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.

 

Why a missile could NOT have hit the pentagon

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   
There are many people who claim a missile hit the pentagon. My intention is to present my speculation as to why a missile could NOT have hit the pentagon on 9/11. I am not an expert but merely spent some time thinking about such an event as a missile causing the destruction of one of the walls and came to my own conclusions which I wish to share.

First off a missile can be ground launched, air launched, ship launched or submarine launched. There are dozens of types of missiles fired using different equipment.
Take a look at this directory of all the different types of missiles and their specifications
www.fas.org...
No allegations have been made of anyone seeing an airborne vehicle (helicopter or jet) firinig any sort of missile that day, and if one did there would have to be some account or testimony. Ground fired missiles are usually fired at air targets, it is unlikely that someone on the ground fired a missile into the pentagon, and there is no evidence to support this claim. The only possible alternative I can see as remotley feasible is a long range missile.

This is where I am making perhaps, one of my strongest arguments. When a missile is fired it gains significant altitude depending on the type. A low-altitude missile could not have possibly worked because the pentagon is surrounded by buildings as it is right across the river from D.C, the missile could not have stayed parallel to the ground and hit the pentagon without first hitting buildings or trees or whatnot. Therefore, the missile would have to come in at a very sharp angle.
Here is a video of a Tamohawk Cruise missile making impact
video.google.com...
Notice the angle at which it engages the target, it hits the target from the top. The video that aired immediatly after 911 showed the object hitting the pentagon appear to be almost parallel to the ground. Missiles do not work like that. It would have hit the pentagon at more of an angle, it could not have possibly been parallel to the ground because if it were at such a low altitutde it would have struck other objects first before hitting the pentagon. The missile would have most likely impacted the top of the pentagon, not the side.

There are other pieces of evidence that do not fit the missile theory. While many theorized the impact hole was too small for that of an airplane and that a missile was approximately that size I urge you to watch the video of the Tamohawk impacting that target again. Missiles do not leave impact holes. Why? Well, when a missile penetrates its target it then explodes. As seen in the video it basically blows everything to #. My point: The hole created by the penetration would not be there because it would have been blown up with the explosion. A missile would have left an impact crater, not a small hole. Most of, if not the entire wall would have been gone, there would not have been a small hole in it!
www.911review.com...
Cmon you mean to tell me a missile left this?
Missiles usually leave buildings looking like this
ptaff.ca...

The diameter of the whole in the pentagon was 2 and 1/2 yards. Despite the fact that a missile would not have left such a hole, even if you still are not convinced then find me a missile who's diamter is 2 and 1/2 yards. Most missiles are barley a meterin diamter, no where near 2 and 1/2 yards.
Heres the directory go look you wont find one
www.fas.org...
Basically I theorize that a missile could not have hit the pentagon based on
the video showing the object hitting the pentagon parallel to the ground, while a missile would come in at a very sharp angle
the impact hole left by the object is no where near what a missile would leave. A missile would leave a crater not a hole. no missile diamtere comes close to being 2 and 1/2 yards

[edit on 10-12-2006 by Think About IT]




posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Think About IT
The diameter of the whole in the pentagon was 2 and 1/2 yards. Despite the fact that a missile would not have left such a hole, even if you still are not convinced then find me a missile who's diamter is 2 and 1/2 yards. Most missiles are barley a meterin diamter, no where near 2 and 1/2 yards.
Heres the directory go look you wont find one
www.fas.org...
Basically I theorize that a missile could not have hit the pentagon based on
the video showing the object hitting the pentagon parallel to the ground, while a missile would come in at a very sharp angle
the impact hole left by the object is no where near what a missile would leave. A missile would leave a crater not a hole. no missile diamtere comes close to being 2 and 1/2 yards

[edit on 10-12-2006 by Think About IT]


You have just stirred up a hornets nest, i can assure you.
But tell me this then, find me an airplane whos 2 1/2 yards, if not a misssle that hit the pentagon, then that just means is something else, but it sure wasnt a plane, because a lot of the things you said about the missle, apply to the airplane. How could a 747 come in at this angle then, if a missle couldnt even do it?



