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.

 

Pilot Witness Comes Forward: A Global Hawk Crashed Into The Pentagon

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
being that this engine, which was made for a GOVERNMENT military SPY aircraft, makes that in my mind a military controlled ASPECT.
Im sure rolls royce dont make it, box it up, and hire TNT to ship it to the government lab with an invoice.




posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   
This is excellent news and the story fits the facts that the truth movement has worked so hard to fathom too. The only problem now is this: what did they do with that jet... I know but it is too freaky to believe.

How about underground?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I think you guys are missing the point though, secret or not, Rolls Royce wouldn't want their name associated with a strike on the pentagoon, and I would expect them to lie whether they actually know anything or not.

Yeah this will be interesting if it goes anywhere...

[edit on 3/8/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
To show just how fragile a jet engine is, may i reference the flight deck technician sucked into the cowling of the ea6b and surviving due to his helmet destroying the fan blades before his body got there. It wouldnt take a wall to do it, more like a small chunk of regular old concrete could do it. Just thought id add that to the discussion for reference.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Ok first things first,

This 'claim' does not prove the fact that plane parts from a 757 were found at the wreckage of the pentagon crash. It also doesn't reverse the 100 people claiming that an American Airlines 757 hit the building.

The fact that one money hungry nutter has come out and said that he saw a global hawk hit the pentagon does not disprove the official story in the slightest.

I have a great friend who was on the freeway near the pentagon on 9/11 and watched a 757 slam into the building. Not a global hawk... a 757. He said the noise was almost unbearable it was so loud.

He went through 5 months of psychology to get over what he saw.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by shanemcbain
Ok first things first,

This 'claim' does not prove the fact that plane parts from a 757 were found at the wreckage of the pentagon crash. It also doesn't reverse the 100 people claiming that an American Airlines 757 hit the building.


Where are they? others keep saying that here and using this as fact to back up the 'official story' so I wanna see the documentary with them in it backing up what the government said.

Otherwise I ain't buying it.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   
If something struck the fan blades and caused enough damage to tear them to pieces, why would the hub survive in as good of condition as it did? Maybe it has a greater strength, I don't know. It just seems to me that there would have been more damage.

Other than that, the only way the OPs story could be true IMO is if there was some sort of planted evidence. That hub is definitely NOT from a global hawk. And the white flash is easily explained ... in highly traumatic situations it's not uncommon for eyewitnesses to black out, faint, etc. (if even for a moment). Combine his illness with dust/debris and NOT DU, that's the only plausible G Hawk scenario in my mind.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   
The hub is much stronger relatively. It has to hold the fan blades in place against the rotation of the engine. It's much thicker than the blades too.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by S1LV3R4D0
To show just how fragile a jet engine is, may i reference the flight deck technician sucked into the cowling of the ea6b and surviving due to his helmet destroying the fan blades before his body got there. It wouldnt take a wall to do it, more like a small chunk of regular old concrete could do it. Just thought id add that to the discussion for reference.


Actually not true, I used to work on EA-6B's, but it was actually an A-6 Intruder he was sucked into.

His helmet didn't destroy the rotor blades, the rotor blades tore the helmet to pieces, it's only plastic and canvas.
He wouldn't actually go into the engine anyway, there is airframe in the way. Not sure what they're called but there's like two bars in front of the engine's first set of rotor blades at the end of the intake duct (airframer stuff).
Part of my job was to 'duct dive', climb into the intake, to check for chips on the leading rotor blades. They are stronger than ppl here are making out.
The intake duct goes back about 5 feet or so before the engine starts, that's as far as our 'green shirt' got sucked into.

[edit on 3/8/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by HardToGet
After just seeing the news about the Pentagon deception taking shape, another rather interesting development, be it less mainstream.




Nearly five years after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, an eyewitness from the Pentagon has come forth with testimony, which, if accurate, debunks the official version that a hijacked Boeing 757 flew into the five-sided military fortress housing the Department of Defense.

