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.

 

What really hit the pentagon

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
As many people on this site think.. the pentagon was not hit by a 757... but the question I have is by what? I have heard that it was a missle, a a3 skywarrior, a f-16 and a global hawk. Some of those are unbelievable still.... just think about it the last 3 i mentioned all have wings and the only one i could think of as being close enough to fitting is the a3. But still I have the question of what about the witnesses who said they saw a plane? is there a way they could have dressed it up? what do you guys think in your opinion hit the pentagon and does it match with the destruction?




posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Whoa, a thread at a time please, I already posted on your flight 93 one ... as for what really happened, I don't know ... but I already replied to another thread of the same topic ...



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
What really hit the pentagon?

A rare, genetically enhanced "super pigeon" that tried to fly through a window - and failed miserably.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I agree with the A-3 skywarrior theory. I don't know if you can find any info on the net about this but I heard from a private pilot (ex Mil) that shortly before 9/11 Three A-3 skywarriors were outfitted by the military with remote control flight systems.

This is where we need to watch the Naudet video closely. Too bad they didn't zoom in quick enough because even in the blurred section of the first plane it still seems to small in width to be a 757.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
It wasn't a 757. It was a 767. And you could tell from the what, half mile away, and 1 second we saw it that it was too small to be either of them? It's called perspective. Of course it looks to small. You're a good distance away, looking through a camera, that makes it look smaller still.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It wasn't a 757. It was a 767. And you could tell from the what, half mile away, and 1 second we saw it that it was too small to be either of them? It's called perspective. Of course it looks to small. You're a good distance away, looking through a camera, that makes it look smaller still.


Please stop diluting yourself with these fanciful observations based on perspective. No one person can clearly make out what crashed into the Pentagon, and for you to make it seem like it was obvious is truely asinine on your part. Oh yeah, I see you trying to explain the wing marks in the ground at Shanksville in the other thread too, it's clear you've just latched on to the official version of this and will go down with the ship. I'm new here so forgive my ignorance, but how could someone like you rack up so many ATS points with posts like this? Show me screen shots where you can make out a 767 flying into the Pentagon. I don't care what kind of lens you're using, how far away you are, what kind of angle you have of it.. a plane as big and long as a 767 is compared to the Pentagon SHOULD appear in the videos, if not the body then at the very least the tail of it as it crashes into the wall.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Coincidentally on the security camera footage there IS something strongly resembling tail of the large jet and on one shot from the other camera there is something long, dark silver, just abova the ground. By combining both footages of cameras taking almost the same field of view that long silvery thingie seems to head towards Pentagon and towards the place where that taily thingie is seen on the second camera.
If the footage of aircraft prior to impact is the proof you ask, why don't ask footage of plane before crash in any plane crash? What about that Greek Airbus last summer?



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenVisage
Please stop diluting yourself with these fanciful observations based on perspective. No one person can clearly make out what crashed into the Pentagon, and for you to make it seem like it was obvious is truely asinine on your part. Oh yeah, I see you trying to explain the wing marks in the ground at Shanksville in the other thread too, it's clear you've just latched on to the official version of this and will go down with the ship. I'm new here so forgive my ignorance, but how could someone like you rack up so many ATS points with posts like this? Show me screen shots where you can make out a 767 flying into the Pentagon. I don't care what kind of lens you're using, how far away you are, what kind of angle you have of it.. a plane as big and long as a 767 is compared to the Pentagon SHOULD appear in the videos, if not the body then at the very least the tail of it as it crashes into the wall.


Learn what the hell you're talking about before jumping all over someone. AND I QUOTE "This is where we need to watch the Naudet video closely. Too bad they didn't zoom in quick enough because even in the blurred section of the first plane it still seems to small in width to be a 757." The Naudet brothers were the ones that were in NEW YORK taping the fire fighters when the first plane hit, and they have the ONLY known video of the first impact.