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Lemme start by saying I don't know what hit the Pentagon. I would like to know, but I doubt I ever will, with any certainty. It could very well have been a plane, or a missle, or some hybrid one-off creation resembling the former that functioned as the latter.

I just don't know.

That said, I'll address what I think are some logical errors you've made.



No allegations have been made of anyone seeing an airborne vehicle (helicopter or jet) firinig any sort of missile that day, and if one did there would have to be some account or testimony.


There's a fair bit of farmland in the vicinity, as well as a (very) large body of water, and a handful of large-ish national parks. Just because nobody saw a missle being launched, doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. I don't always see my mail man coming, but I know he's been there when I see the mail he's left.




Ground fired missiles are usually fired at air targets, it is unlikely that someone on the ground fired a missile into the pentagon, and there is no evidence to support this claim. The only possible alternative I can see as remotley feasible is a long range missile.


The only plausible missle theory I've read involves an air-launched cruise missle variant.



A low-altitude missile could not have possibly worked because the pentagon is surrounded by buildings as it is right across the river from D.C, the missile could not have stayed parallel to the ground and hit the pentagon without first hitting buildings or trees or whatnot.


Just because a missle has the capability to fly at very low altitudes doesn't mean it does so at all times, or has to do so. The way I understand it, ground-hugging cruise missles approach the target at high altitude, until they get close enough to have to worry about AA fire, then they drop down and hug the landscape to avoid SAMs and AA guns. If there's a tree in the way, they pop up, fly over the obstacle, and sink back down to continue the approach.

Like you, I'm no expert, this is just what I've picked up along the way. A missle that can vary its approach and altitude, and does not rely on a pre-programed angle of attack is more survivable because it's less predictable.

This picture is OLD (The Battle of Normandy), but it serves to illustrate a point.



Why fly through that when you can fly under it? Modern cruise missiles have to contend with even more AA threats, and to counter the efficacy of radar and AA installations, some of them hug the ground to the greatest extent possible.



The video that aired immediatly after 911 showed the object hitting the pentagon appear to be almost parallel to the ground. Missiles do not work like that.


Now you're making a broad and unsupported generalization. Missiles come in all shapes and sizes, and they behave in a number of different ways, limited only by their software, hardware, guidance systems, and the ingenuity of their controllers in the case of fly-by-wire or otherwise remotely-controlled examples.



It would have hit the pentagon at more of an angle, it could not have possibly been parallel to the ground because if it were at such a low altitutde it would have struck other objects first before hitting the pentagon. The missile would have most likely impacted the top of the pentagon, not the side.


The missile doesn't have to choose whether it hugs the ground or flies high and comes in at a sharp angle. It can adjust altitude to avoid obstacles, while remaining as low as the terrain will allow to defeat detection and countermeasures.



Missiles do not leave impact holes. Why? Well, when a missile penetrates its target it then explodes. As seen in the video it basically blows everything to #. My point: The hole created by the penetration would not be there because it would have been blown up with the explosion. A missile would have left an impact crater, not a small hole. Most of, if not the entire wall would have been gone, there would not have been a small hole in it!


That would depend entirely upon the warhead. Some missiles are designed to penetrate to a desired depth before exploding. Other missiles are designed to explode on impact or explode prior to impact, depending on the objective and how hard it is. Make no mistake, the Pentagon is a HARD target.

Look at the way anti-tank rounds work. They strike the armor, creating a massive amount of friction, and the charge is not so much an explosion as it is a super-heated column of molten metal which bores through the target and kills everything inside.

Shaped charges direct the blast pressure and the resulting heat to magnify the effects. Here is an image of a shaped charge detonating underwater.



See the shape? This is the principle behind armor-defeating munitions - they don't explode in a big, uncontrolled bang. They burrow through hard targets using the enormous heat and pressure created when a big explosion is focused into a small area of effect.



Missiles usually leave buildings looking like this
ptaff.ca...


Apples and oranges, as I've said - different munitions produce different effects.



