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.

 

Tell me if you've seen this...

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
About one year after 9/11, a friend of mine emailed me a link to a short video. In this video, there was undeniable evidence of a plane never having crashed into the pentagon.
This was the first time that I thought there might be something more to the story of 9/11.

www.freedomunderground.org...

I would like to thank everybody here for never surrendering their minds.




posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
it dosent work they want me to donate money



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Yeah, this video's been pretty popular on the internet. I think it's dishonest. Now, it's all but certain that there was a government conspiracy, but I simply don't believe the evidence supports the missile argument.

Read this link, I think it debunks this theory pretty well:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
This is the problem. There ISNT enough evidence to support a missile OR a plane.

If there was enough evidence to support a plane everything would be gravy.



[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 15-8-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I think it's a lot easier for a pro-government site to post propaganda than it is to produce wreckage of a 757.

While there is no hard evidence of a missile, (it's all circumstantial), I cannot swallow that it was a plane that hit the pentagon. jprophet420 is right. There's not much one way or the other.

I would have to say, however, there is enough evidence (or enough lack of evidence) to be convinced there was no plane hitting the pentagon on 9/11.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   


This is the problem. There ISNT enough evidence to support a missile OR a plane


Let's see...pieces of airplane all over the lawn of the Pentagon, the highway and even some ended up in Arlington National Cemetary, the remains of people KNOWN to have been on Flight 77 found in the wreckage at the Pentagon, and last, but not least, the men and women that were at the Pentagon and saw it happen. Hell of a lot more evidence supporting Flight 77 than a missile or a truck bomb.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Let's see...pieces of airplane all over the lawn of the Pentagon...


And, where was that?


Originally posted by jprophet420
If there was enough evidence to support a plane everything would be gravy.



[edit on 15-8-2007 by beekersguy]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Pentagon Wreckage

















Hope that helps.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
^None of that 'wreckage' has been proved to be from flight 77, or even a Boeing 757.

Where are the rest of the rotor hubs, should be 24, we see a pic of one.
We see no rotor shafts, should be two. We see no engines casings. No counterweight. A pick of one wheel, there should be ten. And what happened to the tail section that went over the top of the building? A pic of that would end this debate, so why hasn't a pic of it been released?

Also the plane supposedly burned all away inside the pentagoon, so how did the 'bodies' survive enough to get DNA samples? And where is the proof, and not just some official words, of this?

If this was an inside job, which I believe it was, then don't you think they would have faked a lot of this stuff?

If you don't see anything suspicious about 9-11 then you're not paying attention.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
These videos have reached a point now that suggest the videos themselves are part of something bigger. It doesn't add up at all.

One of the recently released videos that shows a truck on the freeway next to what appears to be the top part of the tail of Flight 77 approaching the Pentagon is suspect. Why? As is evident in the video, you can't see the roof of the Pentagon, therefore it is below the top of the building. This means that the tail would NOT be visible from this position. It is visible all the way to impact, yet strangely, remains at a near-constant height above the roof line of the Pentagon. This is very wrong indeed, and too obvious to miss.

Due to the way the aircraft would have had to hit the building to cause the damage, the height of the building and the size of the tail itself, the top of the tail would be significantly below the top of the Pentagon, and out of view of the camera.


I'd leave this one alone. Prove the Pentagon from another angle (no pun intended).

[edit on 15-8-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   

If this was an inside job, which I believe it was, then don't you think they would have faked a lot of this stuff?


If it was an inside job, wouldn't you think that they would have "faked" MORE of this stuff to avoid this type of scrutiny?



[edit on 16-8-2007 by sensfan]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
. . . Read this link, I think it debunks this theory pretty well:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...


Hello uberacanist. Thanks for the post, can you show me on that web page where it explains why there were no cars “blown” off the roadway from the engines of a jetliner that was traveling approximately 2-5 ft above the ground??

Also, I couldn’t find where it explains why all available video footage [sarcasm] (except for that exceptional shot from the security booth) [/sarcasm] was confiscated by the FBI, and not available for review by the American people and the rest of the world.

I thank you in advance for clearing this up for me.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Hello sensfan, thanks for the pictures you posted of a wheel and pieces of aluminum with rivets in them. I was wondering why you did not comment on mirageofdeceit’s post regarding the video discrepancies? ( by the way mirageofdeceit, do you have a link to that video?) If accurate it does pose some interesting questions.

Do you have any pictures of flight 93’s crash site? Preferably some with plane wreckage in the hole?

Thanks again.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
If it was an inside job, wouldn't you think that they would have "faked" MORE of this stuff to avoid this type of scrutiny?


Oh yes of course, how silly of me not to think of that...


Now how about tackleing the other discrepancies in the governments official fairy tale?

So what did happen to all the parts that would not have melted in a fire?
What did happen to the tail section? Why no pics of it?
Why have they not released video from the security cameras?
Why did pentagoon security officers statements, independently, say that the official flight path was wrong?

If you are so sure the official story is true then you should have resolved all these discrepancies in your research right? If you haven't then you are just blindly believing something you yourself can not verify. And you all wonder why the term sheeple is used a lot around here...



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
If it was an inside job, wouldn't you think that they would have "faked" MORE of this stuff to avoid this type of scrutiny?


Just some thoughts-

1 If it was an inside job then maybe the reason is "dis-evidence" of some sort?

( Something to throw you off? )


2 If it was an inside job then maybe it was just too hard to "plant" a lot of evidence after the crash?

( Because everyone was watching? )


3 If it was an inside job then why don't they just release all the "doctored" surveillance videos to avoid this type of scrutiny?

( Same as reason 1? )


4 If it was an inside job then why didn't they mess up the "Penta-lawn" to match the trajectory & motion of the inbound aircraft as described by eye wittnesses?

( Same as reason 2? )


5 If it "wasn't" an inside job, then why aren't there better answers to these questions?

( Because it was? )


Again, just some thoughts-

Frankly because of this I don't know what to believe. . .

$0.02

2PacSade-


fixed quote

[edit on 16-8-2007 by 2PacSade]

Bad sentence

[edit on 16-8-2007 by 2PacSade]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join