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.

 

What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I am sure this question seems a bit old. I can also imagine quite a few of the "OS" believers out there are just rolling their eyes as they think up their fact-less, pointless, empty, rude, obnoxious post.

This question has bounced around a bit but it never really landed so I am putting it here all by itself. I have noticed that most of the arguments around here fail because one side is using circular logic. I am afraid that in order to see the big picture, we need to compartmentalize the little pictures first.

So here is my question...What hit the pentagon. I have heard missile from our Secretary of Defense. I have heard it was flight 77 American Airlines from the MSM. My issue is that I just really don't know what to believe so I thought that I would open a place where we could settle this one simple little quandary.




posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
If you believe the official story that it was a commercial airliner then it must have been some new super-secret design able to defy gravity and have some form of artificial damping system to counter the overwhelming g-forces involved in such an impossible maneuver.

On the other hand I see complete plausibility in a flyover scenario involving one or more planes and a missile being dropped. The science fits, the witnesses describe seeing a plane on a heading that doesn't correspond to official data and nowhere in this scenario does one have to enter the realms of science-fiction in order to explain some of the events that occurred.

Just my 1 cent (I'd give 2 cents but with the economic crisis and all I seem to have lost half of it....)



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
It was a missle, 'nuff said.

This is my secondline.

Mod Edit: Adding "this is my second line" doesn't make it any less of a 1-liner.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

So here is my question...What hit the pentagon.


Rest at ease.

It was a a Boeing 757 aircraft, known as American Airlines Flight 77.

Glad to be of assistance.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Lillydale

So here is my question...What hit the pentagon.


Rest at ease.

It was a a Boeing 757 aircraft, known as American Airlines Flight 77.

Glad to be of assistance.


Really? How do you know?

second line.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
How else does he know He watches the MSM!



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Lillydale

So here is my question...What hit the pentagon.


Rest at ease.

It was a a Boeing 757 aircraft, known as American Airlines Flight 77.

Glad to be of assistance.


LOL yeah it was a super special aircraft fitted with g-force damping technology and had the ability to defy gravity.

Yep, thats what it was......

/sarcasm.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Really? How do you know?


Because the black box was recovered from the wreckage, and it was identified as being from AA77.

Of course, there are fringe conspiracy theorists who think it was planted by the gov't the same way they think the gov't planted the rock in their back yard that they stubbed their toe on, but such people are so madly in Love with their conspiracies that they want them to be true, so there isn't any evidence on the planet that will ever convince them these "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" stories are wrong.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


And you would think after 8 years someone would be able to produce convincing evidence. Thank god i take your word for everything, or i would be highly upset.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Its one of those questions we'll never know the answer too unless a better video of the incident gets released.
the official story says a boeing 757,people say they say a plane hit..nothing wrong with that,they say what they saw.
others say a missile of some sort or saw a fly over,nothing wrong with that either.
the problem is there sre so many stories of what happened it's hard what to believe without seeing a different angle.

in my opinion i say some sort of missle hit,i might be wrong but thats my gut feeling



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The flight box recovered from flight 77 didn't say that it hit the pentagon, however.

Of course, there are fringe conspiracy theorists who think it (the fdr) was simply wrong, the same way they think the gov't planted the rock in their back yard that they stubbed their toe on, but such people are so madly in Love with their conspiracies that they want them to be true, so there isn't any evidence on the planet that will ever convince them this FDR was not faked.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

posted by Lillydale

Really? How do you know?





Because the black box was recovered from the wreckage, and it was identified as being from AA77.



Of course. The black box. Both of which were allegedly found near the Exit Hole with all the super-strength passenger DNA.

No serial numbers.



And they were found near the Entrance Hole. Which is the truth and which is the lie? Or are both locations lies?

The same alleged FDR Black Box which proves that the aircraft was much much much too high to possibly hit the Pentagon.