Samuel D. Danner, a civilian pilot and electrical engineer from Hagerstown, Md, says he was try to get out of Washington on the morning of 9-11 after hearing of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Having made a wrong turn, Danner wound up heading south on Washington Blvd, the highway that passes the western side of the Pentagon, from where he says he observed the approaching aircraft involved in the attack.


And...



Danner, who estimates that he was less than 500 feet from the path of this aircraft, noted that it was very quiet: "There wasn't the roar noise that you get with a jet at full throttle. This thing knew how to fly quietly--I mean I could hear the whine and I knew it was jet powered." Danner's description of the aircraft's small size is confirmed by early eyewitness reports. One witness, Steve Riskus, has previously confirmed to AFP that the plane was very quiet.

"There was a four-engine jet above us," Danner said, which looked to him like a Boeing 707 or a DC-8 at about 15,000. feet. He said this plane may have been controlling the windowless drone, which struck the Pentagon, by "flying it by camera." Danner noticed that people at the Pentagon were aware of this plane over head.

Danner said he had contacted some of the people he met on th lawn of the Pentagon to encourage them to come forward with their testimony.

Danner says the aircraft flew with remarkable precision as it leveled off and went right into the southwestern facade of the Pentagon. The impact created a "brilliant white flash" that he described as "a phosphorous kind of flash. "This suggest the UAV carried explosives or a depleted uranium (DU) missile. If a DU missile was used, this could explain the source of Danner's lymphoma. If he was contaminated by DU at the Pentagon crash sit, the other people in the proximity would also have been affected.



Source

Things are heating up.... I´ll bet before 2006 is over, a new and full investigation will have started...

I sincerely hope so.

EDIT: A few more (alas) non mainstream sources. Different words, same story.
www.total911.info...
www.rumormillnews.com...
www.mail-archive.com...@yahoogroups.com/msg04722.html

It is also worth mentioning that Danner was personally involved in the cleanup of the lawn. See picture in first additional source.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by HardToGet]
that seemes to be the most likely story iv seen i got my money on that this is what happend



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I heard that a bloke delivering gerkins to Mrs Miggins Pie Shop (a secret pie shop near the pentagon) swears that he saw a converted concorde with pink livery hit the pentagon - there were hundreds of witnesses he spoke to and his background is every conceivable thing you would need it to be in. Unfortunately none of the witnesses were traceable afterwards (shame they weren't given parking tickets - they could be found so easily then) and all his evidence is second hand from a mate in his local bar.

He is not sure why the other flight that went missing - the one they said actually hit the pentagon can't be found or the dozens of passengers on that flight cant be found or why the families of the people who were supposed to be lost on that flight keep pretending there loved ones are gone and why not one of them has turned up in the following 5 years.

Yes, I know sarcasm is the lowest form of humour/intelligence, but why do all these witnesses appear years later with no proof? Someone gets knocked over at the end of your street and within minutes there are dozens of credible witnesses.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quackmaster
Yes, I know sarcasm is the lowest form of humour/intelligence, but why do all these witnesses appear years later with no proof?
Why has the government offered no proof, after all they are the only ones who can 100% show a plane hitting the pentagon.

Either a plane didn't hit or hey want us to believe a plane didn't hit. Why? I don't know but that's the only reason as to why proof hasn't been shown.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I haven't been following the "Pentagon Conspiracy" closely, as I'm TOO BUSY with other conspiracies. With that said, Does anyone have a list of all who "perished" in this crash? Does this info exist? Was there a memorial for these people on the plane? Surely there MUST be relatives of these people that can confirm their loved ones were infact lost in this crash?

I seem to recall this information readily available for Flight 93. If anyone could shed some light on this, it woul dbe much appreciated.

