It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Satyr
Think about it, though. Either the wings entered the building, which would mean that there would be wing shaped holes, or they were sheared off, and they'd stay outside the building. What happened in this case, then? The wing span on a 757 is about 124ft. The engines hanging from the wings weigh 40,000 lbs. each!

Just a foot note...

The engines "PRODUCE" around 40,000 pounds of propulsion. They don't WEIGH 40,000 pounds.

So all the preceding talking about the 80,000 pounds of engines scooting along at hundreds of mph's and hitting the wall is just wrong.

I couldn't find the actual weight of the Pratt & Whitney PW20XX engine, but the C5 cargo plane uses four TF39 turbofan engines rated at 43,000 pounds thrust each. They weigh 7,900 pounds each. Not light by any means, but still only about 1/5th of the previously stated weight.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:38 PM
Not for nothing but on the Morning of September the 11th 2001, CNN reported that 2=F16 were scrambled out of Washington DC to intercept 2 possible planes heading for Washington and Possibly Camp David and then out of nowhere we didnt hear athing about it untill probably 9:18 that a plane had crashed into a PA field and another into the Pentagon. Now for what its worth, Did we make Hero's out of the flight in PA to cover our own A@@ for shooting down a plane full of civilians??? I know this happened"as to what they reported"because I watched it and heard everything that was happening because it effected me deeply being home with my 6 month old and living in NJ with my wife headed to work towards the city.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:53 PM
There were also reports from eye-witnesses of the PA flight crash that there was a private white jet that was circling that flight and prior to the jets crash had buzzed over the heads of these people at just above tree level - Some people think it was a group high-ranking officials either assessing the damage or making sure the job got done....I'd go with the first one - IMHO I don't see too many possibilites for missle/shoot down consperacies in the 9/11 attacks - I think the Bush admin knew what was going down and they sent some people in for an early assessment

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 02:13 PM
Such cruise missile would destroy the entire block of the Pentagon, causing extreme damage, not a single hole.

The crash of the Boeing was nothing compared to that, the light aluminium wings folded back, and fit into the hole. the external explosion caused the least damage, only the high heat could melt the aluminium, therefore everything in that hole. Firefighters could hardly do anything about that, the hole was too small for large amount of water.

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 11:38 PM
Why then is there that virtual pinhole that pierced the 4th or 5th ring of the pentagon? I cant believe an airliner would suddenly collapse that much. Makes no sense to me.

Also how is it that these guys who had barely learned to fly in small aircraft were able to do some incredible flying with full sized commerical jets?

How is it that they decided to turn off the transponders? Some guy in a camp in afghanistan is taught to turn off transponders on aircraft? We have to think these terrorists are some kind of superminded individuals, and then that they with all this great brain power are willing to sacrifice their lives for some religious belief? Oh Really?

There is so much that demands that we be gulible and not ask questions.

the real 'Shock and Awe' happened on 911 and was against the gulible American public. I most assuredly include myself in that too.

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:03 AM

Originally posted by slank
... and then that they with all this great brain power are willing to sacrifice their lives for some religious belief?

Exactly, and before they "sacrificed themselves for their religious belief" they were having a party. With hookers and alcohol and all. And Atta got a whole lotta cash from that moneymachine before he boarded that plane. Thats when they took his famous picture. What need for money when going on a suicide flight? And why rent a car and leave flightmanuals in the car for someone to find? I thought they were supposed to be "professional". Why not take a taxi to the airport? But I guess we are supposed to believe anything were told... If we dont, then were unpatriotic. I think they announced the hijackers name in a newspaper in Australia even before all of this happened (that might have been just a rumour though).

posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:20 AM
Come on, people. Use some common sense. How can a hole that's only 16 feet in diameter be able to accomodate a jet with a wingspan of 125 feet? Think about that for a minute.

posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:24 AM

Originally posted by Bigman76
Come on, people. Use some common sense. How can a hole that's only 16 feet in diameter be able to accomodate a jet with a wingspan of 125 feet? Think about that for a minute.

Did you actually read this thread or the ATS main page one by CatHearder setailing the physics and the like? Its very plausable.

posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 11:31 PM
As far as I know all we have is someone's word on the approach vector of the aircraft.

In the pentagon security cam clip all I see that is distinguishable is the white outline of what might be a global hawk and NOTHING that resembles a 757.

Also if an aircraft were striking the pentagon at an oblique angle as is suggested wouldn't that make the explosive cloud be somewhat elongated on the approach vector with some spill along the face of the pentagon.

As i see it it looks like a perpendicular strike on the pentagon with a missile loaded global hawk, making an essentially spherical/balanced ball of flame and smoke.

