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.

 

100% conclusive evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon.

page: 13
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
100% conclusive evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon


Wow.

100% conclusive evidence that was made by these companies:


TriAxial Design and Analysis has been in business since 1996. We have completed over 600 projects for over 150 different customers. We utilize industry proven software including SolidWorks Professional, Simulation Premium, and Workgroup PDM. Designs can be done in the version required by your organization.


A 3D mechanical DESIGN company.


Integrated Consultants, Inc., specializes in unique technical process engineering services for government and industry.


.

What a quality thread.




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


You are a complete moron. Do you know how difficult it is for someone to fly a plane that low to the ground? And the person who supposedly flew this plane, was not even a professional pilot. Wake up man, seriously



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
After reading all of the posts in this thread it amazes me at how many members really think the 911 Report actually provides the facts about 911 events. I must say I cannot understand how the average person could fall for that as an explanation in it's finality of the 911 events. Perhaps the keyword to explain that is average person. The 911 Report was not and is not an investigative body or panel. It (the commission) was thrown together reluctantly by the Bush administration under pressure from many requests including members of Congress, The Senate and the House of Represenatives. The demands from the public were largely ignored by Bush and only after pressure from citizens writing to their represenatives on Capital Hill did Bush reluctantly throw together a panel to "look into" the 911 events. The members were screened then selected by Bush appointees, so much for objectivity uh? Largely ignored by those termed as "skeptics" or supporters of the "OS" in their defense of the official story, is the fact that the 911 panel members admitted during numerous interviews in the media and in print that they themselves now know they were fooled by a variety of tactics. Such as;

* Evidence suggesting involvement of additional persons witheld from the commission by sources unknown.
* Opinions other than what the Bush admin had outlined banned from consideration of the panel.
* Photos and other evidence collected at various incident scenes withheld or not made avalible to the panel.

All of the commission members now believe they were hoodwinked or led to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion as a direct result of the evidence being patterned with that in mind. The Bush administration reserved the right to have final say so over the commission's findings and di in fact delete and or remove items that it deemed irrelevant or aimply did not wish to be published despite that the original release of the 911 Report had redacted sections in it. newer versions had those redacted portions deleted. The 911 Report is not a final say so as to what happened during 911 as the commission was never constructed within an investigative law enforcement role and therefore had no authority to come out say "this is what happened...case closed".

Those who base their arguments within the 911 Report are in reality using just the opinions of panel members rather than actual evidence and as such, opinions cannot and do not arrive at the finality of any case or investigation. In short the 911 Report does not present the facts surrounding all of the events on 911 and using what it in the report amounts to using opinions and not facts
edit on 6/21/2011 by Humint1 because: spelling errors



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Uh...is this thread a joke? The OP (not a personal attack, just observational points) clearly doesn't understand that he has contradicted himself a few times, with his own links no less. Neither does he possess a very solid grasp of sarcasm OR grammar. I mean, he thanked someone who was mocking him.

This thread reeks of a 10 year old posting their naive opinion. Again, not a personal attack. I could care less who the poster is in real life, but the fact is he brought his opinion here to us, and is inviting criticism, not only of content but of character.

Also, here we go again with the 100% absolute claims. There should be an option to vote down a thread and bury it with enough votes. Sure, I can see it being abused somehow, but this thread surely needs it.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Ah I spent like 15 minutes typing up a response, then it got deleted because I was in a hurry and had to shut down, darn.

I don't believe that every single blade of grass, window pane, and crack in the sidewalk at the Pentagon has a camera monitoring it 24/7. I simply believe that the building with the most CCTV cameras in the world would at least have one other camera which caught a glimpse of the incoming plane. Even if a portion of the 757 was visible, I would be thoroughly satisfied.

I'm not dismissing eyewitness accounts either, and I am in no way saying that nothing struck the Pentagon and it was just a bomb planted inside or something like that. Many eyewitnesses saw a plane strike the Pentagon, that's pretty cut and dry, but a plane traveling at a high velocity would only be visible for a few brief seconds, and considering that people in the area are used to seeing planes flying low all day everyday, I'm sure not too many of them took the time to thoroughly inspect the plane and see what model it was. There's the possibility that the plane was actually a drone painted to look like a 757 airplane, and since it happened so fast people see something that looks like a commercial airliner, and assume it's a commercial airliner. However with the credible aviation experts who saw the plane making its descent, I would think that they could tell a 757 apart from a drone painted to look like one, but since it happened so fast checking the model of airplane may have slipped their mind. If an aircraft was about to smash into the Pentagon, the first thing I would think definitely wouldn't be "I wonder what type of aircraft that is, maybe a 747? No the wingspan resembles more of a 757 model...".

And calling the pilot's successful flight path anything short of miraculous would be a huge understatement. This noob only had one or two flying lessons in a single engine airplane, how could that adequately prepare him to precisely conrol a 757 airplane? Even flying in a straight line without plummeting to the Earth is astounding for somebody with absolutely no jet engine flight experience. Add to that a circle, which isn't even remotely close to as simple as a U-turn in a car, and then maintaining leveled while only several feet off of the ground, and you either have the clutchest terrorist in the world, or a lie.

I'm sure there's at least one person on this thread with aviation experience, so please speak up and voice your opinion: Would a couple of single engine plane flying lessons prepare a person to pull off this flight manuever? -- (Skip to 8:30 in the video for the official flight path)

I've read in other posts that such a flight path wouldn't even be possible in that large of an aircraft, however I have no aviation experience or knowledge so I can't really comment on that.

