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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:41 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?



Remote controlled planes or possibly holographics for the WTC. I don't think I ever proposed remote controlled airplanes for the Pentagon. If I did I was mistaken. Shanksville I originally thought was shot down by an F-16. Now I don't believe that to be true because of the pictures of the smoking hole. There wasn't any Shanksville airplane.

Where the Pentagon B-757 went? Where the Shanksville B-757 went, I haven't got a clue. What did they do with the passengers? I haven't got a clue. But I will tell you this. No Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon and no Boeing 757 was in that smoking hole in Shanksville.

Peoples inability to grasp the reality that there where no Boeing 757's at either the Pentagon or Shanksville is tempered by mystery of what happened to the passengers. In the back of their minds they are thinking, "Well if there were no airplanes, where are the passengers?" That mystery, "What happened to the passengers" is the diabolical mystery that prevents people from accepting the truth. People want answers, they need to connect things. And if they can't connect a plausible story as to what happened to the passengers then they aren't going to buy into "No Boeing 757 at the Pentagon or Shanksville. Thats just the way people are. They will not buy into a loose end. And they think thats 'logical' no matter how strong the evidence is for no Boeing 757 at the Pentagon or Shanksville.




posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by IThinkTooMuch
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?


On a different thread I told of a friend who was there and saw a plane and this is what was said...


Originally posted by Terral
If your friend had a camera or recorder, he would have the only picture of Flight 77 on the planet anywhere near the Pentagon. Of course, he would still have no 100 tons of Jetliner on the pristine Pentagon lawn or hidden inside the building. I am simply amazed that so many people can be led into believing this PLANE Hoax without a single photo placing Flight 77 on the scene.


It really doesn't matter what people saw apparently, unless you have pictures or video. Or wait, is it if you don't have pictures or video? I am still confused on what everyone wants who believe that it was a missile. Do you want pictures and video or not? Because you don't have pictures of a missile and believe it to be a missile.

I doubt, if the missile believers were taken to a top secret building and 1) showed them every piece of the plane that was recovered from the pentagon, 2) showed them exactly what was in the box under the blue tarp, 3) showed them videos of body parts being collected, 4) took them to the homes of the people who died to talk to the family members, 5) showed them their credit card statements proving they purchasing the tickets for flight 77, 6) showed them printed intineraries from when they made their travel arrangements, and 7) showed them death certificates, they would NOT believe anything other than a missile.

Let me go ahead and make your argument for you (please note this is sarcasm, not reality)

Missile believers will say:
1) There is no way to know that was flight 77
2) How do we know that is the same box and tarp?
3) Totally staged footage
4) Paid actors
5) Chase, Citibank, Capital One, etc....they are all in on it too
6) All faked
7) Anyone can make a death certificate with Adobe Illustrator

It is pointless to argue with them...yet here I am. I am a glutten for punishment I tell ya.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
John Lear said:



Peoples inability to grasp the reality that there where no Boeing 757's at either the Pentagon or Shanksville is tempered by mystery of what happened to the passengers


No, with all due respect, it is your inability to accept the thousands of pieces of 757 found at the Pentagon, along with the bodies of the passengers.....



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



John Lear said:



Peoples inability to grasp the reality that there where no Boeing 757's at either the Pentagon or Shanksville is tempered by mystery of what happened to the passengers


No, with all due respect, it is your inability to accept the thousands of pieces of 757 found at the Pentagon, along with the bodies of the passengers.....


Neither you or I counted pieces of Boeing 757 outside or inside the Pentagon, neither did either of us count bodies inside the Pentagon. Therefore you and I will just have to agree to disagree until such time as proof, acceptable to both of us appears. I for example would be willing to accept a picture of the wing plank/root/fuselage intersection as proof that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon. This should be simple to obtain because it was so thick that it would not be destroyed by that smoldering fire we all saw at the Pentagon. And it certainly could not melt into oblivion. And it certainly could not be carted away on a dolly. And pictures would certainly have been taken of it.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   


I for example would be willing to accept a picture of the wing plank/root/fuselage intersection as proof that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon


This is what I do not understand, you want a picture of the wing root...and yet you wont accept the dozens of other pics of 757 wreckage......



