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.

 

Pentagon Struck By Enhanced SLCM/BGM-109A Tomahawk Missile

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas

Originally posted by Terral
Since nobody on earth has a picture of Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon before or after the Missile Attack on 9/11, you can bring all the evidence you like to prop up your “PLANE” Theory.

GL in the debate,

Terral


Okay, no one has a picture of flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon and no one can prove there is plane debris inside the pentagon. Even though we were shown pitcures of a nose cone and very clearly a landing gear ... were those planted?? If so, where is your proof for that? Did you expect a plane travelling at full speed, loaded with full to be completely intact and sitting inside the building?

Okay so if your saying that unless there is a picture of flight 77 that it can't be proved. I'll counter with where's your picture of a missile hitting the pentagon? The argument goes both ways.


I asked him for pics as well......this is what I got in return


Originally posted by Terral
Hi Jab:


Jab >> Wow Terral...ok. When you show me a picture or a video tape of a missle...I will believe you, fair enough?


Heh . . . No. Look at the Topic Title of the Thread Starter. A Boeing 757-200 Jetliner is 100 tons of component parts, while my Tomahawk Missile is about 1 ton. We are supposed to be seeing typical jetliner debris like this:

Other Jetliner Crashes >> www.worldnewsstand.net...

About one ton of the DoD’s own missile EXPLODED inside the Pentagon to make them look like a VICTIM. What do you expect them to do?? Would they gather up the itsy bitsy pieces and say, “Hey, there is our Missile!” Please . . . However, I wanted to thank you for making my case of how ridiculous the “PLANE” Theory really is in light of all the evidence. People who are willing to swallow this “PLANE” nonsense are perfectly willing to ask “Where is the Missile?,” even though their case depends on 100 tons of Jetliner showing up somewhere in the evidence. The DoD can easily hide 1 ton of missile debris, especially when everyone is looking for 100 tons of Jetliner. Do you know what? We all got over Santa Claus by the first or second grade, but if you want to continue believing in this “PLANE” Theory, then please be my guest. However, while I can show you 1000 pictures of Santa Claus, I cannot find one picture of Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon. Can you?

GL,

Terral

[edit on 7-10-2006 by Terral]


He doesn't have them. But that somehow strengthens his case?? Maybe we are in an alternate reality where no pictures whatsoever strengthen a case....just a thought.




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Where are the pictures of the plane approaching? Oh right, they don't exist either, and still you believe. The documented damage is sufficient to determine which is the strong case here, and it's not yours.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nQuire
Where are the pictures of the plane approaching? Oh right, they don't exist either, and still you believe. The documented damage is sufficient to determine which is the strong case here, and it's not yours.


Where is the picture of the approaching missle? And by your logic, before the advent of photography, nothing existed. No one has ever been in a car accident because they are almost never caught on film. No plane crash that wasn't caught on film has ever really happened. Or rather they must all have been missles instead.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terral
Greetings:

I was hoping someone would come along and debunk my “Pentagon Struck By Enhanced SLCM/BGM-109A Tomahawk Missile” proposal by citing evidence on how this cannot be true. Since nobody here has offered anything against this explanation, then I am inclined to believe the Defense Department, Bush Administration, FBI, CIA, ETC. have been lying to us all along.


Originally posted by Xeros
Well are you suggesting, whilst hundreds of people gathered to watch, someone dismantled and bent the light poles without anyone noticing? How on EARTH do you explain this? That one point debunks your whole theory imo. Could you please give me your explaination or any possible theory on this.


Could someone please answer me here rather than ignoring it. How do you explain this and if you can't, then your missile theory is completely debunked! This is ridiculous. If your missile theory is so good, then you should have an answer, theory, anything to explain this. ANSWER ME PLEASE!

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

The tail flew over the top of the Pentagon? The TOP of the Pentagon? Well that explains everything. That is why there is no marks of the tail on the top floors of the Pentagon! Wow!. You're kidding? I never heard that! Which part of the tail? The vertical stabilizer or the horizontal stabilzer? How much of the empennage went with it? If the tail went over the Pentagon then the tails of the WTC Boeings would have penetrated the WTC much higher than the videos show because both aircraft were about the same speed, both hitting buildings. And if the tail of the Pentagon 757 flew over the Pentagon then the tails of the WTC Boeings would have flown up into the WTC but several floors higher. This is amazing! Where did the tail land?


The outside of the WTC was a completely different structure. The Pentagon was reinforced concrete meant to resist blasts. So therefore it is going to present much resistence and hence the explosion upon impact. The WTC was a light exo skeleten which was mostly comprised of glass so the plane went right through it.

And if you want to go into the 'are you kidding' category, then how about ansering the questions which no one has answereed yet.

How does a missle hit 4 lieghtpoles which are not in a straight path?

how does a missle his the generator on one side of the impact, as well as the vent shaft on the other side of the hole? Is this a magic zig zagging missle?

How did they plant the flight 77 parts along with the victoms and their belongings at the crash sight at the exact moment of impact? Because there are pictures of the debre from the very beginning.

How did 1000s of people all sitting in traffic watching happen to confuse a tomahawk missle for a large commercial plane?

