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

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
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.


...no body parts?
No body parts??

Let me tell you a little story. It's part of a story I've told at least 3 times on ATS now, but I'll tell it again.
Let me preface by telling you that I used to work at the Pentagon. I'm pretty familiar with its construction and its layout. I left there for a less-stressful job a little bit before 9/11.
When 9/11 happened, I was still living in DC. I was married to a DC cop. One of my best friends there is a firefighter/EMT, who happened to be part of the recovery effort from the beginning of 9/11.
On the Friday after 9/11, he finally got a respite from the work. A group of us gathered to camp out in the woods and try to deal with this whole thing.
He told us about the body parts he removed from the rubble.
He told us about the remains of luggage strewn about, random things like jeans and underwear thrown from destroyed suitcases. Kids' things. Toiletries.
His words still haunt me more than two years later.
He was 19 at the time, barely more than a child himself.

No body parts? No plane?
Whatever.

We were attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists then, and they still want to attack us today. They flew passenger jets into buildings and killed thousands of people.
How do you explain away a witness who pulled wreckage and body parts from the Pentagon? Is there a nifty little website that'll tell me that my friend, and all those other witnesses, were lying?

-B.




posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee

Originally posted by Satyr
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.


...no body parts?
No body parts??

Let me tell you a little story. It's part of a story I've told at least 3 times on ATS now, but I'll tell it again.
Let me preface by telling you that I used to work at the Pentagon. I'm pretty familiar with its construction and its layout. I left there for a less-stressful job a little bit before 9/11.
When 9/11 happened, I was still living in DC. I was married to a DC cop. One of my best friends there is a firefighter/EMT, who happened to be part of the recovery effort from the beginning of 9/11.
On the Friday after 9/11, he finally got a respite from the work. A group of us gathered to camp out in the woods and try to deal with this whole thing.
He told us about the body parts he removed from the rubble.
He told us about the remains of luggage strewn about, random things like jeans and underwear thrown from destroyed suitcases. Kids' things. Toiletries.
His words still haunt me more than two years later.
He was 19 at the time, barely more than a child himself.

No body parts? No plane?
Whatever.

We were attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists then, and they still want to attack us today. They flew passenger jets into buildings and killed thousands of people.
How do you explain away a witness who pulled wreckage and body parts from the Pentagon? Is there a nifty little website that'll tell me that my friend, and all those other witnesses, were lying?

-B.





A plane did fly into the Pentagon.

It might or might not have been a Boeing 757. Though a boeing 757 is waht they say flew into the pentagon.

But why was it that that airplane that flew into the Pentagon had a Depleted Uranium penetrator in it?


far too many things stand out with September 11. The twin towers, the pentagon.

The things the government did on that day, radioactive material, the pass ports, the israeli mossad agents, Too much involvement by the government.

Al Queda: If there was no conspiracy about Sept 11. If three weren't as many anomolies, then yes we oculd put it down and say "it was Al Queda". But with all the evidence....anomalies, things the government did on that day, the warning not to come into work that day, action taken by government, the slip ups by George W Bush himself....IT WAS NOT JUST AL QUEDA WHO WAS INVOLVED!!!!



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 03:26 AM
link   
This topic has been discussed a mind numbing amount of times here at ATS, always with one conclusion: it was a plane. However there are still some strange facts about the event which are worth looking into and this is what ATS is for. I find the security footage the most compelling piece of evidence myself but there is clear proof, and numerous eye whitness acounts telling us that it was a plane.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE

But why was it that that airplane that flew into the Pentagon had a Depleted Uranium penetrator in it?


First of all, why did you brought up the depleted uranium? It doesn't makes sense to me.

Yes, depleted uranium is used (in the 747) for counterweight. (I'm not sure about the 737 and other planes). But this is totally not an issue in the attack on the pentagon...

And what is a "Depleted Uranium penetrator"


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

And even if the pentagon is behind this attack, why would they let it crash into the recently renovated, and above all, strengtheneth wing of the building. It doesn't makes any sense.
Like william said, the 737 flew over a busy highway and dozens of people saw it.

Hell, there are even websites that claim an F-16 flew into the pentagon...