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Hi Jab:


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


You should expect a reply from the name of the person you address in your post. Your post dated (posted on 10-10-2006 at 08:56 PM (post id: 2542740) is not addressed to anyone. Of course I have a picture of the Missile approaching the Pentagon: bedoper.com... . Go to the site and scroll down to the first picture. The nose section of the Tomahawk Missile is under the arrow saying “Approaching Aircraft.” Note the height of the column standing directly between our line of vision and the Missile and that it stands approximately four to five feet off the ground. We know that by the size of the cones beside the column.

We can see by the background behind the rocket that our line of vision is just about parallel with the ground and we are looking straight across the top of the column to the center of the flying object. That means our object is also flying about four to five feet off the ground. Again, we know our line of vision is about level with the top of the column, because the left side (in the sun) and the right side (in the shadow) are perfectly level. If looking down on the column or up at the column, then these two flat lines would have corresponding angels. Now, look over to our flying object again and note the distance below and compare that to the actual size of the object itself. Which is greater?

The distance below the object (already known as 4-5 feet) is greater than the circumference of the flying object. That means the object MUST be a little bit less than half the distance to the ground (4-5 feet). My Missile is just under 2 feet in diameter, which means it can easily be accommodated by even the smallest window in the West Wedge wall. Look over to the left at the West Wedge wall and compare the size of our flying object to those windows. Then realize that the distance from the bottom of the massive engines of a Boeing 757-200 Jetliner to the top of the cable is almost 20 feet tall. That is from the ground to the top of the SECOND FLOOR. Now, tell me and everyone here that our ‘Approaching Aircraft’ looks more like a 757-200 Jetliner OR a BGM-109A Tomahawk Missile!

Let’s scroll down to the next picture: Do you see the white smoke way down low and the bright white fireball? The white smoke is a dead giveaway for our Tomahawk Missile: www.wired.com...


"Did you see/smell smoke? Any evidence of damage?" one member asked.

"Yes, I did see smoke coming out from areas not far from the press center, white smoke. The anti-aircraft batteries began to hit upwards. One could hear them all over the Iraqi capital," Haddad said.

"An eyewitness told me a couple of hours ago that a supposed Tomahawk missile had fallen on a residential area about five kilometers away from the press center damaging a number of houses and shops. He said the missile fell in the middle of the street but its explosion caused a very strong impact. He saw five or six injured people but he did not see any deaths," he reported.


Do you see any 155 feet of 100 Ton Jetliner in this picture? Neither do I. The explosion is ‘white’ with white smoke in contrast to a red explosion with black smoke from burning kerosene at a Jetliner crash. Go down another picture with the cars in the foreground. Note the second floor is still standing and the debris is thrown back outside the building from the Missile exploding beyond the West Wedge wall. Remember these windows are taller than our flying object from the first picture above, which could NOT be any 100 Ton Jetliner. The damage shown in the remaining diagrams help me conclude that the Pentagon was definitely struck by a Tomahawk Missile and no 100 Ton Jetliner. A more complete explanation of these pictures is given to Snoopy here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you wish to have a reply from me, please place my name atop the post. TY.

GL in the debate,

Terral



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Hi Johnlear, Snoopy (quoted):


Snoopy >> 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?

John >> Remote controlled planes or possibly holographics for the WTC. I don't think I ever proposed remote controlled airplanes for the Pentagon. If I did I was mistaken. Shanksville I originally thought was shot down by an F-16. Now I don't believe that to be true because of the pictures of the smoking hole. There wasn't any Shanksville airplane.


I have read many of your posts on this thread and find you to be among the most levelheaded members to write on this topic thus far. Your thinking appears to be grounded in logic and sound reasoning while examining all the evidence in this case. Actually I am playing catch up, as none of these things were very important to me until just recently. This thread has been developing without enough ‘advocates’ to the Missile Explanation for me to go into much detail on why the facts do fit this explanation precisely. The PLANE Theorists continue to chant the “Official DoD Cover Story” mantra and I have been reduced to asking them to show me 100 Tons of PLANE.


John >> Where the Pentagon B-757 went? Where the Shanksville B-757 went, I haven't got a clue. What did they do with the passengers? I haven't got a clue. But I will tell you this. No Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon and no Boeing 757 was in that smoking hole in Shanksville.


