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.

 

A PLANE hit the Pentagon

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I am not saying that there is no conspiracy surrounding the events of 9/11. There most certainly was a conspiratorial aspect to these sad and tragic events. However, I am confused as to how so many could possibly deny that an airliner struck the Pentagon on September 11th.

Conspiracy theorists, including many ATS members, are ignoring one pertinent aspect surrounding the attack on the Pentagon -- eye witness reports! It seems that some people are so keen on finding any reason, but the obvious, to explain the destruction and deaths at the Pentagon that they have conveniently ignored countless eye-witness reports from people who actually saw an airliner strike the Pentagon.

One could say that all of the eye-witnesses, that is people who saw an airliner hit the Pentagon, were lying because they were "in on" the conspiracy but there is a fatal flaw to this line of thinking; it is simply impossible to keep that many people silent. It is simply human nature to expect that at least one person would stand up and say that there was a conspiracy. So far, to my knowledge, no one has done so.

So, as far as I am concerned, there was no cruise missile that struck the Pentagon. There were no explosives, no bombs, no artillery shells or rockets. Plain and simple, an airliner struck the Pentagon. A plane struck a hardened target and was obliterated in a devastatingly powerful collision and subsequent explosion. There was no video taken by tourists as there were at the WTC but that fact does not mean that we can discount eye-witness reports.

By this reasoning can we say that if there were no videos of the WTC being struck by airliners then, naturally, it must have been ball lightning, Godzilla, Thor on a rampage, termites, meteors etc. Why is it so hard to simply accept the most obvious explanation for the attack at the Pentagon?



link to eye-witness reports

another link with photos and analysis

yet another eye-witness report link

I could go on and on providing links that carry more credibility than the mere conjecture of people who were not there and who did not witness the attack.

I am sure that people will continue to believe what they want to believe because to do so bolsters their faith in an evil American regime. But to deny reality so completely in this case really serves to negate all of their beliefs to the point where one can easily begin to recognize that perhaps George Bush is right and just to wage a war against terrorism.




posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Most of the eyewitness reports contradict each other. Alot of people said they saw it hit the ground yet there was no lawn disturbance.

Some people said they saw a 757 airliner. Some say they saw a learjet sized aircraft.

In the original pentagon 5 frame we can see in the first frame a very small lear jet sized aircraft. If it was a 757 the plane in these frames would have been somewhat larger.

What was it? I don't know but I couldn't agree with you more that a plane hit the pentagon.

Too bad the FBI won't release a non watered down version of the dozens of videos confiscated so that we could actually solve the debate rather then continue to add to it.

You go right ahead and you stand by George Bush. But here's what you must do. Since you love him so much you must stand by him until it's all over. Will you promise us that much?

You continue to stand by Bush until you are the only one doing so. And when the nation cries for his blood they will also be crying for your blood.

Alot of his trusted members of his administration are bailing from him. There is too much distance between the GOP and Bush for Bush to be the next Jesus Christ.

When this is all over you'll find out what you really gain from supporting this war Criminal.




[edit on 3-6-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
All these "thousands" of eyewitnesses and NOT ONE pic or video of a 757 circling the Pentagon or approaching into it. Of course the FBI frantically went around the area confiscating security videos as if they didn't want the public to see something (or nothing). Interesting.

If a 757 crashed there, why no trace of it's tail?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 3-6-2006 by diggs]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
As CMC said, all the FBI has to do is release the tapes and my questions would be answered; And my skepticism destroyed.

BT you might ask yourself; why the delay. What don't they want us to see.
Wouldn't you think If the tapes corroborated the official story they would have been on FOX at least.

Even though I am a registered republican, I find it hard to believe anything this
administration, or any administration for that matter, says. Just because I'm a conservative dosent mean I stop thinking and questioning the powers that be.
Besides doing my best to deny ignorance; I think one of the best ways of doing
it is to QUESTION AUTHORITY.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
only one thing to say about the pentagon thing. where is the plane, if a plane crashed into the building, where is the plane.

if i cannot see any plane in the hole, how can we be sure it crashed into the building.

i mean where is the plane in the hole in the pentagon after the crash, did it just vanish.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by andy1033]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
What about the accuracy of these eyewitnesses:


"I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low,"
Captain Liebner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad, setting fire to a fire truck. - Lincoln Liebner, Army Captain


''Out of my peripheral vision,'' Cissell said, ''I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said. - James R. Cissell


The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building. - David Marra


It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing. - Christine Peterson


He saw the plane fly above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. The plane’s right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle, he said.
"For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it." - Noel Sepulveda, Master Sgt., Air Force


it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. - Tim Timmerman



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   


is that a 757?