[Edited on 27-1-2004 by Zion Mainframe]



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 04:59 AM
link   
does it matter anymore? can we do anything to change it? i personally believe none of it. no way is a solider going to allow any aircraft domestic or otherwise fly into pentagon airspace. the slightest deviance from the flight plan, and the plane would have been blown to pieces. the pentagon is close to the white house, a solider never would allow the president and key gov't officials to be put in harms way.

and believe this, the person responsible for not "paying attention to detail" would be strung up and proably designated a traitor, court martial for treason, and hung for public display. and yet, no such person has been named or even considered.

and to top it off, they want the american people to believe that two hijackers armed with boxcutters over took a plane with 200+ americans and crashed it into the pentagon. yeah right!

there is NO WAY that any american is going to allow that , especially when they outnumber the terrorist 100 to 1. i'm american, and i can't see that happening.

and to let a plane fly into gov't airspace and crash into the pentagon? we must look like first class idiots to most of the free world. with all our money, weapons, manpower, we can't find an indivual smart enough to see a plane out of it's flight pass? this particular 747 was headed for los angeles, if it's headed towards the pentagon, i believe it safe to say, something's wrong.

we need to worry about what our gov't is doing in the name of americans. if i were to believe our gov't set up the whole thing in order to condone war in other countries, i would start to wonder, "who is the real terrorist" that would mean the gov't officials sacrificed it's own citizens in order to serve their own personal agenda, and that's scary.

because of this so called attack, the gov't had made your phones, computers, even your background an open book, there no longer is the right to privacy, and the reasoning is, "we're rooting out terrorism on the homefront."

and now we spend billions of dollars building bigger better war toys, we're pouring millions into war torn iraq to help the people get over the repressive oppressive tryranny of suddam, to help them regain they're sense of being, bring their country out of poverty and help them build a strong economy. and oh yeah, bring democracy to the people of iraq.

i would appreciate a little less proverty here in the good ol us of a. not only do we have proverty, we have a below proverty line. what the heck is that? below proverty? i never knew proverty had a line you go below. and as far as economies goes, ours isn't looking to good, we could use some of those millions/billions to generate jobs so americans aren't starving and maybe we could get rid of that line below proverty.

not that i believe we shouldn't help the iraqis. it was our gov't, who put suddam in charge back in 1969, i do believe we owe them something.

was there a plane? i can't believe there was. remember the part of the pentagon that was supposedly hit was under construction at the time, and it is funny the grass wasn't burnt, and even in the worst of plane crashes, they manage to identify everyone and account for most of victims and they have no problems showing the mangled torn plane after the fact. yes without the gory body parts. believe their story, no i can't. but that's my opinion, and a damn good one if i say so myself.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jeanette
does it matter anymore? can we do anything to change it? i personally believe none of it. no way is a solider going to allow any aircraft domestic or otherwise fly into pentagon airspace. the slightest deviance from the flight plan, and the plane would have been blown to pieces. the pentagon is close to the white house, a solider never would allow the president and key gov't officials to be put in harms way.


Youv'e obviously never flown into Washington D.C. before, have you?



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee


We were attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists then, and they still want to attack us today. They flew passenger jets into buildings and killed thousands of people.
How do you explain away a witness who pulled wreckage and body parts from the Pentagon? Is there a nifty little website that'll tell me that my friend, and all those other witnesses, were lying?

-B.


I'm sure there are several websites that will tell you that but most you probably coudn't trace back to anyone with any other goal than to lull the US into a position ripe for another attack. You hit the nail on the head my dear and drove it deep with this statement but we have among us those that will spend the rest of the day trying to pull it out of the wall.

The funny thing is that as time passes and the attacks grow more and more into the past, the reality is able to be marred a litttle more each day except to those with first hand experience of such a dissaster.

See how a a half dozen terrorist claiming to have a bomb has become 2 with pen knives? Sure, someone should have not let them do that. Thats easy for us to say because we're safe and sound but how easily we can say, "well, if it had been me up there, they wouldn't have gotten away with it!" Yeah right. They have a bomb, (or so you've been told) and they threaten to blow up the plane and you have no idea they're going to do anything other than hijack it to some backward ass country.


Anyone who thinks AlQaida was not involved or didn't carry out these attacks probably really doesn't think that at all. They just want us to think it. Well, want in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up faster, America ain't buyin' it and you shouldn't be selling it.l



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee

Originally posted by Satyr
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.


