Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexKintner
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Yes, I know. Troll trolling troll yada yada

Think is my link was directly on topic and you gave the topic a greater scope by bringing in a generalization and resorting to character attacks that needed to be addressed. Were you trying to de-rail the thread spewing venom at one side?

Pretty classy.



Well when its a few OSers vs 34939049 truthers you think I have time to cover every persons post? Would you care to link the article again so I can review it?
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

Originally posted by R3N3G4D3

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
A missile would not have hit so many objects going towards the pentagon if it was a missile.


Now this statement I figured was reasonable as I thought, yeah that's true enough. You almost had me. Until BIRDS! Birds fly into airplane engines




A bird flying INTO an engine and wings hitting poles are not the same thing bud.


Imagine if the poles flew INTO the engine (doing the same thing as the birds flying into them), then imagine the wings were hitting birds (doing nothing obviously)....Still think it was a missile?
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


I would hope you would at least take the time to review the posts you respond to. Here's a link to where the link is Magical Link Containment Page

I also disagree about the ratio of "Truthers" to debunkers
edit on 20-6-2011 by AlexKintner because: last line



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneNationUnder
If they can remote detonate charges placed in Building 7 to "pull" the building, they can remote detonate charges that bring down the light poles to make it seem a plane came through, gosh.
[SNIP]


So now they remote detonated the lamp post huh.
'shaking head left to right'

Mod Note: Please do not quote entire posts twice when replying to posts.
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.
edit on 21-6-2011 by Gemwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pajoly
 


Someone seeing, or hearing, a plane go over their head is not proof it hit the pentagon.

This was black ops, they wanted people to think a plane hit the pentagon.


So your basically saying that the people was seeing things...or cgi...or some big black ops holographic animation thingy in broad day light, loll...ok



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
That video is BS, all those lamp posts and generators the plane supposedly hit would have clipped its wings and left debris from the AEROplane on the ground near there location. I did not see anything around those lamp posts. I also think it is highly unlikely that a piolot that has had a few hours light aircraft flying lessons could guide the aeroplane so accurately into the building. According to that video the plane was at ground level in line with hitting the building. A trained pilot with years experience would struggle to do that with no Radar, ILS or air traffic control support. I should know I have worked in Engineering with Aircraft Navigational aides.

the engines should have stalled coming in at that angle shown in the video and the aircraft would have dropped out of the sky. Aircraft that large need to come in at 3 degrees to keep enough uplift to the wings and airflow to the engines.

To support my theory on the wings being damaged. Here is an Airbus A380 after its wing clipped a lamp post at low speed whilst on the ground

www.dailymail.co.uk...


For me and I have a relativly informed opinion in the flying industry, particularly with aprroach, landing and take off of aeroplanes then the theory of a plane hitting in the way that video suggests is just plain impossible.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
If i Created a 'Computer Animated' Picture of a Missile Hitting the Pentagon wold that be 'conclusive Evidence' and Sway your mind?

Loll, Hell no! Because they could not show me conclusive evidence that a missile knocked down those light post, point blank.
If I saw a video like that, it would not make since to a realist like me, its no way a missle could hit one thing and not blow up…that’s real!



Truthers think that ALL the evidence of plane crashing was planted... Like they they would have time to do that with countless eye witnesses watching LOL I'm going to start a petition to get truthers manditory mental help.


I had a poster tell me they might of remote controlled detonated the lamp post so it could look like a plane hit the pentagon, that was funny…but sad to think that it could actually be believed.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


If you actually look at the damage it is not consistence with something going through, you can see columns pushed outwards. IF a missile entered the building and exploded on the inside that is how it would look. The damage is too low for the wings to have done it, the plane would have to have been actually on the ground with the engines digging into the grass, yet there wasn't any damage to the lawn at all. Does that tell you anything?

The huge screw up with the Pentagon was the roof, which collapsed approximately 20-25 minutes after impact. This roof was SUPPOSED to collapse IMMEDIATELY after the blast, to make it look like an airplane had impacted with the building. Obviously, they underestimated the strength of their own building and did not use enough explosives to make the roof collapse immediately.

And then, of course, you have the Shanksville and WTC 7 debacles. Oh well, two out of five ain't bad - especially when catering to the braindead and the brainwashed.
edit on 20-6-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-6-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)





TextThe huge screw up with the Pentagon was the roof, which collapsed approximately 20-25 minutes after impact. This roof was SUPPOSED to collapse IMMEDIATELY after the blast,


Says who,who said that.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.
edit on 21-6-2011 by Gemwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
That video is BS, all those lamp posts and generators the plane supposedly hit would have clipped its wings and left debris from the AEROplane on the ground near there location. I did not see anything around those lamp posts.



So if a plane hits a light pole at 500 mph, you expect the debris to land at the exact same spot as the light poles? You assume the plane isn't moving LOL



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
[SNIP]I also think it is highly unlikely that a piolot that has had a few hours light aircraft flying lessons could guide the aeroplane so accurately into the building


Come on now,your smarter then that bud...its called landing a plane in broad day light,whats so hard about that,it happens every day,every hour,every second.lol,my Gosh!