Also, as anyone can see form the security footage, a tail flying over the top of the building. pretending that this was a tomahawk missle, why would it only be expected to make damage on the roof if that piece (whihc no one can deny is there in the video) is from a 757, but not expected to make damage on the roof if its from a missle?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I used to buy into these theories, but not so much anymore.

I just got done reading the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths and I am no longer buying the conspiracy theories.

It is an absolutely brilliant book in my opinion, and uses science instead of theory to show what happened. It is a great read for skeptics and believers alike.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

snoopy
Where is the picture of the approaching missle? And by your logic, before the advent of photography, nothing existed. No one has ever been in a car accident because they are almost never caught on film. No plane crash that wasn't caught on film has ever really happened. Or rather they must all have been missles instead.


Self-Defeat:1
Snoopy: 0

As if I said the lack of footage proves anything. It doesn't, either way, the damage, however, does. You're embarassing yourself with these kinds of absolutely pitiful attempts at logic. Get a clue!



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

darksided
I just got done reading the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths and I am no longer buying the conspiracy theories.


Mwahaha. Why was I protesting the camps, again?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
guys guys guys.
Theres not enough evidence out there to definitivley prove either of your wrong.
So stop squibling like school girls here.

the one thing that stands out in my mind.. is that being a boeing plane crashed into a ground building... there'd be SOME sort of definitive evidence...

there'd be masses of debri.. not just a tin foil snippet.
there'd be tonnes of smashed windows in the near vicinity from the sheer power of those jets..

there's be churned up grass...

there'd be countrless security camera's catching it.

being that we are able to debate both sides.. says there's NOT enough evidence of a plane..
so how can a plane crash in such amazing fashion and leave only a snippet of tin foil.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by snoopy




The outside of the WTC was a completely different structure. The Pentagon was reinforced concrete meant to resist blasts. So therefore it is going to present much resistence and hence the explosion upon impact. The WTC was a light exo skeleten which was mostly comprised of glass so the plane went right through it.

And if you want to go into the 'are you kidding' category, then how about ansering the questions which no one has answereed yet.

How does a missle hit 4 lieghtpoles which are not in a straight path?

how does a missle his the generator on one side of the impact, as well as the vent shaft on the other side of the hole? Is this a magic zig zagging missle?

How did they plant the flight 77 parts along with the victoms and their belongings at the crash sight at the exact moment of impact? Because there are pictures of the debre from the very beginning.

How did 1000s of people all sitting in traffic watching happen to confuse a tomahawk missle for a large commercial plane?

Also, as anyone can see form the security footage, a tail flying over the top of the building. pretending that this was a tomahawk missle, why would it only be expected to make damage on the roof if that piece (whihc no one can deny is there in the video) is from a 757, but not expected to make damage on the roof if its from a missle?


Thanks. Where did the tail, of the Boeing 757, that hit the Pentagon, land?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   


Thanks. Where did the tail, of the Boeing 757, that hit the Pentagon, land?


You mean what was left of it as it broke into a couple thousand pieces? Lets see..on top of the E ring, D ring, in between those two rings, on the lawn in front of the building........



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I dissagree, whats really being discussed here is "what" made the holes in the Pentagon? Correct? So I am asking again. IF you are correct in that it was some kinc of missile then WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PLANE and the PEOPLE aboard? Thats what I would want to know. Like I said in my previous post until someone can show me what happened to the plane that was SUPPOSED to have hit the Pentagon there is no conspiracy nor was there a missile strike for that matter. We can talk ad nauseum about the wheres and whatevers of the hole in the bldg etc etc etc. Until we prove without a doubt that a plane was "not" the weapon this argument has no merit on its face.....
What would you tell me if I were to tell you I have a friend that witnessed the event in person and saw the plane fly into the building?




Your questions are beyond the boundaries of my “Missile” Thesis from the Opening Post, which offers the Tomahawk Missile Explanation over the Official DoD B/A Flight 77 Cover Story. We are examining the physical evidence actually on display at the Pentagon on 9/11 and comparing that to a 1 Ton Missile VERSUS the 100 Ton Jetliner explanation.


Think >> Its very easy to sit back and over think an unbelievable event. It’s the American way to question things. We have always been a nation of conspiracy theories. We take statistics and curve them to our own beliefs.


The simple truth is that the ‘facts’ seen through the ‘evidence’ of events taking place at the Pentagon on 9/11 do NOT match the Official Cover Story; NOT even close. Do you believe 100 Tons of Jetliner debris are present outside the Pentagon OR inside the Pentagon on 9/11?? Every picture I have seen thus far looks exactly like the Pentagon was struck by a well placed “Missile,” which would leave a big hole like this ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ), but no 100 Tons of Jetliner.

Do you have an explanation of how 100 Tons of Jetliner flew over these cable spools ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ) AND under the bottom of the second floor highlighted in red? Well? Do these firefighters appear concerned about any 100 Ton Jetliner? No, because they are mopping up after a Missile Attack.


Think >> Lets face it, Americans LOVE anything we can try and make a conspiracy out of. I myself never believed that Oswald acted alone and I was only 4 when it happened. When I grew older I smelled a fish and eventually the govt admitted that was a conspiracy of some kind. But to even think that the US Govt perpetrated this on the American people is ludicrous at best!


