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.

 

If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to the passengers?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


So what are you saying that it was?

If it was not a nose cone, or landing gear, or engine, what was it?

And are you alleging that those who wrote/approved the report (a) are part of the conspiracy, or (b) know very little about what is going on and are just trying to make sense of it the best they can?




posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by walman
 
anyone who truly believes our military is incompetent

has never served or has no family that has

my dad severd in the navy ,my dads uncle was chief petty officer in the navy, my dads brother used to be GBI,then served in the FBI under daddy bush he is retired now ,his sons are one is atf and the other just got off duty as dick cheney secrete service agent dont know his next appointment yet

my moms dad was llutenit colonel in the navy during korea and nam he was a test pilot when they grounded for his age (just killed him he loved to fly) then worked for lockheed martin in marietta georgia and help write the c5a c5b flight manuals
all 3 of his sons served in the marines during nam
(side not my grandad in 1980 i was 8 they came to his house at 12:30 at night to get him later i found out the sr71 had some kind of issue and had to make a landing at dobbins AFB he was at the time the only person in that area that could be trusted that knew how t fix it)
thats what i was told.

i am well aware of the militarys competence i have been around it all my life
and have heard lots of strange stories

incompetent the military is not but the politicians for sure want you to think they are that allows for doubt which is what they want us masses to believe



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by walman
reply to post by SPreston
 


So what are you saying that it was?

If it was not a nose cone, or landing gear, or engine, what was it?


My guess is something like this:




Packed with explosives (which would explain the cordite that Pentagon employees smelled) and remotely controlled by someone who worked for these guys:




posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Think about it, Lyco, they kill all the passengers elsewhere and then bring the burnt bodies to the Pentagon, SECRETLY. They have the plane miss and land somewhere else while a second plane/missile strikes the Pentagon. So they plant wreckage SECRETLY. Do you realize how ludicrous all of this is?



I completely concur. How can that be thought logical? Why would they go through all of those unnecessary steps, and potentially jeopardize their mission, to recreate an event that they can just carry out easily and successfully?

Again, to anyone who claims that a missile or other plane hit the Pentagon, or that DNA evidence was secretly planted, I must repeat preridine's question: Do you realize how ludicrous all of this is?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


You post has many questions and postulates, so I'll respond, in general.

What military coup? Who needed to do anything to that particular part of the building to get rid of anyone? The DoD owns the building and every one and everything in it. Need a secret file? Go get it. Need someone out of the way? Ship them out. The part that was struck was only partially occupied after being renovated. I'll look into what was there, but I don't remember it as being anything super secret; Navy personnel were in the majority, I think.

Why would the NWO/Biderbergers make a deal with Larry to knock his buildings over? What do they care? If they wanted the buildings, papers would have been found after Larry's untimely demise showing that he sold the lease to them. Then other papers would have said that the asbestos inspections were all fine and that the building was safe. The only other possibility is that Larry IS a Builderberger.

If the evil conspirators could have pulled off the proposed plans, then they could have pulled off a lot less expensive and simpler plans to accomplish the same things.

Focus on specifics. Propose something with motive and method and not just general conspiracies. Remember that the disinformation agents are keeping your attention on everything but the intel community and their inability to prevent the attacks.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 
if you have to ask !! makes me think how deep have you researchd

look at who died at the pentagon in the imapct zone

then we will move on to the next ?? you asked



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum

i have no clue what happend but i know what they are trying to make us believe is not all hunky dory

...

not one person here knows what happend whether they are a truther or a debunker



At this point, that is all that I can conclude. The story doesn't seem as straight as an arrow, and despite however much we investigate and make connections, none of us knows the whole story.

There should be more investigation - official and unofficial. I think the government would help a lot by releasing the videotapes from the Pentagon strike.

I also suggest that we all consider the ideologies and agendas that were served by this event, and what came to pass shortly after (which is all a whole other ball park, and leads to probably more confusion than the story behind the events of 9/11 alone). Think about whether or not what happened after should have happened, and if it could have happened as soon as it did, or at all, had those events not occurred. What is more important than what happens is where it takes us.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



hmm yeah maybe

how about this you think or no upload.wikimedia.org...

www.fas.org...

or you think they rather destroy one like your pic then the hawk?

just curious



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum

anyone who truly believes our military is incompetent

has never served or has no family that has

my dad severd in the navy ,my dads uncle was chief petty officer in the navy, my dads brother used to be GBI,then served in the FBI under daddy bush he is retired now ,his sons are one is atf and the other just got off duty as dick cheney secrete service agent dont know his next appointment yet

my moms dad was llutenit colonel in the navy during korea and nam he was a test pilot when they grounded for his age (just killed him he loved to fly) then worked for lockheed martin in marietta georgia and help write the c5a c5b flight manuals
all 3 of his sons served in the marines during nam
(side not my grandad in 1980 i was 8 they came to his house at 12:30 at night to get him later i found out the sr71 had some kind of issue and had to make a landing at dobbins AFB he was at the time the only person in that area that could be trusted that knew how t fix it)
thats what i was told.

i am well aware of the militarys competence i have been around it all my life
and have heard lots of strange stories

incompetent the military is not but the politicians for sure want you to think they are that allows for doubt which is what they want us masses to believe



What an honor to have such a rich history of service in your family, and what a privilege to know the stories that you know.

