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'S OFFICIAL: Even conspiracy web sites acknowledge it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon

page: 14
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


There are lights like that ALL OVER the DC area.. Other than an 8th grade trip, have you ever been there?

Lights are common on poles like that... Surveillance cameras are not.




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


That is not the impact site.. That is roughly 30 yards to the N/W (left) of the impact site.. Most of the fire damage spread to the left.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by backinblack
 


That is not the impact site.. That is roughly 30 yards to the N/W (left) of the impact site.. Most of the fire damage spread to the left.



Youre referring to the first photo.
Care to zoom in and show me where the charred grass is on that photo? Care to point out all the debris that matches up in the same area as the second photo?
Care to explain the standing light poles that were allegedly knocked down by that giant plane that crossed through?

edit on 9-2-2011 by DIDtm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
 



The damage doesnt even look like a huge commercial plane flew into it...

And this is based on what exactly? Your huge archive of experience regarding commercial jetliners crashing into the Pentagon?

As you can see, the top 2 floors of the Pentagon were still intact when it collapsed, and that further into the building was still standing.

And? Why is this, well, pertinent?

Which means the plane would LITERALLY have to be inches above the ground to make that collison which was literally impossible to do with novice training on 2-men personal aircrafts.

So then, in your mind the damage is consistent with the impact of a large commercial jetliner, but you don't think someone was able to do it. Now we are making progress.

ALSO, look at the WTC buildings and notice how the damage went through the entire building and burned everything inside, but the pentagon still had property still standing around the collision area...

Different buildings react differently and produce different outcomes?

There is a areason why the Pentagon is refusing to show footage, and there is a reason why they confiscated security footage from surrounding businesses...

Yes there are. And good ones. Which I am sure you've heard a million times but need to dismiss because they interrupt your conspiracy narrative.

For whatever reason, they dont want you to know the full story, and that should raise alot of red flags for you

Well, you see there's the problem. You've erected imaginary red flags and instead of looking at your own constructions your asking someone else to explain them away.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Ummmmm Hi!
Yes me. please, HI
Yes, me with my hand up. I would like to state for the record that I do not agree with this information presented in the title and body of your thread dear poster.

So no, it is not Official
in the slightest bit that conspiracy websites agree with this information.


and Hi
because conspiracy websites do not agree then that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, this makes the the presented subject wrong, and because you are posting here on ATS I believe it is proving you to be a 'disinformationalist'
Please correct your wrong generalizations regarding this matter.


Thanks



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by loagun
Ummmmm Hi!
Yes me. please, HI
Yes, me with my hand up. I would like to state for the record that I do not agree with this information presented in the title and body of your thread dear poster.

So no, it is not Official
in the slightest bit that conspiracy websites agree with this information.


and Hi
because conspiracy websites do not agree then that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, this makes the the presented subject wrong, and because you are posting here on ATS I believe it is proving you to be a 'disinformationalist'
Please correct your wrong generalizations regarding this matter.


Thanks


loagun, you are behind the times, you have become a dinosaur in the "truth" movement, on the point extinction.

Go have a look at 9/11 Blogger, a "truth" site, yes ? and see what they are saying now about " no plane " at the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Since 9/11, I find myself lumped into with a growing number of people who have been labled as "conspiracy nuts" because they have dared to question the explainations of the official story. It often appears many of these questions come from the seeming disconnect between the observed physical evidence and the evidence which one would expect to find after such events.

I have even been told by some that the wings of the plane which hit the pentagon "folded back and dragged both of the engines into the building through the hole which the nose punched into the wall". I would not even attempt to argue the point with this person.

I have seen many of the photos, posted here and other places, which show the "remains of the plane". If you look closely you will see the plane was carrying file cabinets and a "bobcat" loader. also the pile of debris gets larger from one picture to another.

At this time I would like to point those interested toward the pages of one Leonard Spencer. I know nothing abiout this person save for their name, but their web page -

www.serendipity.li... -

seems to lay out some interesting points which I find hard to ignore. I would like to point out the video clip which has been placed at the lower part of the page. This is an example of what we all were expecting to see. I, personally, do not think the speed which is used exactly matches, but it seems a little closer to reality.

Allow me to place here a quotation from the final paragraph of this particular page. They are not pointing fingers, simply searching for answers. I feel this is what we should all be doing so long as there are unanswered questions.

"In trying to determine who is truly responsible for 9-11 it is probably a mistake to point the finger too vigorously in the direction of George W. Bush and his cohorts. Bush himself, even with each and every one of his ninety one IQ points firing in unison, is of course incapable of having played any meaningful role in 9-11's conception. Both he and those in his administration are mere puppets, acting out a script written and conceived by some higher power. But who is pulling the strings? Who has the power and the influence to control presidents, the media and the military, to procure black technology and use it to slaughter thousands of the tax payers who paid for it? I do not know, but the attack on the Pentagon, the headquarters of the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen, was perhaps the symbolic confirmation of a secret coup d'etat that in reality took place some time ago."
— Leonard Spencer



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


I had a look at your link but just in the first few lines the article makes two absurdly false statements so I didn't continue.

