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.

 

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

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.




posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
Excuse me....you seem to be avoiding the basic premise of the thread...


I answered you directly


WHERES THE PLANE???

You blindly believe everything you are told??


I haven't been told anything. I've asked you to provide the statements of those who had direct contact with the wreckage. I've given you the contacts so you may provide us with their statements - the statements of those over 1,000 people who who saw, walked through, picked up, and sorted the wreckage from inside the Pentagon openly on the Pentagon lawn in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11.

Because you claim to want to know where the "plane" was, you need to provide the statements of those who had direct contact with the wreckage.

Why do you continue to fail to provide those statements???



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
dave....stop the name calling or piss off...

If you have nothing to contribute but slander I would rather you F'ed off to cause your nonsense elsewhere.


It isn't slander to expose someone employing a blatant double standard to advance an ulterior motive. You are deliberately picking and choosing what evidence you consider to be valid according to the individual conspiracy story you're pushing. Eyewitness testimony...particularly eyewitness testimony that corroborates each other...is admissable as evidence by every court I know of. If you're going to make unsubstanciated accusations of collusion based entirely upon your own abject paranoia (I..E. all the witnessses were tricked and/or disinformation agents), then it's pointless to be asking for physical evidence becuase your mechanism of circular logic can easily dismiss the physical evidence the same way (I.E. the black boxes were planted and wreckage was manufactured).

I shouldn't have to remind you that you're not debating over whether, "Avatar" was really that good of a movie or whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla. You're arguing over accusations that the gov't is culpable of outright murder, so you'll excuse me if I demand that you produce more reasoning for the claim than simply becuase you think it's funny.



Wheres the plane dave?? Simple....



It was destroyed when it hit the Pentagon, and we know it hit the Pentagon becuase hordes of eyewitness saw it hit the Pentagon. That's about as simple as it gets.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Let's see, which is more likely...

Despite using planes at the WTC the conspirators decided that the massive risk (in terms of the numbers who would have to know about it) of using a missile at the Pentagon was worth it; the agencies and companies named above who participated in the cleanup are in on it; all the eyewitnesses who saw a plane are mistaken or lying; the evidence for a plane and the lightpoles were planted (although no one saw this);

Or

You guys lack the expertise to know what kind of aftermath a plane crashing into a reinforced concrete building would leave.



Given that you're probably basing your incredulity on what you think it ought to look like from what you've seen in films, I'm picking B.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
And I remember hearing that the plane disintegrated upon impact, because it was traveling so fast, 565mph if I recall.


A few years ago the Space Shuttle was traveling much faster than that when it was entering our atmosphere and BLEW UP... and yet, wreckage was found. Enough to reconstruct the vessel. One would think that if anything would have disintergrated, it would have been this, just because of the heat and speed and velocity.

If the Shuttle's wreckage survived, surely a 747 would have survived an impact as well.

Oh, that reminds me... airplanes crash into things, whether they be trees or the ground or the ocean... and yet, wreckage is recovered all the time, too.

Care to explain that?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Some little stats, comparing the shuttle explosion to the above post...

1. Columbia's lead wing temperature reached nearly 3000 degrees F

2. Airspeed was MACH 19.5 (having slowed from MACH 24.5)

Amazing that a 747 that only cause temperatures ranging from 750-800 degrees C (1472 F for the high end) inside the WTC, the same aircraft that has a cruising speed of 565 MPH just up and disitergrates, while the Space Shuttle could be scavanged.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Soothsayer

Oh, that reminds me... airplanes crash into things, whether they be trees or the ground or the ocean... and yet, wreckage is recovered all the time, too.

Care to explain that?


What's to explain? AA77's wreckage was recovered also. Over 1,000 people had direct contact with it, picking it up from inside the Pentagon, removing it, and sorting it openly on the Pentagon lawn in the days and weeks after 9/11.

No mystery there.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Ok good...thousands of people picking up the plane...got any photos of all this plane thats clearly NOT on the lawn as you suggest...??

Please explain where 100+ tonnes of plane went??

Show me 100 tonnes of wreckage please....not picking and choosing...

A simple Q that you are skirting around.

and dave..this is no laughing matter...just to clear that up my little friend.


[edit on 19-4-2010 by benoni]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



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.

Tell you what - I'll do you a deal.