Nothing whatsover flew into the Pentagon. No flying object knocked down the light poles.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
The only thing that hit the pentagon was Dick Cheney's jaw on the pentagon floor when Norman Minetta testified about his stand down order in front of the 9/11 Omission. Other than that, maybe sudden indifference hit the pentagon. Indifference to inbound airplanes tracked by military radar all the way in. The indifference hit, but the plane didn't. Other than that, maybe the bomb squad hit the pentagon...to plant bombs, not diffuse them...Other than that, maybe what hit the pentagon was April Gallop's finger when she powered on her computer....Kaboom! Other than that, the smell of cordite hit the pentagon once the bombs went off, as so many have said they smelled- not jet fuel. Other than that...



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by The Killah29
 



Originally posted by The Killah29
It was a missle, 'nuff said.


I've seen no persuasive evidence that any missile hit the pentagon. As a matter of fact, people who have studied the issue, such as those at Citizen Investigation Team, have determined the same thing. And while Pilots for 9/11 Truth initially felt that a missile might have been dropped from the plane that they believe flew over the pentagon, Rob Balsamo, founder of the group, recently told me that their stance on this has changed; CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth generally see things the same way.

Clearly, -something- must have caused the explosion(s) at the pentagon; many believe that, as in the case of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, explosives were the culprit.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
ive never believed it was a plane, as soon as i saw the hole in the building it just didnt add up.

so what was it? a cruise missile? or something bigger. maybe a predator drone loaded with C4? if that security tape from the pentagon is actually showing what hit then it appears to be white, and smaller than a jet. but bigger than a cruise missile....

its a hard one to pin down, and im glad this stand alone question has been raised. especially as the nyc attacks get 90% of the msm reporting this time of year.


so, if a plane didnt take the route that the official story says, then were the light poles rigged with a cutting explosive to be knocked down? as the plane flew over the amco service station,and as the CIT seem to have found, flew over the building as something else flew into it.


as for explosives inside, possible, but i dont see anything being blown out from the building, then the perfect holes in the internal walls?

it seems to be a high velocity, vehicle, with an impact war head, possible armour piercing.....

looking forward to everyone else's thoughts!

[edit on 13-9-2009 by Turtledub]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I think it was a Global Hawk unmanned drone maybe fitted with a missile or explosives however they would modify it for maximum damage i'm sure they would figure out a way.

Wiki-Global Hawk





posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Lillydale

Really? How do you know?


Because the black box was recovered from the wreckage, and it was identified as being from AA77.


Was it now? Can you back that up with anything? You didn't even offer up a flimsy link to an article or paper or anything. How was the black box identified as coming from that plane? Why does the black box data contradict the "OS" flight path?


Of course, there are fringe conspiracy theorists who think it was planted by the gov't the same way they think the gov't planted the rock in their back yard that they stubbed their toe on, but such people are so madly in Love with their conspiracies that they want them to be true, so there isn't any evidence on the planet that will ever convince them these "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" stories are wrong.


Did I say a cruise missile hit the pentagon????? Why do you all put words in other people's mouths all the time. Can't you make an honest point ever?
I just have my doubts that it was AA77. You are going to have to do better than to just say something and then spend most of your post insulting people that think differently than you. If you have nothing constructive to add, why add anything at all?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I find it somewhat telling that this thread is already this long and so far the closest thing to proving flight 77 hit the pentagon is someone saying so and another person saying the FDR is proof even though the FDR completely contradicts the story it supposedly proves.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
I am sure this question seems a bit old. I can also imagine quite a few of the "OS" believers out there are just rolling their eyes..."


Just what is an "OS believer?" I have never seen or met one.

There are skeptics like me who question the claims of 9/11 "Truthers" like you who make unsupported claims they refuse to back up.

There are skeptics like me who, like any rational person, looks at ALL of the evidence that 9/11 Truthers refuse to acknowledge exists.