The author alleges that there were SAM missiles at the Pentagon in 2001 and that there was a permanent no fly zone . Both these allegations are unsupported by any evidence and are ridiculous given the Pentagon's close proximity to Reagan National Airport.

This will give you an idea of how close planes routinely pass the Pentagon to and fro that airport :-

www.zimbio.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by loagun
Ummmmm Hi!
Yes me. please, HI
Yes, me with my hand up. I would like to state for the record that I do not agree with this information presented in the title and body of your thread dear poster.

So no, it is not Official
in the slightest bit that conspiracy websites agree with this information.


and Hi
because conspiracy websites do not agree then that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, this makes the the presented subject wrong, and because you are posting here on ATS I believe it is proving you to be a 'disinformationalist'
Please correct your wrong generalizations regarding this matter.


Thanks


loagun, you are behind the times, you have become a dinosaur in the "truth" movement, on the point extinction.

Go have a look at 9/11 Blogger, a "truth" site, yes ? and see what they are saying now about " no plane " at the Pentagon.



I am a dinosaur on this subject now? it's all these 2012 posts, and planet X/Nibiru evidence that has sucked me in. You discovered one little planet, and then when your back is turned boom, a plane really did hit the Pentagon.
jk.

I have decided to retire typing my beliefs on 9/11, as the whole subject is one big never ending headache. It's like arguing over whether or not the Moon Landing was faked, or if UFO's exist. There is always going to be room for back and forth rebuttals between sides because there is just enough information to feed authenticity of the whole 9/11 story, and yet not enough evidence to prove it actually happened as documented in the 9/11 Commission.

I am not going to the site suggested, and not because I do not want to learn a plane actually hit the Pentagon, but because I am much more interested in on current events.

I will say one thing more on 9/11 though... on the belief that a plane actually hit the Pentagon, and in light of this new 'evidence'(i am talking your word for it), it would then lead me to believe that the US government either shot a missle into the airliner just before impact(this would.... OMG... okay this post is going to be longer then I had anticipated...



So a real plane, flight 77, was on a collision course with the Pentagon. Well what do we know? The place of impact is quite small, and leaning towards being unbelievable as point of impact for an airline jetliner to have crashed at an extremely high speed. Speeds so fast that the government has attempted to pass off(with less then adequate acceptance) as being fast enough to cause almost the entire airliner to have vaporized, burned instantly into thin air, and for the most part vanishing it's dense metal structure and engine components, except for the randomly scattered and still perfect conditioned passenger mob ilia. Perhaps.....


But what about that small impact site? I am now certain then the plane was either fired upon right before impact as it would have taken out thousands, and thousands more square feet then it did of the Pentagon, and not to mention compromise structural support for the underground levels. Hell the plane would have probably disappeared completely out of site had it been a real unobstructed crash, burning it's way as it crashed down threw sub level floors. It only makes sense that the US government would have blown up the plane to protect the Pentagon itself. This is in fact the missing piece of information. By shooting a missile into the plane, or having already planted a detonation device on the plane and exploding it right before actually hitting the Pentagon, this type of explosion could actually create heat hot enough to 'vaporize' the dense metal parts of the airliner.


Oh I am good. Someone may have actually already thought of this and posted it here, and if so, sorry I haven't back read the pages. Ahhhh, okay case of flight 77 solved. The US gov still blew it up.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by loagun
 


I don't understand why you have to introduce a missile hitting AA 77. There is no evidence for it and a considerable amount against.

The aircraft's flight data recorder was recovered at the Pentagon which shows that all systems were functioning until the end. Plenty of eyewitnesses saw the plane but none are recorded as saying they saw it struck by a missile; including the crew of a C 130 which pretty much followed AA 77 in :-

www.youtube.com...

What you think of the crash site is just your layman's opinion is it not ? and when did another large jet crash into the Pentagon for comparison purposes ?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


From your quote it doesn't sound like he believes a 757 hit the pentagon at all..!!


The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.





Yeah, he "believes" flight 77 hit the Pentagon but never seen it. 'It must be in there somewhere!!' There you have it, the first person (of many) to be fooled by the official story into thinking that that's what really happened.


And I think portions of that wall were extra reinforced, not for why you think, but to keep the effects of an interior bomb blast INSIDE! For how would you explain office furniture and filing cabinets and accountant's body parts strewn all over the lawn?

And that heliport did take VIPs back and forth, and so, hello, SECURITY - let's just fence off an area down from the heliport, put flammable construction materials and a diesel "generator" (smudgepot) right next to it. Oh that's SAFE.

Cheers



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I am very pleased that you took the time to read as much of the link as you were sure was
necessary to confirm your standing on this issue.

As to the defences of this building: Allow me to state that in the 1960's AMPLE steps were
taken secure it's integrity should an attack ever be mounted against it.

