It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spectre
I once saw the crash site of a private plane, a Piper Cherokee, that crashed into a wooded hillside at, probably, less than 100mph. It caught fire, as well, and there was very little wreckage that was recognizable as an aircraft. It's easy for me to imagine what would happen to such a massive aircraft with a huge fuel load smashing into such a formitable structure.

www.snopes.com has a good page on this conspiracy:
www.snopes2.com...

and more at:
www.truthorfiction.com...


Snopes still says the plane hit the ground first, which we all know is complete BS. Their opinion isn't very credible, if they don't even have the real facts straight, IMO. If the plane hit the ground first, not only would there be a ton of debris outsdide, but there would also be obvious damage to the lawn, which there wasn't.




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
i beleive a plane hit the pentegon but i very strognly beleive that the real story is yet to be heard. when people say that the plane would of simply melted it gets me very angry. the jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the plane. after all, it is the same fire that burns in the engines when the plane is flying. The strange thing i find is according to the fire fighters at the scene the fire was hotter than anything they had faced. i can remember exactly but i think they said somewhere around 5000 degrees. Jet fuel does not burn near that. One thing that does burn that hot is the depleted uranium in the warhead of a missile.(i think it ws depleted uranium, it has been a loooooong time since i discussed this topic). i cant say if the damage was to much or to little because i have never seen a plane crash into a building like the pentagon to compare it to. i am trying to summarize all the information i know, as i have learned much over time, which has caused mass confusion in my tiny brain.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaD PaNdA
i beleive a plane hit the pentegon but i very strognly beleive that the real story is yet to be heard. when people say that the plane would of simply melted it gets me very angry. the jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the plane. [/quote

A jet fuel fire of sufficient size can easily melt aluminum.


after all, it is the same fire that burns in the engines when the plane is flying.

Jet engines are not made of aluminum. The turbines are made of high temperature alloys.



The strange thing i find is according to the fire fighters at the scene the fire was hotter than anything they had faced. i can remember exactly but i think they said somewhere around 5000 degrees.

Unless you have some hard data to back that up, I would consider that to be an unsupported claim, not worthy of further discussion.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Hi All, some really good replies here, I just would like to add my 2 cents.

You'd think the most heavily surveillanced building on the planet would have some footage showing impact of a passenger jet.

Ok, I am assuming it is under surveillance, because if it was ,surely someone would have known a plane was inbound. Something is not right there IMHO

What ever hit the Pentagon surely made a mockery of the US defence force.
I don't mean for that comment to rub people the wrong way, I just think it is easier to say a plane hit it, than to admit a ground based attack.

what are we supposed to believe?
I know who I will not listen too!!!

Weird and very tragic.

peace



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 10:10 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.


Well, should tell you this Shoo and other doubters

I have a friend who will always want to have their anonymity protected, this person worked in the Pentagon.

Their duties would have had them passing through the outer ring in that section in the morning.

Two minutes after coming on shift this person and their coworkers were inexplicably moved to another location and told to wait.

When the crash happened they heard radio calls that said basically that the pentagon knew something was coming, but no evacuation was necessary. When my friend and the coworkers asked if it was a drill they were told to shut up and turn their radios off.

My friend wisely kept quiet but a year ago my friend has claimed (and will not give me the name so I can research it) that a coworker who did speak up about this died in a single car accident in their home in the Midwest. They had apparently sent a letter to a former boss just two weeks before they died.

They started the conversation off by asing if I remember what [the government] did to Karen Silkwood.

I can say for sure that 9/11 did not see "business as usual" in that part of the pentagon. They knew it was coming, whatever it was, at the very least and that makes them guilty of murder.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by mouser89]

[edit on 19-7-2005 by mouser89]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   
A plane crashed in New York less than a WEEK after sept11.

I am still yet to see or hear a report from a GRIEVING realitve of someone from the PENTAGON flight.

Just because they say it was a boeing full of people,
doesnt mean it WAS.

Why couldnt they hit the pentagon,
then crash a plane somewhere... removing all evidence..

Sounds simple to me.
Its obvious to any logical person a plane didnt hit the pentagon.
Its just impossible.
Look at the friggen photographs.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
With all the Cameras watching the pentagon, and all the camera's watching the airport, why didnt we see ANYTHING about the pentagon plane or passengers?

That grainy film footage of the pentagon crash is sooo friggen obvious NOT being a plane, and soo obvious to being fake, the friggeen date on it reads sept12 2001.

