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.


The Pentagon Mystery....where has that PESKY plane gone???

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:10 AM
I had intended to add this offering on a thread by Mikelee, where he questions the whole mystery that is Flight 77...but after typing it up decided it maybe worthy of its own thread....
In Mikelee's thread jthomas had offered up a link [url=] in defence of the OS.
I had a look, as I always do, and thought it warranted the below....I have left my original start to the thread, addressing Mr.Thomas....

Nice link you provided, Mr.Thomas, relating to your 120 foot impact hole you keep claiming but have still not shown a photo of....I particularly love the way you "claim" theres evidence of a hole of 120 ft. but, as everyone following your link will see, it shows nothing of the kind....

lets have a quick look at the websites claims, which you are using to argue your case......using the photos.

Firstly,we have Will Morris's photo....

Anybody see any wreckage?? I sure dont....a little bit of "probable" stuff,as it is "labelled", but thats about it...!!
Where could it have gone?
Also...whats with the cars ?? Do they look out of place there?? Given the presumed uber max warp speed the plane was travelling at, which is required for the whole plane to simply vapourise miraculously to nothing, theres no way in hell those cars would be missed....come on guys!!
Dont miss the labels indicating where the left wing supposedly hit...where did the wings go, after causing that "damage"?/ They didnt "melt" into the building like WTC1 and 11, so where did they do? Is it possible they tranformed into the fence visible in the foreground, because thats all I see( even the fence looks out of place given what is supposed to have happened...!!)
Its also worth noting that although it states " right edge of centre impact hole", you cannot see it...because of the convenience of the smoke, obscuring the view...hold that thought.

Does the above photo show anything to you that shows a plane, given this is the best( or one of..) close up shot we have....??

Secondly, we have the Jason Ingersoll photo...

Immediately, like the first photo, we see the total absence of any wreckage...nothing at all to indicate a plane had crashed here.
We dont see any fuselage, or seats, bodies, luggage or anything at all that indicates a plane hit.
Note those pesky spools in the the cars seen earlier, those shouldnt be there if a massive crash has just occured..!!
Also note that although it is Labelled, you cannot(again) see the impact hole because of the smoke...coincidence?
So far, no plane to be seen, and NO 120 ft wide hole as claimed.

Thirdly, we have Mr. Ingersoll's "obscured" photo...

Note in the paragraph below the picture as linked,it mentions "This photo is a favorite of "Hunt the Boeing" because firefighting sprays have obscured the right wing impact hole. This photo however is useful because it shows the center impact hole more clearly."
On the label it states "hole slightly visible".....

Does the centre impact hole appear any clearer to you??
So thats where the plane hit??
Maybe i need glasses, because I see nothing at all resembling an Impact Hole....I see a nice lawn devoid of any markings, no wreckage, no wings, no luggage though.
Agreed?? Good.

this photo shows nothing to prove the existance of a plane causing the damage alleged, so we shall skip this gem...other than to point out yet another Impact Hole..that you cannot see.

Last but not least, we have this Daryl Donley

Not much here either,except for more indications of the mysterious Impact Hole , completely obscured by thick smoke...
Luckily, the author of this site, using his X-ray glasses, was able to point out exactly where the centre of the impact hole is.....can you see it?? Neither can i. Rather fortuitously, this same author is able to point out the right edge of centre impact hole... but again, wheres the Boeing gone?? You know...that massive 757, with a tail 44 ft tall, with wings of 124 feet, and weighing over 100 tonnes....can you see it??

Neither can I.

these glaring discrepancies cannot be so simply brushed aside....NO PLANE CAN BE SEEN, NOR ANY SIGNS THAT ONE HAD EVER BEEN THERE.

So what caused the damage??

We can speculate all night, going round and round in circles..we dont know.

All that we know is there is no evidence of a plane at the crash site...

I am aware that there are a handful(no more...even more mysterious!!)of photos of dodgy looking men carrying pieces of fuselage, but that is not proof...for all I know they could well be planting them to try to strengthen the OS,as would be expected...

I also expect some debris..some wreckage(excluding the two photos of a rotor which prove nothing...and apparently dont even concur with the boeings 757 engines anyway...)

OK boys and in...
As you have no doubt main concern here is I cannot find evidence of a if i could be so bold, could someone begin by helping me with that aspect....WHERES THE PLANE?

The seats, the fuselage, the hundred odd seats, made of fire retardent foam, or the K's of wiring, the engines, the wings.... the bodies?