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 12:22 AM
To offer a thought......the nations defense center....could it have really not seen any threat of this proximity....the omniscience that the government is trying to purvey is contradicted by 9/11....Is it too difficult to see the billions of dollars spent every week edging the populace into the proverbial corner?....Just take a look at the subsequent events.....I won't offer links because the "proof" is in media/white house/political/ response....

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 05:05 AM
Does anyone think about the possibility of so called "alien" involvement in this whole mess? I haven't read alot of your posts, so please forgive me if I may seem ignorant at times. It's only because I am. I think I'll probably have to view this new movie, "Sins of the Government." has anyone seen it? I personally tend to go out on the limb all the way back to Gen. Chapter 6. Anyone familiar?
I see that the opening in the Pentagon definetly does not match the size of the plane that supposedly hit it. Alot of this research is based on common sense. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure these things out! There was no wreckage that showed anything that resembled a 757, so where did all those people go? No bodies?
The thing is, how many of us had our wits about us on the hour of the attack? Which one of us was thinking about how the Towers were melting and it didn't seem strange at all, the way they were falling straight down, it just created a type of scared rage. I know that's how I felt anyway. As the expert work of the CIA unraveled under all our noses, we couldn't smell anything until all that smoke cleared. Then they stalled us more with the anthrax scare.
Can you believe that we live under a government that murders innocent people? Well we do! So, how's that for a jailable statement? The only way to stop this government is to overthrough it! And who's gonna do that? They got us beat before we start. We're talkin' about more people becoming aware of what's really happening, and who is really causing it. But if you know those two facts,(what's really happening, and who is really causing it), it becomes even more alarming! "We fight not against flesh and blood.." Exciting though, all the same.

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 05:57 AM

Originally posted by kpoe
Does anyone think about the possibility of so called "alien" involvement in this whole mess?

I definately believe that there IS some kind of alien involvement:

Raw clues: UFOs around the WTC at and before the attacks, strange yellow lights popping out the towers, the collapse is too methodical, and the internal core of the tower turns into dust. Now that's a great question. How the hell could a human community with yr2000's technology turn such a massive structure turn into "dust"?! There is no possibility.

After all this, the whole terrorist attack was just too perfect to be the work of nineteen sick guys, who learnt to fly through simulators. Now three years have passed by, and there was no terrorist attack on US soil since. That's strange, too.

Back to the Pentagon: That IS a Boeing 757's remains inside that building, no doubt at all. It's another thing why the camera shows hardly anything, and what's the US really hiding. I believe that they already know what went on there, and now they have to cover it to continue on with the war... against more countries.

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 06:09 AM
Why were the Pentagon's SAM batteries not functioning? Could it be that the FOF transponder on the 'plane' tripped an override?

Why was the ball of fire brilliant orange when jet fuel leaves a mostly black soot cloud? Could it be because the explosives detonated were military grade with a much faster detonation envelope?

Why was the plane able to execute a hair pin turn at speed before its final approach? Could it be because the 'plane' was a cleverly camouflaged cruise missle?

Why were all the witnesses so sure they saw an AA plane, when the object they witnessed was travelling 500 mph, very low to the ground? Could it be because they saw the colors silver, red, and blue, and their brain helpfully filled in the rest? (There is plenty of research documenting this tendency)

Why was the footage from the nearby gas station witheld? Why was the traffic cam footage from the nearby DOT camera witheld? Could it be because those two shots show perspective on the object and would rule out a commercial jet?

Why do 'ear-witnesses' describe the sound of the object as "shrill", "high-pitched", and "like a missile?" Could it be because the object was a missile?

I could go on and on and on...but I won't, because it would be preaching to the choir right? "You're either with us or against us!" -- Right?

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 06:41 AM
These questions will probably never be answered, but let's start from the raw evidence: What do you see inside the Pentagon photo debris? Those airplane parts you see are definately a Boeing 757's remains. Unless the US secret service placed the whole bunch of mess there, it is all credible. But I doubt that the US agents could be that clever.

Those missing videos could reveal many things, but I don't think they will ever show them to public. They probably contain sensetive data about the circumstances of the attacks. I think the Boeing 757 debris is right, but perhaps it's not THE plane which was hijacked. There is a time difference between the crash and the airport conversation etc... and most witnesses saw two planes near the Pentagon flying low.