You claim that I'm clinging to a sinking ship, but at least I know what the hell I'm talking about, before I open my mouth. As far as the wing marks, I'm sure you expect a perfect little airplane outline whenever one hits the ground, right?
I suggest you find some pictures of planes that went straight into the ground and show a perfect cartoon impact outline.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by BrokenVisage
Please stop diluting yourself with these fanciful observations based on perspective. No one person can clearly make out what crashed into the Pentagon, and for you to make it seem like it was obvious is truely asinine on your part. Oh yeah, I see you trying to explain the wing marks in the ground at Shanksville in the other thread too, it's clear you've just latched on to the official version of this and will go down with the ship. I'm new here so forgive my ignorance, but how could someone like you rack up so many ATS points with posts like this? Show me screen shots where you can make out a 767 flying into the Pentagon. I don't care what kind of lens you're using, how far away you are, what kind of angle you have of it.. a plane as big and long as a 767 is compared to the Pentagon SHOULD appear in the videos, if not the body then at the very least the tail of it as it crashes into the wall.


Learn what the hell you're talking about before jumping all over someone. AND I QUOTE "This is where we need to watch the Naudet video closely. Too bad they didn't zoom in quick enough because even in the blurred section of the first plane it still seems to small in width to be a 757." The Naudet brothers were the ones that were in NEW YORK taping the fire fighters when the first plane hit, and they have the ONLY known video of the first impact.

You claim that I'm clinging to a sinking ship, but at least I know what the hell I'm talking about, before I open my mouth. As far as the wing marks, I'm sure you expect a perfect little airplane outline whenever one hits the ground, right?
I suggest you find some pictures of planes that went straight into the ground and show a perfect cartoon impact outline.


I don't know what relevence that first paragraph has with the Pentagon crash or the Shanksville plane being shot down, but thanks for your quote and brief input anyway! I'm glad you know what the hell you're talking about too and that you know what I expect when a plane crashes into the ground nose first. From what I saw of the wreckage shots at Shanksville there is no way in hell a 767 just flew into a hole with nothing sticking up out of the ground, leaving a debris trail for 8 miles in the process. For your information I don't expect some perfect chalk outline of the wings and engnes and tail being flown into the ground, but I expect MORE than what I saw. Also, I never said your ship is sinking either, it's remaining well a-float with the amount of bullshit being mass-produced by our government but you've just happily plugged your nose and are enjoying the ride.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Diagram of Pentagon breached walls and one of the WTC holes, scaled to one another:



Note the 767-200 wingspan (impacted WTC) is ~15% wider than the 757-200 (impacted Pentagon).


~*~*~*~*~

[edit on 29-5-2006 by vor75]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
Diagram of Pentagon breached walls and one of the WTC holes, scaled to one another:


Nice pic, look god to me, but I'm afraid I can already hear "And where are the wingtips" question...

After all, teh Catherder's work didn't work on die-hard believers



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
Diagram of Pentagon breached walls and one of the WTC holes, scaled to one another:





The hole in the Pentagon is weird. It looks artificial. The cuts in the hole look too clean from being made by a plane crash and I'm not basing my observation on this drawing, but photos of the actual building. It also looks as if the plane came in straight and level, not at 45 degrees and it's wings tilting to the left. I bet that hole was created by man-made means.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Dan Rather news coverage saying unconfirmed reports of a helicopter crashing into the Pentagon:

www.youtube.com...



Reports of helicopter crashing into Pentagon


2:47:43 PM

There are reports that a helicopter has crashed into the Pentagon.

An eyewitness said that they saw the helicopter circle the building and after it disappeared behind it, an explosion occured.

archives.tcm.ie...



Excerpts from an interview with Captain William B. Durm, USN, who was Commander of the Pentagon’s Triservice Dental Clinic.

Still, I did not know a plane hit us. As I got close, somebody said a helicopter had hit the other side of the building. I had not seen that area yet.

history.amedd.army.mil...