Peace



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
at the time, he worked in the section that was hit...just pure dumb luck that he was late for work that day. i dont know his exact location at the time, but he swears that he saw a b757 with AA markings slam into the pentagon. like i said, i cant provide anything even remotely resembling proof to back up his story, but he is someone i trust implicitly.


Thanks SNAFU. I also believe that what they say hit did actually hit. My main point in why I think this is, it would be too hard for them to pull off substituting something else for the actual plane. Now, as far as remote controlling the plane......that's another story.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Google the video of an f-4 phantom, I think, with a rocket strapped to it, that shoots down a rail into a concrete wall and then try telling me what aluminum can and cant do to concrete, and vice versa.

Train



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I hate to post this, as I am sure I will get slammed, but I personally know someone who saw a jet crash into the Pentagon. They saw it. They have described the sound, and the impact, the disbelief and the confusion. This person was very affected by what happened.

Please do your 'own' research into something, and find something credible, not a cancer patient who wants some attention

This is his quote from www.rumormillnews.com...

"Sam has described the bizarre scene as something out of the Twilight Zone series, in which nothing made sense"

I mean, it this coincidence that he is also a member of the Rod Serling fan club??(search Google with his name) www.rodserling.com...
I wonder if he saw a gremlin on the wing too?


This guy was 'surprised' to see such little wreckage? It is a jet going over 500 mph and it hit one of the most reinforced structures in the US. Jets are not made of steel.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
When did they invent a Depleated Uranium explosive? Last I heard DU was a kinetic energy type weapon. There are a few things wrong with the Global Hawk theory. The first is that no matter what type of warhead you say it was armed with it couldn't carry enough fuel to make the fireball seen in the Pentagon videos. Number two. That hole is kind of big for such a small aircraft.

The turbine hub that is so prominently displayed in this thread is forged from a single piece of titanium, which makes it a pretty tough piece of hardware. Does anyone know how the turbine blades are held in the hub? The bottom of each blade looks like an inverted Christmas tree. A metal tab looking like a capitol "I" is placed in the bottom of each blade slot. The blade is then slid into the slot and the top and bottom of the "I" is folded up to lock the blade in place. Considering the speed of the 757 at the time of impact and the speed that the engines had to be at, I 'm suprised that the hub itself survived.

One last thought, about the A-6 that sucked the guy down the intake. The aircraft was sitting still on the flight deck. This means that the engine was running at about 20% or less when he was sucked in. The pilot had a quick response in pulling the fuel cutoff handle to the engines which is probably why the guy is still running around.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Sorry to be off topic but since we are talking about guys getting sucked into engines. I saw a video somewhere of a military guy getting sucked all the way through the engine of a plane without getting hurt. I'm sure he hurt himself but with no major damage. My question is this: Is this the same incident we are talking about? Sorry to have no refference for what I saw years ago. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
So again i pose the question of "where are the impact points of the engines?

If this was a large aircraft, and you have all these witnesses, and they found an engine, it must be true right?

Lets not forget that this section was under condtruction when this "drill" happend, so there could have been thing planted there. Explosives, and engine maybe?

Oh well, I refuse to believe the gov until they choose to have a more "open door" policy with the people that SHOULD run the country.


::rant over:: Carry on.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

"Where are they (the witnesses)? others keep saying that here, and using this as fact to back up the 'official story'


REPLY: One has to look at ALL sources of information. These witness reports have been referrenced in other threads, too.

I believe there were 53 people on board, but I could be wrong.

Depleted Uranium is less than half as "radioactive" as raw, natural, unprocessed uranium found in the ground.

The link below is the smaller of two eye witness lists I've seen. To the right of each persons statement are links to their complete witness accounts.

Many said they recognized it as an American Airliner plane; most say it was very loud (only one said it was "silent"); no reports of a "white flash;" many saw people inside.....

[link] 911research.wtc7.net...

Danner is a moron looking for his 15 minutes of fame, and Riskus .... well .... who knows. In any case, virtually every witness says the exact opposite of what they claim.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by zappafan1]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join