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
only one thing to say about the pentagon thing. where is the plane, if a plane crashed into the building, where is the plane.

if i cannot see any plane in the hole, how can we be sure it crashed into the building.


It's simple....the plane disintegrated. That is, from the impact of a large airliner into a hardened, steel re-enforced concrete structure, the plane literally broke up. They found parts of the plane; i.e, landing gear, an engine and a myriad of small parts that correspond to the parts of an aircraft and the material that make those parts. Of course, it's much more exciting to think of a convoluted theory that involved thousands of otherwise ordinary citizens who lied about seeing a plane strike the Pentegon.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrantIt's simple....the plane disintegrated. That is, from the impact of a large airliner into a hardened, steel re-enforced concrete structure, the plane literally broke up. They found parts of the plane; i.e, landing gear, an engine and a myriad of small parts that correspond to the parts of an aircraft and the material that make those parts.

The plane disintegrated, but they were still able to find all the passengers bodies inside? Riiiiight.



Of course, it's much more exciting to think of a convoluted theory that involved thousands of otherwise ordinary citizens who lied about seeing a plane strike the Pentegon.

Your assertion is ridiculous. No one is say all the ordinary citizens who thought they saw a plane lied. Stop spreading disinformation.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Of course, it's much more exciting to think of a convoluted theory that involved thousands of otherwise ordinary citizens who lied about seeing a plane strike the Pentegon.

Your assertion is ridiculous. No one is say all the ordinary citizens who thought they saw a plane lied. Stop spreading disinformation.


You must have misunderstood. I was being sarcastic. When I said that I was intending to express that you either believe eye-witness or else you assume they were lying. If all of those people lied then they must be part of some grand conspiracy.

I don't believe for one minute that all of those ordinary citizens lied. They truthfully reported what they saw. They did not see a missile hit the Pentegon. Nor did they see a rocket hit the Pentegon or, for that matter, a meteorite. What the witnesses to the Pentegon terrorist act saw was an airplane hit the Pentegon.

I repeat.....many ordinary people....ordinary citizens....reported to have seen an airliner hit the Pentegon and I, for one, believe their reports!

I am not a physicist or an engineer. I don't proport to know the effects of a large airliner loaded with fuel, passengers and cargo striking a large, heavily re-enforced building. But I would suspect that the airplane would not fare well and that the building would suffer a great deal of damage. From what 'evidence' that I have seen, the plane did not fare well. It seems to have disintegrated and yes, there was a great deal of damage to the Pentegon.

Again, I am assuming that the people who reported that a plane struck the Pentegon were telling the truth! To think that all of those witnesses lied would make this one hell of an unlikely conspiracy. When I read threads right here on ATS and articles elsewhere on the internet that assert that it was anything but an airliner that struck the Pentegon, I must dismiss them. Instead, I have to accept the numerous eye-witness reports of an airliner being the instrument that caused all of that damage at this military office facility.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrantYou must have misunderstood. I was being sarcastic. When I said that I was intending to express that you either believe eye-witness or else you assume they were lying. If all of those people lied then they must be part of some grand conspiracy.

I don't believe for one minute that all of those ordinary citizens lied. They truthfully reported what they saw.

You seem to suggest the CT'ers (conspiracy theorists) think that they all did lie. That is not the case. Some of us perhaps thinks few may have lied and were in on it (which wouldn't make them ordinary citizens), but no CT'er I've heard think they all lied.

There are a lot of reasons they could have seen a plane, or thought they saw a plane.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Yea thats right the plane disintigrated.l So if thats the case then they shouldn't have found atta's passport at the WTC in perfec condition. Or the atm cards that supposedly is proof that the passengers on flight 77 died at the pentagon.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
Yea thats right the plane disintigrated.l So if thats the case then they shouldn't have found atta's passport at the WTC in perfec condition. Or the atm cards that supposedly is proof that the passengers on flight 77 died at the pentagon.


why would everything be destroyed?

get off that notion,. Things do survive even horrific anddestructive events. A fire tore through my neighbor's garage. Everything seemed to have been destoryed, but despite the 3 hours it took for firefighters to get it under control then extinguished, they were still able to sift through the aftermath and find paper work, including materials that wer next to flammable material that had survived intact or partly in tact. Why is this so?

becase no one can predict nor assume that what happens in one incident will happen for all incidents. a fire could burn this way, under certain conditions, but start that fire with similar conditions, and it could burn entirely different that time around.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Diggs,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am quite convinced that you are just refusing to read that because it proves your theory wrong. You're like an insecure child who cannot accept he's been proved wrong and even when you see the evidence, no matter how much there is, you will still refuse to believe it. Why? I don't know... maybe because you hate Bush and the US government so strongly that they had to do it right?...

