Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
"The follow thread contains information from many sources, links, ATS members and independent researchers into the alleged Boeing 757 Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon.

Some say it was a plane and some are claiming it was not.

My personal opinion is unclear as to what happened that day at the Pentagon, because the government withheld many angles of different video footage from cameras positioned throughout the Pentagon exterior walls and perimeter. Why?

How did a 757 pierce 3 rings of the Pentagon for Total of 9 Feet of steel reinforce concrete?

There are many conflicting reports for the incident at the Pentagon that day.

What you will find in this thread are some of the most compelling facts and research the internet has to offer on that tragic day at the Pentagon. Enjoy your journey!"

Here is some footage I watched and had to agree with. I would like to hear your views.


Google Video Link



I believe this Documentary to be credible and very vital to first time viewers of the thread, since first impressions are everything on ATS.


Google Video Link




Mod Edit: Per Author's request.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Mod Edit: Per Author's request.



[edit on 4/2/2008 by Sauron]




posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I've never seen the directors cut of that movie. thanks for posting it.

Btw, the impact damage on the building doesn't even match that of a plane, and the flight path doesn't match the flight data recorder or eyewitnesses.

so go figure at the pentagon



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
It wasn't a plane. Only reason is that a plane filled with that much fuel would have burned for days.

Also the roof on the Pentagon.......Tar...Tar....Tar and Torch Down which is Tar.

What does Tar do....Well it burns quickly and very, very hot, they would have never ever been able to put it out if a plane full of fuel struck the pentagon. The footage I saw it looked like the Pentagon had at least 4 or 5 layers of Tar roofing. Do you know how long and hot that would burn for? DAYS. Not to mention how it liquefies, spreads, and pours hot dripping tar over everything setting it ablaze.

I have seen, repaired, restored many many buildings after a burn started from a roof fire.

I am not buying a plane hit the pentagon everyone and that is from my personal experience.



Originally posted by AwakeAndAllSeeing
I've never seen the directors cut of that movie. thanks for posting it.

Btw, the impact damage on the building doesn't even match that of a plane, and the flight path doesn't match the flight data recorder or eyewitnesses.

so go figure at the pentagon




[edit on 15-3-2007 by Realtruth]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
And the serialized plane parts, fuselage members, seats, cockpit instruments and BODIES of the men and women known to have been on board the airliner...and FOUND in the wreckage of the Pentagon happened HOW?



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Swampfox, I'm pretty sure all that was planted. Remember that blue tarp thing being carried by several men? That's how they got it in there.

Realtruth, you say a plane with that much fuel would have burned for days at the pentagon, but at the WTC most the fuel burned off in the first few minutes after impact? Do you agree that the WTC fuel burned off so quickly?



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
All that was planted with literally THOUSANDS of witnesses, both military and civilan? Not even close to likely.

The blue "tarp" is actually a shelter half (tent) plenty of pictures are out there showing them set up all over the grounds afterwards



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I would like to keep this thread on track. We seem to be arguing points not about what is visible in the attack and remaining building.

1) Building is no where near burnt or damaged by a plane full of Jet fuel.

2) If a plane with Jet Fuel hit the Pentagon it would have burned for Days on end because of the fuel, multi-layered Tar roof and other flammable construction material, but the roof is not burnt, interior walls not burnt. WTF!

3) I live in Detroit I have seen many many Large Buildings similar construction materials to the Pentagon, in fact bigger than the Pentagon burn right to the ground, and yes even the concrete.

Do you know what the Detroit Fire Department does when these types of buildings catch fire? Basically stand back and watch them burn because you can't stop them do to the size. Yes they toss some water on them, but they just basically wait and watch until it is done.

4) With a Trans-continental 757 hit the Pentagon full of fuel all bets would be off I don't give a #hit how many fire trucks would show up, it would burn for days.

5) 757 Full of Fuel hitting Pentagon is like saturating a wick with kerosene and lighting it. How long does a lantern burn?

6) How did a 757 pierce 3 rings of the Pentagon Total of 9 Feet of steel reinforce concrete, but yet when the Plane that hit the WTC didn't even make it through the WTC structure?

Unless you know about construction and or materials many of you will have a hard time understanding what I am trying to convey, but if you have some basic knowledge of the way building materials ignite and burn, then you are in the know.


[edit on 15-3-2007 by Realtruth]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   
What I do understand is my friend almost DYING that day as the jetliner slammed into the building he was in. Since he was a Naval Aviator, Ill take HIS word over yours as to just what hit his office.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
What I do understand is my friend almost DYING that day as the jetliner slammed into the building he was in. Since he was a Naval Aviator, Ill take HIS word over yours as to just what hit his office.


Did he see it?



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Did you see the Video? I think not. None of what you say or describe was in any footage.