Also one last question, do you think it's just a huge coincidence that the plane happened to smash into the exact portion of the building which was undergoing renovations? The Pentagon is a huge building, I find the odds of that happenning by chance nearly unbelievable.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Is there anyone here that was on Flight 77, or any of ther others? Or, anyone in the Government, higher ups only please? If the answer is no, then there is no way to find the whole truth. I know one thing for fact, and that is that eyes can lie. What you "see" may not be what happened. Not meant to insult anyone here. I will not attack anyone for any opinion they have, and I will not accept attacks from anyone for any opinion I have. That said, fire away.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by czlong07
 


I dare say that NO ONE here could answer that if they were



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by indigothefish

would you say that there is released footage that exists, perhaps that you can show me, that clearly shows a plane about to hit, or video of it, hitting the pentagon?


I would say "no". - none exists. All these claims about "thousands" of cameras, or it being the most secured and surveilled building anywhere are just that - claims. I can tell you it's harder to get on a SAC base and into a building than it is to get into the Pentagon. I can also tell you for a fact that (as noted previously), there was little surveillance on that side of the building for a very good reason - there was no public access. The only people who ever came in that side arrived by helicopter, and otherwise those doors were always locked and not even manned.

That being said - what I can offer you for proof is the following: Watch the videos of the interviews with folks who dispute the OS flight path. Their descriptions are bad for the OS - but ironically, also good. To a man - they all say it was a plane (not a global hawk which would be difficult to confuse) they saw.

Fair?


I wonder what the the FBI did with their 16 surveillance tapes received from the Pentagon,

www.scribd.com...

Of course it could be argued that the Pentagon got those surveillance tapes from elsewhere, but the word 'Surveillance' not CCTV video, (they got that as well) is significant.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   


This supposed conspiracy is clearly a product of your own imagination rather than being based upon the available facts, so grasping to the faith that some hoped for smoking gun evidence will miraculously appear to save your cause "some day" is entirely an exercise in excuse making on your part in avoiding having to abandon your conspiracy stories like road kill.

The Official Story is clearly a product of the corrupt and criminal pimps in the media/government manipulating the massively brainwashed and braindead populace. Like P.T. Barnum once stated, there is a sucker born every minute. Obviously, there is no shortage of such human vegetables on this site as well.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   


Is there anyone here that was on Flight 77, or any of ther others?

I'll let you know once I figure out if there is any way to be a passenger on a Government sponsored/promoted "fake flight".



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheeTheChad
I just have a question, since I bring nothing new to the table of 9/11 discussion. (who has recently?)
To those trying to back up the official story, why? That's all.

That's a good point you make and one I often ponder, it seems if anything just an opportunity to wind up conspiracy theorists over an emotive subject matter.
these 100% proof posts should be placed in the hoax bin as nothing is ever 100% certain thesedays, always a motive where humans are concerned.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Can you prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is indeed a "fake flight?"



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
I wonder what the the FBI did with their 16 surveillance tapes received from the Pentagon,

www.scribd.com...

Of course it could be argued that the Pentagon got those surveillance tapes from elsewhere, but the word 'Surveillance' not CCTV video, (they got that as well) is significant.


Now that is interesting...



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


Very cool, thank you for posting and apology accepted. I am looking forward to reading your account of the events.

@GoodolDave- you said that the Citgo footage had been released. I was not aware of that. Is it posted anywhere that you are aware of so I could take a look at it?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Many eyewitnesses saw a plane strike the Pentagon, that's pretty cut and dry, but a plane traveling at a high velocity would only be visible for a few brief seconds, and considering that people in the area are used to seeing planes flying low all day everyday, I'm sure not too many of them took the time to thoroughly inspect the plane and see what model it was. There's the possibility that the plane was actually a drone painted to look like a 757 airplane, and since it happened so fast people see something that looks like a commercial airliner, and assume it's a commercial airliner.


Well a global hawk (most often suggested as the "alternative" to a commercial jet liner in the attack) is only 44' long. A 757 is 154' long. I just can't see that mistake being made even if it was only for a few seconds. Something that short with a wingspan equal to or greater than a 757 would just look "wrong" (out of proportion) to the average person wouldn't it?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


I think I am a bit more confused than I was to begin with after watching that


The time stamp on the video says 01-01-93.. isn't that supposed to be where the date is located? If so, was there any explanation for what appears to be the wrong date?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


No.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
As far as I'm concerned be it a plane or a missile, doesn't really matter...the simple truth is that this building is supposed to have alot of cameras around it making sure some wacko doesn't go over there and blow themselves up along with some of America's leaders...this is what bothers me about the whole thing...All they show is some split second video that noone can say for sure whether or not it's a plane or missile...I would think they could easily debunk any myth of a missile if they showed any real footage that I'm sure was around the area, they do not and they won't...must be a reason is all I'm saying



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheeTheChad
I just have a question, since I bring nothing new to the table of 9/11 discussion. (who has recently?)

To those trying to back up the official story, why? That's all. The Majority of people I talk to believe the official story, very few people I know question it. Why feel the need to try and change the opinions of a minority? on a conspiracy site no less. What brings those here who believe most of what they are told? Often times I notice the same names trying to debunk theories or points of view, but if the OS is the truth and only a few compared to many believe alternate theories, why waste SO MUCH TIME (can't emphasize that one enough) trying to change their opinions? Is it that you care so much about them? that you want them to know the truth and will stop at nothing until they do? If that is the case than please stop calling the people you are trying to help silly names and labels. If you aren't trying to help, then what's the deal? Having an open mind on 9/11 does not make you a truther,.asking questions does not make you a conspiracy theorist.
edit on 21-6-2011 by TheeTheChad because: typo
Ie like to know thid aswell



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join