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 07:29 AM
You've pointed out another glaring error in the cover story. But to answer your question -

The wreckage inside is mixed debris, it could have been placed there, it could have come from the cruise missle, it may have been part of the structure. The engines were not there when first responders arrived. Many of them went on the record about this fact. They later retraced their statements. What was there, was a smoking piece of, cone shaped, very dense metal embedded in the 5th wall of that hardened installation. That disappeared later, but it was most likely the depleted uranium warhead left over from the cruise missle. In the end, all signs point to weapons test alone or in combination with a 'false flag' black op.

The plane full of people are names on the television, in the news, faces and sound byte histories, all or none of which could be true. Know any of those families before the crash? I've never heard from of spoken to anyone who can say that, and I've been deep into this thing, along with many, many others, since the day after it happened. Nobody I know could verify the identity of the families who claimed to have lost loved ones. It's possible the families were created after the attack, using the entirely convenient and completely unbelievable evidence found at the site. Passports and ID cards from the passengers who had supposedly been in the plane that dissappeared. Luckily for investigators, the plane later reappeared, first piece by piece on the pentagon lawn, and later, in its entirety in a warehouse. Have you seen the pictures of men in black suits walking across the pentagon lawn, putting small, silvery shards of metal into paper bags? Those paper bags dissappeared, along with the men, who were never accounted for or disciplined after this egregious disregard for procedures.

Then there's the fact that jets crumple on impact with solid things, like concrete and dirt. They don't turn into a super heated collum of plasma tipped with depleted uranium. Anyone who has studied airplane crashes can tell you, they crumple like tin cans. The nose of a commercial passenger jet is very thin and hollow, it houses most of the electronics for the plane. The dome protecting it is flimsy, you can put your foot through it! They expect me to believe that a commercial airplane behaved in exactly the same way as a state of the art american cruise missle.

The whole thing stinks, and the targeting was nothing short of a miracle. Commercial airliners have a lead stick at that speed and altitude, they are 100% impossible to control like that. No fighter jock could have maneuvered that plane as such, the plane simply does not fly like that! It's incapable of performing the feats it is purported to have performed, without tearing off its wings. The radar signature showed a "military maneuver" before approach, as multiple air traffic controlers said on record.

Sigh..There is so much evidence still floating around out there, but nobody can agree on a party to hold responsible.

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 07:44 AM
I don't believe that people built a missile with an outer shell looking like a Boeing, that's quite odd. We all know, that a real Boeing can act just the same, like a missile. So why cover that? If the Government deliberately aimed the Pentagon , they could have used an unused out of date Boeing to achieve the same effect. Much cheaper than creating one.

But according to the crash site, the third (rear) engine and the wheels were discovered, which definately prove that the remains of a modern Boeing were found. How about the power plant next tu the Pentagon being pushed away? Only a massive object can do that, a missile would have hit that, exploding outside the building. Experts say that the right engine moved it away right before the crash.

The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete building, so it is understood why couldn't damage like any normal building. It has to survive a nuclear war. Pity if a plane crased in it and it crumbles like a hotel.

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 07:50 AM
It would very unlikely the allah worshipers could of timmed the plane to crash into the pentagon at such a speed and such a big plane. It would be hard do it with f16 and advanced fight pilot.

Go plane flightsim and try it your selfves and u will see how hard it would be.

Pentagon must of been hit by a crussie missle or radio controled 747.

The planes that hit the towers, was most likely the allah worshipers. The falling of the buildings mabe a controled demolition.

I suspect the US government and the allah worshipers helped each other to commit this act. Mabe the allah worshipers didn't know they enemy was helping them attack their enemy.

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 07:53 AM
Most if not all cruise missles can explode at any desired depth. You're right that it would be cheaper to buy an old plane, but I don't think a plane could account for the wound to the pentagon. I've read all kinds of official stories, they keep changing, more and more experts come forward and speak up so the audience can hear them. I'm not convinced of anything, but I sure appreciate discussion.

The only thing I'm after is knowledge, I don't want to take sides. That is the most frustrating thing about learning, is trying to eliminate bias. Everyone has bias, and often the most simple impulses are the most damaging. For example, the basic human need for acceptance often leads people to agree with others they perceive as above them in the pack structure. I think the better part of the fields of media and medicine are struggling under this yoke.

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 07:59 AM
Well, I can only say one thing: People are just not THAT smart!!! Even if a missile did hit the Pentagon, it just couldn't be covered like that. Impossible. There would be a great chance, of that person who pressed the button would simply talk. Many innocent people died at the Pentagon, and IF a conspiracy would be proven , the whole 911 story would be a great conspiracy. Well, it is not yet proven that it isn't!

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:00 AM
9 pages

and still no PROOF that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon....

I love this place more and more everyday !

Please see my previous statements in this thread, I don't want to type them out again...

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in