Flight 77 Wreckage Pictures Inside Pentagon

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Again, I am so nieve, to actually think that a aircraft that large, would actually leave some large parts around, it must have been flying at Mach 15? The plane came in rather slow compared to actual ability to its speed. It is over 2 storys high on the runway, and it would have broken its wings off on inpact, and even if they folded and followed, there would be visable damage to the building from the wings. Something hit the pentegon, it was not a passanger liner aircraft.

www.rense.com...

Answer this question acurrately on this link, then tell us all we are crazy.




posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Im with you wolfpack i just dont see how the airliner hit the pentagon ive studied this and i keep coming to the same conclusion it was something just not an airliner. Im thinkin a military aircraft. Also how did the plane clear all teh high telephone wire at the trajectory it came in at they were left un touched. Look at the security video clear ur mind for a sec look at it b4 it hits another comtrail appears almost like a missle. Just look for the jet and ull see my point



posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51


Again, I am so nieve, to actually think that a aircraft that large, would actually leave some large parts around, it must have been flying at Mach 15? The plane came in rather slow compared to actual ability to its speed. It is over 2 storys high on the runway, and it would have broken its wings off on inpact, and even if they folded and followed, there would be visable damage to the building from the wings. Something hit the pentegon, it was not a passanger liner aircraft.

www.rense.com...

Answer this question acurrately on this link, then tell us all we are crazy.




Look at the building, to the left and to the right of the hole. You can SEE where the wings hit. There WAS debris left, Engines, nose gear and some other large bits. The rest of the aluminum tube shredded like so much tin foil.

That link above has nothing to do with this situation. You've raised it as a canard to cast doubt on the fact that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, Killing all 64 people aboard and 125 people in the building.

-Mal



posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Mal, I have looked and every picture Ive seen does not show where those giant wings hit, as for the large pieces of debris, from pictures taken right after hit, I can not see these items,

As for the link I said to justifiy, it has everything to do with this whole timeline, and all that happened. I remain doubtful a airliner hit the pentegon, as to where it is or what happened to it I can only guess.

I will just choose to disagree with you, and when real overwhelming evidence is presented, I shall concede to my foolish thought.



posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
Mal, I have looked and every picture Ive seen does not show where those giant wings hit, as for the large pieces of debris, from pictures taken right after hit, I can not see these items,

As for the link I said to justifiy, it has everything to do with this whole timeline, and all that happened. I remain doubtful a airliner hit the pentegon, as to where it is or what happened to it I can only guess.

I will just choose to disagree with you, and when real overwhelming evidence is presented, I shall concede to my foolish thought.


Look at this picture.




See it yet?



posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Nope,

I still dont see the damage of a plane coming in at some super mach speed that didnt leave no large parts around

Just for kicks, explain this one also

www.whatreallyhappened.com...




posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 05:01 AM
link   
hm.. take a look at this pic: criticalthrash.com...

look on the ground.. you can see whatever's left of the plane in front of the pentagon burning..

and how do you explain this eye-witness account then if a plane didn't hit the pentagon?



Mike Walter, 46, USA Today reporter, said
"I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour -- it had ground to a standstill. I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.'
And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon."

www.cnn.com...



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Whos to say the plane had to land into the pentagon horizontally? could it have banked heavily to one side and hit the building vertically, with the wings pointing into the ground and into the air? This would seem more sensible, no wing marks, but still heavy distruction to the lower part of the building and also in the rear of the upper structure.



posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I saw the picture, and I didnt see no wreckage.

As for the 1 lone eye witness, why only just one.

Still a unbeilever, but always wanting a factual, multi-source of information to prove or disprove a conspiricy.

This was a set up from the start, and some Americans see thru the smoke, and some choose not to .



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Wolfpack51, first of all your grammer sucks. Second, you expect us to believe that you see no wreckage? Open your eyes and look again. The Pentagon is in flames man! I see smoke and a crumpled building. There was a closeup in one of the pics, of an engine shroud. Check it out.



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Please excuse the rough grammer, I did not know that there were english and grammer grades given on ATS.

As for the plane, there are no Large parts evident, and no fire , such as was at the world trade center. Even considering spent fuel, there should have been and enormous fire.

I know this link seems trivial, but the pictures are true.

www.asile.org...

And argue all that you choose, I am convinced it was not the plane that was said, that did this damage.




posted on Mar, 30 2003 @ 05:39 AM
link   
xmb.abovetopsecret.com...


Another nice pic!



posted on Mar, 30 2003 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
I saw the picture, and I didnt see no wreckage.

As for the 1 lone eye witness, why only just one.

Still a unbeilever, but always wanting a factual, multi-source of information to prove or disprove a conspiricy.

