Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Nope, I don't have any... but I still feel, that it was a Boeing, not a missile, and that extreme heat inside that tiny hole made those small pieces burn easily. Still, I wonder what's that small hole from the inside of the building. And the "Punch the wall out" sign next to the hole is astonishing:-D




posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Most of the links that are provided are based on the French author Thierry Meyssan and in his book, The Frightening Fraud. The first clue that this info is not credible is in the name of the author. It case you missed it he's french.

France didn't want saddam removed for monetary reason, they dont care about the people of iraq. So It should come as no suprise to anyone that they refused to join the coalition to remove saddam and bring freedom to the people. And unless any of you have been to iraq, your responses about what the people want is without merit.

I can tell you that the people of Iraq are very grateful for what the US had the courage to do. You only see and hear what the bias liberal media wants you to hear, it is a distortion of reality. The liberal media would have you believe there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy, Unfortunetly this eliminates reality.

It is tragic that those who claim to seek the truth fall into the trap they so frequently accuse others of denying.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 71LSPC
Come on folks. The plane hit the Pentagon. As stated above. The Pentagon is a concrete and steel fortress.


Thank you. This has been debunked over and over again. The 757 impacted the ground and sprayed into the building. I cannot find the link anymore, but there was a time lapse parking lot camera that caught a frame of this. Bottom line: there are alot of unanswered questions surrounding 911, the 757 hit the pentagon.....



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Witnesses do not confirm, that the plane hit the ground, and I didn't see any trace of that on the ground on either photo. It seems that it directly slammed into the bottom floor of the Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Istvan

Sorry but you are wrong.

As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first.

Witnesses said the plane banked sharply and clipped the street poles.

Witnesses said the plane appeared to skip off the ground prior to impacting the Pentagon.

The security camera shows the plane impact the ground just prior to hitting the building.


One very important detail everyone fails to mention or perhaps dont comprehend is the building structure itself. The Pentagon was just renovated. The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns. There was a special cloth used to help prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. All of this combined with 24 " of concrete !!!!!!!!!



[edit on 14-7-2004 by sniper068]



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Cool. It sounds very believable. Nice evidence.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Wathcing those photos taken just after the crash, thr grass is neat and clear. If the plane would just scratch the ground, the grass would be removed at that area. The lamp poles were not hit by the plane, they came down due to the air turbulance at the flying plane with 600 km/h. And if that plane would actually flying that instable, it would probably not fit into that tiny hole in the Pentagon wall with its wings enveloped into the fuselage.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Istvan
Wathcing those photos taken just after the crash, thr grass is neat and clear. If the plane would just scratch the ground, the grass would be removed at that area. The lamp poles were not hit by the plane, they came down due to the air turbulance at the flying plane with 600 km/h. And if that plane would actually flying that instable, it would probably not fit into that tiny hole in the Pentagon wall with its wings enveloped into the fuselage.


Recall that the lawn had to be replaced. Also it is possible that as the plane pancaked into the ground the wings failed at thier attachment point to the fuelage, and flipped upright while heading at the building at hight speed. Remeber the 767 that was hijacked and had to ditch into the sea near a French resort in Africa. As the plane hits one of the wings snapped off and contiued upright in the direction of travel. Also, if it was a missile strike and no plane hit, or an internal bomb, car bomb how do you explain:
THe lack of blast damage outward from the building?
The fact that plane is missing from the inventory of the airlines
The engines for the plane along with its FDR were found at the Pentagon and persicely match the flight path into the pentagon
What happened to the passangers / crew
Lack of crater if a car bomb was used. Even OK city there were reminant of the ryder truck used along with a crater and that was a focused blast.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Istvan
Wathcing those photos taken just after the crash, thr grass is neat and clear. If the plane would just scratch the ground, the grass would be removed at that area. The lamp poles were not hit by the plane, they came down due to the air turbulance at the flying plane with 600 km/h. And if that plane would actually flying that instable, it would probably not fit into that tiny hole in the Pentagon wall with its wings enveloped into the fuselage.


There were pictures of the light poles that showed either dents from the wings hitting them, or the tops were snapped clean off of them.

