Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pentagon video of 9/11

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 01:46 AM
link   
This evening I had a long conversation with my father about the various theories surrounding the Pentagon attack. I vocalized my opinion that I felt something other than a jumbo jet was used to punch the hole in the Pentagon. We discussed the possibilities and proceeded to search the internet for video of the airplane hitting the Pentagon. THERE IS NO VIDEO. The closest thing I found was the video released from the Pentagon of security camera footage showing the processes leading to the explosion. We slowed this video down and stopped it at the beginning frame. My father has been flying for over 30 years. He has flown airbusses, 737s , 727s, 757s, 777s, and many military aircraft. He concluded that what we were looking at was not a boeing jet. Additionally, we observed that the object was leading a noticable horizontal smoke trail. A 757s fuselage is over 20 feet tall, and at the tail is more than 30 feet. This object was less than 5-10 feet off the ground.
My father is a very patriotic man. He trusts his government. For the first time in over two years since the event, he has started to question these occurences. This is remarkable, in and of itself, knowing my father. The video is still available, I will find the link if noone has seen it




posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 02:02 AM
link   
if anything it was a drone. i find it hard to believe that a group of people who couldn't fly a cessena could keep a large jet at 5ft off the ground for that period of time.



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 02:08 AM
link   
911review.org...

This is it. There were only five frames released, fortunately for whoever chose to release them, I'm sure.
I managed to stop the first frame. The "device" is moving amazingly fast, trailing exhaust.



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 02:12 AM
link   
There are eyewitness interviews. I mean for what that's worth. They said it was a plane.

What I can't get over is the public's unwillingness to discuss the 4th downed plane. The government was so quick to credit passengers as the hero's of downing that plane, it's almost unpatriotic to speculate otherwise.

Isn't there just the SLIGHTEST chance after three other hits, we got wise and shot that one down? I mean, I would have if I was President. But I'd like to think I'd be honest about it.

Remember the controversies about the black box recodrdings? Some say the passengers never got control of the cockpit... but pro-patriots made that discussion unpalatable. If we didn't shoot down that last, slow, way behind the others plane...I'd like to think we would have.

Actually, I find it hard to believe we didn't.



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 02:23 AM
link   
i believe the fouth plane was shot down too. actually i think everything that happened that day is questionable.



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 02:28 AM
link   
There is no Boeing in that video. Nice find.



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Why would they fire a crussible missle into themselves?



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 03:20 AM
link   
I would theorize that a direct hit on a military target, whether by "terrorists" or some faction of the "shadow government", provides the necessary fuel to illicit a measured military response, either way. Such response is probably engineered to benefit certain unnamed parties economically and politically. I know of the cruise missile theory. This obviously would take tremendous resources and a death wish to prove. Whatever struck the Pentagon, it was definitely not a 250 ft. long 757.



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Okay, I won't assert that it was not a 757. If it was a 757, there is an undeniable lack of evidence to support the claim. If you watch the video, take note of the height at which the device is traveling. It just seems incredibly small and fast. If the video is any indication, a jumbo jet would at least register momentarily, even in a 4 second time lapse.



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 03:29 AM
link   
You ask why would they do that? Well, who benefited from 9/11? What gets me is how did the trade centers fall? did a carbon based fire with temperatures that will not exceed 800 degrees actually melt the steel frame with a melting point of 1400 degrees? defies logic



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 06:22 AM
link   
There crashed a Boeing into it. The most common topic is "why so less damage?" but that's an optical illusion.

It really looks like there is just a bit destroyed in width and depth but it is very much hit. The first ring is hit very badly and the 2nd ring has some damage as well. In width and in depth. I had pictures of an RadianInc. employee till I was searched a few month before and those showed very clearly that there is no conspiracy at all. But how to tell when they are gone, bah, that's life.



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 06:35 AM
link   
As we can see, it doesn't seem like a plane crashed into it.





posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 06:43 AM
link   
I trust real photos from on-site which had security clearance more than some photoshop arranged pictures shows
- btw. that photo just looks a bit realistic when the plane didnt hit the ground before it hit the pentagon. Else the wings are deformed before hit.