The diameter of the whole in the pentagon was 2 and 1/2 yards. Despite the fact that a missile would not have left such a hole, even if you still are not convinced then find me a missile who's diamter is 2 and 1/2 yards. Most missiles are barley a meterin diamter, no where near 2 and 1/2 yards.


The diameter of the missle is not necessarily equivalent to the diameter of the 'entry wound' - if the missle was designed to essentially transform itself into a spear of fiery metal upon impact. If that's the case then the hardened penetrator at the tip might immediately plow through the concrete, leaving a small hole - but now the mass of super-heated material travelling behind it is trying to fit itself through a very small space. It will obviously widen the hole as it passes through.

So, you see, the missile doesn't have to be 2 1/2 metres to leave that size hole.

If I'm not mistaken, the successive holes were smaller and smaller, as if the penetrator kept going, but the charge following behind sputtered out.

I have suspected for some time that it was not a vanilla passenger aircraft, but I was reading something the other day about depleted Uranium used as ballast in the nose of airliners, so that's food for thought. Don't know how accurate that is, but it was something I had never considered before.

Anyway, I'm not interested in convincing you, or anyone else, that it was a missile. I don't know it was a missile.

I can't very well convince someone of something I don't even know myself.

I just have a keen interest in uncovering more information about what happened that day, and analyzing it to the best of my ability.

So, please don't take my post as an attack. I appreciate threads like yours, that present evidence (wrong or right) and don't simply seek to attack the opposition. I'd rather be shown why I'm wrong than be told I'm an idiot for being wrong, yaknow?

So, kudos for going about it the right way.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:01 AM
link   
I also cannot say what happened.

But surely, if a terrorist flew a plane in, there'd be a lot of easily avialable evidence released from the government immediately to present as such.

Being its taken years to release very dubious footage they claim as evidence says to me, this is the 'best' they can come up with.

If a plane hit the pentagon, they would of released any number of video's from any number of camera's.. either from the pentagon, from the hotel, from the service station showing cleraly a boeing plane.

Im not saying a missle hit, im not saying a boeing hit.
Hell it could of been a commuter jet loaded with explosives.


but being the US Government have taken this approach to proving what happened... cleraly stands out as suspicous and odd.

What Sh1ts me, is people declare EVIDENCE of a plane hitting out of the footage...

The footage released show's SOMETHING...
IT in no way, show's you WHAT hit the pentagon.
It shows you SOMETHING hitting the pentagon.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:05 AM
link   
I still cant see how a novice ARAB terrorist can fly a plane in such difficult manner, without hitting the lawn.

Why were no planes scrambled?
There was a 1 in 5 chance this plan would happened to hit the least populated part of the pentagon... but it did.

why did it do a full loop AROUND The pentagon, then slam into the renovated side?

Why would it go all the way to DC... and not hit the whitehouse?



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Why is this still debatable??Becasue the Pentagon wont release their survalance video's?

There were over 150 EYE witnesses. Yes, EYE-witnesses that saw a plane! Many were so close that they knew it was an American Airliner. Many so close they made note that the landing gear was up. Some so close they saw people in the back.

Sorry guys, but I think this "no plane hit the pentagon" should be put to rest. But please...if you feel compelled to suggest over 150 people were either lying...in on it, or whatever...be my guest.

Let me add...are there ANY pictures of the pentagon lawn After the attack? Pictures at an angle that would REALY show the lawn?

[edit on 10-12-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Why is this still debatable??Becasue the Pentagon wont release their survalance video's?

There were over 150 EYE witnesses. Yes, EYE-witnesses that saw a plane! Many were so close that they knew it was an American Airliner. Many so close they made note that the landing gear was up. Some so close they saw people in the back.

Sorry guys, but I think this "no plane hit the pentagon" should be put to rest. But please...if you feel compelled to suggest over 150 people were either lying...in on it, or whatever...be my guest.

Let me add...are there ANY pictures of the pentagon lawn After the attack? Pictures at an angle that would REALY show the lawn?

[edit on 10-12-2006 by CameronFox]


Yes and out of all those witnesses, they could not verifiy it was a 757. Yet most of the people who work at the Pentagon are military. Also you have witnesses who stated it was a 757 said that they were told later it was a 757.