As the the author's statement about a "no-fly zone" above it. Your link shows a plane at some
distance from it, and not moving in it's direction.

I am quite sure parsing words within the first two paragraphs of what ever it may be that you
would care to write will be sufficient to either applaud or condem the entirity of the rest of
whatever you might have to say.
edit on 9-2-2011 by hdutton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


maybe the missile was launched from directly in front of the on coming airliner... perhaps from inside the interior of the Pentagon, and upon it's launch it blew out the small, and clean cut lines of the 'impact cite'. at this angle no one would have noticed anything firing into the nose of the plane, not even a moderately size missile.

Why look at this... a actual real eyewitness's account of what they saw take place at the Pentagon....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Skarlet says...



There seems to be no footage of the crash, only the site. The gash in the building looks so small on TV. The massiveness of the structure lost in the tight shots of the fire. There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building. I want them to find it whole, wedged between floors or something. I know that isn't going to happen, but right now I pretend. I want to see footage of the crash. I want to make it make sense.



Hmmm, it seems that she was left in disbelief and confused because from eye witness account the airliner was much larger then the 'small gash' left in the Pentagon. Hmmm, and an eyewitness said this.... Very interesting indeed.

Let me point out though, I am not completely rallying on the idea of a missile, but as I mentioned the possibility of remote controlled explosives already having been planted on flight 77 by the US government. Plane or no plane, it does not rule out the US government from having been involved. That I will always believe.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


If you can provide some substantiation that, notwithstanding the close proximity of Reagan National Airport, there were SAM missiles and a no-fly zone at the Pentagon in 2001 then I promise I will read the whole article.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Know
–verb (used with object)




to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty
What I said was what I "believe" to be fact or truth, therefore, that is what I know. That is simply my own opinion based off of what I have heard from people who work/worked at the pentagon. As for proof, I don't know what you would want. I'm not going to simply start throwing people's names out there. I am posting my opinion. Not starting a thread. You want the math, do it yourself.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by loagun
 


I have to say I think you are grasping at straws. You don't have a single witness to a missile and don't you think someone might have noticed if one was set up to launch from within the Pentagon ?

Probably the witness with the best, and most terrifying view, that morning was Sean Boger in the heliport tower. The plane impacted only yards away and his tower was peppered with debris. He might easily have been killed.
What he had to say is fifth down in this list of witness statements :-

911research.wtc7.net...

You will see that he says " I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." Obviously, from his position, there was no way he could have missed a missile streaking out from the Pentagon to hit the plane but it didn't figure in his experience.

In any event, doesn't it occur to you that it would have been utterly stupid to install a missile in the Pentagon. It is common ground that the aircraft was being flown recklessly and ham-fistedly in its last few seconds and might easily have ploughed into the ground short of the Pentagon so what were the perps going to do then with a redundant missile on their hands and hundreds of first reponders, law enforcement etc swarming all over the place ?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I must admit that you catch me at a disadvantage.

The best I can do to address you skeptism is to relay to you what I was told during a visit I made
in the early 1970's. The reason for this visit not withstanding.

A marine captain, who was my escort, stated as we walked the corridors that this building was the most secure
place on earth. I have not first hand knowledge of his interpretation of AMPLE, it may well be a midget
on the roof with a sling shot. but that was his words. He also stated that no planes would DROP a bomb onto it,
which I took to imply some restriction of the air space above it.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Are you familiar with perspective? You should hone your comprehension skills my friend.. Look at an aerial view..
The poles knocked down are to the left of the picture.. The poles you see standing are to the right of where the plane flew through..

After reading some of these posts...it DOES NOT surprise me, that people are still doubting a plane hit the pentagon.. You don't even understand the proof in front of you...so how could you comprehend any incoming evidence.. Its rather pathetic.

FYI - try that "how did this happen" "why is this like this" - I saw the damn plane and don't even feel like entertaining your ignorant questions.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


I have flown in and out of Regan National,countless times.. When you land on Runway 15, you nearly fly directly over the Pentagon.. Do people just parrot things they hear? Does anyone even check what they say?? No wonder they come across as loons.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I must admit that you catch me at a disadvantage.

The best I can do to address you skeptism is to relay to you what I was told during a visit I made
in the early 1970's. The reason for this visit not withstanding.

A marine captain, who was my escort, stated as we walked the corridors that this building was the most secure
place on earth. I have not first hand knowledge of his interpretation of AMPLE, it may well be a midget
on the roof with a sling shot. but that was his words. He also stated that no planes would DROP a bomb onto it,
which I took to imply some restriction of the air space above it.



That is very frank of you, which is a refreshing change on here. So far as I am aware, and I am open to any evidence to the contrary, the only on-site security for the Pentagon 2001 was its own police force with handguns.

Being within the continental US I don't think it was ever envisaged that it would be directly attacked but I understand the open space in the middle is known as " ground zero " as a ghoulish joke indicating what Pentagon workers thought of their chances in a nuclear exchange.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join