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.

 

New Video Discovery Channel "Attack on the Pentagon"

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I am watching the latest Discovery Channel documentary probably being released for the 9/11 anniversary this week.

Some of the points raised seem intended to respond to conspiracy theory topics.

Just wanted to get your thoughts if you have seen the doc.

I found the eyewitnesses to aircraft wreckage to be convincing. Beyond that nothing new so far.




posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Wow I just heard on the documentary that Pentagon construction began on September 11, 1941.

Wow ...I have never heard that one before!! More creepy illuminati NWO symbolism!!



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   
I watched it, almost turned it off. It was nothing but an advertisement for the official story. Nothing new that I saw.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
My brother, Captain Mike Smith was the Arlington firefighter interviewed in this. I am extremely proud of him.

Joe Smith



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
My brother, Captain Mike Smith was the Arlington firefighter interviewed in this. I am extremely proud of him.

Joe Smith


Was he the one who sent a token of gratitude to the CIT boys that is posted on the front of their web page?

www.thepentacon.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


I was very disapointed of all the camara's in and around the Pentagon, not a single shot of a plane going in only an explosion. Also not a single video clip from surrounding business camera's with the Pentagon in the background. Seems shady. If they had it they would show it.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


I was very disapointed of all the camara's in and around the Pentagon, not a single shot of a plane going in only an explosion. Also not a single video clip from surrounding business camera's with the Pentagon in the background. Seems shady. If they had it they would show it.


I agree completely there must be more footage!!

In my mind there was nothing conclusive about this presentation one way or the other.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Wow are you serious?
You watched that and came away believing that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?
REALLY?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   
If a 155 foot-long, 60 ton Boeing 757 caused the explosion at the pentagon, why does it not appear in the photographs? Where is the debris?

Where are the videos from the most highly guarded building on the planet showing a 757 hitting the pentagon?

Did 60 tons of aircraft just vaporize?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 05:22 AM
link   


If a 155 foot-long, 60 ton Boeing 757 caused the explosion at the pentagon, why does it not appear in the photographs? Where is the debris?


Debris







Montage



Problem is not lack of debris at Pentagon - it is that you don't want to see
it. Might puncture your little paranoid fantasty....



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I could pile that crap in the back of my pickup, and have enough room for 3 more 'pentagon 757s' lol

Wheres the 60 ton aircraft?



[edit on 9-9-2008 by TaZCoN]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TaZCoN
 


Actually the wheel rim would probably take up half the space in the bed of your truck by itself, and with the break assembly attached inside it most likely hit the max weight capacity of most trucks. We used to use rim and break assemblies as ballast on aircraft due to their extensive weight. The condenser parts would most likely not fit at all, and would collapse the suspension system of most vehicles. So those who think that people just ran around tossing out bits of garbage, obviously don’t have a clue as to the mass that is involved with even the few parts that are visible outside the building in the most frequently seen photos of the crash.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   
I thought it was a good show, 'plane' and simple....

They did mention a few things as to appease some CT's, but all in all it seemed more about the people involved rather than the fact or fiction.

One thing that struck me was the 'brilliant light' that was cast upon Donald Rumsfeld.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I do not believe people ran out and just tossed a bit of junk around the lawn, which by the way seems to be lacking any impact damage.

I have no idea wtf hit the pentagon, however the evidence put forth of a 60 ton Boeing 757 hitting it is at best laughable.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TaZCoN
 


I have shown many times on this site before that normally there is little to no damage to grass when an aircraft makes a wheels up landing. This is because an aircraft is designed with a smooth undercarriage that slides quite nicely through grass, especially wet morning grass. In addition the weight is distributed over a wide surface area making the pressure per inch much less then the weight of the fire trucks that were later rolling on (and similarly not damaging) the lawn.

Also I don’t see why you think there needs to be more parts or damage, I have worked on 757’s many times over the years and I personally see nothing incorrect with the level of damage at the scene. You must consider that the debris that you see at most air disasters are the result of a pilot who is trying to maintain control of an aircraft and make the crash at as low a speed as possible, while in this instance it was quite the opposite. In addition, most of the debris is inside the building under the rubble.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Ok, I'll consider you theory (for now) lol

Now then, with all those video cameras all around the pentagon, wheres the video? I've seen th 1/2 second fireball, I'd rather see one that shows a 757.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Here's the questions no one asks.

Andrews AF Base is 16 miles BY CAR to the pentagon. It is tasked WITH THE DEFENSE OF WASHINGTON DC (among being the wing that supports AF One).

Where were the fighters? Why were they dispatched from hundreds of miles away? Why were they not flying supersonic.

Most importantly:

Why didn't military heads roll when the Pentagon was not defended? That's the key question to ask ANY politician and/or military person.

I think it would be nice for the Russians to know that all they have to do is disguise a nuke bomber to look like a passenger plane, and they can cozy right up to the pentagon.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
What makes people think that they are obligated, or that they would ever even consider releasing footage from a camera on a secure military installation. Just by releasing such footage they may be tipping their hand as to the capabilities of the security cameras and their field of view. Also we have no idea if those cameras are all active, if they are all recording, or what the time delay on those cameras would be. Its entirely possible that those cameras were nonfunctional at the time due to the construction being done on that area of the building.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Wow I just heard on the documentary that Pentagon construction began on September 11, 1941.

Wow ...I have never heard that one before!! More creepy illuminati NWO symbolism!!


You would be surprised to hear about many more coincidences like this. I don't know but the fact that Bush senior gave his NWO speech 10 years to the day before the attacks is also a nice coincidence.

Yet another in the MANY that have happened leading up to and occuring since this event.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by TaZCoN
 


I have shown many times on this site before that normally there is little to no damage to grass when an aircraft makes a wheels up landing. This is because an aircraft is designed with a smooth undercarriage that slides quite nicely through grass, especially wet morning grass. In addition the weight is distributed over a wide surface area making the pressure per inch much less then the weight of the fire trucks that were later rolling on (and similarly not damaging) the lawn.



I could buy this if they didn't stand by the argument that the plane increased speed on its approach. You see, the planes that have skidded on grass with wheels up where powering down and doing everything to reduce their speed (thus the energy that would be released upon impact or touch down). Not with a plane going 400+. Not buying it.

Also, to your camera theory. Sorry, that is the biggest cop out I have heard yet. The Pentagon would NOT turn off their security camera's even during a construction project. They would not worry about displaying what is on them for fear of revealing just what they can see because it is visible for ALL to see as they drive by every single day. You are simply making up excuses to try and explain away something that has had many holes in it. Mainly the 'official story' of what actually happened.

I'm sorry, I don't believe that only two fighters were sent up to intercept and 'accidentally' sent out over the Atlantic. I don't believe that there is ZERO video evidence of what actually hit the building other than the miniscule clip of a fireball. Not with a round hole punching through as many thick cement/rebar reinforced layers of the ring as happened that day.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join