This has been proven time and time again. Wreckage that was recovered from the scene was shown to be from a 757. Human remains were postively identified as members of that flight. Yadda Yadda.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I'm a pilot, was trained at Lockheed in aircraft structure,was a crew chief USAF B-1B. Also my brother is a pilot and a crash scene investigator.

We AGREE the damage is consistent with the Official story, Granted there arent many cases involving airliners impacting concrete fortresses, But neither of us finds any inconsistencies.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   
why had the lawn been removed?? I didn't see any damage to it on the photo right after the crash. The lamp poles could have been phisically hit by the plane, but many theories say that the air turbulance teared them out.

But the only thing I find interesting: how could that stupid hopeless guy fly that plane at all? Is it that easy to do that?



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
My brother, a professor at Georgetown University, saw the jumbo jet approach the Pentagon flying low.
[Edited on 26-1-2004 by SkepticOverlord]


I saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear once.
Sorry I couldn't help myself. I had to say it.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I always find it interesting that on a discussion forum that focuses on things that are above top secret, there are so many people willing to accept the mainstream exlplanation for things.

The problem with proving that flight 77 hit the pentagon (and yes, they must prove it, the burden of proof is on the government) is that if everything in the official story lines up but one thing, that one thing must be proven to be true or official line is not true (or parts of it).

So if we just take a deep breath and try to look at this objectively, and pretend we just woke up from a coma and never experienced 911, what would be some of the revelant ponts?

1. There is no public video of anything hitting the pentagon. There are some frame grabs from a pentagon surveillance video which only shows an explosion. In order ot use this as evidence of flight 77 hitting the pentagon, the frames should conform to the idea that is was flight 77. (Those few frames could be a whole other thread).

2. Flight 77 disappeared on radar in Ohio, never to be tracked again by civilian or military (so they say) radar. A craft reimurged descending rapidly from a high altitude near DC, which then was said to be flight 77, but since the transponder was turned off, it is not certain.

3. The first pictures of the damage to the pentagon (before the roof collapsed) show a point of impact that seems sconsistent with some craft hitting it (as opposed to a detonated bomb), but small for a 757.

4. There was very little wreckage of flight 77 shown to the public. A 757 weighs several tons (40 I think) so in the cleanup there should be a lot of debris removed sometime.

5. Eyewitness accounts generally support the idea that it was flight 77, but the descriptions vary. Also, news reports of the accounts relate the accounts as if they were describing flight 77, not used to determine whether it was flight 77 (search for a few good articles on this). How many people actually said they saw what looked like flight 77 hit the pentagon? Many people saw the 757, or saw it fly low, or saw something hit the pentagon, or saw an explosion, or the newspapers said they saw flight 77? The public record is actually quite sparse on people who actually saw what the official explanation has been. "There were witnesses" is not exact enough. We need to know exactly what they said they saw.

That's was I see as the "hard" evidence to work with, and they could all be their own books. Other things are circumstantial, which is not to say they aren't important. There were a lot of coincedences and strange anomolies of behavior by the government around this event, but it can't really prove anything one way or the other.

Simulations don't really prove anything either. I can't prove in court that a man killed his wife by simulating the event. They can only describe the event using a given hypothesis and show that the hypothesis is consistent with the evidence, but it can't prove the hypothesis. So people can tweak the simulation until it comes out with something consistent with the hypothesis. Simulations can only show that an explanation is possible.

Every piece of evidence must corroborate with the official explanation.

It's difficult to try to just forget everything you've heard and look at the facts and hard evidence that we have. It's hard to not just listen to the experts on TV or just listen to "your friend who was there." It's also hard to not fall into the trap of "well, if it didn't happen the way the government said it did, then what did happen?" That should only come after deciding that the government's explanation is wrong.


So what happened? Unless each of the things I listed are investigated (and possibly others) and they each corroborate the official explanation, we won't know. Otherwise it is just a matter of faith.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by piboy]

[edit on 15-7-2004 by piboy]



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
What are you looking for? A John Woo movie explosion. If anything, the damage should show the resilience of the building itself. I know someone within my family who saw the plane in question that morning just prior to the impact.

I did look at the link and it is show absolutely nothing but expertly angled shots peppered with descriptions. Maybe the guy who made the wbesite hangs out with the Missle-Pod WTC guy and they get togheter to play poker with the tourist on the trade center......



