Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof that the pentagon didn't get hit by a boeing 757

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Interesting. Until now, all I'd seen was one pic of the piece of AA aluminum, and a piece of what looked like an engine rotor. The wheel hub is most convincing, IMO.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Satyr]




posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I played that game of "find the plane" once before, and I still maintain that if a jet did hit something like the pentagon, the wings would have disintigrated before they could have caused any major damage to the building. I also have a hard time buying confusing a cruise missile for a jet, but they are similar in appearance and I can't say that it is not a possibility.

Some information does not need to be public, but crying conspiracy and negligence are what we do best here.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
that site is interesting and did get my attention but i have a few problems for and against it.
i would say its interesting that the damage wasnt that bad considering the size of the plane. the pictures that showed the plane superimposed did leave me questioning how could a plane have hit that. the fact that there was little debris, although i dont know to much about what happens to planes when they hit like that so i think for that my "opinion" is better kept out of this. and the way that there was not that much attention or coverage of the plane hitting the pentagon at all. it wasnt givenas much coverage as the towers.

but at the same time i would have to say all the witnessess are lying? what about the passengers? i would also have to question why they would do this? and i dont mean AQ.

this site sort of just leaves me confused, i know i should follow logic, but that site does make me think...



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicodemus
Doesn't it make sense that they would keep details of that incident secretive for security reasons? I mean, it IS the top military facility in the country, right? So why does conspiracy have to be the only explanation? Why can't we accept that some information just can't be public? It seems that everytime we are told we can't know something, we act like children told NO by our parents and start immaturely make accusations of wrong doing or conspiracy or negligence. Can't some things be taken at face value?

No, they can't. There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be able to see pics of the debris. What could it possibly threaten? I think everyone's pretty much figured out that a jet (assuming that's what it was) can put a hole in the side of the Pentagon. Is that supposed to be the big secret? I don't see the point.

My biggest beef with it is, that's about the only plane crash I've ever seen in which there were absolutely no body parts anywhere. Is that possible? It just seems that people would've been thrown all over the place. It also seems there would be a lot more debris outside...wings, tail, etc.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   
there was a plane, on the scanner mp3s taken from the emergency frequecies on 9/11, on one or two it you can hear a guy saying there is plane debris.

search for 9/11 scanner mp3's or look in multimedia uploads for the thread and a link to where u can download them.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by ausconspiracies]



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
Hell if I know. Does it look like a piece of a jet? Nice link. I hadn't seen those pics before.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Satyr]


It looks like a turbine. Crusie missiles don't use turbines to my knowledge.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ausconspiracies
there was a plane, on the scanner mp3s taken from the emergency frequecies on 9/11, on one or two it you can hear a guy saying there is plane debris.

search for 9/11 scanner mp3's or look in multimedia uploads for the thread and a link to where u can download them.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by ausconspiracies]




radioscanning.wox.org...

Here is a link that was posted somewhere else on ATS with all the scanner sounds...



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Also the depth and effect on the building was probably fairly minimal compared to what one might imagine because A)The building is a tough building, brick,cement, heavy duty stuff. It was designed to be a fortress (which, by name implies a strong defense factor to the building). A plane is designed to be light and not dense. B) If the plane was moving slowly (for a plane) it was not flying at an extreme horizontal. Those pix with plane shapes super imposed on them don't reflect any angle of impact. If it was coming in steep that would be why it missed the telephone lines and didn't make a big hole in the ground or the building. The WTC was made of much lighter materials since it was a skyscraper with floors stacked on top of floors. You can't do that with the kind of architecture used in the Pentagon. That is why the building shows much less damage than you'd imagine.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by Satyr
Hell if I know. Does it look like a piece of a jet? Nice link. I hadn't seen those pics before.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Satyr]


It looks like a turbine. Crusie missiles don't use turbines to my knowledge.



Cruise missiles do use turbine engines, but with explosives onboard, they normally make the engine blow into a few thousand parts. This picture definately looks like a larger engine then those used on say a Tomahawk Cruise Missile which are normally pretty small...

www.afmc.wpafb.af.mil...

That is just a link to show that the cruise missiles do use turbine engines.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by Satyr
Hell if I know. Does it look like a piece of a jet? Nice link. I hadn't seen those pics before.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Satyr]


It looks like a turbine. Cruise missiles don't use turbines to my knowledge.


They use a Williams International Corp. F-107-WR-101 turbofan engine. So yes, they do use something very similar.

But, admittedly, judging by those pics, it doesn't appear to be cruise missile parts.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   
As far as seeing debris, it would have gotten buried by the collapsed building on top of it. That is why body parts weren't strewn all over, either. I saw no plane debris @ WTC, either. But I don't doubt that.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Nicodemus]



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by Satyr
Hell if I know. Does it look like a piece of a jet? Nice link. I hadn't seen those pics before.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Satyr]


It looks like a turbine. Cruise missiles don't use turbines to my knowledge.


They use a Williams International Corp. F-107-WR-101 turbofan engine. So yes, they do use something very similar.