I don't believe that the military is incompetent - though they are not perfect, there is no doubt they are more consistent and professional in their duties than those who criticize them.

I have more trust in the military's chain of command than I do in the people's vote.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by walman
 


totally 100% agree with what you said

star for you and flag



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Fleece,
You really had to hunt to get the old modified A3 Skywarrior as the attack plane. I saw it at Capo and looked it up for you. www.a3skywarrior.com...
"VQ-2 00" TA3-B, BuNo 144863, of VQ-2 often visited Naples (Capodichino airport) and was widely known by the tower for it's Red/White/Blue drag chute. Unfortunately, on July 7, 1974 after takeoff on runway '06' at Naples it went down claiming the crew. If it had used the more common runway, '24' it would have crashed in downtown Naples.
Photo by Carlo Tripodi
These "Whales" are big for a carrier plane and took a lot to launch and trap. They are much smaller than an airliner. They were retired in 1991, so the conspirators would have had to have one rebuilt after recovery from the mothball ranch.
This is way too contrived. How about terrorists flying a commercial passenger jet, loaded with fuel, into the Pentagon?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


Lyco,
I don't think anyone said that the military was incompetent. Certainly, I would never imply such.
It is the politicians and their appointees that are not to be counted on. If you want to see incompetence on a grand scale, check out the FEMA boss during Katrina. Also include the Governor of Louisiana and certainly the Mayor of New Orleans. Between those three losers, each blaming the other, the entire effort was screwed up. While these boneheads dropped the ball, ADM Thad Allen and the US Coast Guard showed their leadership skills and selfless devotion to duty. If you ever want to see brave men and women in action, outside of a war, watch the Coasties. They do it all. The next time you are in New London, CT, visit the Academy and see what they are made of.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by walman
 

me also i trust military way way more then suits

what i have heard from my family about the suits in the military (civilian contractors,politicians, ) like you said the ones that get votted in is just so dam sickening, you just cant look at them and believe anything they say or have respect for them at all

but not all that votted in are scum and not all military are Semper fidelis
some are just as scummy as the suits

my dads uncle that was chief petty used to wear his dress bluse to family reunions. was so loaded with medals ,his older brother died D day was shot in the back through his belt by a sniper we still have the belt with the blood stain and hole very very cool but sad i never met him of course

i used to sit there playing with trucks listening to all the talks was very very cool my dads uncle CPO help my dad (pulled a few strings) to get him on the uss enterprise
safest duty during nam he said LOL

edit to add this

ill get my grand mother to send me the belt and ill post the pic of it if i can

its really really neat to see it a think about what happend to him on the beach that day

i truly cant imagine what he must have felt lying there dieing and cant say good by to his brothers and family because of some stooped political BS

i just cant truly imagine i just cant






[edit on 31-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


my best friends dad was captin in st pete florida in the coast guard his ship was 300 foot i think

they are great i love all forms of the military and have a huge respect for anyone who severs or has served

my hats off to each and every one



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

This is way too contrived. How about terrorists flying a commercial passenger jet, loaded with fuel, into the Pentagon?

Well, there's what you'd call contrived and there's impossible. Take your pick.

First of all, you've got the totally incompetent Hani Hanjour, who as previously noted, was incapable of controlling a Cessna 172:


[Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all." [New York Times]

Then there's Flight 77's extraordinary maneuvers, which air traffic controllers assumed was a fighter jet:


At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." [NATCA]

But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot [Hanjour] executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said.

Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious. [Washington Post]

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying. [LewisNews]

Along with the fact that professional pilots claim that due to the aerodynamics of ground effect, a 757 couldn't be flown at 500 mph two feet off the ground -- not to mention the many, many other anomalies about the Pentagon crash scene that just don't add up, I'd say the chances that a commercial jetliner impacted the Pentagon are slim to none -- and slim flew over the building.

Even the FBI says there's no evidence that connects Osama bin Laden to 9/11.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


That's a wealth of stories you have. You ought to write a book with all you've heard.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

how about this you think or no upload.wikimedia.org...

www.fas.org...

or you think they rather destroy one like your pic then the hawk?

just curious


Actually, that's even more probable because IIRC, they only found one jet engine compressor at the Pentagon. And a Global Hawk would also be a better candidate for reliability and remote control purposes.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Actually, that's even more probable because IIRC, they only found one jet engine compressor at the Pentagon. And a Global Hawk would also be a better candidate for reliability and remote control purposes.



Are all jet engine compressors the same? Was the jet engine compressor of the Global Hawk the same as that of the 757?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by walman
 

No and no. Unfortunately, jet engine manufacturers quickly clammed up when they started getting specs inquiries. All this did was breed more suspicion.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Fleece,
You gave me a choice of “contrived” and “impossible.” And then you told me to take my pick.
I leave those choices to you and I pick “probable” and “most likely.” Terrorists flew the plane into the Pentagon. As to Hani, maybe he was flying and maybe his buddy was. If he was, maybe the commercial aircraft had controls that were more forgiving than those of a Cessna.
The ATC’s are used to commercial pilots that are worried about overstressing the airframe and not trying to kill themselves. Hani and friends flew with nothing to lose and the Boeing aircraft showed its superior capability at maneuvering outside of its normal operating envelope.
As to the ground effects, my bet is that no one knows for sure because no one would risk the aircraft flying that far outside its normal operating envelope.
If anything flew over the building, no one saw it.



new topics




 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join