It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pentagon video of 9/11

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 01:39 PM

Originally posted by akummma
As we can see, it doesn't seem like a plane crashed into it.

The wings on that plane could not possibly penetrate the bunker like structure of the pentagon. I do think there are some strange facts about the whole pentagon crash but with the amount of eye witnesses who saw a the jet hitting it's hard to think otherwise. This has been discussed so many times at ATS. Try the search button it will answer any questions.

posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 04:05 PM
It just seems highly questionable that this videotape was the only one released. At no time in the videotape can you confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a commercial jet in the picture.
If a witness observed a small jet plane traveling at or below treetop level, that would immediately lead me to discard the confirmation that an insufficiently trained terrorist could pilot a 757 that long at less than ten feet off the ground. The airplane itself is over 20 feet high. The engines would have sheared off, the fuselage would have cartwheeled, eliminating any precision impact on the outer wall. The scripted story sounds extremely improbable.

posted on Dec, 27 2003 @ 04:10 PM
If anyone remembers, around ten years ago there was a video tape of a United flight making a landing approach in an emergency situation. The landing gear on the aircraft was down, and when it touched down it still cartwheeled, creating a massive fireball.
Maybe this terrorist pilot had some skill, but a veteran pilot would still have trouble holding that position in such a large, cumbersome aircraft.

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 07:05 PM
let me be clear, i understand that the heat generated would be able to warp steel beams and cause the building to fail and i understand that the main support for the towers was on the outside these are not my concerns. my concern is that heat (800 degrees), pressure, load or whatever you may want to call it would not make steel beams melt. that is my point, being that i work with metal i have experience on how much temperature is needed to melt steel i know for a fact that you cannot melt steel beams with aviation fuel it just does not get hot enough, i don't care how long it burns.

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 07:22 PM

So why doesn't there seem to be any damage from the plane's wings? I mean, that's the question that too many people ask, especially after that pathetic French website was passed around with the nice picture of a plane superimposed over the Pentagon.
Those wings are composed of 1/8" thick aluminum. Remember, a plane has to be lightweight to fly.
The Pentagon was hit in "Wedge 1," which is the section that had recently been completely remodeled. It wasn't a design job; Wedge 1 was gutted, it's support columns and exterior walls reinforced (the walls, notably, with a web of steel beams), and special blast-proof windows were installed.
Believe me, I saw firsthand what Morse Diesel/AMEC did there.
The comparitively fragile wings weren't just sheared off, they disintigrated when they hit 24" of solid limestone & concrete. The sturdier fuselage was carried through the first ring and into the second. The subsequent fire damaged all five rings.

That's what I had to say 3 1/2 months ago on the whole "plane hitting the Pentagon" thing, and I still say the same thing today.
I worked there.
I saw the damage firsthand.
I personally know people who physically pulled plane wreckage and bodies from the Pentagon.
Not everything is a conspiracy.


posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 07:30 PM
We still have missing wings though and that is the problem with this whole episode isn't it?


are not the engines on the wings?

Do they not have great mass?

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 07:32 PM
The video looks as if the object flying into the Pentagon is going at ground level, which to me would indicate that the plane hit the ground first and then ran into the Pentagon. That would explain why the damage was not as wide as the wing span of the plane and why the floors above collapsed. When a plane goes at a structure at more than 500 mph, how much of it do you seriously expect to be in one solid 747 sized piece.

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 07:36 PM
How much distance does a 745 sized plane need to form an approach and then hit the ground and skid as suggested by people here?

I say their ain't enough room.

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 07:44 PM
I believe it was a 757, as a 745 doesnt exist. I dont think it would really take much distance. I have played flight simulators which are as accurate as you can get (well, for under a few thousand dollars), and have landed with almost no approach at all. I also have seen aircraft do that at the various airports that I have worked at. It seems entirely possible, and easy for someone who doesnt care about the structural integrity of the aircraft, to do. Pick up a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, and try it out for yourself. I say that because that is about as accurate of information as you could really get on it.

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 08:00 PM

If I am not incorrect here, 747's still do exist. But you are correct that it was a 757.

I am not saying whether the plane is capable of a sharp steep banked descent or turn or whatever. Witnesses' and clean up crews and investigators claim that this plane made a more 'orderly' approach to its target. I did not say this.

Again I content that the distance does not match up and the lack of damage outside the central area belies such a large craft hitting the pentagon in the manner described by witnesses and investigators.

Furthermore, I put up a thread on this topic awhile back and there was a lot of similar discussion on this subject so people thusly interested should also view it too.

posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 02:07 AM
There's a very good investigation on this here...

They went into depth and looked at arguments for and against each possibility. It's very possible it was a cruise missile. A cruise missile has wings, and at the right angle, looks like a small jet. Plus, it was moving pretty damn fast.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in