We agree 100 percent. Hopefully we can get enough ATS members to chime in with support for the “Missile” Explanation, so the “PLANE” resistance will calm down and we can begin digesting some more of the evidence I have to present in this case. I also have every reason to believe that this ( www.whatreallyhappened.com... ) is directly connected to this “Flight 77” Pentagon Hoax. I also have a failsafe method of catching the bad guys AND a model constructed for anticipating their next move. All of that remains under lock and key, until we can have a meeting of the minds concerning what the evidence says concerning this “Missile VERSUS Plane” debate. If I am forced to shout over the PLANE Theorists, when they do not even possess a single shred of evidence, then trying to move forward in the investigation is very much impossible. We need more levelheaded ATS Investigators like John here to give us sufficient momentum to break through in this investigation.


John >> Peoples inability to grasp the reality that there where no Boeing 757's at either the Pentagon or Shanksville is tempered by mystery of what happened to the passengers. In the back of their minds they are thinking, "Well if there were no airplanes, where are the passengers?" That mystery, "What happened to the passengers" is the diabolical mystery that prevents people from accepting the truth.


This is the part of the investigation where you can help me to recognize the needs of others that restricts their ability to accurately weigh the evidence and draw repeatable and accurate conclusions. For me, the absence of any 100 Ton PLANE at the Pentagon tells me a ‘cover up’ has been taking place right from the beginning. My conclusions are based upon the evidence on display in all the pictures, without regard to what happened to the passengers. We must solve the first part of the riddle, before we can move on to the more complicated aspects. If the typical ATS Investigator must solve the ‘passenger’ problem first, then our war is fought upon a more difficult and diverse uphill battlefield than I first anticipated. Man-0-man, we might be shouting “Missile! – PLANE!” back and forth, until the cows come home. : 9 (.


John >> People want answers, they need to connect things. And if they can't connect a plausible story as to what happened to the passengers then they aren't going to buy into "No Boeing 757 at the Pentagon or Shanksville. Thats just the way people are. They will not buy into a loose end. And they think thats 'logical' no matter how strong the evidence is for no Boeing 757 at the Pentagon or Shanksville.


Well, thank God I am not that way and hopefully more ATS members can weigh the evidence and draw the right conclusions. Your analysis of the mental part of the equation appears solid, but I hope you are wrong. Since the DoD and Bush Administration have been manipulating the cover story and evidence from the beginning, they certainly have a superior position at the present time. Maybe America is ready to become the next third-world nation enslaved to a Fascist Dictator like George Bush and the fast approaching New World Order. America is one well placed Tomahawk Missile away from living under Martial Law and Bush has been playing Military/Police over there in Iraq long enough to implement those things right here in CanAmeriMexico. Hopefully we “WAKE UP” before it is too late . . .

GL,

Terral



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Hi Swamp:


Swamp >> This is what I do not understand, you want a picture of the wing root...and yet you wont accept the dozens of other pics of 757 wreckage..


You are beating a dead horse into the ground and into dust right along with your hammer. There is no cotton picking PLANE. What does the evidence show??

Evidence A >> www.worldnewsstand.net...

Your PLANE is 125 feet wide and 155 feet long and about 50 feet tall from the tarmac to the tip of the tail. That round white hole is about 16 feet by 20 feet, but we must take the cable spools into account. Note they stand almost as high as the fireman (give or take a foot). The distance from the ground to the red line is about twelve feet. That means the distance from the top of the tallest cable spool to the bottom of the red line is just about seven feet. However, the distance from the bottom of the jet engines to the top of the cabin is approximately 20 feet. How did your PLANE pass over these cable spools and under the red line???? Look at the three columns (orange) leaning back in our direction and to the right. Why are they standing at all if the PLANE crashed into them and into the building?? They are leaning back at us, because the Missile exploded just inside the West Wedge wall inside the Pentagon within the area marked by the white hole.

Evidence B >> www.worldnewsstand.net...

Go down to the third picture with the fireman (above “I wish . . .”) Try to imagine your 125 feet wide 100 Ton Jetliner crashing into the building just over the top of those same spools. Do you see anywhere for the PLANE to get inside the West Wedge wall? No and neither do I. Do you see any sign of 100 tons of Jetliner on the lawn outside? No. Why not? Where are the wings, tail section, fuselage, engines, etc.??? They must be out here, because they are OBVIOUSLY not inside the Pentagon.

How many pictures do you want to see, before you will simply accept that there is NO PLANE anywhere in any of these pictures? These firemen are cleaning up after a Tomahawk Missile Attack! Do you see any sign of a Missile? No! Why not? Because it went “Boom” just inside the building and created this mess. The PLANE Theory people take pictures of when the second and subsequent floors finally collapse, so they can pretend these photos right here do not exist. I do not expect any of the PLANE Theory people to EVER come up with a single picture of any 100 Ton Jetliner anywhere near the Pentagon. You do not have those kinds of pictures, because there was NEVER ANY PLANE.

