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 Question For Believers of the 757 Pentagon Conspiracy

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
I've heard quite frequently that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon not a plane. Conspiracy theorists have put fourth claims that it would be impossible for a Boeing 757 to have struck the Pentagon on 9-11. Why would it be impossible for a plane to hit the Pentagon? We saw aircraft strike the WTC in New York. Why couldn't the conspirators whoever they were simply hijack another aircraft as they did for the attack on New York?




posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
The only reason I can see is that flying a 757 into a building like the pentagon (in that manner) is rather difficult and therefore it was decided to use a cruise missile or a smaller aircraft painted as an AA 757 instead. Or for other logistical reasons. (I'm just speculating). I agree with you though, that is very odd.

What seem very strange to me if the official story is true and a 757 did hit the pentagon is the following:

1. The most important factor for me is, why have the US government not released clear video footage of the incident? Instead they release a video that seems to show absolutely nothing conclusive but only creates more speculation. I mean if a 757 hit the pentagon why not just release one of the 80+ tapes they possess from various cameras that would have captured partially or the entire incident? What’s the point of causing doubt by withholding this evidence? This is suspicious.
2. Where is the aircraft? After the impact I have never seen a single piece of the airplane or anything else that would convince me it was a 757.
3. Where are the engines? Parts of the engines were made of titanium alloy and should not have just disappeared into thin air. Why did these two objects not create big puncture holes in the pentagon?
4. The impact hole and exit hole appears to be consistent with a missile, very neat and clean. This is suspicious (but by no means conclusive evidence).

I’m sure there are other reasons why the whole scenario appears suspicious but those are the main points for me, especially I consider #1 to be really odd.

But in truth I tend to look away from this conspiracy because it is pretty much speculation. Why bother arguing and speculating about this theory when A. It does not make or break the overall conspiracy theory anyway (the collapse of the towers and especially building 7 is really the smoking gun that people should focus on) and B. the government has video of what actually happened, instead of speculating the government must be pressured to release these videos which will negate speculation. If you ask me whether or not a 757 hit the pentagon I will say that it is rather irrelevant to the overall conspiracy theory and it is pointless to speculate and debate this when clear evidence actually exists.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Vlad, you take the entry hole as small and neat? It is much wider than required to fit both engines in, beside the fuselage - that's the reason you can't see holes caused by them. These holes are part of one big hole.
But why do I bother? All of this is already being covered in other threads.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
tuccy: Why would the engines end up at the exact same spot where the fuselage impacted? There should be big holes on each side where the engines would have impacted with the building. Either way this is not a topic that I want to really use my energy on. Maybe a 757 did in fact hit the pentagon but for some absurd reason no video can be shown to prove that this was the case, in an area where there are plenty of surveillance cameras.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   


Why would the engines end up at the exact same spot where the fuselage impacted?There should be big holes on each side where the engines would have impacted with the building.



Vlad, could you show us a picture of what you think the impact hole is?






[edit on 19/7/06 by Skibum]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
No, I don't want to get into it. I might be totally wrong to believe that the claim of a 757 hitting the pentagon seems fishy but I refuse to attempt to support my uneasiness towards the official story on this particular issue. Like I said, I might be totally wrong, I’m really not certain so I’m not going to discuss this in-depth.

It would be like two athletes finishing within a split second of each other in a race and then arguing about who won instead of just looking at the photo-finish video to determine the truth. Rather unproductive in my humble opinion.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
No, I don't want to get into it.


Ya I agree with him. There is enough to show what he is talking about on here and elsewhere.

Try searching the net, I was going to show his point but decided not to also.. waste of time to prove what has and is on this forum and other places.

If you want to see what he is talking about look at the 1st link in my sig.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
Parts of the engines were made of titanium alloy and should not have just disappeared into thin air.


The fan blades were made out of titanium. They are also fragile and moving at very high speeds, so they quite probably shattered into many small pieces.

Also, titanium burns. Its auto-ignition temperature is only 482 °F.

Edit: Actually the alloy has a much higher ignition temp, but there have been instances of titanium fires in jet engines.

www.atsb.gov.au...



[edit on 19-7-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
tuccy: Why would the engines end up at the exact same spot where the fuselage impacted?


Where did I say that they've impacted the same spot? They went through the same at-least-75-foot-wide-entry-hole. That isn't like impacting at one point.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
No, I don't want to get into it.


Just be sure you are talking about the impact hole and not the "punch out."



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   


There is enough to show what he is talking about on here and elsewhere.

Try searching the net, I was going to show his point but decided not to also.. waste of time to prove what has and is on this forum and other places.



Really? Which website has the picture of what HE THINKS is the impact hole?

I googled 'VladTheImpaler's impact hole picture' and didn't come up with anything definitive.

The reason I ask is because there are quite a few people who think the c ring puchout is the impact hole.





If you want to see what he is talking about look at the 1st link in my sig.


I've looked there and couldn't find it, perhaps you could point me to the photo Vlad thinks is the impact hole?



Just a thought, if you don't want to get into it , why bother posting on the thread at all.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
The only reason I can see is that flying a 757 into a building like the pentagon (in that manner) is rather difficult and therefore it was decided to use a cruise missile or a smaller aircraft painted as an AA 757 instead. Or for other logistical reasons. (I'm just speculating). I agree with you though, that is very odd.