The photos of the Pentagon do not show a proper debris field and there is no damage to the lawn in front of the hole.

[edit on 10-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Are you serious? You think most people can tell what style a plane is?? PAH-leeeze. The point is they ALL saw a PLANE! Remember the first reports from New York. "It Appeared to be a small commuter plane."

"Proper" debris field? Tell me what proper is. There are SEVERAL pictures of debris inside the pentagon. As far as the lawn goes...show me some photographs that show the lawn.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Time_is_now

Originally posted by Think About IT
The diameter of the whole in the pentagon was 2 and 1/2 yards. Despite the fact that a missile would not have left such a hole, even if you still are not convinced then find me a missile who's diamter is 2 and 1/2 yards. Most missiles are barley a meterin diamter, no where near 2 and 1/2 yards.
Heres the directory go look you wont find one
www.fas.org...
Basically I theorize that a missile could not have hit the pentagon based on
the video showing the object hitting the pentagon parallel to the ground, while a missile would come in at a very sharp angle
the impact hole left by the object is no where near what a missile would leave. A missile would leave a crater not a hole. no missile diamtere comes close to being 2 and 1/2 yards

[edit on 10-12-2006 by Think About IT]


You have just stirred up a hornets nest, i can assure you.
But tell me this then, find me an airplane whos 2 1/2 yards, if not a misssle that hit the pentagon, then that just means is something else, but it sure wasnt a plane, because a lot of the things you said about the missle, apply to the airplane. How could a 747 come in at this angle then, if a missle couldnt even do it?


My point being that a plane could have come in that angle because a plane is capable of lowering altitude and leveling out whereas a missile would have to hit the target on an arc. For example, when a plane lands it does so gradually and right before it touches down it is running parallel to the ground



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I see that you do maintain some good points, however, my real problem stilll lies with the impact hole
you are right there are different bunker buster type technologies, and warheads capable of penetrating concrete that would initially leave a hole as such, however, once they detonate all evidence of that hole would be gone. Since the hole inthe pentagon was what three blocks (I am unsure) I speculate that any hole left by the initial entry point would have been destroyed in the ensuing explosion, furthermore most damage would be in the inner sections of the pentagon not the outter wall.
www.globalsecurity.org...
see, most of the damage is to the outter wall, yet a bunker busting type warhead would have destroyed most of the inner builiding since that is where it would have detonated if it had penetrated the outter wall



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Are you serious? You think most people can tell what style a plane is?? PAH-leeeze. The point is they ALL saw a PLANE! Remember the first reports from New York. "It Appeared to be a small commuter plane."

"Proper" debris field? Tell me what proper is. There are SEVERAL pictures of debris inside the pentagon. As far as the lawn goes...show me some photographs that show the lawn.


Oh, so you do not think Air Force people or other military people who fly alot can not tell the difference between a 757 and a business jet ?

A proper debris field would show the remains of aircraft that should have survived, you do have parts on a plane that can survive impacts and fire.

Ok here a few photos of the lawn in front of the hole. Can you please show me any markings from the airframe or wings impacting the ground after hitting the generator, or any scorching from the jet fuel fire.

i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
The witnesses OUTSIDE the Pentagon gave better detailed descriptions of what was flying over them. I think it would make sence since the people at the Pentagon would only see the front of the plane...thus not being able to tell EXACTLY what type of plane it was. Tell me .. how many people in the Pentagon said it WASNT an airplane? Tell me how many people OUTSIDE then pentagon said it wasnt an airplane.

Please, tell me why....two plane crashed into the towers.... but the third one ...well heck lets go hide it somewhere...kill all the people, slam something else into the pentagon THEN....plant their DNA at the scene...along with their DNA. Then lets plant some plane wreckage. Sorry...although the offical report has some holes in it....the no plane theory in my eyes... pathetic.



Edit PS: The pictures of the lawn do appear to have VERY minimal damage. I wold like a closer, better positioned picture...which I will get. Thanks for the pictures though


[edit on 10-12-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
As far as the amount of debris at a plane crash. Please go to this link that shows about 19 different plane crashes with minimal debris fields.

