It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What hit the Pentagon???

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 07:33 AM

Read that, and come again !

Mad Scientist come on dude, try harder, why could I see the explosion and NO BOEING on the same FRAME ? At least the tail must have been visable. How can it be that a BOEING can't be seen ? What about the WINGS ? Are they sooo small that they fit in the damaged area ? Why did the explosion come from beneath ? Please be a scientist and give me a scientific explanation, not what you think.

Alien, no, what I mean to say is that so far all plane crashes showed remains of the plane, even if the plane went through the building (not very likely, because they used harded concrete) you still MUST see remains !!!! The WINGS for example, they should have broken off.
Eyewitness doesn't count in this investigation because it could be some agents putted there to say they saw something. Read the above link and you may understand what I mean. So can you prove me for 100% which bodies came from the Boeing, and which not ?

Estragon, pardon me, I'm not native english speaking so I may mean something else than you are reading. I can not find the security cam pics right now, but the above link is maybe enough. When I say I saw an UFO, people say it's BS, they don't believe my words, because they want to "see" it to believe it. When someone say I don't believe it was a Boeing, others get mad because you should believe it was a Boeing, like the officials said. Weird isn't ? Do you get my point ? And yes I mean a Boeing airliner when I said plane. Because now I've noticed that some say they saw a F16 that fired a missle.

See that is the problem, we can't prove it was a Boeing and we can't prove it wasn't a Boeing ! One thing is sure, there are sooo many questions about 9/11 that I can not believe that what the media says is true. If it was all clear and true, we won't have so many questions. There are reasons enough to believe it was a setup indeed other than a surprise attack. The video of Bush at the school in Florida and then compare his statement at gives me enough evidence of it all being a part of a plan. And now tell me who got better from the attacks ? Who got more power ?

Like flight 93, they say "hero's" made the plane crash, other say they have evidence the airliner was shot down. Now who's right ?

[Edited on 11-2-2003 by TigeriS]

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 02:18 PM
This is ridiculus
There is a freeway that runs right by the Pentagon there were 100's of witnesses on that freeway so now they are all "secret agents" Barbra Olson called from the plane along with many other passengers right before it crashed ( I guess it was all voice manipulation) so on so forth .........DOG SQUEEZE!!!

I have belief in several conspiracys (JFK,UFO's ) but in all of these conspriacys there is a reason to coverup a reason to lie! There is no reason here is not the WTC enough? Wouldnt it be enough and simpler to just crash 2 planes into the WTC? In fact if the government wanted to bring down the WTC then why use a plane at all? The government could fill a Truck with High grade explosives and park it in the garage just like the terrorist did in '93 more powerfull explosives would have done the job and no one would have questioned it because it was done before!! Please please please keep something in your heads when you talk about Government conspiracy. Any operation conducted by agents of the military or "black ops" bunch follows a basic principle K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) the more factors you add the more people you involve the more critical your timeline the more locations the more aircraft the more remote signals the more remote communications .......THE MORE THINGS WILL GO WRONG!!

I am aware of this goofy Frenchmans accusations but it seems to me he has never even read a Tom Clancy book. The scenerio he lays out is overwhelmed with critical failure points. If a single aspect of this so called "plan" was to go wrong then the whole thing would blow up in the governments face!!

He claims the first jet to crash into the WTC was an F-16 which (now get this) fires a missle into the building!!!
WHY? Why by any reach of sanity would it fire a missle into a building and then CRASH into the building!! There is a video if this first crash which clearly shows a large commercial jet crash into the WTC. This guy thinks he sees a small explosion before the plane crashes into the building so he comes up with a theory to explain this with no facts to support it!!!!

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 02:48 PM
This whole theory is based on an idea that the bush administration has something to gain from staging a terrorist attack but what this fails to address is the fact that you dont have to stage a terrorist attack! If the Bush administration wanted to make a plan to captalise on a terrorist attack then thats all they would need to do because Al-Qaeda can be depended on to attack every couple of years or so!!

This makes more since then if the terrorist get caught you have no connection to them! All you have to do is wait for the attack then work the press up into a frenzy flame public opinion and declare we are tired of this crap and its time to open a Mondo-can-a-whoopa$$!!!

And guess what this plan is exactly the right plan because we are tired and it is time!!!!!!

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 11:18 PM
Well TigeriS, I have checked out that link...very interesting indeed...think I check it out some time ago, or maybe it seems all the 'facts' of why it wasn't a plane all seem the same.

Seems to me also the its the 'Plane Hit The Pentagon' camp that are the only ones providing any form of hard evidence (in the form of debris shots, actual testimonials of people ACTUALLY there)...the 'Bomb/Missile/UFO/N'Sync Boy-Band Hit The Pentagon' camp still seem to use the old "Well...people can be bribed, yeah, stood over and made to lie...and where are the wings! The wings dammit!!"

Sorry...but when I step in something that looks like duck-poo, when there are duck feathers laying around, bits of duck-feet, a duck bill, a few duck eggs, multiple witnesses who saw a duck there...then call me naive and stupid but I'm kinda strangely inclined to assume it was probably a duck that left that poo on my shoe.

As for prove 100% it was a plane or whatever...ummm...sorry, doesn't work like that. Thats like saying prove to me 100% that little invisible winged faeries AREN'T flying around the cabbages in my vegetable garden. The onus of proof falls upon those wishing to prove someone guilty...and so far the 'evidence' I've seen doesn't come close.

[Edited on 12-2-2003 by alien]

posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 05:10 AM
I'm sorry for my late late reply, and I can't post my full "report" right now, but I've found a scientific study of the crash, with simulations, etc.

It is very interesting to compare the simulation and the real pictures, you will notice that there are a lot things that doesn't add up correctly. I'll do my best to post it asap.

I do respect your view and opinion, but still I don't have a scientific explanation.

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 05:44 PM
Whatever happened to this subject? Any further evidence it wasn't a plane?

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Daughter
Whatever happened to this subject? Any further evidence it wasn't a plane?

Catherder did a great piece of inverstigation into this matter

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 06:07 PM
Definately a Boeing 757... no bull.!

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in