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
PuPP and RogueOne - At least there are a few that see things the way they are


It saddens me to see that there are so many that buy the official lies hook, line and sinker. The way ATS is going really concerns me as it appears that those with 'special designation' (read Moderator) always have the same viewpoints that more often than not, push the party line and attempt to debunk and ridicule a seemingly obvious interpretation of current events. Why do you think this is? Have a Moderator state his/her position and before you know it you have a few followers and then a few more and so on.

By then it is useless in having someone with a clear head state their point because the brainwashing is already complete. It really is sad!

Is this not a conspiracy based website for those who question what the corporate controlled media and the ruling elite spew forth in their rhetoric?

Are we not to discuss and dispute the obvious lies and inconsistencies with regards to the entire 911 fiasco and everything else that has materialized since that day?

Does everyone here believe and agree that what the US government is doing (especially to their own sheeple) is warranted and acceptable all in the name of the 'War on Terror'?

What a sad state of affairs it has become. Go on, believe what you want. One day those who lap it up will realize that they have all been scammed, lied to and manipulated.

Just because you have a friend who works in the Pentagon or have a friend with an airplane or the news reports carried witness sightings or you work in DC or believe the good wholesome Jesus loving government or whatever.....it doesn't mean S***!

Look at the facts and evaluate with your own mind what is there before you.

No plane would disintegrate to the extent that the US government and investigating bodies are trying to sell you.

I saw no damage to the lawn even though supposedly a large aircraft approached from a few meters off the ground. Why were their trucks dumping gravel over the nicely kept lawn just hours after the blast? Maybe they wanted to cover up the fact that the grass was untouched.

Where is the landing gear? Where are the engines? Where is the baggage? How could a "flimsy" airplane disintegrate, leaving nothing but "planted" evidence but still leave an exit hole several rings in from the outside of the building?

How could an incompetent Arab pilot manuever a plane with such accuracy?

Where is the video footage or photographic evidence? Where are the black boxes and lets here them (probably not worth it anyways as they can pretty much fabricate anything they like).

It is all lies and there is nothing more to debate.
You who believe it are being screwed easier than they thought you would be.

Enough said, let the fury begin



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   
The Merovingian.....

One quesiton. were you there? Are you telling us all that our relatives or friends who may have been there or actually saw it occur are lying? TEll me, where did the missle come from? The invisible Nazi ship that flew here from ANtartica. Because according to you, that could have happened. Why not, it had to be anything other than a plane actually hitting a building of that structural integrity to casue combusiton to not leave to much evidence.

Also, at the end of your arguement you also state that even if there was evidence it would be manufactured anyway? Wouldn't that be the easy ay out. Give the evidence, then the sheep will walk away. Forums such as this may allow someone to offer a different perspective, and you sound a little paranoid thinking the Moderators are gov't influenced. (Maybe it is you who is spying......:lol



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I do not believe that missile or car bomb caused the Pentagon explosion, nor that a small one engine plane did it. The damage went through 4 rings of the building, if it would be a missile, it would only damage the outer ring more badly than the Boeing did that. The explosion occured outside the building, most of the damage was from the impact itself.

Also, it would look stupid, that the US Government shipped the Boeing wreckage and parts into the blown up hole, and made photographs of them..
And if it was a missile, why would they lie about it? Just insane at all. What would have happened with the aircraft then? Basically it never landed...



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The Merovingian.....

One quesiton. were you there? Are you telling us all that our relatives or friends who may have been there or actually saw it occur are lying? TEll me, where did the missle come from? The invisible Nazi ship that flew here from ANtartica.



This is exactly the thing that I said seemed hard to avoid for some people:


Originally posted by piboy
It's hard to not just listen to the experts on TV or just listen to "your friend who was there." It's also hard to not fall into the trap of "well, if it didn't happen the way the government said it did, then what did happen?"


An alternative explanation is not necessary just to prove the official explanation to be false. Once the the official explanation is proven to be false, then the alternatives can be brought up.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Cheers to Mr. Sparkly Brain


As for the rest of ya's............



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   
thank you very much for your insightful reply, Merovingian. i am moved by your reason and intelligence





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join