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.

 

Why use a missile for pentagon instead of a plane?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I'm not saying that there was or wasn't a missile used at the pentagon, but what doesn't make sense is why they would use a missile. One of the things I lean towards is that perhaps the airliners that hit the WTC's were remote controlled because of the precision. Not to say an inexperienced pilot couldn't pull it off, but to hit BOTH the towers with pretty good precision, I think that's like lightening striking the same tree twice in the same night. Anyhow, so knowing I find this a possibility, why would someone use a missile instead of just another remote controlled airline? Knowing this is a busy part of the city, why would they take a chance and use a missile when they know there would be witnesses and perhaps MANY? From what I've read, official and non-official, it looks like a plane could have pulled those moves off, though a little improbable with the pilot's experience or lack of. I know the evidence for and against the missile theory AND plane theory, but this question just popped into my mind. It just doesn't make sense that several planes would be used and then a missile. Why not just use ALL planes? I have no idea what the truth is, but I do know the official word so far is a little sketchy on all accounts. So, does anyone have a good answers as to why "they" would take a chance using a missile instead of another plane?


JPT




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Once in the air.
Most planes from what I understand are rather easy to fly. As long as you don't try to maneuver too much or mess with the speed. Which they didn't really. And they did go to school and got at least the basics which is really all they needed.
At least one graduated.

From what I understand it's mostly take offs, landings and anything beyond small turns is a bitch.


But be ready to hear it now about how your just a evil bad sheeple official story believer.





[edit on 5-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Im thinking it was never intended to happen.
The Pentagon was not part of the plan, thus why FBI had to be on seen AFTER the incident to clean up all the mess.

The plane that went down?.. perhaps that was ideally aiming for the pentagon, or whitehouse.

As soon as it went down, the US government realised, this attack ( which they knew was coming ) was meant for more than NYC.
After they realised the passengers brought it down, they understood the opportunity at hand to strike the Pentagon, perhaps with a missile or something.

They couldnt get a boeing in a matter of minutes to hit it, so they improvised.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Once in the air.
Most planes from what I understand are rather easy to fly. As long as you don't try to maneuver too much or mess with the speed. Which they didn't really. And they did go to school and got at least the basics which is really all they needed.
At least one graduated.

From what I understand it's mostly take offs, landings and anything beyond small turns is a bitch.


But be ready to hear it now about how your just a evil bad sheeple official story believer.



[edit on 5-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]



Hey Wraoth,

I see what you are saying and I wasn't saying it was impossible to fly those planes into the towers, just more improbable. Years ago I studied and flew for my private pilot's license and they did a pretty decent job if those airlines were really hijacked. I said on another post a while back that if I had a year or two to train and read books and study landmarks, etc... I might be able to pull it off, so it's not impossible for sure. Anyhow, the point being to question all of those who are bent on saying it was a missile. again, I'm not saying it wasn't a missile, but it just seems like it's a HUGE risk to take when you are already taking big risks in this whole 9/11 thing anyways. Anyhow, thanks for the reply and I may get a little flamed, maybe not, but I don't care. I just want to see some people put some thought into posts more than just saying this or that happened without any type of proof at all. I do agree that the damage to the pentagon is questionable as far as an airline striking it, but I haven't researched enough as to how high the plane was when it struck the pentagon. It had it's wheels down they say, so it couldn't have flown too close to the ground, but again, you have the ground effect that can keep you afloat right above the ground. Anyways, always more questions than answers with these type of things. There's a reason for this of course....


JPT





[edit on 5-5-2008 by justpassingthrough]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Im thinking it was never intended to happen.
The Pentagon was not part of the plan, thus why FBI had to be on seen AFTER the incident to clean up all the mess.

The plane that went down?.. perhaps that was ideally aiming for the pentagon, or whitehouse.

As soon as it went down, the US government realised, this attack ( which they knew was coming ) was meant for more than NYC.
After they realised the passengers brought it down, they understood the opportunity at hand to strike the Pentagon, perhaps with a missile or something.

They couldnt get a boeing in a matter of minutes to hit it, so they improvised.




Agitated,

so what do you think happened? I mean overall. Do you think the WHOLE thing was planned out by someone other that the hijackers? Or, do you believe the hijackers were real and the government added the missile at the last minute? I only ask this because if you believe the gov or someone was behind this whole attack, then your theory seems wrong. If you believe that the hijackers were basically real and that the gov decided more last minute to attack the pentagon, could you elaborate more as to why? I'm not picking on you, just want some more clarification, it's all good. I liked your post and hopefully we can all be civil and cool with each other. I've seen too many posts from others on other messages in which people are attacking each other or mocking or other negative things in general. Anyhow, thanks for replying and I'm anxious to hear what else you think.


JPT



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
To JPT:


Man, I just dont know.