If you guys do not want to accept my Missile Explanation, then by all means come up with something that DOES match the physical evidence in this case. This is what a Jetliner crash looks like:

www.worldnewsstand.net...

This is the kind of evidence John and I want you to bring to prove Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, which is impossible. Do you know why? Come on Swamp . . . Do you know why? Come on and say it! Because, there was NEVER ANY PLANE. You have been brainwashed by the DoD / Bush Administration Propaganda “Opinion Molding” Media Machine. They have molded American opinion to believe ‘their’ cover story, even though nobody on God’s green earth can show us one reason why. The true ‘terrorists’ are STILL AT LARGE and they are tricky, determined and perfectly willing to shed more American blood.

GL seeing it,

Terral



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I would like to bring a new twist into this conversation. Let's all take a look at the recent crash in NYC.

One thing interesting is that the found the pilots passport on the street below. Just like they did in WTC. Now does this mean there is some conspiracyy? Because some claim that it would be impossible for a passport to survive a plane crash.

Look at the pictures of where the plane hit the building. Notice that there are no wing or tail marks and there is no way the plane could have fit into one of the openings in the building. Does this mean there was no plane that his the building?

No one caught the plane on film. There seems to be no footage of the plane crashing into teh building in NYC. Does this mean that there couldn't have been a plane because there is no film of the impact? Perhaps a tomahawk missle?

How come the plane was not intercepted? Was there another stand down order so taht this little plane could hit the apartment building?

Who benefits from this?



So here we can see another plane hitting another concrete building and getting the same results. Different scale, but same results. Does this mean they are both conspiracies and that there was no plane in either? And that passports were planted in both as well as stand down orders, etc etc?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Remote controlled planes or possibly holographics for the WTC. I don't think I ever proposed remote controlled airplanes for the Pentagon. If I did I was mistaken. Shanksville I originally thought was shot down by an F-16. Now I don't believe that to be true because of the pictures of the smoking hole. There wasn't any Shanksville airplane.

Where the Pentagon B-757 went? Where the Shanksville B-757 went, I haven't got a clue. What did they do with the passengers? I haven't got a clue. But I will tell you this. No Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon and no Boeing 757 was in that smoking hole in Shanksville.

Peoples inability to grasp the reality that there where no Boeing 757's at either the Pentagon or Shanksville is tempered by mystery of what happened to the passengers. In the back of their minds they are thinking, "Well if there were no airplanes, where are the passengers?" That mystery, "What happened to the passengers" is the diabolical mystery that prevents people from accepting the truth. People want answers, they need to connect things. And if they can't connect a plausible story as to what happened to the passengers then they aren't going to buy into "No Boeing 757 at the Pentagon or Shanksville. Thats just the way people are. They will not buy into a loose end. And they think thats 'logical' no matter how strong the evidence is for no Boeing 757 at the Pentagon or Shanksville.


In a pentagon thread you had mentioned remote controlled planes saying something along the lines of "There probably wasn't any people on those planes at all". But you may have just been refering to the WTC within that conv. I wasn't sure.

But then that raises the question. If the WTC planes were remote controlled, why would they use a missle for the Pentagon? Espectially when there were so many witnesses there? If they only had 2 remote controlled planes and one missle, then I would think the 1st WTC attack would make the most sense where there ween't many witnesses.

You say peple have the inability to graps that there was no plane because of the passengers. But the passengers were found. Not only that, but the planes as well.

So you have two crashes. Both with the planes AND the passengers. So while what you are claiming is theoretically possible, there is no evidence for it at all. And the theory that you are saying is completely impossible, has substantial evidence, such as the planes and the passengers. And while there were no witnesses for the PA crash, there were 1000s there at the Pentagon. So you can see why I have a hard time buying the missle theory.

I would not dismiss it as impossible. But I have to go with the most plausible scenario. And right now one scenario is pretty much speculation and the other isn't. And the speculation one has too many holes in it so far, such as accounting for the wreckage in the path and the eye witnesses. I simply cannot ignore that.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I don't know why but I'll continue to beat this dead horse. Here's a newspaper article, from a legitimate news source, that talks to a rescue worker who talks about seing scorched/burnt people still inside their airplane seats inside the pentagon.


