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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
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.


So a plane that hits the ground, and slides into the Pentagon is vaporized. If it just slid into the building where are all the parts and debris ? Where are the markings on the lawn where it slid ? Oh and wher did you say you got your aviation training from ?

[edit on 4-6-2006 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Sorry Diggs but you are downright stupid mate,

Are you telling me that approx. 70-80 people who give their statements here:-

www.geocities.com...

Are liars? That they are working for the US government to cover up the plot. Are you telling me my best friend is a liar working for the government?

You're also telling me that option D that I gave you would be easier than hi-jacking the craft... you are obviously a bit mentally challenged.

You've been proven wrong on several occasions and your theory is bogus with so many flaws it's not even funny. Get over it - you're wrong.

Stop with your pathetic crap and move on to a different forum where you can freely act like a child who says "nu-uh did not!" whenever he's proven to be wrong instead of accepting he is wrong and altering his theory accordingly.

Child.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by shanemcbain
Sorry Diggs but you are downright stupid mate,

Stop with your pathetic crap and move on to a different forum where you can freely act like a child who says "nu-uh did not!" whenever he's proven to be wrong instead of accepting he is wrong and altering his theory accordingly.

Child.

Man you are immature.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   
If the eye witnesses were "in on it", and they COULDN'T keep it a secret, they most likely will be labeled as another "911 conspiracy nutcase". Who would believe them? Relying on eye witnesses alone is NOT a good way to prove things, you have to look at that hard evidance, the things that cannot be faked.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Come on Benev get with the program. The authorities don't hide and cover up incidents like they did on 9/11 unless there is something really powerful to hide.

"...History is a group of events DECIDED by man..."

Napoleon Bonapart. 33rd Mason.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
i'm really amazed at peoples ability to swallow this hogwash. there's no way a 757 hit the pentagon.
if the two planes that hit the world trade center buidlings did not blow up on impact but rather, once the fuel tanks were exploded inside the buildings, then why would the 757 explode on impact, as is evident in the recently released tell all video?
where is the luggage to all the passengers?
how did a plane allegedly hit the area enclosed in chain link fence and not rip it entirely out of the ground? and furthermore, didn't even leave any tracks on the lawn?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I'm really amazed at people's ability to compare the impact at the WTC (steel) with the Pentagon (kevlar reinforced concrete designed to withstand a massive truck bomb almost against the building) and say "Look what happened here! It should have done the same thing there!" Why would two COMPLETELY different construction materials react the same way?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Trends in Witness Descriptions

Ive already posted in other threads about all the evidence against a missile hitting the Pentagon.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'm really amazed at people's ability to compare the impact at the WTC (steel) with the Pentagon (kevlar reinforced concrete designed to withstand a massive truck bomb almost against the building) and say "Look what happened here! It should have done the same thing there!" Why would two COMPLETELY different construction materials react the same way?


Yes kind of amazing how a aluminum airframe went all the way through all those walls. Most crashes the nose can't even hit a tree without braking all apart.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I actually listened to what you said up until then, what's the nose cone alone got to do with anything? We're talking about a 12' wide and 178' long tube here, not a solitary nose cone.
If your talking about the exit hole, then I was under the impression that the forward landing gear was found on the other side as well. I also read somewhere a rumour that the hole was created by emergancy services for access, so maybe it is a combination of the two stories? Maybe they enlarged an existing hole for acces and that's what we're looking at?
I know it's just a crazy theory, no-ones put it on their DVD or writes about it on their website so it's probably an insane thought, especially when a more logical explanation is that it was caused by a missile

Yes, yes - I know - 'NSA - Office of Weapons and Space' (I thought the NSA dealt with cryptography and intelligence gathering by the way? What does your weapons division do exactly, and why do you keep flaunting it?) and ex Air Force chief... with honours!... SIR! and all that, but seriously, I know people in aviation (I'm training to be a pilot myself even) and I regularly mingle with serving and ex military personnel (including some in aviation) and they don't have any issues with the physics behind the events, so if it's all the same I'll go with they guys that I speak to face to face who I actually know are what they say they are.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I actually listened to what you said up until then, what's the nose cone alone got to do with anything? We're talking about a 12' wide and 178' long tube here, not a solitary nose cone.
Yes, yes - I know - 'NSA - Office of Weapons and Space' (I thought the NSA dealt with cryptography and intelligence gathering by the way? What does your weapons division do exactly, and why do you keep flaunting it?) and ex Air Force chief... with honours!... SIR! and all that, but seriously, I know people in aviation (I'm training to be a pilot myself even)


Well i was commenting on how fragile the nose and aluminum airframe are. If you have seen pics of crash sites there is usually nothing left of the nose area and most of the body. Here is a pic of plane that struck the ground at a low angle and hit some trees, see what it did to the aluminum airframe.

x10.putfile.com...

NSA does deal with cryptography and intelligence gathering, they have several offices that do different types of intell gathering. Like monitering all foriegn aircraft and missile test and putting out information on all radar systems.

I was a Crew Chief in the Air Force from 1981 -1985 on the follwing aircraft.

1981-1983 RF-4C, RAF Alconbury England
1983-1985 T-38A, Reese AFB, TX.

