Proof that the pentagon didn't get hit by a boeing 757, page 21
Pages: <<  18    19    20    21    22  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 9-9-2008 @ 06:58 AM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by jeanette



One of the runways to Reagan National Airport is almost directly in line with the Pentagon. Therefore planes on take off or approach to said runway regularly fly within a 1/2 mile of the Pentagon. I think that before you decide to spill your "opinion" you should first gather all the "facts".



reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 03:32 AM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Shoktek



shoot down over the ocean. i believe the official report no fighter were scrambled till later. i know fighter aircraft were in the air. 3 us airliners get hijacked and all us fighter craft are wheels down. not very likely.
i have two questions for the subject. if a plane hit the debris i.e the tail section or more plane albeit damaged would still be there (jet fuel burns@ 1300 f the two titanium cases for the two jet engines would melt at about 2200)
last but not least the outward facing wall no burn marks from the thousands of gallons of jet fuel not to mention the green grass and the wooden wire spools mere feet from the impact site completely undamaged.
i am new and i hope there are not already answered inquiries thank for giving me a place to share my thoughts


reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 09:43 AM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Nicodemus



They must find it difficult... those who use authority as the truth, rather then truth as authority.



reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 10:38 AM by SPreston
posted by jthomas
Of course, such a flight path begs the question: if AA77 took the NoC flight path and were to have flown over the Pentagon, would not the released Pentagon security video have shown it?

Accordingly, the two bottom video frames from the security camera give a reasonable approximation of what the security camera should have recorded.

it was 'doctored'

Of course the parking lot videos were 'doctored' jthomas as were the leaked and 'doctored' still frames. Why else would you be floundering around desperately from thread to thread? Did they threaten to pull your paycheck? Can anybody even imagine a sloppier job of 'doctoring'? These Pentagon 'doctored' fakes even make the Osama bin Laden fake videos look like multi-million dollar Hollywood productions.

You and the 9-11 perps you defend were screwed when an insider leaked those 'doctored' 5 frames and they were published all over the internet. Then the FOIA 'doctored' videos could not be further altered, and you people were stuck with them. They are garbage; very sloppy 'doctored' garbage and you know it. But at least they successfully removed the decoy aircraft from the sky above, flying in on its flight path from Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. Shoot. We could have seen what kind of aircraft it really was.

Looks like they used the same fluorescent paint color of the cones to color in the side of the heliport away from the fake fireball. How come the 757 shrank to a baby plane?

Great job there jthomas. You even got the 32 hour difference on the leaked and 'doctored' still frames right. But your plane is still too small. It's supposed to be a 757. Were you trying to color in an A-6 to add more confusion? Perhaps you should apply to the FBI for that video 'doctoring' technician position they so desperately need to fill. Maybe just a transfer to another department?



Sloppy garbage



[edit on 11/5/08 by SPreston]


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:40 AM by SPreston
Guns and Butter broadcast with Dave von Kleist interviewing April Gallup. There was an explosion and she crawled out from E-Ring through the hole onto the Pentagon lawn. She saw no jet fuel and nobody burned with jet fuel. She and her baby boy were about 35-45 feet from the alleged impact hole and no jet fuel was splashed on them. What happened to the huge infernos and fuel-air explosions inside which allegedly incinerated all the aircraft parts and engines and wheel hubs and baggage and seats?

Guns and Butter April Gallup - audio live testimony



Mother and son would have been inside the green area of that circle I drew at the alleged place of impact



Original diagram from official Defense Dept Pentagon 9-11 book

If the Pentagon were actually impacted by a 535 mph 124 ft 10 in wingspan 757, then how is it possible that April Gallup and her infant son officially sitting 35-45 feet from the impact hole escaped being killed and incinerated?

Of course the answer is no aircraft impacted the Pentagon. The explosives creating the impact hole and external damage spared April and her son sitting 35-45 feet away from the inside of the wall. There was no jet fuel to incinerate them. The remaining wall between April and the external explosives apparently protected them from the blast. Perhaps the explosives were in the construction trailers. Then after April and Elishah escaped the building, more explosives were set off as reported by multiple witnesses.

April and her son would have been sitting within the radius of the wings and wing tanks allegedly partially filled with jet fuel and their inertial vector through the walls and internal 1st floor damage area. Not only should they have been incinerated, but April should have seen evidence of jet fuel and she did not.

Since neither engine remained outside the wall, then one of the engines or the fuselage or landing gear should have made a smear of April and her son. How do the Official Fairy Tale supporters explain this apparent mystery?

This is how Military Industrial Complex strong supporter Purdue University describes the aircraft path through the 1st floor. Did they forget about April and little Elishah sitting in the flight path?

Oooops. No engines? A super tail section? Alleged damage path of Flight 77 through 1st floor. Yes that is right folks. April and her little boy would have been right in the path of all that jet fuel and shredded aluminum. Thank GOD they escaped. But April testified that there was NO JET FUEL and NO aircraft parts and NO seats with passengers strapped in and NO baggage.



Larger view of animation




[edit on 11/20/08 by SPreston]


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:58 PM by newagent89
reply to post by ULTIMA1



Chances are, not every single witness knew different models of planes. Knowing plane types is not a prerequisite for being close to the Pentagon nor is it a requirement for living close to an airport.

Suspicion is fine, but just because all stories do not line up does not give one permission to use that inconsistency as any sort of proof or increase the chances of a cover-up.

Yeah, there are those who witnessed an inconsistent flight path.
Yeah, there is a lady who allegedly was very close to the impact point and lived.

These sorts of phenomena in the story appear in complex events.

If some truther logic is right (because CIT witnesses saw a different flight path then the light poles could not have been knocked over etc.), then because many witnesses saw the official flight path, then what the CIT group interviews gathered was impossible.

It works both ways.

Just because witnesses do not agree does not mean that the one's not with the official story may be dismissed as impossible in favor of people with stories inconsistent.

With truther logic anything that does not fit can be considered planted or doctored.

Over 100 witnesses will not have the same exact story.

Eyes can be in some ways deceptive.

Yes, they saw a close up plane.

No, not everyone knew the make and model of the plane.

Yes, when it came in there were downed light poles and a damaged trailer and a blown apart building face.

The idea of planting everything sounds more outrageous than actually flying a plane in.

If it was bombs, why not just have bombs be the story then. They are more concealed and thus a more unexpected and scarier weapon of terror.

But sorry, the truther argument, I have reviewed, and it is not compelling enough for me to pay attention to any longer. The official story, called a 'fairy tale' childishly by some, is what I believe.

God Bless America


reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 03:53 PM by Zaphod58
reply to post by Anonymous ATS



It was a 767 and I haven't seen any videos or pictures of it exploding before impact. I've seen the explosion happening as the plane was still going into the building, but not before it hits.
Pages: <<  18    19    20    21    22  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 10 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 2 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 12 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 6 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 16 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 6 days ago with 8 member flags