When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.


USA Today Article from 9/13/01

Here's a picture of the debrisfield of the impact area on the outside of the pentagon, there is debris all the way out to the helicopter pad. Which is reportedly 100 feet from the building. Some of it is on fire ... this doesn't seem consistent with a missile theory.

... not sure what's going on with this picture link but when I click on it I sometimes get the picture and sometimes get the main webpage. If a picture of burning debris doesn't appear ... cut and paste 911review.com... into your browser.



This picture shows an aerial view of the pnetagon and heli-pad prior to the attack, which gives a little better idea of the scale of the debris field we are looking at.





As far as the pictures posted earlier about "other plane crashes" that don't match the debri field. There's obviously some issues with comparing apples and oranges. Those planes were in fields and on roads, 1 appeared to have "partially" impacted a building. It should be assumed that those planes were not fully loaded with fuel and flying at maximum throttle at 400+ MPH. Most pilots are trying to avoid a crasha and when crash is imminent do everything in their power to slow the plane down and keep it away from populated areas and buildings, for obvious reasons. The pentagon was hit by a plane becuase it was a target and the plane was aimed directly at it and flying at full speed.

There is still no disputing the fact that hundreds of witnesses saw a plane hit the pentagon, the black box and the landing gear were recovered from within the pentagon. That is our proof there was a plane ... I'm not sure what smoking gun you're looking for when you pick and choose what evidence to believe.


-edited to correct the links to the pictures

[edit on 10/11/2006 by SmallMindsBigIdeas]

[edit on 10/11/2006 by SmallMindsBigIdeas]

[edit on 10/11/2006 by SmallMindsBigIdeas]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas




There is still no disputing the fact that hundreds of witnesses saw a plane hit the pentagon, the black box and the landing gear were recovered from within the pentagon. That is our proof there was a plane ... I'm not sure what smoking gun you're looking for when you pick and choose what evidence to believe.


You are correct, there is no dispute. There is rather a lack of understanding by those who insist on buying the story that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. It didn't. Neither were there thousands or even hundreds of witnessess that claim they saw an airplane the size of a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. There may have been 25, 50 at the outside. Many of those were military who may have been worried about promotion after all this was over.

If you are staking your proof that a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon on a black box and the landing gear you are missing about 250,000 pounds of additional airplane. And if someone saw a passenger still strapped to the seat then what? The rest of the airplane burned and disintegrated and left a few passengers still strapped in their seats and the landing gear? Oh fate, how cruel thy sting.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jab712

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


While I see that I did not specifically say "I asked Terral..." One would assume that it was you, Terral who I was asking considering I had you in the quote. Is that not what quoting someone is for?


Originally posted by Terral
Hi Jab:


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


You should expect a reply from the name of the person you address in your post. Your post dated (posted on 10-10-2006 at 08:56 PM (post id: 2542740) is not addressed to anyone.


And...Terral....this was necessary because??? You did figure out I was referring to you.

I wasn't asking for your picture in that post. I was simply replying to a post (which I did quote.) But thanks, next time, I will be sure to use up all my 4000 maximum characters to make sure I am perfectly clear.

As for your pic... bedoper.com... (the first one on the page as you, Terral, refer to) ummmm.....well....I can't really tell what the heck that is. Can you provide more arrows with description because, I can't even tell if it is a plane or a missile.

I am sure that somehow strengthens your case that I can't tell what the heck it is. That is the worst picture in the world, if you see a missle, I see Ben Affleck getting down on one knee proposing to me. I see something white...maybe gray....kind of looks like...I would say my backyard grill, but I can't even be too sure. THIS is the pic you are saying you have of a missile. We at least have debris pics, bent pole pics, eye witness accounts, etc. OMG, if you make me link them again, I think I might vomit. They are everwhere through this thread. This isn't even the 195 page thread either. If you say you haven't seen them and I must post them...then you are just being difficult.

ATS!!! We need an increased character limit cuz I feel I might have to link everything that has already been linked and frankly 4000 characters aren't enough....uggghhhh

[edit on 11-10-2006 by jab712]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

You are correct, there is no dispute. There is rather a lack of understanding by those who insist on buying the story that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. It didn't. Neither were there thousands or even hundreds of witnessess that claim they saw an airplane the size of a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. There may have been 25, 50 at the outside. Many of those were military who may have been worried about promotion after all this was over.