Please me the plane!!

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:35 AM
you know whats sad? people will still look at these pictures and come up with a bogus story about how the plane disappeared. Just look at the tires of the car in the first would think if the plane disintegrated, rubber sure as hell would....It's simplely incredible how people throw logic out of the window when it comes to this. I remember watching the news that day, I was a junior in high school then. I'm shocked as to how anyone bit the OS and ran with it, when every news report, every image, every single witness and every single story told that day tells the story quite clearly. I remember hearing EVERY reporter wondering how there was no wreckage anywhere. I remember hearing every witness say they heard explosions coming from the WTC 1 and 11. Whats even stranger to me is the lack of memory everyone seems to have that WTC 7 tower collapsed that day! And no one wants to hear that the CEO of Rols-Royce said the engine found at the pentagon was not their engine, when Rols-Royce makes all engines for Boeing. My goodness people, stop the ignorance please. S&F....

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 03:01 AM

General of US Intelligence says No Plane Hit The Pentagon!!!

No plane hit the pentagon.

Breakthrough? Pentagon
Explosions At 9:32 - 'Jetliner'
Impact At 9:45

[color=gold]Evidence of Pentagon and military officials complicity in 9/11 events and participation along with 9/11 Commission authors in an obvious cover-up.

Flight 175 9/11 Commission’s Revised Time Line (2004)

NORAD time line for Flight 175- released Sept 18, 2001
8:14 takeoff from Boston Logan airport
8:25 FAA (Boston) notifies FAA(HQ) and other FAA flight control centers that Flight 11 has been hijacked.
8:42 FAA confirmed radio and transponder off
8:43 FAA notifies NORAD that a second plane appears hijacked and has turned towards N Y
8:46 NEADS scrambles F-15s towards New York
8:47 a plane hits WTC1
8:47 Fl 175 transponder code changed
8:55 Public announcement at the South Tower of WTC saying the building is secure and people should return to their office
9:03 WTC 2 South Tower struck by airplane
9:03 to 9:16 President Bush is sitting listening to a book being read to elementary students in Sarasota, Florida- even though he was
told that a second hijacked plane had hit WTC2.
9:06 a.m. All air traffic facilities nationwide are notified that the Flight 11 crash into the WTC was probably a hijacking.
9:17 a.m. The FAA shuts down all New York City area airports.

Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11
and Neither Did a Boeing 757

There is no evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the pentagon there is no evidences produced by our government that is credible.
We must remember that the four planes that supposed to have crashed were never investigated, and here is the proof.

[color=gold]F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage
Aidan Monaghan
Contained within a March 14, 2008 "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" with the Nevada District U.S. Court, concerning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Mr. Aidan Monaghan (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to order the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the 4 aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose has indicated on behalf of the FBI, that records indicating the collection and positive identification of recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, do not exist.
Defendants motion reads in part:
"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff's request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated "revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . . (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"
However, this claim is directly contradicted by public comments offered by Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman National Transportation Safety Board and Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board, who both indicated in 2002 that FBI director Robert Mueller requested NTSB assistance with 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification and that the NTSB did perform 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification analysis. [color=gold]Full Article

[color=gold]The Lack of Foundation Damage at the Pentagon is Irreconcilable with the Official Reports and Data
Craig Ranke, Rob Balsamo

03/15/08 - The lack of foundation damage at the Pentagon is irreconcilable with the official reports and is strong physical evidence contradicting the 9/11 official story.

The[color=gold] ASCE Building Performance Report has meticulously documented the damage to the building and has come to the conclusion that all damage from the alleged plane impact was limited to the bottom two floors, but primarily below the 2nd floor slab so that 90 tons of jumbo jet would have slid on it's belly across the 1st floor slab all the way through the C-ring.[color=gold] Full Article

[edit on 18-4-2010 by impressme]

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 03:03 AM
I watched this great documentary on youtube about the Pentagon attack. It proves through eye witness testimony that the OS story is wrong. I must see for everyone on both sides of the issue. There are 9 parts.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:10 PM
The problem for you is that hordes of eyewitnesses in the vicinity of the Pentagon all say it was specifically a passenger jet they saw, and the witnesses range from journalists to taxi drivers to an immigrant from El Salvador watering the lawn and they all corroborate each other. Every time I mention this, the self styled, "truthers" either make up stories off the tops of their heads about how everyone in a ten mile radius of the Pentagon was a secret gov't agent, or, they run away from it like vampires run away from sunlight, neither of which is the behavior I would expect from people claiming they want to know the facts of the 9/11 attack.