Footage right after the supposed plane hit the pentagon, but no wreckage, no wings, luggage, plane engine, nothing. You must see the footage to speak intelligently about this subject.



Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And the serialized plane parts, fuselage members, seats, cockpit instruments and BODIES of the men and women known to have been on board the airliner...and FOUND in the wreckage of the Pentagon happened HOW?



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   


Did he see it?


Yes.



Footage right after the supposed plane hit the pentagon, but no wreckage, no wings, luggage, plane engine, nothing. You must see the footage to speak intelligently about this subject.


And you wouldnt see large pieces of the wings either. nor would you see the luggage, since being in the hold, it would have ended up under the mess that was left. There are plenty of pictures of wreckage and, no, there is NO conceivable way the wreckage was planted, too many people with cameras to pull that off.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And you wouldnt see large pieces of the wings either. nor would you see the luggage, since being in the hold, it would have ended up under the mess that was left. There are plenty of pictures of wreckage and, no, there is NO conceivable way the wreckage was planted, too many people with cameras to pull that off.

I agree 100% with swampfox on this one. Yeah a lot of things don't add up with 9/11. I've seen some interesting stuff but nothing that proves anything on the pentagon being staged. I think some people may have the tinfoil hats on a bit tight. These are all good points being discussed but how van you refute the testimony of EVERY witnedd that says they saw a plane hit the pentagon. BTW if the plane didn't hit the pentagon then where'd it go? [sarcasm] I bet it was sucked into a reptilian time warp[/sarcasm] I know people that saw a plane hit as well. I believe them 100% because I know them to be trustworthy people. I see there can be holes found in the official story, but theres an equal ammount of holes to be found in the truthers take on the scenario as well.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Post the pictures, if so many people took these picture then post them, because all the live footage I saw right after the impact showed nothing. I could be wrong, but show the pictures.

And if you are correct about the plane, then why wasn't there the same amount of heat damage, by the fuel, that collapsed the entire WTC in a matter of minutes? And why didn't it burn for days like the WTC?

It should have burned for days with that amount of fuel coupled with all of the layers of tar roofing material. Not to mention 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete walls. The WTC planes didn't even make it through the WTC, even at top speed, but yet the same plane made it through 3 layers of the Pentagon? Not. That goes against the laws of physics.



Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
There are plenty of pictures of wreckage and, no, there is NO conceivable way the wreckage was planted, too many people with cameras to pull that off.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
The WTC planes didn't even make it through the WTC, even at top speed, but yet the same plane made it through 3 layers of the Pentagon? Not. That goes against the laws of physics.


Plane wreckage certainly did make it through the WTC.
911research.wtc7.net...

Here is pentagon plane debris.
911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   
This guy is kind of trying to make a good point IMO.

The fact that the plane also had to fly so low to make such an "attack run" at such a high speed...well, i'd most likley get sucked to the ground under the reverse pressure it has under it and crash tens of yards before it's target.

That's percision flying that even veteran commercial pilots can't pull off.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
This guy is kind of trying to make a good point IMO.

The fact that the plane also had to fly so low to make such an "attack run" at such a high speed...well, i'd most likley get sucked to the ground under the reverse pressure it has under it and crash tens of yards before it's target.

That's percision flying that even veteran commercial pilots can't pull off.

One question: Have you ever been to an airshow?
I used to be stationed on a Naval Air Station, I've seen planes fly that low to the ground at equal and higher speeds. It's not an impossibility, most trained pilots can do it.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Actually, the ground effect creates high pressure under the wings. So the lift from the cushion of air would actually help a pilot avoid a crash, not cause one.


The ground effect occurs when an aircraft flies super low - .... A plane skims along on a cushion of high-pressure air created by its own forward movement.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
Actually, the ground effect creates high pressure under the wings. So the lift from the cushion of air would actually help a pilot avoid a crash, not cause one.


The ground effect occurs when an aircraft flies super low - .... A plane skims along on a cushion of high-pressure air created by its own forward movement.

Thank you eaglewingz, my point exactly. It is not impossible to fly that low at high speeds. Research helps alot when you want to make claims about something eh?



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Very good point about the pilots, but unfortunately they were not experienced like the men at the air shows. Most air show pilots have been flying for many many years and have military experience. The terrorist's could barely fly the plane according to the flight schools. I don't think these guys could have pulled it off, but even if they did it still doesn't explain why the Pentagon site didn't burn for days with the fuel coupled with the construction debris.




Originally posted by ShAuNmAn-X
One question: Have you ever been to an airshow?
I used to be stationed on a Naval Air Station, I've seen planes fly that low to the ground at equal and higher speeds. It's not an impossibility, most trained pilots can do it.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Looks at this 757 flyby
youtube.com...

Any ideas if he can get even lower than that?

Also look at this handling
youtube.com...

Seems to me the plane is capable of a lot.






top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join