TextA trained pilot with years experience would struggle to do that with no Radar

What does a radar have to do with flying in daylight and seeing the pentagon with the countless of land marks that are here in dc.

Mod Note: Please do not quote entire posts twice when replying to posts.
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.
edit on 21-6-2011 by Gemwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
If i Created a 'Computer Animated' Picture of a Missile Hitting the Pentagon wold that be 'conclusive Evidence' and Sway your mind?

Loll, Hell no! Because they could not show me conclusive evidence that a missile knocked down those light post, point blank.
If I saw a video like that, it would not make since to a realist like me, its no way a missle could hit one thing and not blow up…that’s real!



Truthers think that ALL the evidence of plane crashing was planted... Like they they would have time to do that with countless eye witnesses watching LOL I'm going to start a petition to get truthers manditory mental help.


I had a poster tell me they might of remote controlled detonated the lamp post so it could look like a plane hit the pentagon, that was funny…but sad to think that it could actually be believed.



Every time you prove them wrong they will say "it must have been something else then!", proving they ignore evidence and spread disinformation.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


lol
,your a strong believer they need help huh.

It is sad the way allot of these ats poster prey on the brains of the conspirators just for a few stars, and you can tell which ones do it.
Some posters are so far gone they are excused from what they do , but some do threads just to feed them so they can get many stars, I guess that is why I average a foe every 2 weeks because the truth hurts.

Its sad that realism is dead and bs stays alive forever.
edit on 20-6-2011 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory
edit on Mon Jun 20 2011 by Jbird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Um, lets see here now. 85 cameras at the Pentagon yet we were indulged with only a few frames of video that hardly show anything at all. Yet supposed "intelligent people" want to argue on the points of the 911 Report in which the Senior Counsel for the Commission, John Farmer called the final report "a lie". The Commission who was hastily thrown together refused to listen to or include dissenting viewpoints of what happened and also failed to collect evidence that was prepared for them by a variety of agencys.

Yet some "intelligent people" want to argue this as "conclusive proof" of what happened at the Pentagon.

Aside from the childish names such as "truther" or "skeptic" or whatever the name of the week is for people who do not have opinions that jive with anyone else's, one thing is very clear and that is that the evidence presented up to this point fails to convince many Americans and others around the world. The cherry picked storys from people hwo said they saw an airplane has been used in the government's defense yet those who stated they saw "something else" or described variances of aircraft were ignored.

Is this the caliber of "quality investigating" many of you really wish to defend?

People will believe what they want to despite mountains of evidence to the contrary or something as pitiful as shoddy video stills purporting to show an airliner. One question remains though:

Why are these guys picking up evidence from the biggest crime scene in history? Or are they placing it?

911 research

Everyone knows that you do not touch evidence. Yet these two have a different agenda obviously.

Below is the purported impact point before it collasped. Columns blown outward. No "wing damage" indications. Yet we are supposed to believe that an airliner crashed into the building at this point? Not hardly!



Wider view below. No aircraft went through here.



Looks more like Slobodan Milosevic's house after Clinton launched a cruise missile at it during the Bosnia conflict.


And for the hoopla about the light poles, if an airliner hit as many as this one was to have supposed to have hit, the damn thing would have crashed well before the building. Damage to the wings would have rendered it unairworthy.
edit on 6/20/2011 by Humint1 because: add some text



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Humint1
 


so what in gods life hit the pentagon...a missile,lol



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   





Only a small percentage said they say something else it doesn't mean anything. Over 100 witnesses saw the flight 77 hit then pentagon, plenty of debris found, bodies Identified by DNA........but lack of video proof makes you STILL have doubts? LOL what a joke.

If I don't release videos of me having sex with a girl does that mean I must be gay!? Great logic! FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON! Get over it!
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


With all due respect to you, you know nothing about flying large aircraft. On an airfield a 767 would utilise at leat 6 different types of landing aides to do so EVEN in broad day light.

First of all the pilot needs an aide called an ILS (instrument landing sytem) to electronically give him reference points to his angle of elevation (3 degrees minimum for a large aircraft like this), center line in reference to landing location and distance to touchdown.

The utilise also a primary and secondary radar on the ground with details communicated to them from air traffic control about wind speed, altitude, poition in relation to the earth.

They would utilise in the abscence of these aides a localised Precision Approach Radar, where the Air Traffic Controller would get the information and "talk" the pilot down.

In perfect conditions with all these tools available pilots still abort at the point of no return (200ft).

I will reiterate given the lack of all of these aides for the pilot and his abscence of experience flying this aircraft and minimal hours of tutoring on a light aircraft. It is impossible. Plus his angle of elevation was far too low and his engines would have stalled way before he got to where he was.

If you provide me with actual facts rather than you opinion then please reply, otherwise don't bother if you don't mind.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 

Your correct >your right >your the truth,but who ever landed the airplane into the pentagon,it must of been his lucky day i guess,i guess no pilot in the wworld could of did that huh?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


The missile can be almost traced perfectly in this photo. But in the video released from the gov, there is no airplane at all.



And again, better feasibility than some old edited government video that shows nothing. Well, except for the outline of the Global Hawk that is.



Source: 911 Research
edit on 6/20/2011 by Humint1 because: add source of photos





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join