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.


AGM 86A Cruise Missle hit pentagon PROOF!!!

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 12:23 AM

Originally posted by shanemcbain
You all make me sick,

One of my best mates was living in Washington in 2001 and has told me several times he watched a United Airlines plane straight into the pentagon.

American Airlines.

And maybe you/he can explain this one:

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 12:30 AM
Well if you do watch the blast in the real video footage of the impact, it can be seen very clearly. I thought it went up more than it went out of the hole it made.
Which is conclusive with a fuel or gas type detonation instead of a explosive blast that would have been directed out in a shaped type of direction. Did that make sence?
I still am not sure of what was seen on the tele. But having not been there and having first hand account I don't know.

This is a "conspiracy" site you know, don't forget that. We are going to talk about stuff that dusgusts people, like the damn Berg video. That is some sick crap and it is discussed in detail here.

Look man I have a very close bro of mine who lost his dad in the twin tower attack. He was #ed up for months and still aint right, but he's not pissed at me for looking into this stuff and trying to figure out wtf happend.

Just because some one entertains an idea don't mean they beleive it, just shows they can be open minded. Don't want to see it don't read it, no one is making you.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by ADVISOR]

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 12:58 AM

I just told you he saw an airplane ram the building - I never said he saw or touched the tail peice and I can't tell you where it went because I wasn't there. I will however, talk to my friend and ask if he knows what happened to the tail peice.


It's sad to hear your mate lost a close family member in the attacks. I too am slightly concerned about the WTC attacks and what the reason behind all the attacks was, but no convincing from anyone will make me think that something other than a commercial jet hit the pentagon. I'm sorry but I know someone who watched the plane hit the building and I would trust him with my life.

Who planned the attacks and who executed them for what reason is not related to this. Who knows Bush Co. may very well have planned the attacks - but it was a plane that hit the pentagon.

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:29 AM
I am afraid this is a fake, first time I watched it my jaw plain dropped, but after viewing it a few more times it's clear that it's fake, the explosion was a dead give a way, no smoke and has this CGI feel to it.

What was an aircraft doing there anyway filming the pentagon?!

Sorry skimmed the thread a little bit.


posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 02:17 AM
You should change your name to ASSume because that is all you have done thus far.Like many who stick by the 'official' story, all you ever do is complain about us 'nuts' and where we get our info.Had you maybe known me in the past, you would see I devoted much time to research in the CH thread and many others.I did not take words and theories and copy/paste them here.I did my own work.What you imply by saying I was referring to other sites because what SMR was saying doesn’t exist can easily be found within these very forums. So, I concluded that he goes to places that only provide one side of the story. is that my opinion is not really my can that be?Are you saying I cant think for myself? That what I believe I have to have others believe for me?

People like yourself come to a place like this all upset at people such as myself who dare think the U.S. Government could do such a thing and lash out at them.Saying they are stupid.Have no thought process and have to resort to getting bunk info from other 'nut' sites and copy/paste what they say.

I will say it again.There is NO PROOF a 757 AA jet hit the Pentagon.An image of a few parts and ONE chunk of silver metal does NOT justify as proof.

What we have as so called proof:
Crappy stills from a top of the line P.O.S. CCTV cam
One tire/rim that has been shown to fit other Boeing planes ( not just 757 )
One landing gear arm that matches many others
One fan blade that has yet to be 100% proof positive to belong on a Boeing 757
One piece silver panel belonging to anything

One more thing HybridEB,
You want to talk about copying word for word.... what is with your link to your site.All you did was copy other sites content and put it on yours!!! If that aint calling the kettle black!


It has already been stated that only the two videos were released because the lawsuit filed to obtain them specifically called for “impact” footage. Supposedly, the security camera stills are the only ones that show the actual attack on the Pentagon. There are, as you said, other videos out there from other locations that may not show the impact but the plane flying by. Hopefully those will be released as well.

Can you please show me this lawsuit.
For one, the first video was released by no lawsuit.It was just released as a 'here ya go, there it is' video.After seeing that useless junk, THEN a lawsuit was filed to release more ( not only stating impact ) and we ended up with the new junk we got few weeks ago.
Also, you say other videos out there from other locations that may not show the impact but the plane flying by ...... Ya think that maybe we wanted to see THOSE the second time around? Maybe even the first time? Ya think maybe they could shut us all up by releasing THOSE ones instead?

"Oh, we're sorry, we thought you just wanted to see video of the pretty explosion"

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 02:18 AM
I see nothing to support the accuracy of this video whatsoever. At a cursory viewing it may seem semi-real, but under any level of scrutiny it just does not hold water. With that said, I hadn't seen this one yet, and I'm glad that I can add another "fake" to my watchlist.