The only thing, in my mind which indicates a government plot is the towers actually COMING down.
People put up a very good argument saying the towers shouldnt of collapsed, and all the irregularities with the collapse that specificy demolitions were present seems plausable.
But at the same time, I say there's too much risk in being found out, using demolitions. because it means more people in the know of this plot.

On that note,

It isnt impossible for Osama to PLAN this operation. I dont understand how people say it would take months of planning and loads of money.
Imagine, if you will... a typical passenger list of a flight from Boston.

9-5'ers
Holiday makers
Family men, women
Foreiginers

If you get 6 knife weilding men screaming BOMB and really being dominating... no one would DARE challenge them.

All the planning that needed to be done, was where to place them ( A cheap bed and breakfast inn )
And what flights all take off at around the same time ( thus to succeed in multiple attacks )

This isnt that hard.

Im more to the understanding that the USA and Israel had spies/assets inside the Taliban, Pakistan and Saudi that informed the CIA of an impending attack using airliners.
Instead of stopping this attack, Cheney and Bush agreed if they were to pull it off, then it would open the door to a vast amount of action within the middle east, AKA PNAC!~

All they had to do was allow them into the country ( place assets at immigration )
Ensure the FBI watches them (But doesnt apprehend them)
Then, when they move to the take off point, and pack their bags alert all officials and assets its about to go live.

Thinking about it a bit more,
I believe that a rogue military unit, maybe a gunho pilot who was already in the air for drills happened to shoot down the passenger airliner over pensylvania... so much chatter and confusion he missed the call from cheney to stand down... maybe they were expecting the pentagon to get hit? and when it didnt, well they had to ensure something happened to destroy the evidence of the trillions going missing?
So, they hurridly sent in a cruise missile or a small cessna with one on board?..

... the only definate thing Im certian off..

Is that Cheney and Bush wanted to get into Iraq, but couldnt find an excuse.
One ''magically'' appeared...
They then went on to '' accidently'' make collosal ''mistakes''
which just happened to give them exactly what they wanted from the begining.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Agit8dChop]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Thanks Agitated,

I pretty much agree with what you have to say. I was actually in Manhattan on the 9th. Then two days later I was watching the news early and say the second plane on live tv hit the second tower. I immediately called my family and told them I was ok and so forth. The second I got off the phone, I said to myself, "they let this happen". To me it was Pearl Harbor all over again. They knew the Japanese were coming over and supposedly had confusing orders to stand down too for various reasons. I have read lots about Pearl Harbor and that sounded like a set up to give the US a very good reason to get in the war, plus when it came time for push to shove, we were able to use a crazy weapon to demonstrate to the world not to mess with us. I'm not saying we are bad or anything as I'm glad that was part of the effort to stop Hitler, BUT, on 9/11 I thought it was strange that those thoughts popped into my head that very morning. I'm not sure I agree with you on your missile theory, but I don't have anything better, so that's that ya know? Seems plausible though. I do think it would take some time for the pilots to study though. Those airliners aren't the easiest things in the world to fly. I mean, it's not so much flying them straight or even some turns, but it's the corrections that can get you in trouble if you are yawing too much or whatever. So, the pilots would have needed a fair amount of training, meaning simulator, real life and much ground school on the aircraft themselves. If they were being funded and didn't have to keep jobs, then yes, it would be easier for them to focus on this attack. I find so many weird things in this investigation that, that alone raises flags to me. Just to give you an example, I find it EXTREMELY odd the quickness of taking ALL of the WTC rubble/metal and getting rid of all of it and even having lots of it recycled. There was so much stuff, that in any ordinary investigation, they would have taken years to go through all of it. They would have set up some HUGE warehouse type space to store as much as they could, but instead sent it all away and for good, never to be further investigated. There are a handful of things like that that make me VERY suspicious. Anyhow, I'm getting off my own topic, but mainly saying I hear ya and basically agree with you. I think we are all in the same boat. We are just using our best guesses with the info that is out there. It's too bad my grandkids will probably be long gone (I don't even have kids yet) before we ever find out the truth about Kennedy or 9/11. Thanks again for the thoughtful and thought out response.

JPT



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by justpassingthrough
 


A quote of myself from another thread,


Think of the pentagon attack as a necessary strike right in the heart of the usa in order to push their agenda. To hit the right part of the building with a big airliner without damaging anything important could be difficult, and also to avoid to get shot down by the stationary missle defense (an airliner is very slow compared to a missle).


...just a guess.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by hackbart]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 

After they realised the passengers brought it down, they understood the opportunity at hand to strike the Pentagon, perhaps with a missile or something.

They couldnt get a boeing in a matter of minutes to hit it, so they improvised.


The Pentagon was hit at 9:37, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania did so at 10:03. That timeline doesn't work out quite right.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


For me, learning to navigate was by far the hardest.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
There was no missile.

But the plane did not hit.