As for people planting plane parts at the site before the incident... that is incredibly stupid. Wouldn't it be far, far easier to just hijack a plane instead? That way you have no worry about witnesses and no worry about film of the event. No one would have ever planned attacking the pentagon without being seen by people and cameras. That is just down right stupid.

As for the film confiscation. It's called protocol mate. If a man gets shot outside a hotel the security footage from that hotel will be taken by the FBI to help in their case study. The same happened and the pentagon. And once again the US government would not have attacked the pentagon with a missile and got some FBI agents to go along - someone would have come out with it by now.

Eyewitnesses are being ignored by the Conspiracy theorists because they are the one solid piece of evidence that a plane hit the pentagon that you can't have a response to. Even though all your other responses are making something simple very complicated. If someone says they saw the plane you cannot convince them for one second that they didn't. One of these eye witnesses is my mate of over 14 years. He still has nightmares about it and had to do some therapy in the late parts of 2001. I'm sure if you told him your theory face-to-face he would punch you square in the face.

You're making a situation extremely complicated for nothing. The day that the hotel footage is released you are going to scream "CGI!" just because it's the only thing you can do after you watch in clear view an American Airlines jet fly into the pentagon.

So I'll ask you this question mate:

What would have been easier?
a) Hi-jacking a plane and flying it into the pentagon.

b) Designing a missile that can somehow carry heavy pieces of a plane and still fly extremely accurately into the pentagon. Then get over 40 eye witnesses to lie about what they saw.

c) Get a small plane that can carry plane pieces (impossible - too heavy) and fly it into the building. Once again get 40 eye witnesses to go along with it.

d) Get people who can keep a secret to plant pieces of plane wreckage outside and inside of the pentagon in broad daylight. Assume that no one will see them being placed. Then fly a missile into the building. Once again get people to lie about what they saw.

As to why the pentagon was hit, and by who... I don't know. Although I do think it was Al-Qaeda. There is still doubt around that, however. But there is no chance in hell that anything besides a plane was used.

- Have a nice day



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by shanemcbain

As for the film confiscation. It's called protocol mate. If a man gets shot outside a hotel the security footage from that hotel will be taken by the FBI to help in their case study. The same happened and the pentagon. And once again the US government would not have attacked the pentagon with a missile and got some FBI agents to go along - someone would have come out with it by now. - Have a nice day


Protocol? The FBI releases tape all the time to find bankrobbers, child molesters,
7-11 robbers, rapists/murderers, dope dealers, terrorists etc.

If the official story was legitimate the tapes would have been shown along time ago as the FBI likes to trumpet its successes just like all law enforcement.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizywhy would everything be destroyed?

Planted stuff would survive a plane crash!



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by shanemcbain
So I'll ask you this question mate:

What would have been easier?
a) Hi-jacking a plane and flying it into the pentagon.

b) Designing a missile that can somehow carry heavy pieces of a plane and still fly extremely accurately into the pentagon. Then get over 40 eye witnesses to lie about what they saw.

c) Get a small plane that can carry plane pieces (impossible - too heavy) and fly it into the building. Once again get 40 eye witnesses to go along with it.

d) Get people who can keep a secret to plant pieces of plane wreckage outside and inside of the pentagon in broad daylight. Assume that no one will see them being placed. Then fly a missile into the building. Once again get people to lie about what they saw.

D.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group, after going through the courts, obtained a two videos of the Pentagon bombing. The video, apparently a security camera video, clearly shows a plane striking the ground and instant before the Pentagon explodes into flames.

Yes, it is a low resolution video with obvious time lapses (as many security videos are), however it is clearly a plane that hits the ground. The plane, apparhently slides into the Pentagon but the quality of the video is unable to keep up with the obvious speed of a crashing airplane.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
however it is clearly a plane that hits the ground. The plane, apparhently slides into the Pentagon but the quality of the video is unable to keep up with the obvious speed of a crashing airplane.

Hardly, if anything it looks more like a missile. Since when do 757's leaving white smoke trails? Anyhoot, nothing couldn't have flown parallel across the lawn so low to the ground like that unless an escape hatch came out of the side of the hill before it which the highway runs up on!



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

Hardly, if anything it looks more like a missile. Since when do 757's leaving white smoke trails?


considering it his several light poles along its path, maybe one of those lightpoles hit the starboard engine on its descent? ever see what happens when a wayward fowl gets sucked into an engine? Guess what, white smoke.



Anyhoot, nothing couldn't have flown parallel across the lawn so low to the ground like that unless an escape hatch came out of the side of the hill before it which the highway runs up on!


you forget about ground effect and of course the speed.

Please submit your recent air line crash investigation reports, so we have an idea on how your opinion should trump the accident investigators who say that the plane did what it did.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join