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.

 

Isn't this how the Pentagon attack should have looked?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
newsbusters.org...

The Mysterious release of the original 5 frames back in 2001 was inconclusive and the recent judicial watch videos which showed only a small nose cone (same as AGM cruise missile?) just added even more fuel to the fire of inside job.



[edit on 29-7-2006 by whokilledthekennedys]




posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Not even close. That video shows the wrong approach angle and the wrong scale for the jet against the Pentagon. In other words, its a complete waste of time.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Ok the most incorrect assumption about the pentagon is that the plane came in perpendicular to the camera. The plane was coming towards the camera and at the pentagon if you get what I mean.

As for the plane - it's out of scale something shocking. The pentagon is 77ft tall, a 757 is 44ft tall. That 757 is grossly out of proportion to the building.

As for the cruise missile - read the eye witness testimonies.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
The size is accurate. 40 vs 70 means that the height of the 757 should be slightly more the half the height of the building and the doctored pic shows that clearly.

Don't get me wrong. There's a hole. But it should have looked much bigger then it was.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Oh let me guess. The fragile wings and tail should have ripped a cartoon hole right?

And the proportions are NOT right. A 757 is 40+ feet tall with GEAR DOWN. Obviously flight 77 didn't have the gear down.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Since when is knowing what I'm talking about and having experience with aviation and the way planes work being a paid gov't employee?



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Not even close. That video shows the wrong approach angle and the wrong scale for the jet against the Pentagon. In other words, its a complete waste of time.


The angle looks the same to me as the released video clip. Maybe you need to see it again because that part is unchanged.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
so Yeah Right, you have been here a total of 40 days and you know that zap is a paid gov. employee?

WOW that's some detective work there, Sherlock would be proud.

You have any evidence to back that up? A payslip stating his department? His employee record? Any proof at all?

Slander is a very serious thing you know? Especially here on ATS.

I suggest you refrain from making remarks like that or you may find your 40 days here is about all you will get.





[edit on 31-7-2006 by picklewalsh]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
this looks pretty convincing...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
As previously stated by a few posters. the scale is completely off, so no reason to debate or discuss that vid.

yeah right, if you are not going to add anything to the discussion they why even post.
And your post is hilarious to say the least, and slanderous to boot. Zaphod is not even close to being a paid govt employee at the moment, and calling him a poser(name-calling) is against the T&C that you agreed to when joining this site. I suggest you unbunch your proverbial panties and apologize to Zap or you may not be here long enuff to learn the truth about a great guy.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by whokilledthekennedys
newsbusters.org...

The Mysterious release of the original 5 frames back in 2001 was inconclusive and the recent judicial watch videos which showed only a small nose cone (same as AGM cruise missile?) just added even more fuel to the fire of inside job.



[edit on 29-7-2006 by whokilledthekennedys]


I dont know if anyone has noticed but if you look at video 2 as the police car drives pass notice a big stick? and it goes down frame by frame? could that be the trigger that blown the pentagon? watch the video clip 2 again, and on the side of the police car in front of the pentagon notice the stick going down and the plane hasnt even hit it.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
well if there is a conspiracy deeper than a few missing videotapes then we are doing exactly what the perps would want, arguing over it and not getting to the bottom of it.

back OT, did you mean the link i posted? it wasn't with the original.

im going to reboot into windows and watch the flash trash and look for the stick. im guessing it will be a good find, although i doubt the gov would release a tape with evidence on it.

wow. they did release it with evidence on it...

[edit on 1-8-2006 by jprophet420]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
this looks pretty convincing...

www.youtube.com...


what it convinced me of is that it would need a very experianced pilot if not an experianced millitary pilot with experiance at hands on nap of the earth flying to pull it off. not an inexperianced, barely trained suicide pilot. just look at how far this aircraft would have had to fly at about a foot off the ground, as well as correction of flight path after hitting each pole. just the ability to keep the aircraft from hitting the ground at such a height takes great skill or extreemly good luck.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh let me guess. The fragile wings and tail should have ripped a cartoon hole right?


Yet that is exactly what happened at the WTC towers. Fragile wings cutting through construction steel like butter. Obviously steel is a lot stronger than aluminum.

Magically disappearing wings and engines at the pentagoon. Obviously kevlar reinforced concrete is stronger than aluminum. The plane managed to punch through the concrete sucking the wings and engine through the hole with it, then magically pulverize into nothing. Kinda like the WTC concrete...But by what? If the plane was strong enough to punch through the concrete, what made it self destruct? The furniture inside?


Something very odd about these planes imo...



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   
So you think that 80+ tons moving at up to 500 mph WON'T penetrate? Short of a nuclear reactor wall, nothing built with withstand a plane impact at those speeds. And reinforced kevlar is stronger than concrete.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh let me guess. The fragile wings and tail should have ripped a cartoon hole right?


Yet that is exactly what happened at the WTC towers. Fragile wings cutting through construction steel like butter. Obviously steel is a lot stronger than aluminum.

Magically disappearing wings and engines at the pentagoon. Obviously kevlar reinforced concrete is stronger than aluminum. The plane managed to punch through the concrete sucking the wings and engine through the hole with it, then magically pulverize into nothing. Kinda like the WTC concrete...But by what? If the plane was strong enough to punch through the concrete, what made it self destruct? The furniture inside?


Something very odd about these planes imo...




yes sir, very perceptive,,yet......
the govt insists otherwise,,

why do people NOT see this also????

is it pride?? they refuse to believe??

like your one and only child,, no matter what or who says anything bad about them
you will refuse to believe it,,,

or they trusted them so very long, and it shatters/crushes their heart..
to think they COULD be led astray???

b.t.w...............i was led to believe that "aircraft aluminum",,
was stronger AND lighter, than quality steel,,

remember the towers were built in the 70's..
and the newer aircraft are light weight,, thanks to that aluminum...

soda can aluminum would get crushed..

but i can see aircraft grade "billet aluminum" poking real nice holes in concrete,,

ever see a 2x4 get forced through a tree from a hurricane???
how fast do hurricanes spin 200-400 mph?? 400 is killer if ever!

or a chinese guy on tv throw a "needle" through aquarium glass (pinhole)
and pop the balloon on the other side??

or a ninja throw a toothpick through a door??

i wish i could remember where/channel to post them for you..

as for higrade aircraft aluminum being stronger than steel thats real old news

and kevlar works nice for slicing but not very good for poking
prove it yourself,, buy a cutting glove



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Ok again, what SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED when you have approximately 80 tons, moving at 500 mph impacting a wall? Please tell me. Is it going to just bounce off the wall? Just stop and fall to the ground? Please, enlighten us as to how a concrete wall, that's maybe two feet thick is going to stop 80 tons moving at 500 mph.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
dude you're mumbling,
and dont understand what you are saying..

do you have a point

please post it



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
No, it's you guys that don't have points. How is a concrete wall going to stop an 80 ton airplane moving at 500 mph? Even if it IS aluminum.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join