 12 2003 @ 09:29 PM
I'm at a loss for an explanation on this. Just too creepy to even begin to describe.

posted on Oct, 12 2003 @ 10:28 PM
Is that the exact path the plane struck at?

posted on Oct, 12 2003 @ 10:44 PM
Why draw a line? What section of the PG was destroyed? Why be so precise? What was "Taken Out"?

posted on Oct, 13 2003 @ 01:12 AM
in mystic circles the loss of one of the "sides" mean something...
and it is up to you to find out...

posted on Oct, 13 2003 @ 01:16 AM
There was no plane. Nothing with passengers struck the Pentagon. Noone flew into it.

If there was, post the pictures of the plane, and the bodies. What happened to the wreckage?

[Edited on 13-10-2003 by ADVISOR]

posted on Oct, 13 2003 @ 01:46 AM
From what I've read "something" struck the Pentagon that looked like a plane according to witnesses. There were video tapes of it, especially by security cameras of other businesses around the Pentagon, but they were supposedly confiscated. The debris found at the scene was not the size of a standard commercial jumbo jet. It was smaller. IMO, it was a painted-up cruise missile.

[Edited on 13-10-2003 by heelstone]

posted on Oct, 13 2003 @ 01:50 AM
Gotta go with the cruise missle major plane wreckage...nor enough damage to indicate a large plane hitting the structure.

posted on Oct, 13 2003 @ 03:19 AM
The popular conspiracy theory that a 747 full of passengers hitting the pentagon is so full of holes.

Not to mention that the majority of beltwayers that were interviewed very shortly afterwords said they heard a "whooosh". Not a "roar" or a "rumble" usually associated with being that close to twin turbine engines of one of the largest passenger jets. No, just a "whooosh". What the hell flys and makes a whooshing sound?

Oh screw it, I'll post all the links I've come across. This will correspond somewhat with this Post. So be sure to check out that post too. Also, there is alot on the WTC end of 9/11. But it all corresponds in the end.

More People looking for a plane
(Please look at the 4th photo from the bottom before the wall collapses)

Can you find the hole in the Pentagon?

Hunt the Boeing

More Pentagon Photos

Fema Report on WTC7

Cutter charges in WTC7

WTC1 and WTC2

posted on Oct, 13 2003 @ 03:24 AM
So what are we saying then? Who DID it?

posted on Oct, 13 2003 @ 03:25 AM

Originally posted by heelstone
Is that the exact path the plane struck at?

From everything I read, Yes. That is most definitely the point of contact and all things I've read since have said the attack came in at an angle like the picture here.

Edit: The angle could possibly be determined by comparing the entrance and exit holes for each of the penetrated structures.

[Edited on 13-10-2003 by uIVIa]

posted on Oct, 13 2003 @ 04:02 AM

Originally posted by Flinx
So what are we saying then? Who DID it?

I cannot make such an accusation without full disclosure of all the evidence. I can only say that the default propagated theory does not hold up when faced with reality.

posted on Oct, 13 2003 @ 04:08 AM
The Israeli Government and the US government carried out the September 11 attacks so that a new "Pearl Harbour" would happen to justify war that the Us people would back.

posted on Oct, 13 2003 @ 04:26 AM
U can check more stuff here:

Is full of useful info, it΄s a nice way to explain the whole thing, and of course, is the best "article" that i found on the net about 11-S.
Enjoy the reading (it takes several days to finish reading the entire thing)

In any case, there is more things about days before 11-S that are pointing at the US gov the whole time...

posted on Oct, 13 2003 @ 04:43 AM
This is the best explanation I have, I have no idea exactly what happened but I buy into this theory. It fits with this essay posted the other day on ATS at the bottom of this post..

The pieces are coming together for me now, if I was investigating 9/11 I would have several names of people I would lkike to question. The cover up is obviously deeper than I had imagined or some people would be under investigation. If thats right, then it can't be too long before someone blows the whistle, someone always does, please BLOW!



A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.

The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.

After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. You will land at [name] military air base."

The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.

What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...
That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.

[For the alleged flight paths of the four jets, see
For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try
You can search for a listing of bases in 9-11 related states by using the search engine.]

A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives — a cruise missile, if you like — is flown into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw.

The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control — without passengers — and crashed into the second tower. Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.
Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives — a cruise missile if you like — hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.

Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers.

Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.

Flight 93 is taken aloft.

Flight 93 is shot down or bombed — makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed its course.

The trail is further confused by having The Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).

The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as — did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ...
So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works."


"Now why was an executive jet owned by one of Warren Buffett's companies "tracking" Flight 93 instead of a military jet try to intercept it?

More interesting is that fact that Flight 93 was rumored to have been shot down (in which the U.S. Government vehemently denies) and that a number of witnesses claimed to have seen a "mysterious small white jet" in the same area that Flight 93 was before it crashed in which the FBI claimed there was no other plane in the area and then changed it's story and said there was one, but it was just "taking pictures" of the crash."

I wanna hear the debunkers, I remember a few of you have failed to debunk this bumble bee theory once before. Please try again, it's accurate as far as I can see.

posted on Oct, 13 2003 @ 05:24 AM

Originally posted by CoLD aNGeR
U can check more stuff here:

Is full of useful info, it΄s a nice way to explain the whole thing, and of course, is the best "article" that i found on the net about 11-S.
Enjoy the reading (it takes several days to finish reading the entire thing)

In any case, there is more things about days before 11-S that are pointing at the US gov the whole time...

Yea, I was wanting to post that site to but forgot the name, thanks. Could someone please tell me the reason it's called 11-S now? I've never heard of that until today.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in