[edit on 10-6-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 10-6-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
OK, if a plane did not hit the Pentagon, as many contend, then I have to make several assumptions;

1. that something other than a plane caused the explosion at the Pentagon
a. bomb
b. missile
c. car bomb
c. suicide bomber

2. that the hi-jacked plane;
a. was never hi-jacked
b. or never crashed
c. was diverted to ?

I might have missed something in my list but, I'm sure, that others will quickly come up with other assumptions or criticize my own.

But what I don't understand is the logic in blowing up the Pentagon with something other than the plane? After all a couple of other planes clearly smashed into the Pentagon. Why would "they" go through the trouble of hi-jacking a plane, making it swoop down over the Pentagon only to "disappear"? Why would they "make" ALL the witnesses LIE? Why bother using a missile or some other means to cause the explosion at the Pentagon when "they" already had a perfectly viable method -- the hi-jacked plane -- to wreak the damage that "they" were seeking?

The Pentagon explosion by any other means other than a plane simply does not make sense. At least not if a plane had been hi-jacked. The crux, therefore, is to prove that a plane had not been hi-jacked or that a plane had not gone missing. If a plane had, indeed, gone missing but, as many contend, that it did not hit the Pentagon then where did the plane go?



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
OK, if a plane did not hit the Pentagon, as many contend, then I have to make several assumptions;

1. that something other than a plane caused the explosion at the Pentagon
a. bomb
b. missile
c. car bomb
c. suicide bomber

2. that the hi-jacked plane;
a. was never hi-jacked
b. or never crashed
c. was diverted to ?


Well i for 1 did not say that a plane did not hit the Pentagon,, all i asked is where all the proper debris is that should be there.

But for disccussion sake lets say that it was a missile. If i was going to hit a building that i knew had a hardened reinforced wall i might want to put a missile into the wall to make sure i got enough explosive force inside the building.

Also maybe i t was a 757 but was it flight 77, remember flight 77's transponder was turned off and it went off radar for a few minutes. Now a C-130 that was ordered to check out the unknown aircraft heading to the Pentagon said they saw a 757 but if it was flight 77 is not known. Also the FAA carried on flight 77's registration form that it was missing for a while, then it was changed to destoyed.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
The U.S. was going to attack itself in a similar fashion in the 60s with Operation Northwoods,so they could hit Cuba,,,Some of the protocols of Northwoods were applied to 9-11.The third world fire is well under way,,,conrtoling the minds of sheeple citizens who believe they are free is all part of it.You don't really believe 19 cave dwellers could pull this all off against the most powerful nation.Then to boot this flimsy 9-11 investigation.

The russian reports state that the bush administration dropped its own buildings,and brilliantly decieved the people to attack Saddam instead of the Saudi Arabian man Bin-Laden.Then again Skull& Bones is in tight with the Saudi elite and make billions together.Same sort of tightness Prescott Bush injoyed with being the U.S. natzi banker.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by questions2u
You don't really believe 19 cave dwellers could pull this all off against the most powerful nation.


They weren't cave dwellers, they were studying universities and all that. You know, not every Arab is a cave-dwelling goat herder.


The russian reports state that the bush administration dropped its own buildings,and brilliantly decieved the people to attack Saddam instead of the Saudi Arabian man Bin-Laden.


Erm. Report of Zhirinovski? We are rather close to Russia and have enough experience to not believe anything they're claiming, esp. such people as Zhirinovski.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by tuccy]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
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]


Yeah, it's called gathering evidence for there investigation.


The one problem with cases like these, is when there are so many witnesses to an event, somebody is bound to get some story contradicting another one, which triggers dumb conspiracys. That's what factored into the Holocaust conspiracy. One guy might say, "They called him Frederick "the terrible" ", but really he was "John "the awful" ". People tend to get these little details mixed up and all the sudden, it turns into a big elaborate conspiracy. One person might say "The plane tilted to the left, and then to the right and slammed into the Pentagon". Another person might say, "The wing tipped off the helipad and cartwheeled into the crash". Someone might also say the plane was small and another might say it was big. Also, what a lot of the testimony's i've read don't tell us is where they were in relation to the crash. If you ignore all the little details that the witnesses get confused over, than the whole thing adds up.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by nt327
If you ignore all the little details that the witnesses get confused over, than the whole thing adds up.




Actually it all the little confusing details that keeps the whole thing from adding up.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Psychologic experiments have been done where groups of volunteers (not knowing the true nature of the experiment) have been made to 'accidently' witness an accident or crash scene. One which sticks out in mind particularly was a televised experiment where a UFO crash scene was manufactured and people who thought they were on a tour taken past it. They were then later questioned after the incident and also days/weeks after to see how their story varied from person to person and even over time. The results predictably showed that their testimonies varied greatly with bits added in, bits taken out, exaggerations, understatements, etc.
If the witness stories tied up perfectly and seamlessly with no variations that would be suspicious, the fact they vary greatly seems consistant with what one would expect.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I'll totally agree with that. Witness testimonies that agree are to be treated with the greatest suspicion. In car crashes, for example, almost every witness will give a totally different estimate of how fast the car/s were travelling. Witness testimony can go so far but it isn't the be all and end all of evidence.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Also, with this conpsiracy, people tend to think the government is a lot more capable than they actually are. Do you think that if Bill Clinton couldn't keep his sex scandal under the radar, that one term later, our govt could do this???



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join