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 06:49 AM
link   
EYEWITNESS SAW BUSINESS JET SLAM PENTAGON

Eyewitness described a small jet aircraft seating a maximum of 12 passengers and crew, NOT an airliner, flying "like a fighter jet" at high speed below treetop level.

That above seems to be the best explaination..

But why did they say it was a 747? and why put fake parts?



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 06:50 AM
link   
that really is weird......
i never really questioned the fact that it wasnt a plane, but that cleary shows it is no passenger plane, its tiny and does no damage compared to the WTC.
ive seen a few documentaries on why the WTC collapsed, they reckon its because the planes went through the lift shaft down the center of the towers which was the main structural point of the towers, but this story wouldnt work as also in the documentary as the firefighters arrive and some people have just come out of an elevator after being stuck in there for 30 minutes, if a plane crashed through the shaft surely the wires would be cut causing the lift to fall to the ground...?



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Eyewitness 1: He had brown hair and drove a red porsche.
Eyewitness 2: He had blonde hair and drove a red aston martin
Eyewitness 3: She had red hair and drove a black ferrari.

Law, first semester: Eyewitnesses suck a$$


Come on think about it!: You see an attack on a building/nation/institution you think is unattackable/undestroyable and the most terrific explosion ever in your life. The plane hits the Pentagon with high-speed and you can exactly remember what the plan looked like because you immediately watched up and framed the picture in your mind?

No, every damn psychological doctor will tell you that it is just a total situation of stress and all you do afterwards is trying to remember of something. Which then, will be a mixture of what you saw and things you already knew from other places. The brain tries to fill the missing gap that's gone because of the stress.

Again about the damage. The damage is huge but the photos don't satisfy to show it. I understand all criticsm about the Pentagon attacks just measured by those photos but it is an optical thing and no conspiracy.

[Edited on 27-12-2003 by shoo]



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 07:03 AM
link   
www.freedomfiles.org...

heap of info here



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by akummma
www.freedomfiles.org...

heap of info here


What a wannabee Michael Morre
. For sure he never worked in a job where precision matters.

He uses homepage.ntlworld.com...

to proof his fact that there was something fishy about Plane77. Just a pitty that the page above states as conclusion that Plane77 hit the Pentagon, which is totally correct and he made the right assumptions even he put some conspiracies at the end.



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by razorbackhater
You ask why would they do that? Well, who benefited from 9/11? What gets me is how did the trade centers fall? did a carbon based fire with temperatures that will not exceed 800 degrees actually melt the steel frame with a melting point of 1400 degrees? defies logic



time for an engineering lesson. after a structure is built all the supprting steel is UNDER LOAD. usually hundred or thousands of tons of pressure to hold the build up. you dont have to melt the steel to make a buuilding collapse, just making it hot enough will do, the weight bearing down in the steel will do thre rest of the work.

they had a coating on the steel which literally blew off on impact, it wasnt designed to stay on in case a large jet came flying into the building as they had no idea this would ever happen. the coating was for conventional fires that normally occur in a building, such as anything you can find in an office, paper, furniture, plastics, etc. the coating blew off, the steel was exposed to the heat, the steel buckled under the tremdous load of the building and poof....no more building, the rest of the building falling down is a result of two things, 1) a floor cannot hold the weight of the floors above it, 2) it was design to implode and fall straight down. they have designed tall buildings like this for decades now. thats why they never fell over, thats why they totally collapsed. thats why the steel gave way.

cleggy the main structure was the outside of the building, in order to maximize office space and flooring they moved the load bearing structure to the outside which was highly unconventional back then because the buildings were so big and so tall they had to create a design that had not be used before as no building had ever been built on such a grand scale. this allowed for a thinner structural design as it spread out the load bearing structure and allowed them more elevators. the inside was supporting the main structure. like one joist helps hold an entire floor, but one joist alone cannot. what holds the joists in place? the outside structure. thats the concept they used in designing the buildings. its a domino effect. i'm not surprised they fell or how they fell to be honest. everyone seemed so perplexed and confused. if you actually look at each factor and add them up its not hard to see how the buildings collapsed. that and having some knowledge in building design helps!



posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Well put, and it's nice to see some common sense here.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join