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: 8
1
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Can we PLEASE quit using Loose Change as gospel about the 757 engines???? They are NOT 6 tons each, they are THREE tons each. They are NOT 9 feet tall, they're not even SIX feet tall.




posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mondegreen
I see a lot of highjacking of the thread.
A. the engine is not from a 757 but is a arxicillary 3007ab engine possibility only. Rolls Royce spokeperson did not identify engine as being made by them or being from a 757. Six different types of engines go on 757 worldwide. Spokesperson is not expert on engines he does not count.



The Rolls Royce engineer worked at the plant in Indiana that makes the engines used in the Global Hawk.

All he said is that the part was not from an engine made at the Indiana plant where he worked at.

Therefore it was not a Global Hawk engine part.

[edit on 21-8-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
i've been here a year and have been very hesitant to comment on this subject because of a combination of the high emotions and close minded comments from individuals on both sides of the argument. however, after reading this particular thread i have two comments:

1. iw for a fact that a commercial airliner hit the pentagon. i know an individual who, as far as i am concerned, is unimpeachable. he was there and saw the whole thing.....cant prove it (and i know i will never be able to convince any of you), but as i said, i'm convince knod.

hello from the uk ,
i am struggling here ,, could someone tell me that there are more eye witnesses who actually saw the plane hit the building ?
was the whole area deserted for some reason ?
are we saying that there are absolutely no private, cell phone , or any
kind of footage at all , considering the magnitude of the event ,
are we trying to determine what exactly here?
I CAN NOT BELIEVE FOR 1 SECOND THAT THIS HUGE EVENT WAS.NT SEEN BYE AT LEAST A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ?
THANKS JB

[edit on 2-8-2006 by snafu7700]


[edit on 6-9-2009 by joebaxi1]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
The problem now is all of the "I was right there!" guys. Some say they saw a missile...some saw a small plane...some a hang-glider with dynamite strapped to his chest.

It's hard to believe these orals. As much as I know in my heart that the Pentagon was NOT hit by a passenger jet...I will not believe anyone's testimony without visual proof.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cotechs
The problem now is all of the "I was right there!" guys. Some say they saw a missile...some saw a small plane...some a hang-glider with dynamite strapped to his chest.

It's hard to believe these orals. As much as I know in my heart that the Pentagon was NOT hit by a passenger jet...I will not believe anyone's testimony without visual proof.


Um...witnessess actually stated a missile hit the Pentagon? That's a new one. In fact, I have yet to see one witness who has stated a missile struck.

You have decent sources showing this?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Ya know, this guy would probably have alot more credibility in my mind, if he, oh I don't know, didn't wait 5 freaking years to bring this point up! It'd be the equivalent of a witness coming forward 5 years after the O.J. trial, gee thanks pal, that's helpful. I mean come on, ovbiously this guy didn't have too big of an ethical issue with the Pentagon attack not for half a decade anyway, but now he does? I suppose I'd be a neo-con if I questioned his motives.


How long would you wait before you would be willing for someone to call you a kook?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by WithoutEqual
 


What were these men carrying away from the Pentagon's crash site?

Was it one of those V-shaped tail-wings from the drone?

Sure, looks like that to me...




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 



Guys, as I have stated before.. missile, plane, why not both?, anyone who actually looks at the full force of what hit WTC2 will quite clearly take on board it was a hole heap more than 34 cubic metres of Jet fuel
.

EDIT: P.S

P.S. This was deemed an inaccurate way of getting a point over...



Showing the exact (well two cubic meters over in their favour), of fuel and how big an explosion it caused and damage is not accurate... Bush science + Debunker Logic + John Gross denial + John Lear`s mmm aura = probability of Swampy creating a thread
.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


Well your link took me to a picture of a tent....one of the many blue tents that were on the grounds of the Pentagon during the clean up. So no, it doesnt look anything like the wings of a Global Hawk.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   



You have decent sources showing this?


Let me find the audio clip. Some dude with a foreign accent was talking about seeing it cross the road and hit the building.

Don't discredit me, because I remember definitely hearing at LEAST this one account of a missile.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


It's hard to be certain from your picture, but that looks like an A320, not a 767. Similar in size, but not quite the same thing.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Hmmmmmnnn Carbon fiber fuselage vs reinforced concrete wall. My money's on the wall.



new topics




 
1
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join