If you are staking your proof that a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon on a black box and the landing gear you are missing about 250,000 pounds of additional airplane. And if someone saw a passenger still strapped to the seat then what? The rest of the airplane burned and disintegrated and left a few passengers still strapped in their seats and the landing gear? Oh fate, how cruel thy sting.



Are you suggesting that in the middle of rush hour, at a building surrounded on all sides by major highways that are conjested with rush hour trafic, that there were only up to 50 ppl there and they were all military? So on that one day, nobody went to work and all the roads were void of people? To me that sounds a little hard to believe.

As for the plane parts, there have been pictures after pictures posted on this forum showing plane parts. But I think even you can atest that a plane hitting a solid wall at that speed is not going to stay in a few peices. it's going to shatter. And the Perdue paper posted in nthis thread shows how the plane liquified upon impact. Right down to the mathmatical equations involved.

Watch this plane dissappear:

www.youtube.com...

Nothing but dust. Of course the wings survive, but only because they are wider than the block. If the body was disintigrated into dust, it's safe to say the wings would have disinitgrated as well. So there is 100& proof of a plane hitting a solid object and there is nothing but tiny little pieces, just like at the Pentagon. Why should it behave differently at the Pentagon? It certianly wasn't as thick of a wall, but that would just explain why there were some bigger pieces than in the demonstration video. In both cases the plane liquified upon impact.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 03:16 AM
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.


Originally posted by Xeros
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!


Ahhh, I see nobody has answered this yet. Please someone GIVE SOME SORT OF EXPLANATION FOR THIS!!! It was rush hour FFS!.Give any theories please. I'm not saying it was a 747. But how the fng hell could a missile do this?

This is the third time I've posted the same question. Please don't ignore it. John Lear, Terral, anybody!

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by johnlear

You are correct, there is no dispute. There is rather a lack of understanding by those who insist on buying the story that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. It didn't. Neither were there thousands or even hundreds of witnessess that claim they saw an airplane the size of a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. There may have been 25, 50 at the outside. Many of those were military who may have been worried about promotion after all this was over.

If you are staking your proof that a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon on a black box and the landing gear you are missing about 250,000 pounds of additional airplane. And if someone saw a passenger still strapped to the seat then what? The rest of the airplane burned and disintegrated and left a few passengers still strapped in their seats and the landing gear? Oh fate, how cruel thy sting.



Are you suggesting that in the middle of rush hour, at a building surrounded on all sides by major highways that are conjested with rush hour trafic, that there were only up to 50 ppl there and they were all military? So on that one day, nobody went to work and all the roads were void of people? To me that sounds a little hard to believe.

As for the plane parts, there have been pictures after pictures posted on this forum showing plane parts. But I think even you can atest that a plane hitting a solid wall at that speed is not going to stay in a few peices. it's going to shatter. And the Perdue paper posted in nthis thread shows how the plane liquified upon impact. Right down to the mathmatical equations involved.

Watch this plane dissappear:

www.youtube.com...

Nothing but dust. Of course the wings survive, but only because they are wider than the block. If the body was disintigrated into dust, it's safe to say the wings would have disinitgrated as well. So there is 100& proof of a plane hitting a solid object and there is nothing but tiny little pieces, just like at the Pentagon. Why should it behave differently at the Pentagon? It certianly wasn't as thick of a wall, but that would just explain why there were some bigger pieces than in the demonstration video. In both cases the plane liquified upon impact.

But it didnt SMASH into the wall.

It ENTERED the building...
The front PUSHED the wall in, and the rest of the plane FOLLOWED.
Time will proove you wrong, those whom believe a boeing entered that building.

I dont bother with this thread, because u can argue till your face is blue and the most minute of technicalities.

You only need to look at the hole in the war, prior to collapse
The Lawn
understand these were begginner pilots performing unbelievably difficult tasks at highspeed
And also, if it was a plane hwat has the government got to hide in not showing the COMPLETE archive of footage?

Sorry guys, it wasnt a plane.
but neither of us are going to convince anyone.

One day soon the government will slip up! and it will be a marvelous day on ATS when we can point and laugh at you whom so steadfastly stood to the governments story.

After all that has happened in Iraq, you still believe the governmetn is being honest with you about this?