All this BS got started by some damned fool conspiracy monger in France making some stupid fairy tale up to sell his books. You don't need a neon sign blazing the words CON ARTIST to recognize when you're being grifted, here.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:18 PM
no...i'm a pilot...the facts and especially the pics don't add's really called common sense, that day is is a sham, a child can spot the discrepancies

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:22 PM



I remember that clear as day. It was accompanied by the presenter interrupting an interview related to the WTC to go live to the Pentagon after reports a *SMALL* plane hit. THIS WAS THE FIRST SHOT THEY WENT TO.

My immediate reaction was "WHAT AIRCRAFT?". From this view, they panned back. No aircraft crash was apparent. I said to my friend at the time who was also watching that it didn't look like an aircraft had hit, and he agreed.

There was no evidence that an aircraft had struck the building. They then cut and came back later to the COLLAPSED Pentagon.

The footage pre-collapse that was shown live at the time disappeared and was never shown again.

These photos are outstanding, and show beyond doubt an airliner did not hit the building.

If nothing else, imagine the energy behind 6 tons of engine doing 400 kts.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by GoodOlDave

Yet another "logical" person throwing logic out of the window.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Enigami]

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:27 PM
I dont normally post in these 9/11 threads but i just have this to say this. Take a look at this plane crash site ofAmerican airlines flight 587 photo and ask can you see a plane in that wreckage?. Also please ask yourself what material is the plane made of? At present, aluminium is used in the aviation industry everywhere in the world. From two thirds to three quarters of a passenger plane’s dry weight, and aluminium has a melting point of 660.37 °C. Now ask yourself where that planes is.........

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by GoodOlDave

You're fairly typical of the human race. You would believe what some planted jerk on TV said vs. PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE.

I'm aware of the interviews that CIT made with various witnesses, but as they conclude, it is possible to make a jet disappear OVER the building in sync with an explosion.

It is the oldest trick in the book - whilst people's attention is diverted on the explosion they fail to notice the jet flying away in the distance (if they can see it at all).

If a jet hit that building, the pre-collapse photos fail to show it.

Anyone remember the video from the Doubletree Hotel that shows the tail of the aircraft just appear above the top of the building immediately before impact? Utter BS. The top of the tail is below the top of the Pentagon roof level, and is NOT visible from the Doubletree Hotel.

The other problem, is that the aircraft is on a constant descent into the side of the Pentagon. The Doubletree video has the jet flying straight and level, then pop-up in order to get the tail on tape then immediately and simultaneously end back at ground level in order to hit the building where alleged.

If the top of the tail was visible from there, then the camera on the Doubletree would have to be so high that you would also see the roof of the Pentagon to get the slant angle required to see. You can not.

Any way you look at it, the videos are tampered with.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:40 PM
I always have to remind everyone that no one needs any photos to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

That is elementary logic.

It matters not that you don't see what is there.

I've asked you all to present the statements for the last 3 years of those over 1,000 people who saw, handled, and removed the wreckage from inside the Pentagon and no one has yet done it.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:11 PM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by GoodOlDave

You're fairly typical of the human race. You would believe what some planted jerk on TV said vs. PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE.

I'm aware of the interviews that CIT made with various witnesses, but as they conclude, it is possible to make a jet disappear OVER the building in sync with an explosion.

If you want to be in love with these secret conspiracies, that's one thing, but that does NOT give you license to be making stuff up off the top of your head as you go along. You want photographic evidence? All right, take a look at this photo of the Pentagon and the outlying areas...

Pentagon and outlying areas

The Pentagon isn't out in the middle of the desert or on the bottom of the ocean. It's in the middle of a dense industrial park. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon where the helicopter landing pad is, to the left. For this phantom plane to have flown over that section of the building, it would have necessarily flown over a large parking lot, two highways, a marina, a bridge, ANOTHER highway, and I don't know how many houses and buildings on the DC side of the river. Yet, you still entertain the idea this phantom plane flew over despite all these witnesses saying they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, and NO witnesses saying they saw a plane fly up and over the Pentagon. I don't have to tell you that simply declaring everything that you don't want to hear as "secret gov't disinformation" is being rather intellectually bankrupt and hardly satisfying.