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 02:39 AM
no offence but the video you posted is a fake just look at the flames.
on another note i certainly see the plausablity (cant spell) in the theory of the missle you showed us

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 02:44 AM

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Just because some one entertains an idea don't mean they beleive it, just shows they can be open minded. Don't want to see it don't read it, no one is making you.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by ADVISOR]

i agree completly advisor this is a site to discuss the things noone else will. to rip apart any conspiracy out there and put it back together again, to either prove it or debunk it.
its all down to what you are willing to believe. i look at everything thats presented (meaning both sides of the debate) and come to my own conclusion about events as do alot of people.
again if you dont like what is being discussed dont read the thread

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 02:57 AM

Proof enough that this is fake?

Can't believe people believed it in the first place...

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 03:00 AM

Originally posted by shanemcbain
Proof enough that this is fake?

Yes, good proof at that.

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 03:18 AM
The video is completely fake. 100%.

As for the reason a missile could not have hit the pentagon.

Originally posted by SMR
One landing gear arm that matches many others

Since when does a missile have a landing gear?

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Nikolaos2030
Since when does a missile have a landing gear?

Since when is the government not capable of planting evidence?

When will we all see the complete and utter waste of time discussing 9/11 evidence and start focusing on the who and why?

Think outside the box

[edit on 3-6-2006 by HardToGet]


posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:00 AM
I hope that isnt directed at me since I havent said a word about a missile....
On the other hand, just because these 'parts' are there, doesnt mean they could not have been placed there.I know some will have fun with that thought there, but it is plausable.
The area that was hit was empty was it not? I cant remember.Regardless though.Imagine this was planned.Would you not place evidence in the area that it going to be hit so that it looks like a 757 hit?

If I was going to make a small plane hit an area but wanted people to think something much larger hit instead, I would plant pieces of the larger plane so I could say "See, here are the plane parts"

Now Im not saying this is what took place, I am mearly giving an example.
Dont put it past ANYONE to tell you a lie especially your Government.They do it all the time and have been for years.

I will not accept the official story until I see actual footage of an AA Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.I dont want blurs.I dont want stills from a CCTV cam with bird crap and spit on it.I want a clear shot.
Hell, even then I may not believe since we have so much technology the footage could be faked....... like the one that started this thread

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:12 AM
Ha Ha Ha Ha Yet again a 9/11 headline grabbing "PROOF".

Iwould not consider this proof for either side. Its just proof of a conspiracy to make videos about 9/11.

Look its some frames from a site seeing tour poorly editted (thats why its at the end of sequence).

Thanks again for the laugh guys

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:23 AM
You have to think logically guys,

IF the US government did in fact do this (which I doubt - but still find plausable) they would not have fired a missile at the building in broad daylight! Nor a small plane.

There were witnesses (who said they saw an American Airlines plane, one who I know personally), peices of the plane and dead bodies from passangers at the scene of the pentagon crash.

The US government could not have fired a missle or small plane at the building and then planted bodies of people on the flight and peices of the plane and get away with it. It's just impractical and an extremley stupid idea when you could simply:-

1. Hijack the plane
2. Fly it into the pentagon
3. Blame it on al-queda

Even then... I still find it more likley that:

1. Al Queda terrorists hijacked flight 77
2. They flew it into the pentagon

It's making a simple situation very complicated.

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:10 AM
Which was it he saw shane, a united plane or AA plane. And heres some food for thought for ya. The pilot of the flight that hit the pentagon, was a military pilot and advisor in a "plane hitting the pentagon" scenario just 2 yrs prior to that. Things that make you go HMMMMM.

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:10 AM
Sorry for jumping straight to page 4 without reading entire thread but it's the first decent bit of British sun all year and i gotta get out!

As for my two cents - video clip definitely feels fake to me.

The explosion doesn't seem big enough and on first and second viewing looks like CGI


posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:44 AM
Jag Mikes video is definitely BS - Faked! On the other hand... I really was interested in what the German site had to show. Mike does show us a picture of a AGM-86 and the German site shows something very similiar looking in the vids. Here is a link to learn more about the AGM-86. Could definitely be a possibility. The AGM is made by Boing and also uses the same exact engine as the 747 cept it's a bit smaller.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by thecandyman]

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 07:30 AM
There is no smoke trail in that footage whereas there is in the famous Pentagon security camera footage. Why the descrepancy? Also that video shows signs of editing with cuts to other angles, and in the longer version we see it cuts to an airport?!

My take is that some one has digitized a documentary they've had on VHS and tried (badly) to add some CGI to it.

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:21 AM
This Video is completely fabricated... as ive said in the past "It really was a plane ppl your gonna have to come to grips there was, NO missle involved".

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in