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.

 

It is scientifically impossible that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Remedylane
 


They could have landed the plane at a military base and shipped the people off to nightmare hall at dulce or something theres no way to know anything possible.

Just stop thinking about the people on the plane for 1 minute please.

And look at the actual wreckage on the day of the attack.

The debris field does not match a mid sized jet airliner. It matches something much smaller, about 1/4th the size.

This is pure common sense. Just look at the photographs and examine them. Look closely.


Ive said numerous times in this thread that im not convinced that a jetliner hit the Pentagon.. I agree with you guys that something isnt right.. I also dont think we have been told the truth about 9-11.. Someone asked where the passengers were.. I felt the need to show them.. They were all real people that woke up on Sept 11th, got on flight 77 and died. The better question would be, If flight 77 didnt crash into the Pentagon, then where did it crash or go?? Where did the people go.. You say stop thinking about the people? They are the most important part of it..




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Remedylane
 


Ok first of all,you're gettin off the subject of the thread & into a strawman argument about the plausibility of the conspiracy.And I don't wanna do debate that ON THIS THREAD.This thread is strictly about the PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY of the Flight 77 crash.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



Sorry.. Was just answering a question that was asked.. I feel like if you are gonna have an arguement that all the facts should be displayed, not just the ones that make your argument look the best.. I dont mean that in a bad way.. And with that said, Im not sure that a 757 hit the Pentagon..



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Remedylane
 


No problem man.I wasn't tryin to be rude or anything.I'm just tryin to take things one at a time.9/11 is a big issue.
Plus,I can't stand the 'How many people would've had to be involved?" arguments.It really doesn't matter.Its like,if 50 people say they saw a man shoot someone with a shotgun,but the forensic evidence & autopsy shows that the man couldn't possibly have been shot with a shotgun & in fact it was a 9mm,it doesn't really matter what those people say anymore.They're either wrong and/or lying.But something's up.Simple as that.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



It is scientifically impossible that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, page 1

NOT IF THEY ALL CAME OUT OF A PORTAL?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Which one of my claims do you find untrue?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 


Exactly. Someone could be aiming a weapon at someone else, with people watching...
Then, the man falls dead.
What they don't realize is that the man man they saw, holding the gun, never even pulled the trigger.
Someone else did.
When things happen so fast, people are never good at giving their testimony. It never adds up.
Just like the plane hitting the Pentagon. It doesn't add up with the physical "evidence." There is no denying that.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Two police officers give their own, but corroberating testimony that the Pentagon 'plane' route, contradicts the Official report. Sorry, there is a horrendously ---obnoxious--- and noxious commercial first. Probably on purpose, as punishment.www.dailymotion.com...

(Seems that when I 'copy'd the vid ---after--- the ad, I excluded the nasty little bugger. YAY.)
edit on 14-1-2011 by simone50m because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by simone50m
 


I think that some kind of plane went over, like a magician's subterfuge and obfuscation trickery, "don't look at this hand, watch my other one, while I do this to you're eyes....." While a missle went into the side of the Pentagon. www.dailymotion.com...

What is the name of that young AfricanAmerican US Army Sergeant lady, along with her baby, who walked out of the SMALL hole, and said she did not see any plane wreckage?
edit on 14-1-2011 by simone50m because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by peacenpizza
 


Exactly dude.Finally,someone who understands.I get so tired of arguing with people about this.They start sayin crazy stuff like "How do you know what the plane would do.." and all that nonsense.Its like,dude,its common sense.Shotguns shoot 100s of small pellets.If ya only find one small entry hole in a guy,he didn't get shot with a with a shotgun.The end.It doesnt matter what the witnesses have to say.It don't matter if ya found the shotgun.I don't wanna see the pictures of the shotgun shells you found.It doesn't matter.Ya gotta X the shotgun theory out.Ya don't say "Well,maybe the shells all stuck together & went in the same hole for some reason".Thats not how it works.Its called CONSISTANCIES.
And planes don't vaporize.Tail sections don't disappear on impact.They always survive to be clearly seen.Therefore,if there's no tail section anywhere in sight,a plane didn't crash there.The end.It doesn't matter what anyone says.I don't care about the pictures of lil scraps you claim to have found at the scene.

Also,lets not forget that the witnesses were all driving down a busy interstate that sits atop a hill when whatever happened happened.If a plane goin 500mph had appeared out of nowhere right above their heads & flew over the Pentagon as a missile went off,they'd be none the wiser.Remember,it would take a second or less for the plane to get from above the cars to Pentagon.It was so fast the surveillance camera couldn't catch it,right?So how could the human eye catch it,between flenching for dear life at the plane comin at you from one direction,lookin up at the road to avoid an accident,then flenching at the explosion in the other direction,all in a split second?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by simone50m
 


April Gallop or Gallup.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 


--THANKS--! Yes I remember thats it.

Here is a good link I found with a picture of the hole at the link bottom and lots of other good images.
killtown.911review.org...
edit on 14-1-2011 by simone50m because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
***A P R I L---G A L L O P*** www.youtube.com...
edit on 14-1-2011 by simone50m because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
What do you guys make of this footage?? Just curious.. Be honest.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Well, I'm glad April Gallop and her baby walked out.... unscathed..................



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by youngdrodeau
Shotguns shoot 100s of small pellets.If ya only find one small entry hole in a guy,he didn't get shot with a with a shotgun.The end.It doesnt matter what the witnesses have to say.It don't matter if ya found the shotgun.I don't wanna see the pictures of the shotgun shells you found.It doesn't matter.Ya gotta X the shotgun theory out.Ya don't say "Well,maybe the shells all stuck together & went in the same hole for some reason".Thats not how it works.Its called CONSISTANCIES.


Your analogy is not only really bad, it's also very wrong.

You must have never heard of a Shotgun Slug or you might rethink your line above that "it doesn't matter what the witnesses have to say".

In this case the witnesses from all angles saw the plane, and plenty directly saw the impact.

Not a missle. Not a drone. Not a global hawk. Not Mary Freaking Poppins.

No one saw evidence being planted. No one saw a plane "flyover". No one saw anything but the plane smash into the building and explode.

As you said above "The End."



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Um.... I'm not sure what a missle is... it's a missile, right? How can people on here be so sure of themselves, if they don't even know how to spell what they are writing about? Are you not reading while researching? Maybe you're not taking it all in.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by peacenpizza
 


Wow, of everything I posted in reply, the only thing you could think of was to rag on a typo?

How typical.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


You're the one mentioning "Mary Poppins" when we're talking about the Pentagon. Typical?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 


OP there is absolutely nothing " scientific " about your post. All you have done is indicate the crash site doesn't meet with your expectations and you have based that on a false premise anyway. You say that you haven't seen any items of wreckage which couldn't have been pulled out of a gym bag so you haven't looked very far.

It is ironic that you post this at the same time that there is some new genuinely scientific evidence available about AA 77's flight data recorder which most truthers seem to be avoiding like the plague :-

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics




 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join