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

The hole in the Pentagon is weird. It looks artificial. The cuts in the hole look too clean from being made by a plane crash and I'm not basing my observation on this drawing, but photos of the actual building. It also looks as if the plane came in straight and level, not at 45 degrees and it's wings tilting to the left. I bet that hole was created by man-made means.


The plane that hit the Pentagon had its right wing clipped by the generator sitting outside of the walls. That cuased the plane to tilt to the port side as it crashed into the wall.

Of course its going to look different. glass vs concrete. concrete in no way acts like glass an glass tends to take the 'form" of anything that cracks through it, especially if its reinforced or lined glass, like the glass they used for windows on the WTC buildings

anyone who tries tocompare to the two are grasping at straws.

doesn't support anything at all.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WizyThe plane that hit the Pentagon had its right wing clipped by the generator sitting outside of the walls.

There is actually some dispute on that: The power generator oddity.


That cuased the plane to tilt to the port side as it crashed into the wall.

So it was flying level, clipped the generator, and tilted to it's left in the last few yards all the while traveling 530mph?


Of course its going to look different. glass vs concrete. concrete in no way acts like glass an glass tends to take the 'form" of anything that cracks through it, especially if its reinforced or lined glass, like the glass they used for windows on the WTC buildings

Wasn't trying to compare it to the WTC (there you go running with things again), just saying the cuts in the facade are too "clean" looking as if there were literally cut! It was at the renovated section where some cutting could have been done.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
The debate about what really happened at the Pentagon is extremely interesting.
For those of you who truly believe that American Airlines flight 77 did not in fact crash into the Petagon, what do you propose happened to that flight and all the people aboard?


This is my first post and is no sarcasm is implied. Sorry if this has been covered somewhere else.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63For those of you who truly believe that American Airlines flight 77 did not in fact crash into the Petagon, what do you propose happened to that flight and all the people aboard?

Most likely AA 77 and UA 93 were flown somewhere else, landed, and the passengers murdered. Dover military base did both 77 and 93's passenger autopsies. Coincidence?



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   


Most likely AA 77 and UA 93 were flown somewhere else, landed, and the passengers murdered. Dover military base did both 77 and 93's passenger autopsies. Coincidence?


I have read through almost all the posts regarding this topic but not recall anyone posting any evidence that these two flights were landed at some covert site.
I would love to see this if anyone has any.

I was under that impression that these flights were both being tracked by radar until they crashed. If I am wrong please correct me.

It seems totally inconsistant that the Govt would puposely crash two planes into the Towers for all to see, but then secretely land flight 77 and use a cruise missile to inflict the damage to the Pentagon, and then murdering the passengers at some secret site. Shades of Rube Goldberg! IF that was their intention, why not go ahead and actually crash flight 77 in to the Pentagon instead?

Once again I dont mean to step on anyones toes, It seems some here are extremely sensitive. I'm new and not ready to be flamed.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I'm sure this has been posted around here some where, but not about to dig around searching for it right now.

Bird Strike AA77 Flight Path



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63



I have read through almost all the posts regarding this topic but not recall anyone posting any evidence that these two flights were landed at some covert site.
I would love to see this if anyone has any.


There isn't any. Its easier to speculate than offer proof. That's how all conspiracy theories are born. Out of twisting of facts to suit an established conclusion.


I was under that impression that these flights were both being tracked by radar until they crashed. If I am wrong please correct me.


And dont forget that some on all three flights were able to call their loved ones from these planes before they crashed.


It seems totally inconsistant that the Govt would puposely crash two planes into the Towers for all to see, but then secretely land flight 77 and use a cruise missile to inflict the damage to the Pentagon, and then murdering the passengers at some secret site. Shades of Rube Goldberg! IF that was their intention, why not go ahead and actually crash flight 77 in to the Pentagon instead?


Or why not just fly a bomber plane and shoot a missile into all three buildings? Why involved innocent lives at all?



Once again I dont mean to step on anyones toes, It seems some here are extremely sensitive. I'm new and not ready to be flamed.


you wont and go ahead an step on peoples toes. They need someone to at least get them find the facts to support their assinine theories.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join