This was a set up from the start, and some Americans see thru the smoke, and some choose not to .


i'm not an american. i'm canadian and damn proud of that. i'd like to see why you think bush setup 9/11 in the first place. wow, there was a single witness account on that page.. that doesn't account for the other hundreds of witnesses that tv crews were talking to at the pentagon that day. when i came home from school that day i was watching a lot of news and they talked to quite a few people who witnessed the plane slamming into the pentagon.. so unless hundreds of people ingested lsd and were tripping out, i don't think they were seeing things... i'm not saying 9/11 wasn't staged.. i'm just saying from photographic evidence, it seems very apparent that a commercial airliner did, indeed, slam into the pentagon as the government said. this could have easily been a setup.. i never once said it wasn't. just showing the evidence of the crash... blah. this !@#% bugs me... believe what you want.

(edited to censor my own swearing..)

[Edited on 3/31/03 by ital]



posted on Mar, 30 2003 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Thanks for your opinion, But the arguement I have is that a plane that size, would have left pieces around, bigger than a hubcap anyway, and there would have been damage to the grass in the area it hit, there wasnt, just look at the pictures,, There are plenty of folks to argue the other way, But I see it as no possible way a plane that size hit the pentegon.

In reality, we will never know the truth of any of this.



posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 01:17 PM
link   
you could be correct.. we may never know the complete truth, but i think people will know more about what happened and why it happened pretty soon.. anybody hear about michael moore's next film? he's the guy that made bowling for columbine. check this out...


Michael Moore plans Bush-bin Laden film
From the Life & Mind Desk
Published 3/28/2003 4:00 PM


LOS ANGELES, March 28 (UPI) -- Filmmaker Michael Moore's next project might be more controversial than his Oscar-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine."

According to a report in Friday's Daily Variety, Moore is working on a documentary about the "the murky relationship" between former President George Bush and the family of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. The paper said the movie, "Fahrenheit 911," will suggest that the bin Laden family profited greatly from the association.

Moore's anti-war, anti-Bush Oscar acceptance speech provoked a mixture of cheers and boos at the Academy Awards last Sunday.

In addition to the Best Documentary Oscar, "Bowling for Columbine" also had an extraordinarily robust bottom line. Made for about $3 million, it has grossed nearly $40 million worldwide -- making it one of the most commercially successful documentaries of all time.

Variety reported that Moore is working out a deal with Mel Gibson's production company, Icon Productions, to finance "Fahrenheit 911."

According to Moore, the former president had a business relationship with Osama bin Laden's father, Mohammed bin Laden, a Saudi construction magnate who left $300 million to Osama bin Laden. It has been widely reported that bin Laden used the inheritance to finance global terrorism.

Moore said the bin Laden family was heavily invested in the Carlyle Group, a private global investment firm that the filmmaker said frequently buys failing defense companies and then sells them at a profit. Former President Bush has reportedly served as a senior adviser with the firm.

"The senior Bush kept his ties with the bin Laden family up until two months after Sept. 11," said Moore.

Moore told Variety the primary focus of the new project will be to examine what has happened to the United States since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. He accused the Bush administration of using a tragic event to push its agenda.

"It (the new project) certainly does deal with the Bush and bin Laden ties," said Moore. "It asks a number of questions that I don't have the answers to yet, but which I intend to find out."

Moore said he expects the new movie to be in U.S. theaters in time for the 2004 presidential election.

While some critics accused Moore of being anti-American for his Oscar speech, Moore told Variety business has been very good for his movie and his best-selling book "Stupid White Men: And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation."

"I expressed exactly what was in the film and instead of being blacklisted, I've not only gotten a deal to fund 'Fahrenheit 911' but offers on the film after," he said. "Presales on ('Bowling for Columbine's') video release ran ahead of 'Chicago' this week, and my book is returning to the top spot on the New York Times best-seller list."

Moore said the success of his documentary and book reflects majority public support for his political argument.

"It's because the majority of Americans agree with me, see the economy in the toilet and didn't vote for George W," he said. "People are now realizing you can question your government while still caring about the soldiers."

source



posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Look at this picture.




See it yet?
Actually that picture came from the link I provide(second one not joke)



Imo, the plain crash is BS!
WANK!
I read around about this, heres the gist in laymans terms, too bad the address wasn't:
http//www.pentiganBSrevealed/fordummies.org

check this--->

www.asile.org...#





[Edited on 2-4-2003 by ADVISOR]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Well here it is July 4 2006 and we still are arguing.

No new posts here for a long time.

One more thing to notice from the pictures at front of this thread, no great amount of fire damage. The debris is clean. The hole has minimal fire damage. Looks more like a projectile that was fairly solid, not laden with fuel.

The mystery continues



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
No one has yet to of CLEARLY matched those parts to a Boeing 757.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
No one has yet to of CLEARLY matched those parts to a Boeing 757.



Are you sure?
What WERE they matched to?



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
There was a video camera from a service station that filmed the impact with the pentagon. The FBI confiscated the video and hasn't released it. Why?
This video would put all the speculation to rest. What is being hidden?

Until this video is released the official story stinks. Maybe a plane but not a 767.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join