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   
It's funny how others want you to accept the testimonies of those allegedly at the Pentagon at face value of "seeing" a plane crash into it but then they(those who believe the official story), turn around and dispute the witnessess(including fireman, policemen, etc) testimonies of hearing and seeing explosives go off in the WTC 1 & 2.

Can't have your cake and it eat it too.

I don't take most of these witnesses testimonies at face value because a lot of them lack logic and reasoning in their statement. For example:

* Anyone of who claim to see the faces of passengers on a plane traveling 500+ mph is over-exaggerating to the extreme.

Or what about seeing the "name" of the plane. How many of us can stand on the side of the highway, while looking straight ahead and "identify" what they've see(a vehicle traveling 70 mph). Anyone whoever had to stop on the side of the road knows that it's virtually impossible to indentify or for that matter NAME something moving that fast UNLESS you alreadly know the shape and model of it.

The last time I checked, most 757 are shaped the same.

So again the question is this, how is it possible to see a 757 traveling 550 mph, at 20 ft and see the NAME and claiming to see PASSENGER FACES
?



[edit on 12-10-2006 by 2smooth4ya]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Snoopy:


Snoopy >> I would like to bring a new twist into this conversation. Let's all take a look at the recent crash in NYC.


In other words, let’s hijack this thread to SomeWhereElseVille. How grand . . . How about just showing us your 100 Ton PLANE anywhere near the Pentagon on 9/11?


Snoopy >> One thing interesting is that the found the pilots passport on the street below. Just like they did in WTC. Now does this mean there is some conspiracyy? Because some claim that it would be impossible for a passport to survive a plane crash.


WTC?? Who is writing about the Twin Towers on this Pentagon / Flight 77 / Missile Thread? Go start your own thread on that topic.


Snoopy >> Look at the pictures of where the plane hit the building. Notice that there are no wing or tail marks and there is no way the plane could have fit into one of the openings in the building. Does this mean there was no plane that his the building?


You are comparing baby plane apples to 100 Ton Jetliner oranges.


Snoopy >> No one caught the plane on film. There seems to be no footage of the plane crashing into teh building in NYC. Does this mean that there couldn't have been a plane because there is no film of the impact? Perhaps a tomahawk missle?


The crash was caught on film >> www.cnn.com... Go down to “Video” and click “Camera Captures Crash.” Note that the investigators found the plane debris with no problem and the plane is described as a “tiny aircraft.” We could have used these guys in locating 100 Tons of Jetliner at the Pentagon. : 0 )

The Pentagon is a completely different situation. The Twin Towers had already been struck on 9/11 and the entire nation was on full alert. This is not the case for the private airplane recently in the news that simply lost altitude and veered off course to crash into the building. The Pentagon is protected by a security net and many cameras around the perimeter from which the DoD has released very few frames. There is no reason for anyone to believe a Missile struck the NY apartment building, but every reason to believe one struck the Pentagon. If the Media Machine was trying to tell us that a 100 Ton Jetliner crashed into the NY apartment building and yet we can find no trace of the thing, THEN we should begin asking questions. Even if the Official DoD Cover Story was that a small plane loaded with explosives struck the Pentagon, THEN the evidence would more closely match their story. However, we all know they are trying to say 100 Tons of Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon, which is NOT supported by the evidence in ANY WAY. Now I am beginning to wonder about Snoopy’s motives for bringing this NONSENSE to this thread . . .


Snoopy >> How come the plane was not intercepted?



From CNN Link Above >> “The plane was flying under visual flight rules. FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the East River is in a corridor governed by VFR, meaning that pilots must stay over the river and climb no higher than 1,100 feet. The pilot was not required to file a flight plan, she said.”


This is another case of trying to compare private plane apples flying in downtown NY to 100 Tons of Jetliner flying into one of the most complex security networks ever conceived by modern man. The question becomes, “Why was the Jetliner not intercepted on 9/11 approaching the Pentagon, when the Twin Towers had already been attacked?! The Fighters were scrambled and sent in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION by the DoD. www.cassiopaea.org... ( http:// www. cassiopaea. org /cass /boeing. htm = take out spaces and plug into browser).


“NORAD immediately jumped up and said "Not so!" They issued a press release the next day stating that it only received the warning of the third hijacking at 9:24 and had most definitely immediately ordered two F-16's from Langley AFB in Virginia to intercept Flight 77. BUT, they claimed that the Air Force did not know its location and went in the WRONG DIRECTION! Apparently, a military transport taking off from Saint Andrews Presidential base happened to spot the Boeing by chance, but by then, it was too late.