...no body parts?
No body parts??

Let me tell you a little story. It's part of a story I've told at least 3 times on ATS now, but I'll tell it again.
Let me preface by telling you that I used to work at the Pentagon. I'm pretty familiar with its construction and its layout. I left there for a less-stressful job a little bit before 9/11.
When 9/11 happened, I was still living in DC. I was married to a DC cop. One of my best friends there is a firefighter/EMT, who happened to be part of the recovery effort from the beginning of 9/11.
On the Friday after 9/11, he finally got a respite from the work. A group of us gathered to camp out in the woods and try to deal with this whole thing.
He told us about the body parts he removed from the rubble.
He told us about the remains of luggage strewn about, random things like jeans and underwear thrown from destroyed suitcases. Kids' things. Toiletries.
His words still haunt me more than two years later.
He was 19 at the time, barely more than a child himself.

No body parts? No plane?
Whatever.

We were attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists then, and they still want to attack us today. They flew passenger jets into buildings and killed thousands of people.
How do you explain away a witness who pulled wreckage and body parts from the Pentagon? Is there a nifty little website that'll tell me that my friend, and all those other witnesses, were lying?

-B.

Thanks. You're the second person to confirm that there were indeed body parts. That makes me feel better about it, in a strange sort of way. I just figured they'd be seen all over the lawn, along with the wings and tail section, ya know? Looking at the outside of the building, there was barely any evidence a plane full of people had crashed at all.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
The picture of debris appears to be one of the ribs of an aircraft's wing, but it doesn't look big enough to be a 747's. The sand and gravel would be used for absorbing any fuel that may have gotten out of the aircraft and onto the ground outside of the Pentago. Keep in mind that a cruise missile is of course an aircraft, and that any aircraft can be made into a cruise missile (just ask a Kamikazee pilot). If a missile was going so fast that people only caught a glimpse of it, they could easily assume it to be a commercial aircraft. Think about it: If you see a fast moving object with wings that has the sound of any normal jet aircraft in its engine, and its so fast that you only get a glimpse of it, do you assume it to be a jetplane, or for some strange reason, a cruise missile flying low over a highway?



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The tape from the gas station i think has the footage and from a hotel, but i think the FBI took it.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
DaRAGE, your info here is #1. Excellent work.

Now lets consider the material ripe for a SNL skit, shall we?

1) The entire 757 plane disintegrated, except one part of the fuselage and part of an engine. The diameter of that engine part is about half of an actual 757 engine.

2) All ~189 bodies were identified (save one small child) based on 'remains' retrieved from the wreckage - which vaporized almost 100% of the metal in the plane.

3) Bush's lawyer, Ted Olsen, recounted two days later the heartbreaking cell-phone call with his wife who was onboard. The absense of corroboration, or cell-phone and credit-card records, or reenactment ...has no bearing.

4) The overt white line markings on the Pentagon lawn evident on the well-known satellite photos of Sept. 7th, 2001 - which coincide exactly with the path of soon-to-be-launched missile (I mean 'terrorist-flown airliner') - had no connection with any preprogramming of any 'alleged' cruise-missile, er -- 757. Right.

5) The entire investigation was controlled by the US government, which is so squeeky-clean and innocent of any wrong-doing, no matter what you may have heard, that negative allegations or views are simply and totally laughable.

6) The fact that there were no Arabs or alleged "terrorists" on board this flight is just a typical clerical error. Trust us, they were there.

7) The witnesses who heard or saw a cruise missile or drone are just confusing some nearby crows or sea gulls, well known to look and sound just like jet-powered missiles.

8) It is only a coincidence that the impact site was a nearly evacuated construction site, sparsely populated with only about 100 people. Thank God there weren't any more.

9) There are the black boxes and other videos which irrefutably, indubitably, undeniably corroborate every scintilla of the official government "story". You don't need to see ANY of it. Ever. Trust us.

10) Official airline archives list no record of AA flight 77 flying on 9/11/01. Oops!



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
What a bull-#. At that time this part of the Pentagon became renewed by a pentagon-owned company. That day was a work-day! There were people at the scene and the work went on like planned and like on every normal work day.
Pictures from the project leader at this company showed me that a) a plane hit the pentagon b) how exactly the outer ring was build(it was freshly renovated with special concrete and steel and c) the complete cleaning and re-renovation of this part.