You get all those CCTV videos released (80+) of the jet hitting the Pentagon, and I'll believe that AA77 did hit the Pentagon.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Soothsayer

A few years ago the Space Shuttle was traveling much faster than that when it was entering our atmosphere and BLEW UP... and yet, wreckage was found.


Guess what else was found?

Worms that were on board for some experiment.

Don't forget to mention that to your conspiracy buddies when they claim incredulity when they ask about how passports, etc could survive a plane crash....



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by The Soothsayer
 


Incorrect analogy:


A few years ago the Space Shuttle was traveling much faster than that when it was entering our atmosphere and BLEW UP...


Shuttle Columbia disintegrated, during re-entry, at altitude.

Very different. As we now know, undetected (but, it turns out, some people feared, and suspected) damage to the underside of the left wing, near the wheel well, was inflicted at launch, by a piece of insulation coming off of the External Tank.

FOAM! Granted, this foam is likely shot through with some frozen H2O, since its job is to insulate the ET, and atmospheric moisture will get into the voids, and may freeze due to proximity to very cold Tank wall...

Still, it shows just HOW much force can be involved, even from a piece of 'foam' insulation, when its velocity is substantial.

Anyway, Columbia (and this pains me to no end) broke up, as a result of the damage to the insulating ceramic 'tiles', and the heat of re-entry intruded. The airframe could not withstand the intrusion, and the destruction happened apace.

THIS is very different from an airliner striking a building! Very different....





[edit on 19 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
You get all those CCTV videos released (80+) of the jet hitting the Pentagon, and I'll believe that AA77 did hit the Pentagon.


Those "80+ cameras" are located throughout the entire complex, and they're not going to use a camera to watch a blank wall. They're going to aim them at high traffic areas like entry ways, parking lots, on and off ramps, and the well known camera covering the entrance to the parking lot. It's only from the BS these web sites are pushing out that people even have gotten the idea there is any more worthwhile footage that exists, and it's obvious why- they're deliberately trying to get people all paranoid over shadows.

What benefit would it be for you to see footage of people standing out in the parking lot looking shocked and pointing to something off-camera? You conspiracy people are the ones who are demanding material like this so please, explain the rationale to me.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 



You get all those CCTV videos released (80+) of the jet hitting the Pentagon...


Source, please, for the "80+"?

The Pentagon has FIVE sides, and only a limited number of entrances.

From WHERE does this "80+" figure derive? "Conspiracy" websites?

Further, as in MOST types of this sort of surveillance, the cameras don't normally record normal, 30 fps video, but still frames, at a rate of one or a few per second. At least, back in the day, depending on the equipment used. IF it recorded to videotape, then the length of the cassette was a limiting factor, yes?

More common, today, would be a CD burn, but still....FULL video is not needed, it just wastes storage space.

The purpose of such surveillance is to identify, after-the-fact, any suspects (individuals, or vehicles). AND, in the case of the parking ot area, near the Pentagon, a few frames per second should be sufficient for most inquiries, since Humans don't walk or run all that fast, and ground vehicles? Even at 100 MPH (unlkely, given the location) a few frames per second should still have been sufficient.

But, an unexpected airplane in a suicide attack?? Moving at ~480 knots?

ANY accidental frame capture, from another off-site location besides the Pentagon, such as the 'Citgo' gas station, or one of the local hotels, would be mostly useless, since they TOO would have been focused on areas of interest that were relevant to THEIR property.

The 'Citgo' frames, from inside, where the camera was focused on where the MONEY was (the cash register) co-incidentally captured a reflection of the fireball, on the ceiling inside the station.

That is about it...you have seen ALL that exists. It is only the nutjob "conspiracy" sites that keep whipping this frenzy, by hinting at what "may be missing", or "confiscated".

THAT is the seed of a 'conspiracy'. Contratulations to those who fall for the ruse. "They" are counting on the gullibility factor, in order to keep those "donations" flowing...

Some might, after pondering what I just wrote, think that I'm against Capitalism. I'm not. I just have a sense of ethics, and I hate to see snake-oil being sold, and lapped up by marks who get fooled by the "spin and shine" that the charlatans put on this topic.

I lump these sorts of people in the same barrel as the "Moon Landing Hoax" folks. It is a cottage industry, some would say a 'circus'. THAT is the best analogy to describe....