What seem very strange to me if the official story is true and a 757 did hit the pentagon is the following:

1. The most important factor for me is, why have the US government not released clear video footage of the incident? Instead they release a video that seems to show absolutely nothing conclusive but only creates more speculation. I mean if a 757 hit the pentagon why not just release one of the 80+ tapes they possess from various cameras that would have captured partially or the entire incident? What’s the point of causing doubt by withholding this evidence? This is suspicious.
2. Where is the aircraft? After the impact I have never seen a single piece of the airplane or anything else that would convince me it was a 757.
3. Where are the engines? Parts of the engines were made of titanium alloy and should not have just disappeared into thin air. Why did these two objects not create big puncture holes in the pentagon?
4. The impact hole and exit hole appears to be consistent with a missile, very neat and clean. This is suspicious (but by no means conclusive evidence).

I’m sure there are other reasons why the whole scenario appears suspicious but those are the main points for me, especially I consider #1 to be really odd.

But in truth I tend to look away from this conspiracy because it is pretty much speculation. Why bother arguing and speculating about this theory when A. It does not make or break the overall conspiracy theory anyway (the collapse of the towers and especially building 7 is really the smoking gun that people should focus on) and B. the government has video of what actually happened, instead of speculating the government must be pressured to release these videos which will negate speculation. If you ask me whether or not a 757 hit the pentagon I will say that it is rather irrelevant to the overall conspiracy theory and it is pointless to speculate and debate this when clear evidence actually exists.


1. because you are simply assuming they have documented footage of the whole thing. Even though they claim they don't. yet for some reason 1000s of eyewitnesses simply doesn';t hold up to some video footage that might possibly exist, but is doubtful. It makes no sense to me that those 1000s of people would all have some mass halucination.

2. there are pictures all over this forum and the web showing hundreds of plane parts. Including engines. There are many eyewitnesses who handled the parts and saw and handles the body parts of the plane passengers. There's court documents that show remains of the plane as evidence. how can you not have seena single piece when there are hundreds of photos around?

3. If you had seen the photos you would have seen parts such as engines. And their composition would have little to do with their survival. I can show you footage of jet fighters flying into walls and completely disintegrating. of course the Pentagon was not a solid wall, hence there being so much debre from the plane left over. but you get the idea.

4. The holes are not consistent with a missle at all. And what you may not realize is that the exit hole was made bigger by rescue workers so as to get better access. And the exit hole also was not made by a nose cone, but by the landing gear. So I suppose it could appear as though the exit hole was neat, but that's only because it's end shape was made by tools. The entrance hole was about as messy as can be. What I think you might be referring to is that it was a hole and not a punch out shaped like an airplane. But the wings are too light and spread out to have penetrated the building. The body on the other hand had all of its force in a focused point much like a bullet. Not to mention the wings are filled with fuel which ignites and the temperature of the imact and ignition will liquify the wings.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The fan blades were made out of titanium. They are also fragile and moving at very high speeds, so they quite probably shattered into many small pieces.


Howward you constantly say this, so I will once again say this...

THERE IS MORE TO A JET ENGINE THAN THE ROTOR or FAN BLADES!!

Did you hear me this time?

What should be left...

Engine casings...None found AFAWK, should be 2 heavily damaged but still recognizable.
Rotor blade hubs...One found AFAWK, should be approx 20, 10 per engine.
Rotor shafts...None found AFAWK, should be 2....



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Engine casings...None found AFAWK, should be 2 heavily damaged but still recognizable.
Rotor blade hubs...One found AFAWK, should be approx 20, 10 per engine.
Rotor shafts...None found AFAWK, should be 2....


None found as far as WE know pretty well sums it up. WE probably were nowhere there before during or after 9/11. This is getting tireing to the point of humorious for both sides.

mikell



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
If any of those parts were at the pentagoon there WOULD be photo's of them.

Why would the gov hide these photo's and release ones that just beg more questions?



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If any of those parts were at the pentagoon there WOULD be photo's of them.

Why would the gov hide these photo's and release ones that just beg more questions?


So you're saying that you've seen all the pictures that are available?



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Do you have any pictures of aircraft parts that I might not have seen?

I highly doubt it...

So yes I would say I have seen all the pics that have been released.

If you can prove me wrong with something new, great I'd love to see it



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell

Engine casings...None found AFAWK, should be 2 heavily damaged but still recognizable.



Look in the background




posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   
For what Howward?

You trying to say that is engine casing? Could be, but it's very hard to tell from that pic.
Could be anything really...

Sry nothing conclusive there...



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   
i dont have much opinion on 9/11 but all i can say is

1. Since when boeing doing stealth for 757 model, as we all know it was one of the 1st case a boeing dissapeared on Radar, FAA and Army said.

2 then why make a 280 degree turn to hit the only reinforce side of the pentagon. Most pilot know that at the speed he was going it would have been extremly difficult to do for a Boeing 757.

3 teh hole. Why we never see the hole before they decide to collapse the wall ( i know theres some footage of it but never from the mainstream media) a 16 feet hole for a boeing 757.. ok!?

4 Video footages have been censored. Why removing a frame at the 1st place!?

5 Stories of the past showing how drastic american millitary complex can be to generate a few $$.

6 we cannot say when (time) exactly the boeing struck into the pentagon.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by eagle eye]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join