911research.wtc7.net...

Thanks



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I do have a very hard time believing anyone can tell what an object is when it's flying at, what, 500mph?!

I imagine it was relatively easy to tell that it was an aircraft that resembled a commercial airliner, in terms of shape, color, and maybe even size (roughly), but are you really confident in your ability to discern the nature of a thing that's travelling so fast?



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
As far as the amount of debris at a plane crash. Please go to this link that shows about 19 different plane crashes with minimal debris fields.

911research.wtc7.net...

Thanks


There were military witnesses outside the Pentagn, they were on their way to work.

If the plane the hit the Pentagon was almost completly destroyed by fire it would have also destoyed the bodies in the plane and would have also destroyed DNA evidence.

I was not talking about the size of the debris field but what should be in it.

Oh and do not forget about the someone reported to the police about a missile being fired at the towers from the Woolworth building, and thier was some damage to the top of the Woolworth building that is pretty far form the the towers.



[edit on 10-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
SOME were on their way to work.... HUNDREDS of witnesses saw the plane. Peope that were stuck in traffic etc.

You have not shown me ANY proof of an eyewitness that saw anything but an airplane flying into the pentagon. I believe there was one witness that was two miles away that claimed it looked like a missile.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
SOME were on their way to work.... HUNDREDS of witnesses saw the plane. Peope that were stuck in traffic etc.

You have not shown me ANY proof of an eyewitness that saw anything but an airplane flying into the pentagon. I believe there was one witness that was two miles away that claimed it looked like a missile.



Yes some of the poeple in traffic worked there, their was 1 witness who was at the Pentagon who stated it sounded like a missile.

But the main point i am making is that out of all the witnesses it could not be verified that it was a 757 let alone if it was flight 77.

Thier are no reports of the parts found matching the registration number of flight 77.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Yes some of the poeple in traffic worked there, their was 1 witness who was at the Pentagon who stated it sounded like a missile.


"sounded like" Of all the witnesses thats all there it to support that?



Originally posted by ULTIMA1But the main point i am making is that out of all the witnesses it could not be verified that it was a 757 let alone if it was flight 77.


The witnesses where people sitting in their cars, sipping coffee at their kitchen tables, reading the morning newspaper, or just taking a walk. So WHAT if they dont know the proper name for an airplane...And HOW in the world would ANYONE know what flight number that plane was??


Originally posted by ULTIMA1Thier are no reports of the parts found matching the registration number of flight 77.


I have heard this mentioned in several different posts. I'm not sure to validity to this, but would it be possible for you to show me your source on this?



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by ULTIMA1Thier are no reports of the parts found matching the registration number of flight 77.


I have heard this mentioned in several different posts. I'm not sure to validity to this, but would it be possible for you to show me your source on this?



I have done a lot of research and have access to a lot of research material. Thier are no FBI or NTSB reports for Flight 77 or for that matter any of the planes on 911.

The FBI was the lead investigating agency but i have not seen any incident reports on the aircraft from 911. I can find other reports from other aviation crime scenes but none from 911.

The NTSB is the only agency regulated by the FAA to do crash scene investigations.

[edit on 10-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 10-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Why is this still debatable??Becasue the Pentagon wont release their survalance video's?

There were over 150 EYE witnesses. Yes, EYE-witnesses that saw a plane! Many were so close that they knew it was an American Airliner. Many so close they made note that the landing gear was up. Some so close they saw people in the back.

[edit on 10-12-2006 by CameronFox]


Where are the witnesses? I keep asking but nobody delivers. Let's make a TV special where all the pro-Israel crowd parades out their lackeys to lie for the military industrial complex and present people to say they saw: 'da plane boss.. da plane."

What role will you play in the show Fox? Heck we could even have it on the Fox network.. they could sell it to the Christians that will do whatever Israel desires.

Of course the landing gear was up because a: it didn't have any or b: they were not coming in for a landing. Also, any plane/missile can be painted with a logo and it is quite easy to do.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join