That renovation project wasn't "just" put in place but was a long-time project. No damn cover-up.
Get a life man and don't state something as you stated above as your own words. It ain't what you found out and it ain't true at all.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Does this look like a cruise missile or part of one?

Oh, but it very easily could have been planted there ahead of time!



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
jeanette, RIGHT ON! You seem to be the only one on this thread that see's what is going on.

9/11 Was allowed to happen.

It has caused NEW laws to be enacted to restrict our freedoms.

Do you think we're gonna find a bomb or weapons in grannys shoes at airport checkpoints?

Logic would dictate that if a large aircraft hit the Pentagon that there would be some damage to the building from the wings.

When you examine the photos, one can clearly see a round HOLE where SOMETHING hit the Pentagon.

Now if you try and claim that the building was reinforced and the wings couldn't damage it, then where's the wreckage from the wings? Should be right there in front of the building.

Ask yourself questions...

Why did NORAD fail on 9/11?

How could the news media display 19 names and photos of alleged hijackers so soon after 9/11 if NONE of those names appeared on flight lists?

FACT: many of the alleged hijackers are still alive and want their names cleared.

I have a good webpage for 9/11 deception with many links for information.

One should keep an open mind and think for themself.

www.mentalstimulation.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuPP

Logic would dictate that if a large aircraft hit the Pentagon that there would be some damage to the building from the wings.

I'm no expert on ballsitics, but then neither are you






Why did NORAD fail on 9/11?



What do you mean, fail? I'm sure they had those planes on theri screens. They also had every other plane in the sky.

Think about it, NORAD is built to track ICBMs that take the better part fo an hour to reach their target. A 757 going off course, while suspicious, is not necessarily a threat. Not to mention they would have scant minutes to intercept it. Probably not even enough time to scramble fighters, let alone decide what to do.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Think about it... NORAD is there to defend the skies of North America from ANY and ALL aircraft.

Not just ICBMs.

Always ask yourself questions... like "Who benefits?"

Did some guys in a cave in Afghanistan benefit?

Or did some already wealthy corporations that provide military weapons and construction companies that will rebuild Iraq benefit?

It's totally obvious to any free thinkers that the American public has been lied to in order to wage 2 "recent" wars thus far.

Saddam has WMD.

Saddam has drones and he's gonna fly them over USA, better buy duct tape and plastic and cover your homes.

Saddam can launch an attack on USA in 45 minutes.

So many lies, it's pathetic!

Heck Saddam couldn't even defend his own country.

Besides, who helped ARM Saddam in the first place so he could wage war with Iran?







[Edited on 27-1-2004 by PuPP]



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
If you look at the pictures on the link provided on page 2 or 3, you can clearly see that the plane was coming down at an angle to hit the Pentagon, which rules out why it didn't damage the lawn. This could be easily proven by inexperienced pilots (aka the terrorists)? Not giving enough room to sweep down. Also, the Pentagon had many layers of walls, therefore the plane would only go so far into the Pentagon even at high speeds.

[Edited on 27-1-2004 by pyxsul]

[Edited on 27-1-2004 by pyxsul]



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Militiaman
The picture of debris appears to be one of the ribs of an aircraft's wing, but it doesn't look big enough to be a 747's.


That would be because it was a 757, which is considerably smaller...



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuPP
Think about it... NORAD is there to defend the skies of North America from ANY and ALL aircraft.

Not just ICBMs.

Nice ability to completely avoid replying to what I said.



Always ask yourself questions... like "Who benefits?"

Did some guys in a cave in Afghanistan benefit?

They thought they would.


Or did some already wealthy corporations that provide military weapons and construction companies that will rebuild Iraq benefit?

So the government lied so that private corporations could make a little more money so that the government could rebuild a military that would be under new administration in 8 years tops, maybe even 4? And you're saying I'm not a free thinker?



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by Seekerof
Does this look like a cruise missile or part of one?

Oh, but it very easily could have been planted there ahead of time!




Got hard, physical evidence to this Shotek?

If so, provide the hard factual evidences.....
Otherwise, you along with this conspiracy theory, in regards to the Pentagon, are just a unfounded hypothesis.




regards
seekerof





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum