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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Actually, Fleece, it is much less probable.
The Hawk is way too small, doesn't look even vaguely like a commercial aircraft, and wouldn't carry enough fuel to cause the fires. Try to select aircraft that could physically do what you claim you claim to have been done and fit whatever evidence is known by the public.




posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by walman
 

i would just screw it up but i wish my uncle would write a book since he is retired ,

the stories he used to (cough) not tells us when he was in the GBI and FBI are just amazing

his sons have some good stuff also

believe it or not ,my cousin in the ATF has better ones then my uncle or my other cousin who was in Dick Cheneys SS

my dads uncle that was CPO droped dead of a heart attack in DC playing golf with his buddy july- 2 -2001

his buddy he was playing with had a stroke 3 weeks later but didnt die but
but the whole roght side of his body is paralyzed


but sorry to the OP for my last few post being off topic



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


the only reason i proposed it was a hawk was because of this kinda stuff but im still in the air on it

www.freedomfiles.org...

membres.lycos.fr...

membres.lycos.fr...

the animation in this one is good
www.the7thfire.com...

www.propagandamatrix.com...

www.americanfreepress.net...

www.rumormillnews.com...

www.erichufschmid.net...

billstclair.com...

www.erichufschmid.net...

but like i said im still way way in the air havent made my mind up completely

but thats the only reason i posted it to hear your guys opinion



[edit on 31-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 
can u by chance get a bigger pic of this plane i wana see its wheels

just asking is all



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by SPreston
 

SPreston, that's a 5-star post if ever I've seen one.


Originally posted by SPreston
The poor befuddled fanatics just have no idea what their next pile of cow manure cause of the Exit Hole will be. Maybe back to the 1st or hang on desperately to the 4th; or maybe just try that good old MAGIC word.

Sounds like it's time for a Pentagon Exit Hole "Magic Bullet Theory."


Amazing how the OFFICIAL Pentagon story keeps changing, but they still haven't released any photos or CCTV videos of whatever hit the Pentagon. It sure the hell wasn't Flight 77.

Thank you GoldenFleece


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?

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?


Obviously since they keep changing the OFFICIAL STORY, all of the claimed causes of the Exit Hole into the A&E Drive are lies. Since the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is filled with lies and deception and constant changes to the official script; a few more lies should not surprise you.


posted by SPreston

The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY up to now:

1st the fragile nose cone of the aircraft fuselage

2nd one of the landing gears

3rd one of the engines

4th a cone of focused energy from the exploding jet fuel


Since we now know for a fact that the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and could not possibly have created the damage path through the Pentagon 1st floor area nor the Exit Hole, we have to look for another cause of the Exit Hole.

I favor a Military Rapid Wall Breaching Kit (here) for creating the breech through the C-Ring wall for numerous reasons. Just like the staged light poles, the Exit Hole was necessary to give the illusion that an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

Lots of maybes. I get the impression you haven't done much research. The official story is that Hani Hanjour was the only person at the controls. ATC personnel thought it was a jet fighter because of the extreme and skilled maneuvers. NO WAY was Hani Hanjour doing a steep 300 degree descending spiral that lined up two feet off the ground into the Pentagon. Six or seven of the "hijackers" were found to be alive shortly after 9/11.

Yep, it's definitely an impossible story, but whatever helps you sleep better...


reply to post by lycopersicum
 

That A-3 Skywarrior photo was from here.



[edit on 31-1-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Easily explained. The American government had them all killed, easily acceptable losses if it means America get the chance to go invade and steal another country.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Obviously since they keep changing the OFFICIAL STORY, all of the claimed causes of the Exit Hole into the A&E Drive are lies. Since the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is filled with lies and deception and constant changes to the official script; a few more lies should not surprise you.



They were either lies, or mistakes. So we are to assume that there will be another story, and it too will be a lie/mistake because the rest were as well? Please, you insult everyone who is making an honest effort to know the truth with such a statement.



Originally posted by SPreston

Since we now know for a fact that the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and could not possibly have created the damage path through the Pentagon 1st floor area nor the Exit Hole, we have to look for another cause of the Exit Hole.



How do you know for a fact that it was over the Naval Annex? Where is your evidence for that? And don't give me the loosely quoted eye-witness account of someone who thought they saw something. Either back it up by hard evidence, or withdraw your "fact" and restate it as opinion.



Originally posted by SPreston

I favor a Military Rapid Wall Breaching Kit (here) for creating the breech through the C-Ring wall for numerous reasons. Just like the staged light poles, the Exit Hole was necessary to give the illusion that an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon.



It was necessary to give the illusion? Weren't you arguing before that the punched out wall was uncommon and didn't fit with a plane going through the building? Now you're arguing that they fakes an occurrence to give the illusion of an uncommon event?

Again, as preridine asked earlier: Do you realize how ludicrous all of this is?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Lots of maybes. I get the impression you haven't done much research. The official story is that Hani Hanjour was the only person at the controls. ATC personnel thought it was a jet fighter because of the extreme and skilled maneuvers. NO WAY was Hani Hanjour doing a steep 300 degree descending spiral that lined up two feet off the ground into the Pentagon. Six or seven of the "hijackers" were found to be alive shortly after 9/11.

Yep, it's definitely an impossible story, but whatever helps you sleep better...



Your rendition of what happened is incomplete, which makes it a "maybe" in itself.

One of your other statement do raise my curiosity, though. Why did they put those other men on the list of hijackers if they were still alive? What reason did they have to assume that they were on that plane?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by walman
 

No offense, but you need to do a lot more research. Once you break free from the matrix of lies that surround the official 9/11 story, your entire worldview will change.

Or perhaps that's the problem. Some people just can't handle the truth. It's too uncertain and frightening. Not saying you're one of them, but a lot of Americans are still sleep-walking about what ALL governments are capable of.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

posted by SPreston
Obviously since they keep changing the OFFICIAL STORY, all of the claimed causes of the Exit Hole into the A&E Drive are lies. Since the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is filled with lies and deception and constant changes to the official script; a few more lies should not surprise you.


posted by walman
They were either lies, or mistakes. So we are to assume that there will be another story, and it too will be a lie/mistake because the rest were as well? Please, you insult everyone who is making an honest effort to know the truth with such a statement.


Why would anybody assume that you were making an honest effort to know the truth? Obviously you have done little to no research before inserting your opinion, and that is not an honest effort. Many of us have been researching 9-11 non-stop for years. There are tens of thousands of Truther groups dedicated to justice for the 9-11 victims.

They tried to BS the American people with a flimsy fuselage nose cone creating the Exit Hole. The government loyalists ate that up for months until photos of what birds could do to a flimsy nose cone started popping up. At the same time, they bragged that they had photos of passengers burned to a crisp. But the photos turned out to be Pentagon personnel killed by the explosions, and the shirt of one wasn't even burned or scorched. Then they gave up on the nose cone and tried something else. Since there was no aircraft; it had to be a lie.

So the next BS landing gear reason was proudly raised, until opponents pointed out that it needed to hit the B-Ring wall and cause damage, if it contained enough inertia and kinetic energy to form the Exit Hole. That BS was loudly defended and then suddenly dropped for the jet engine BS, which had the same problems as the landing gear. Heavy steel and titanium just does not pulverize into dust nor does it burn up into smoke. There was no evidence of engines nor landing gear in the A&E Drive. Nor damage to the B-Ring wall lined up with the damage path. Nor was their evidence of jet fuel fires raging in the A&E Drive outside the Exit Hole; ruling out the most recent BS lie #4. If they drop #4, then they will need to reuse numbers 1 or 2 or 3 because there can be nothing else. They cannot use the truth; a shaped charge on the wall or another explosive device further inside the C-Ring.

For dozens of reasons all taken together, there was no aircraft impacting the Pentagon. From a faked Flt 77 FDR, to a faked 84 RADES data, to the impossibility of an aircraft high G pull up from a dive down the hill to level flight inches above the lawn, to the impossibility of 535 mph wings surviving impacts with 337 pound heavy gauge aluminum light poles, to the aircraft witnessed over DC east of the Potomac where the official aircraft never ventured, to 20+ eyewitnesses most of whom were originally interviewed way back in 2001 and reinterviewed recently all placing the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex where the official aircraft never ventured, to witnessed multiple explosions and a cordite smell inside the Pentagon, and many other reasons, the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is a gigantic lie from one end to the other.



Perhaps your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren deserve a more honest appraisal on your part. After all it is their future at stake, and maybe next time the traitorous 9-11 perps may want to take out an entire city or nuclear power plant.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Fleece,
Breaking loose from a matrix of lies only to enter a matrix of paranoid fantasy is not very productive. The question was "if Flt 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to the passengers?" We still haven't heard a single theory of what happened. We want to hear a specific theory of what is proposed. This means not the usual "something happened" followed by a mish-mash of North of Citgo, two planes, one plane with a missile, a flyover, bodies planted, wreckage planted, and all the other diffuse non-theories that change minute-by-minute.
Provide one specific theory that is testable with evidence. Focus, fellas, focus. A single theory that we can discuss. Not a floating "maybe this maybe that" kind of theory.
If you have anything at all, you can postulate a theory. If you have nothing but "feelings" come back with a theory when you have one.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 





They tried to BS the American people with a flimsy fuselage nose cone creating the Exit Hole. The government loyalists ate that up for months until photos of what birds could do to a flimsy nose cone started popping up. At the same time, they bragged that they had photos of passengers burned to a crisp. But the photos turned out to be Pentagon personnel killed by the explosions, and the shirt of one wasn't even burned or scorched. Then they gave up on the nose cone and tried something else. Since there was no aircraft; it had to be a lie.


First - The two lowest floors of the Pentagon has no walls dividing the
sections from the E Ring (exterior wall) to the C Ring wall at AE Drive.
Once the plane penetrated the E ring it would smash through normal
office type construction until hit C Ring wall.

Also unlike your fantasty land it was not a"nose cone" as you claim - the
hole punched into the C Ring was from the landing gear strut. The
landing gear is one of the heaviest and strongest pieces on an aircraft.
The landing gear must take stress of 350,000 lb aircraft slamming into ground at 180 mph. Repeatedly.


Aircraft debris in AE drive after exiting C Ring - Note landing gear strut



Compare 757 landing gear



Aircraft debris at C Ring wall




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Preston,
We are waiting for your Unified Conspiracy Theory that includes the answer to the question of what happened to the FLT 77 passengers if the real 77 flew over or never showed up. You've been on this study long enough to propose something specfic. Do you have a theory you can state?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I´m totally with you Pteridine on this one.
No one has offered a theory that could make sense on “what happened to the passengers of AA77 if AA77 didn´t hit the Pentagon?”
The ONLY theory that I think could fit the “truthers” scenario would be the following:
The passengers and crew of AA77 boarded the plane and were “ABDUCTED” by the sinister forces within the government of the U.S.A. (or not) that carried out the 9/11 attacks. They were taken somewhere and killed, or are still alive but hidden from the rest of the world. The plane was destroyed somewhere undetected by anyone. The human remains found at the Pentagon might be from the people said to have been on AA77 but they were “planted”. Or we were only “told” they had found DNA belonging to those people but this is a lie. The airplane remains found were planted there also, and the people responsible for that are SO CLUMSY that they didn´t even make sure that they were B757 parts that would satisfy all observers.
On the other hand, the “perps” were somehow capable of altering, editing and faking TV imagery that was transmitted on 9/11 about New York but they are SO DUMB that they can´t make a film that shows an American Airlines B757 crashing into the Pentagon.


[edit on 6-2-2009 by rush969]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
"Xie29#etonx:Miss Donita sa Perps."



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Preston,
We are waiting for your Unified Conspiracy Theory that includes the answer to the question of what happened to the FLT 77 passengers if the real 77 flew over or never showed up. You've been on this study long enough to propose something specfic. Do you have a theory you can state?

Again with the "theories." How do we know that those 64 names were real people who actually boarded in IAD? From the same corporate media that told us about all the WMD's in Iraq, and Saddam's involvement in the 9/11 attack?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   
the title of this thread is a loaded question.

There is no "if"

Flight 77 did not hit the pentagon.

No bodies, except for "pentagon employees".
(which i don't think they all were by the way)

Laughable plane-nose/puncture explanation. We're to believe that an aluminum nose punctured all those walls?


All eyewitness who don't work for the government or aren't married to FBI agents say the plane came more from the north.
(as proven by CIT which in turn proves that the damage was staged.)

No one saw a plane hit the building.

No video cameras out of the HUNDREDS observing the pentagon caught a plane on film.

Feel free to add to the list if you'd like Preston.

i honestly don't know what happened to the passengers


[edit on 2/17/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 

I'm laughing at the theory of poor construction materials and poor construction workers!!


Crazy theory!
Never has this happened to buildings like the 3 on 9/11 anywhere ever!!!
Stop trying to fool yourself!

You lot never heard of "Operation Northwoods"?
If you need to know about "Passengers" in false flag operations, I suggest you read this document to get an insight into how its done!!

en.wikipedia.org...

www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

[edit on 17-2-2009 by zerozero00]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join