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.

 

Boeing 757 Hits Pentagon

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Interesting site. But I feel you've missed the point. If the US government planned this attack, they would have had to use planes that were similar - at least in size / parts / colour etc - to the planes they would later 'claim' were used - commercial airliners. Otherwise - if they used cruise missiles, for example - it would be far more obvious that commercial airliners didn't hit the Pentagon/WTC than it actually is and hence the government 'story' would hold no water from the start. What we are left with (in the case of the Pentagon) is wreckage, holes roughly the right size, bits of engine, bits of fusellage, etc, from - surprise surprise - a 757.

Well, exactly! Of course! No one is going to believe that this is a government cover up BECAUSE there are bits of 757 lying around, which is exactly what the government would have planned.

It is, therefore, not the absence of 757 that is the problem. It is the absence of bodies, luggage, personnal belongings, and big pieces of easily identifiable wreckage. The problem is not the absence of 757. It is the absence of COMMERCIAL 757.

If I were planning this attack, and I intended to cover it up, I would have used an American military 757 refuelling plane, painted it red and white (or whatever), loaded it with jet fuel, mounted an explosive charge in the nose to ignite the fuel on impact, and sent it merrily on its way.

Result, the charge detonates the fuel, ensuring most of the wreckage is burnt beyond recognition, and the big bits that aren't burnt beyond recognition are those of a 757, and I then later say that everybody on board was incinerated, hence the lack of bodies/personal effects etc.

That's what I'd do, if I were a nutter. Ask yourself, purely speculatively, what would you do?

Then watch IN PLANE SITE.




posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Erm, somehow cannot find the 757 tanker, Boeing proposed 767 tanker in 2001.
Also, how did the remains, however burned and scattered, of passangers of the flight 77 get into the Pentagon to be found there? That you can't ee whole bodies on the pictures doesn't mean there weren't any remains.

EDIT: Oh and btw where is then the Flight 77 757?

[edit on 14-6-2006 by tuccy]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Depending on who or what you want to believe: the military is in cahoots with certain alien factions and has access to highly advanced technology even the ability to travel through time.

If one believe such things, then the reality that we saw was not the reality that occurred for one reason we ended up with what we got.

I don't believe it was all done that way and that much of what happened that day was conventional although not public technology.

I see no reason that it was an inside job in the sense that it was run out of the White House although some there knew about it. It was a spook and military job and foreign powers were also involved for obvious reasons - using foreign nationals if only for martyrs etc.

When the truth comes out and it will, a certain little country is in deep doo doo I think.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Erm, somehow cannot find the 757 tanker, Boeing proposed 767 tanker in 2001.
Also, how did the remains, however burned and scattered, of passangers of the flight 77 get into the Pentagon to be found there? That you can't ee whole bodies on the pictures doesn't mean there weren't any remains.

EDIT: Oh and btw where is then the Flight 77 757?

[edit on 14-6-2006 by tuccy]


Well how about 757 cargo ? Flight 77's registration with FAA states it was destroyed but no infomration on where and when.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but I really gotta say something this time:

Do we really need another "A 757 hit/did not hit the Pentagon" thread?


We already have eleventy-seven other threads that cover the same or similar facts, views, opinions, etc. It seems that a new thread of the same nature is added every couple of weeks.

Instead of adding to the clutter, why not just do a quick search and use one of the pre-existing "757 vs. Pentagon" threads. The following is a small sample of the appropriate threads already devoted to this topic:

www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">A 757 did not hit the pentagon!!!!!

Proof that the pentagon didn't get hit by a boeing 757

Why they didn't use a 757 to hit the Pentagon.

9/11: A Boeing 757 *DID NOT* Strike the Pentagon

www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">John Lear: Pentagon

www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Boeing 757-200 crash into Pentagon. But where is the Jet?

Pentagon cctv 9/11 : where are the missing frames and the 757?

Did anybody from the Pentagon come forward and say, "Yes, I saw the plane fly into our building."

This is a MUST see for everyone!!(Pentagon)



[edit on 15-6-2006 by Xenophobe]




top topics
 
0

log in

join