It was the same M.O. as at the towers....real planes used as psychological weapons while the actual destruction was covertly implemented with pre-planted explosives.

The reason they didn't want the plane to actually hit the Pentagon is because obviously they did not plan to completely demolish it like they did the WTC so they wanted to make sure to have complete control of the damage to their own headquarters.

Pre-planted explosives gave them complete control of the damage and minimized the risk of failure.

Just looking at the initial anomalous and admittedly "counter-intuitive" damage to the building (and lack there of) and it becomes clear that it was not caused by a missile or a plane.



With damage limited to the bottom floors of the building, and due to the complex topography of the area, it is aeronautically impossible for the plane to have pulled out of the final descent required on the official flight path and still end up perfectly low and level as shown in the security video.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hackbart
 


That's a pretty good guess. Supposedly there's missile defense for the white house, so is there, for sure, missile defense for the pentagon? Though if this was all planned from the inside, I'm sure it would be easy to disable to missile defense and blame it on software glitch or whatever. I mean look at what happened to our air defense. If this was 2000 and I took my private plane (don't have one, just saying) and flew it into or even close to any government airspace, ESPECIALLY if hijacked planes were in the air, I would be intercepted within minutes. They did warn us several times about airspace and to be very careful and if we did get escorted, just listen and do EXACTLY as they say. The airforce does not mess around in this department, yet somehow they were incompetent on 9/11. I don't buy it. So, my point is the missile system would be bypassed somehow. How sold are you on it being a missile? And why? Thanks for the post.


JPT



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


good call! I didn't think about those times posted on his/her message.

JPT



[edit on 5-5-2008 by justpassingthrough]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


For me, learning to navigate was by far the hardest.



I first started learning on a cub and so my basic navigation was learned through landmarks, highways, etc... I know the altitude of those planes was much higher, but you can still see what you need on the ground unless there is overcast. Also, if they were using GPS on the planes, then that wouldn't be terribly hard. You're either staying with latitude or longitude. Once you hit one, you just need to get to the other, ya know? None of this is that easy for sure, but very doable.


JPT



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
There was no missile......

With damage limited to the bottom floors of the building, and due to the complex topography of the area, it is aeronautically impossible for the plane to have pulled out of the final descent required on the official flight path and still end up perfectly low and level as shown in the security video.




I was hearing you on the other stuff you said, and maybe didn't agree for various reasons, and we can get in to those later, but can you show me how it was aeronautically impossible for the plane to have pulled off those maneuvers. Right now, I have no proof that those maneuvers WERE possible, but just from the basic stuff I looked at, they seemed improbable, but very possible. Is there a website, a link, a book, or something you can show me that would show proof that the plane would suffer either too much damage OR that is physically cannot do these things? I found it odd that the plane would basic fly by or over the pentagon and circle around to hit it. Then again, it he was flying VFR, then maybe he just found he wasn't low enough to attack, so had to circle and get a better descent into it. Maybe you could post a flight path pic and show your proof there? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'll need more info if you don't mind. Thanks for the post!

JPT



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by hackbart
 


There is no defense system at D.C. The crash on the White House back in the 90s point that out.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by hackbart
 


There is no defense system at D.C. The crash on the White House back in the 90s point that out.


I find it hard to believe washington DC has no defense system.
Id bet my life it does,
and id even bet some people are stupid enough to 'believe' reports that say other wise
...you dont advise anyone on where or what your defenses are.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 

There is no defense system at D.C. The crash on the White House back in the 90s point that out.


The White House may have actually learned something from that crash. One of the NORAD audio recordings confirms that at least the White House had ADA (Air Defense Artillery) on 9/11. I'll try to find a link to post.

Remember though, this is the White House and not the Pentagon. ADA can consist of anything from a .50 cal all the way upto a Patriot system. The White House most likely had a Stinger and only block 1 Stingers were available in 2001 and their range limit is 15,000 feet. That rules out shooting down Flight 77. Well, that and no shootdown order.




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Here's a link to 911Myths.com

DRM1 DAT2 Channel 19 SD2 OP.zip This links to the page with all the NORAD recordings, just remember channel 19. 1:40:00 into the recording.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Boone 870]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
my biggest problem with a missile or preplanted explosives at the pentagon is a combination of the video of the explosion and the damage pattern. both inconsistant with a missile.

the video shows a big fireball, missile explosives dont do that, fuel does. ok sure, plant a tanker truck outside the building and blow it up and theres your fireball but seems someone might have wondered why a tanker truck was outside the pentagon...

but the blast pattern is wrong, there should have been a good sized semicircular pattern of building debris out on the pentagon lawn and there just wasnt, even if it was a penetrating type missile, there should have been more debris out on the lawn, but msot of the building from the impact site was pulled inward or layed right on the edge. its inconsistant with most conventional explosives.

just my OPINION of course so take it with a grain, or a bag of salt if you like.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join