This debate and the presentation of opposing views has nothing to do with Americans loving anything. The Official DoD LIE that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon does NOT fit the evidence in this case! This is about matching the physical evidence with the most likely cause based upon this crime being perpetuated from ‘inside’ the Department of Defense. They are obviously lying about the Cover Story, which leads us to ‘what’ they are truly trying to ‘cover up.’ Go ahead and give us your commentary on the evidence contained within these few pictures and show everyone here how 100 tons of Jetliner somehow crashed and vaporized inside the building. GL.

The fact is the Americans are some of the most naïve and easily duped people on the planet and the DoD is certainly trying to pull the wool over our collective eyes. Next time, please bring evidence to support your assertion that believing the US Government perpetuated this is indeed ludicrous. I would love to give comment on your evidence, but you failed to present anything but mere opinion. How could your 100 Ton Jetliner fly over these cable spools ( www.worldnewsstand.net... ) and pass straight through the wall behind them???

Please point out the PLANE,

GL,

Terral
[/quo



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
buta tail simply being propelled in the air and smashed down on concrete wouldnt turn it into a million iddy biddy pieces.....



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Originally posted by Agit8dChop




buta tail simply being propelled in the air and smashed down on concrete wouldnt turn it into a million iddy biddy pieces.....


Exactly. A tail of any airliner is a huge, very strong piece of construction. The horizontal part is to drive the back of the airplane downward while the center of lift on the wings is trying to bring the tail upward.

The elevators on the aft part of the horizontal stabilzer are the 'decider' of which way the airplane goes, upward or downward. The vertical stabilizer gives directional stability to the airplane and through the yaw damper dampens out oscillations of high speed flight.

The rudder on the aft end of the vertical stabilizer helps the airplane turn left or right. Its very, very strong and well constructed. It has vertical spars and ribs which give it it's strength. Where the horizontal stabilizer connects with the vertical stabilizer there are very thick forgings which are part of the fuselage and extend up from the fuselage to make the main spar of the vertical stabilizer..

There are hydraulic tubes and hydraulic cylinders located throughout both of these pieces. And there is a lots of aluminum. By no stretch of the imagination would any of this disintegrate into a thousand pieces by hitting concrete. Any more than it would disintegrate in that little itty bitty smoking hole in Shanksville.

The "tail" because of its strength always survives the worst of airplane accidents and that is why the flight and voice recorder are located there. But more than this, there is no way the tail of a Boeing 757 would "snap off" and fly through the air, over the Pentagon, and into the grass beyond. It can't happen, it didn't happen.

So where did the tail go? It didn't go into the Pentagon because there is no hole at the top where the 'tail' might have crashed through. It isn't on the front lawn. So the only other possibility is that NO Boeing 757 that crashed into the Pentagon.

Those who still believe that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon are those who have no understanding of how an airplane is contructed or what happens to it in a crash... details of which also seem to have eluded the perpetrators of 911.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Pop quiz

whats more worrying?

Theres creatures out there of the same species still beliving a beoing hit the pentagon?

Or

That your government is prepared to do such an act, in order to continue its planned goals?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks. Where did the tail, of the Boeing 757, that hit the Pentagon, land?


It's obscured by the top of the building. And again it's not an issue that determines betwen a plane or a missle since a large tail section flew over the top of the building. That part can be seen by anyone. And I don't see how a tomawak missle could have a 40foot tail section. The argument people are brining up seems to be that there couldn't have been a tail section. but it's right there in the video.

AND it flies over top just like you yourself described as should happen when a plane hits a solid obect or crashes. When a missle strikes a building, does its tail fly over the top? And does a missle liquify like a plane does weaving between support beams? I think it would blow up instead.

Someone asked where are the people, but there are plenty of pictures of the victoms, some still strapped into their seats. So how did they get all the 757 parts and the victoms of flight 77 into the pentagon without anyone being seen/ And again, how did 1000s of bystanders confuse a tomshawk missle for a large commercial Jet?

The big question for me, is how is the flight data recorder of from the actual events that happened. What accounts for this 300ft altitude difference that some are claiming. Could it be a miscalculation in the barometer settings or something of that sort?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
buta tail simply being propelled in the air and smashed down on concrete wouldnt turn it into a million iddy biddy pieces.....


And it wouldnt nesc damage a concrete roof by arcking over top. I would imagine it landed in one of the center openings. Who knows.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
John

I have the utmost repsect for you and truley enjoy these conversations. I want to say that just to be clear. but wweren't you earlier saying that you thought it was a remote controlled plane? When did you switch from the remote controlled plane theory to the missle theory? And what made you switch?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
John

I have the utmost repsect for you and truley enjoy these conversations. I want to say that just to be clear. but wweren't you earlier saying that you thought it was a remote controlled plane? When did you switch from the remote controlled plane theory to the missle theory? And what made you switch?


I was wondering the same thing



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
John,

I thought it was a hologram? Please clarify.


You are continually contradicting yourself... please clarify for the sake of clarification and clarity.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join