Like the british did in releasing damning footage of the bombers in london, the pentagon wuold of released footage BY NOW of a plane slamming into the pentagon.

Because they havent means they are hiding the truth.
And the truth DEFINATELY ISNT a plane hitting the pentagon.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I don't understand how people can mistake that giant blob as anything other than an airplane. It's just too big to be anything else. People WANT to see a Global Hawk, but really look at it in relation to the wall it is actually in the process of hitting in those 4 frames from the security camera. In the first fram you see the aluminum nose. In the second frame you see the wall being hit and at the same time you see a longer light colored (aluminum) body still approaching the wall. It's simply a matter of scale that dictates this object HAS to be larger than a UAV or an F-16 (as other theories have stated). And you can't ignore the damaged brick to the left and right of the impact hole, which shows where the wings struck and folded back.

For the record I do believe the pilot of that jet knew exactly what he was doing. In other words I believe the stories of the hijackers actually receiving training at U.S. bases. Perhaps the stories of them being horrible students at the private flight school was a cover. And I also believe the Government knew full well what was coming that day. I just can't buy the idea that it was something other than a medium sized passenger jet that struck the Pentagon. There is just far more evidence point at such an aircraft than anything else. I've seen wreckage and impact marks. Prove to me that something else hit that building.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I agree it was probably some sort of plane. Not necessarily a 757, but something clipped light poles, and there were a lot of witness accounts claiming planes.

I still don't understand where the wings are, though. At least in the case of the WTC impacts, we could see exactly where the wings went in, as the damage to the buildings showed horizontal gashes. I still haven't seen any photos showing any horizontal gashes into the face of the Pentagon. Rather, I've seen sites show burn marks across the face of the building and claim that the wings did it, and then somehow flew into the same hole the fuselage went into (ie Snopes). Are there any better explanations for the wings? If not, then wtf?


I've also seen Guardian articles that've taken the wingspan of a 757 at 45 degrees (177 feet if I remember correctly, with the angle based on the angle of damage inflicted inside the building) and lined it up to scale with the facade damage, and shown that there's no damage on the facade where these wings theoretically hit. There's something like almost 20 feet of missing damage in all horizontally, and then some vertically too, if it was actually a 757. And again, I just cannot imagine the wings being magically sucked into the hole the fuselage went into without first inflicting damage upon the facade themselves.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
They say that the wings did not have inof power to cause damage to the walls.
I dont see how 6 tons of titanium mounted on the wings runing at 400 mph an hour would not.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I think some of the more outspoken 11/9 Official story believers should stop ignoring RogueOne and answer some of his/her questions. It's weird how you all either go quiet, or blatantly just ignore someone when they have something that legitimately questions your beliefs. 9 pages and not a single reply (that I could see). Hmmm.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
So, are all of these people lying?



While on the other hand, are all the people who were adamant that what they saw was not a plane lying? I'm undecided on this whole thing. I think CatHerder brought up some good points in his thread, but there are so many, many, things that still just don't add up, like the points raised by RogueOne and WyrdeOne, for example. Further investigations are warranted, this is not case closed by any means, and if you think it is, take note of the "Deny Ignorance" catchphrase jotted all over this place, and think about what it actually means.

Good day, Ladies and Gentlemen.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Hani Hanjour(sp?) WAS a certified pilot. His FIRST flight instructors said he couldn't fly a plane to save his life. He went back to another flight school and was certified as a commercial pilot. He lost his license when he didn't take a required physical, but that doesn't mean he's going to forget how to fly.

Something that probably many people don't know is that the wings of an airplane are strong enough to hold the engines, but structurally the weakest part of the plane. They're hollow with rigid framing so that they can put the fuel tanks inside them. You take a long skinny, basically hollow structure and slam it against a kevlar reinforced structure, or the ground, and they are going to SHATTER, and not leave a lot of debris behind. They're aluminum, so if the fire is intense enough you won't find much at all. If you notice on a 757, 767, or any other twin engine plane, the engines are close where the wing is thickest, so it can support the engine better. On a four engine plane, there is a lot of reinforcement around the outboard engine to support it. The wings are very fragile, it's that simple. I said this in catherders thread as well, you are NOT going to get a cartoon like hole in the shape of an airplane after it goes through the wall. You did at the WTC, because the material was weaker, but if you look at almost any other plane crash where it impacted something nose first, you WILL NOT see evidence of where the wings hit.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by MERC


Originally posted by HowardRoark
So, are all of these people lying?