You see, skeptics don't except unsupported claims, including the 9/11 "Truther" claim that everyone who questions your claims believes some magical, mystical, "official story," rather than the preponderance of evidence that converges on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You "Truthers" narrow your focus to claimed "anomalies", most of which you cannot demonstrate, have been addressed for years, or are just plane factually wrong. You seem incapable of adhering to the fundamental tenets of the scientific method. In fact, you do just the opposite. For one, you fall into the methodology of rejecting all of the evidence and focusing on one claim as if that claim trumps all of the other evidence - without you even demonstrating your claim is valid!. Secondly, instead of trying to prove your own theories wrong, as the scientific method calls for, you try to prove yourself right.

Now, all of the evidence from hundreds of different sources and thousands of eyewitnesses converges on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon. That you have to deny the existence of that evidence and those eyewitnesses is the number one sign of Denial. I have repeatedly given you sources to start reading and/or debunking - with evidence. And you do nothing. I've shown you your own claims that you then deny ever making - despite it being right in front of everyone here to see. No one has ever claimed to have seen any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon" from amongst the hundreds in positions all around the Pentagon to have clearly seen and heard a "flyover" had one occurred.

And, of course, the absurdity of thinking the "government" was capable of knowing in advance that NO ONE would see a flyover is patently funny.

It then begs the question of why you bother to be here.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
I am sure this question seems a bit old. I can also imagine quite a few of the "OS" believers out there are just rolling their eyes..."


Just what is an "OS believer?" I have never seen or met one.


You haven't? Try Cameron Fox, Joey Canoli, JThomas, oh whoops. What do you mean what is an "OS believer?"

I know you are dying for an excuse to say "canard" again but that song is played out.


There are skeptics like me who question the claims of 9/11 "Truthers" like you who make unsupported claims they refuse to back up.


There are also skeptics like me that question the unsupported claims of people like you. Claiming it was hijackers stealing planes and crashing them into stuff to being it all down - that is some claim. You cannot back any of that up so instead you attack truthers and you usually do it in such an ignorant manner.


There are skeptics like me who, like any rational person, looks at ALL of the evidence that 9/11 Truthers refuse to acknowledge exists.

You see, skeptics don't except unsupported claims, including the 9/11 "Truther" claim that everyone who questions your claims believes some magical, mystical, "official story," rather than the preponderance of evidence that converges on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You "Truthers" narrow your focus to claimed "anomalies", most of which you cannot demonstrate, have been addressed for years, or are just plane factually wrong. You seem incapable of adhering to the fundamental tenets of the scientific method. In fact, you do just the opposite. For one, you fall into the methodology of rejecting all of the evidence and focusing on one claim as if that claim trumps all of the other evidence - without you even demonstrating your claim is valid!. Secondly, instead of trying to prove your own theories wrong, as the scientific method calls for, you try to prove yourself right.

Now, all of the evidence from hundreds of different sources and thousands of eyewitnesses converges on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon. That you have to deny the existence of that evidence and those eyewitnesses is the number one sign of Denial. I have repeatedly given you sources to start reading and/or debunking - with evidence. And you do nothing. I've shown you your own claims that you then deny ever making - despite it being right in front of everyone here to see. No one has ever claimed to have seen any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon" from amongst the hundreds in positions all around the Pentagon to have clearly seen and heard a "flyover" had one occurred.


Back it up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You just keep repeating things. Things you have not verified, checked out, looked into, substantiated in any way. Can you prove any of your outragous claims? No, you have had plenty of chances and you continually fail and then try to claim other people need to prove their doubt, not you proving your wild fairy tale. You are not working in the real world and your answers are increasingly useless.


And, of course, the absurdity of thinking the "government" was capable of knowing in advance that NO ONE would see a flyover is patently funny.


You are skipping. You are a broken record. You whip this little attack out in every thread. This thread is not about flyovers or anyone claiming to see one. I did not ever once endorse the flyover take either. You seem to think that you look like you are winning by arguing about things that no one is talking about. Take your flyover talk to a flyover thread. I believe the OP here is pretty clear.


It then begs the question of why you bother to be here.


It does????? How does your rant about flyovers beg this question?

Can you just answer the OP with some evidence to back your story?



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join