But, admittedly, judging by those pics, it doesn't appear to be cruise missile parts.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Satyr]


Ah, did not know that. However, it still looks much too large to be from a cruise missile.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Ah, did not know that. However, it still looks much too large to be from a cruise missile.


That's because it was a plane.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicodemus

Originally posted by Esoterica
Ah, did not know that. However, it still looks much too large to be from a cruise missile.


That's because it was a plane.

Uh...exactly



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr

No, they can't. There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be able to see pics of the debris. What could it possibly threaten?


Don't you realise in the field of security everyone knowing what could be threatened, is a threat? It defeats the purpose of secrecy. If we, the American public know it, so does our enemies. I'm not pretensious enough to think that the government is up to no good just because they didn't let me in on the whole story. That's not to mean that they are infallible. But I won't jump to conclusions when security is involved. If I'm not being told the truth, there may be a very good reason ( one that benefits me, possibly)

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Nicodemus]



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   
OK...I have something to say in this matter.

First of all, My company has worked on the pentagon for the last 3 years. Yes, it was under construction at the time of the bombing.

Second, I know someone personally who was there. He had a hand (body part) litteraly slap him in the face that day....sooo give it up with your "it was a missle" crap. Granted it coulda been from someone inside but I really doubt it. Just a thought



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nicodemus

Originally posted by Satyr

No, they can't. There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be able to see pics of the debris. What could it possibly threaten?


Don't you realise in the field of security everyone knowing what could be threatened, is a threat? It defeats the purpose of secrecy. If we, the American public know it, so does our enemies. I'm not pretensious enough to think that the government is up to no good just because they didn't let me in on the whole story. That's not to mean that they are infallible. But I won't jump to conclusions when security is involved. If I'm not being told the truth, there may be a very good reason ( one that benefits me, possibly)

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Nicodemus]

The threat was past tense. It's obvious. There's nothing else you can learn from a hole in the wall and demolished building and plane parts. Now, if it hadn't happened, then I could see the point in keeping it a secret that the Pentagon could be penetrated by crashing a jet into it. Although, I doubt there's anyone who wouldn't be able to guess that one anyway. You'd have to be an idiot not to figure that one out. It's kind of like, I know for a fact, that if a jet crashed into the White House, it would definitely do some damage. Oops! Sorry....I guess I let the cat out of the bag, eh?



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 12:41 AM
link   
You ever think that "they" dont want to show pictures for the sake of the families that their loved ones died in?



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Sorry...couldn't edit....would you want someone showing someone you loved blown apart by an airplane or something else?....NO why do you think that they don't show the suicide bombers pictures? TO PROTECT THE FAMILIES?



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Depleted Uranium Penetrator on a Boeing 757?


The truth now !

To summarize, the truth on the Pentagon's attack on september 11 2001 is in the answer to the following questions ?

If a Boeing 757 (flight 77) has struck the Pentagon, why were the videos of this attack hidden, and why a faked video and faked images of debris supposed to come from the logo painted on this plane have they been made in a so clumsy way ?

If the answer to the question above is that all this was done to cover-up the fact that this plane had loaded a military payload including a depleted uranium "penetrator", who did this ?

The best Pentagon conspiracy website I've found. Absolutely awesome website. Very detailed.

perso.wanadoo.fr...

More pics of the Pentagon crash and damage b4 it fell down.
perso.wanadoo.fr...




"This is meaningful for two reasons :

Some measures have proved the contamination of the Pentagon's crash site by depleted uranium,
There has been a cover-up of the presence of these radiations by the authorities.
This text raises another question. Boeing admitted that the El Al B 747 crashed near Amsterdam in Holland contained a DU counterweight. Boeing never gave the list of the plane models and series which contain a DU counterweight. The question could be asked of wether the B 757 of flight 77 contained a DU counterweight or not. If yes, the hypothese of a warhead loaded inside this crashed plane could be replaced by a "natural" explanation of all the damage inside the building being due to this counterweight.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shortly after the previous paragraph was on line, I got an email with :

No Depleted Uranium in Hijacked Jets Crashed in New York and Washington Other than with its 747 jets, Boeing never used depleted uranium counterweights in its 767 and 757 jets - the types involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to Boeing speaker Heinrich Grossbongardt. (SPIEGEL ONLINE, Sep 14, 2001)

According to a company's spokesman, the only planes with a DU counterweight would be the B 747s...

"

Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, The Pentagon , Monday, September 10, 2001

www.defenselink.mil...

"The topic today is an adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America. This adversary is one of the world's last bastions of central planning. It governs by dictating five-year plans. From a single capital, it attempts to impose its demands across time zones, continents, oceans and beyond. With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas. It disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk.

Perhaps this adversary sounds like the former Soviet Union, but that enemy is gone: our foes are more subtle and implacable today. You may think I'm describing one of the last decrepit dictators of the world. But their day, too, is almost past, and they cannot match the strength and size of this adversary.

The adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy. Not the people, but the processes. Not the civilians, but the systems. Not the men and women in uniform, but the uniformity of thought and action that we too often impose on them.

"






top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join