Added to this ridiculous oversight is the failure of the “anti-missile batteries:”


There are five extremely sophisticated anti-missile batteries in place to protect the Pentagon from an airborne attack. These anti-missile batteries operate automatically.

Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Vic Warzinski claimed the military had NOT been expecting such an attack. This is not credible. Because the transponder had been turned off, the Pentagon knew full well where that aircraft was. Communications between civilian air traffic controllers and the various federal authorities functioned perfectly.


The only way this comedy of errors could possibly take place allowing the preprogrammed Tomahawk Missile through the most elaborate Defense System in the world is for the DoD to consecutively go around and turn things off. Jet fighters were scrambled in the ‘opposite’ direction, radar installations were told to “stand down.”


Laura Knight-Jadczyk (above link) (my notes) >> “The Army possesses several very sophisticated radar monitoring systems. the PAVE PAWS system is used to detect and track objects difficult to pick up such as missiles flying at very low altitudes. PAVE PAWS misses NOTHING occurring in North American airspace. "The radar system is capable of detecting and monitoring a great number of targets that would be consistent with a massive SLBM [Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile] attack(Like My Tomahawk Missile). The system is capable of rapidly discriminating between vehicle types, calculating their launch and impact points. [ www... / and www.fas.org... paws.htm ]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Snoopy’s attempt to compare a private “tiny aircraft” striking a high-rise apartment building to 100 Tons of Jetliner striking the Pentagon is preposterous and the sign of a “PLANE” Theorist with no case at all. The Flight 77 Pentagon Hoax is an inside job carried out by DoD operatives who knew exactly what they were doing from start to finish. Even if they had done nothing, the “anti-missile batteries” would have taken the PLANE or the Missile down automatically without any human intervention at all.


Snoopy >> Was there another stand down order so taht this little plane could hit the apartment building?


Snoopy appears to realize that DoD officials MUST be active participants in the Flight 77 Hoax from the very beginning, because anything to actually crash into the Pentagon MUST have been allowed to penetrate the Security Net very much on purpose. We have only two options in this case: Either the anti-missile batteries were turned off, OR the Missile transponder was signaling “I am friendly.” In either case, the ONLY people with the ability to carry out either scenario is the DoD who desperately needed to appear as the “Victim” in this scandal.


Snoopy >> Who benefits from this?/


The Bush Administration led us into the war with Iraq with lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction in the aftermath of these self inflicted attacks. He managed to get his “Patriot Act” passed and his “Department of Homeland Insecurity” that cannot even stop Mexicans from flooding in like locust. The people pulling Bush’s strings are chiseling away at our rights and liberties in order to bring in their New World Order. Some guy flew his plane into an apartment building. So what? People have accidents all the time. But the Pentagon Hoax was no accident . . .


Snoopy >> So here we can see another plane hitting another concrete building and getting the same results. Different scale, but same results.


Stop being ridiculous, as you are unaware that the event was even caught on tape. We have investigators on the scene in New York, but how many Crime Scene Investigators were on the scene at the Pentagon on 9/11?? Do these look like them carrying away the evidence? No.

Cover up >> www.worldnewsstand.net...


Snoopy >> Does this mean they are both conspiracies and that there was no plane in either? And that passports were planted in both as well as stand down orders, etc etc?


Snoopy is here to sow doubt and ‘disinformation,’ instead of trying to carefully examine the facts in ANY case. What did former congressman Gary Allen say?


Gary Allen >> "It must be remembered that the first job of any conspiracy, whether it be in politics, crime or within a business office, is to convince everyone else that no conspiracy exists. The conspirators' success will be determined largely by their ability to do this." [Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy]


Anyone tossing the term “CTer” (Conspiracy Theorist) around like this guy is part of the problem, because their position is that ‘no’ conspiracies are present anywhere. Everyone who interprets the evidence differently is tossed into the “CTer” pile and these guys can go back to sleep. This case is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions and down right LIES perpetuated on the American People by the Bush Administration, DoD, NORAD, the Joint Chiefs, the FBI, FEMA and their subordinate agencies. Their hands are red with innocent American blood and they will do ANYTHING to make you believe everything is just fine and dandy, because ‘they’ are watching closely over the bearded Islamic Radicals (heh . . . Yea right). The truth is out there.

GL seeing it,

Terral


[edit on 12-10-2006 by Terral]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join