I don't even need to mention that the conspirators definitely had two or more OTHER disposable passenger jets under their control (unless you're one of those "no planes" conspiracy people), so it's utterly pointless to use a cruise missile/global hawk/predator drone/flying saucer/whatever and then plant all sorts of fake aircraft wreckage, employ hordes of disinformation agents, rig a black box, etc etc etc to trick people into thinking a plane crashed there. They'd simply need to use another plane liek they did elsewhere.

You'll excuse me when I say it's going to take more than just abject paranoia to make that dog hunt.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:33 PM
Well there were a lot of eyewitnesses that saw planes hit the trade towers, so planes must have hit the towers.

Also a plane must have hit the Pentagon because eyewitnesses saw a plane hit it, also of course the damage to the light poles is evidence enough. DEFINITELY A PLANE.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by warisover
Well there were a lot of eyewitnesses that saw planes hit the trade towers, so planes must have hit the towers.

Thank you for finally admitting it. Now we can let the no-planes threads get buried away.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:19 PM
But where did the plane go??

Forget eyewitnesses...wheres the physical evidence??

All plane crashes leave evidence behind...yet, inexplicably, as with soooo many other unsolved mysteries that fateful day, no sign of wreckage...

If a plane weighing 100 tonnes crashes, then the wreckage will weigh 100 tonnes...not an amount so miniscule that you cannot see it...WAKE UP!!

No proof = No 757.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:38 PM

Originally posted by benoni
But where did the plane go??

Forget eyewitnesses...wheres the physical evidence??

All plane crashes leave evidence behind...yet, inexplicably, as with soooo many other unsolved mysteries that fateful day, no sign of wreckage...

If a plane weighing 100 tonnes crashes, then the wreckage will weigh 100 tonnes...not an amount so miniscule that you cannot see it...WAKE UP!!

No proof = No 757.

You no planer people crack me up. If I recall there was some plane wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon on 9/11 (you don't think that was staged do you?) And I remember hearing that the plane disintegrated upon impact, because it was traveling so fast, 565mph if I recall. Also an eyewitness saw the plane crash into the building, what more proof do you need? DEFINITELY A PLANE!

[edit on 18-4-2010 by warisover]

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 08:07 PM

Originally posted by benoni
But where did the plane go??

Forget eyewitnesses...wheres the physical evidence??

All plane crashes leave evidence behind...yet, inexplicably, as with soooo many other unsolved mysteries that fateful day, no sign of wreckage...

If a plane weighing 100 tonnes crashes, then the wreckage will weigh 100 tonnes...not an amount so miniscule that you cannot see it...WAKE UP!!

No proof = No 757.

Have you asked these people yet? I've been asking for you guys to provide their statements for over three years and not one Truther has ever done so. Even that Crack Investigation Team, CIT, couldn't provide a single statement.

You can be the first:

Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:19 PM
Excuse seem to be avoiding the basic premise of the thread...


You blindly believe everything you are told??

Of course there will be a cover-up....people saying they saw the plane crash isnt good enough for me....Physical evidence only thank you.

100 tonnes of plane completely vanished..I say impossible. are saying its possible mr so??


posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:40 PM

Originally posted by benoni
But where did the plane go??

Forget eyewitnesses...wheres the physical evidence??

Good GOD that is by far the most blatantly phony thing I've ever seen anyone post here on these boards. All this time you conspiracy people have been saying EYEWITNESSES HEARD EXPLOSIONS and you use that to build up your claims of controlled demolitions despite there being no physical evidence of any controlled demolitions. No det cord, no blown up steel, noone finding anything during the cleanup of ground zero, nothing. Now, you're going back on your own word and are now claiming, "forget eyewitnesses, where's the physical evidence". In one sentence you've instantly told us that we can no longer believe anything you say now.

Do you honestly think this blatantly dishonest double standard is any real hallmark of someone who's seriously looking for the truth behind the 9/11 attack? You're obviously picking and choosing whatever you want to believe according to whether it happens to support your conspiracy stories or not.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 10:10 PM
I really don't know why these witnesses are not to be believed. I mean, it's not that difficult to positively identify a commercial airliner flying by you low off the ground at approximately 500 MPH.

Here are some examples of a high speed low altitude fly bys. Notice how easy it is to identify the plane, especially if you're not expecting it?

What happened to the physical evidence you ask? Who cares? This is 9/11, where physical evidence is of no use to anyone. We only need witness statements; real physical evidence just complicates matters.

Although the Pentagon roof collapsed well after the impact, there is nothing suspicious about this, although it should have collapsed at the time of impact to make it appear that a large commercial airliner crashed into the building. Again, this is 911; no need to sweat over the details.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in