[edit on 19 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
and dave..this is no laughing matter...just to clear that up my little friend.


Yes, I think some clearing up really is in order here. There are photos of aircraft wreckage on the lawns of the Pentagon all over the internet. Here's a montage, right here-

Pentagon wreckage montage

Plus, there are hordes of eyewitness accounts specifically stating it was passenger jet aircraft wreckage they were finding-

Eyewitness accounst of peopel finding aircraft wreckage

Plus, there are eyewitness accounts saying it was a passenger jet they saw hit the Pentagon-

Eyewitnesses who saw the passenjer jet strike


...and if THAT isn't enough, even your own conspiracy web sites are sayign this "no planes hit the Pentagon" is utter horse [censored]. The only difference is that they claim it's disinformation put out to make the rest of the truthers look bad by association-

Even the 9/11 conspiracy web sites say flight 77 hit the Pentagon

...so if aircraft wreckage, eyewitness accounts, and the condemnation of your fellow conspiracy mongers isn't enough to convince you to abandon pursuing these conspiracy day dreams of yours, then it's clear you're so madly in love with these screwy conspiracy stories that nothing on the face of the Earth will ever convince you. You shouldn't be surprised therefore that people aren't going to take you seriously here.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



ANY accidental frame capture, from another off-site location besides the Pentagon, such as the 'Citgo' gas station, or one of the local hotels, would be mostly useless, since they TOO would have been focused on areas of interest that were relevant to THEIR property.


Actually, I don't think they got those tapes because they thought it might show Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. They kind of already knew that happened. I think the primary reason for wanting those tapes was to see if there were any interested parties "observing" the operation.

As we now know, AQ loves to sometimes film their little murderous operations and post them on the internet.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Ahhh.....thank you for that insight, had not occured to me before.

Certainly could explain a lot (or maybe nothing at all...)...but, still.

Another interesting (maybe) aspect to this could be some of our local news stories, post 9/11. (Talking Northern Virginia, here).

Possibility that there were Imams at some local Islamic 'schools', if that's the correct term to use, who may have 'preached' inappropriate calls to 'action', as part of their 'sermons' (or, whatever you'd call their prosletyzing efforts).

Stories made the news, but little follow-up, as I recall. This, some years a go, during the Bush administration.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
Ok good...thousands of people picking up the plane...got any photos of all this plane thats clearly NOT on the lawn as you suggest...??


I said inside over weeks.


Please explain where 100+ tonnes of plane went??


Most of the wreckage went inside; some went through the wall on the far side; some was on the lawn; some was burned.


Show me 100 tonnes of wreckage please....not picking and choosing... A simple Q that you are skirting around.


I don't think I'm the one "picking and choosing." You do not accept the existing photos of the wreckage and won't provide the statements of the people who were there.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



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.

Tell you what - I'll do you a deal.

You get all those CCTV videos released (80+) of the jet hitting the Pentagon, and I'll believe that AA77 did hit the Pentagon.


No one needs videos to know AA77 hit the Pentagon.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
It amazes me how some people like to forget what an airplane is made of, and what happens to a plane that is ON FIRE. Lets look at this plane and I want people to tell me, do these airplane remains equal the same amount as the original intact one?





How about that? Fire can destroy an aircraft pretty easily! What would happen if an aircraft slammed into a building, broke up into small pieces, and burned inside for a while? gee how much will be left over?

People, for the love of God, use your heads. use those brains and some critical thinking. If you are expecting solid unscathe pieces of aircraft after an impact with a building at speeds over 400mph, then you have to really rethink your critical thinking skills. This is basic stuff, nothing complex, or requiring a rocket scientist to explain the basics of it.

Here is a smaller plane that crashed into a mountain:
www.airdisaster.com...

Now what would happen if you scooped up all those pieces and threw them into a fire-oven? Again use some common sense. Fire is an aircraft's worst enemy.

[edit on 4/19/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That's true... after having typed my last post, I was thinking (I should probably think before hand, but habits die hard)... the shuttle was designed to withstand heat, whereas a plane isn't. I stand corrected, good sir.

However, if I may add fuel to the fire (heh)... with the pictures of the firefighters and flames dancing about, could people have honestly picked up wreckage while in the middle of an inferno?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join