While on the other hand, are all the people who were adamant that what they saw was not a plane lying?



Just how many people is that? 1 or 2 who were actually not very close to the impact site?

Many more people who were right there where the plane hit, when it hit, sat it.

It was not a missile.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
The "no plane into the pentagon" conjecture is just an annoying fairytale.

There are TOO MANY witnesses that saw a plane fly into the pentagon; a number more rediculous than the number of times micheal jackson has had plastic surgery.

There were a ton of people calling 911 reporting a plane had just crashed into the pentagon, there were people panicking and running in fear when they saw a plane comming down right towards them (stimulus=inbound airplane, response=run to save your life). keep in mind, many saw this plane close up, after all, the plane had to be close to the ground if it were to hi the penagon (duh :@@
You have the tops of street lights being mysteriously clipped. and you have people even inside the pentagon who saw the plane fly in from their office window (they survived).

Only 2 things can explain the boatloads of witnesses of airplanes:

1) an airplane really did crash into the pentagon.

or

2) all the plane eyewitnesses "mis-saw" what it was that really hit the pentagon. their memory of an airplane was a false one created by fualty memory.

It would be one hell of a miracle for all those people to all have a fualty memory that ALL BY CHANCE JUST HAPPENED to create the EXACT SAME FALSE MEMORY of an airplane flying into the pentagon. What makes this get even more rediculous is that their false memory would also have to coincide with the very same objects the flew into the world trade centers that same day. ON top of that, the government would also have to anticipate this false memory miracle, and have airplane parts ready to be planted on the pentagon lawn as "evidence" to agree with the expected false memory miracle.

This "false memory miracle" is so rediculous that only an insane person could conclude it was not an airplane that hit the pentagon. What the witnesses saw was not a product of a fualty memory, but a real airplane. Although there are supposed "Strange inconsistancies" such as the wingspan-crashhole inconsistancy. One could argue that a miracle as well would be required to explain this inconsistancy if a real plane were involved, but such a "miracle of an explanation" would still not compare to the magnitude of the "miracle explanation" that would be required to explain away all the airplane eyewitnesses.

Its only logical to beleive the explanation that seems "least miraculous", and in this case, the "airplane did hit the pentagon" is that least miraculous explanation.

plain and simple, the conspiracy going around about the pentagon attack is just a fairytale. move on to something else worth debating



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
No doubt a plane did fly into the Pentagon ... but with the secrecy regarding the plane debris evidence and confiscated videos it would be safe to deduce that something is being covered up.

What that is could be a multitude of things .... either way I agree with John Leer (a pilot with 35,000 hrs commercial experience) who has studied the flight path of Flight 77 and he concludes that no pilot could have had the physical strength to pull off the aerobatic move of that plane ... therefore either the flight path is wrong or it was most likely remotely flown.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
That's what hydraulic systems are for. You don't NEED phyiscal strength to make a manuver like they did. It was a fairly large sweeping turn. There was nothing aerobatic about it. It just wasn't a manuver that most commercial planes make because it wasn't safe, IF you are trying to safely get to where you are going. If you don't care, you aren't gonna worry about if it's safe or not.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Zaphod have you ever flown a 757/767 ? John Lear has ... arab hijackers did not fly that plane into the Pentagon.

If there is nothing to hide then all the confiscated security videos should be released.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I've flown a KC-135 (707). While I haven't done any radical manuvers in one, I've done enough to know how much strength it takes to make turns, etc.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zamboni
What that is could be a multitude of things .... either way I agree with John Leer (a pilot with 35,000 hrs commercial experience) who has studied the flight path of Flight 77 and he concludes that no pilot could have had the physical strength to pull off the aerobatic move of that plane ...




John Lear, retired airline captain, with over 19,000 hours of flight-time, has flown in over 100 different types of planes in 60 different counties around the world.


www.greatdreams.com...

Oh yeah, and it's that John Lear...


Let's "ground" ourselves in some semblance of truth.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Well honestly what I dont get is that if you look at the pictures carefully it seems one side of the building collapsed and the side connecting to it looks perfect...Hmm? I mean if a plane did hit there would be a reck everywhere, it wont collapse that neatly. Also, dont you think the plane would have hit farther in the building aswell? especially at those top speeds




top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join