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: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
once again......where is the 100% proof?

2nd




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by saycheese
 


Yeah, I need to pay closer attention to cartoons now.....I'm sure they can be used in a court of law



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
4 words:

SHOW THE F**KING VIDEOS!!

Any number of computer animations will not suffice, until I see the 80+ actual videos of the event from around the pentagon. Why will they not show these videos? If I remember right,They wont show the other videos because it was for security reasons . That is a load of horse pucky! With sooooo much contrivercy surounding this, what national security risk can the have, that is more important than the truth?

An actual plane may have hit the Pentagon (I dunno), but that does not negate the rest of the highly questionable events of that fateful day.

~much love~
edit on 21-6-2011 by Talltexxxan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I found a very interesting documentary about the twin towers and the pentagon. I think most of you should watch it! Very interesting indeed
. Probably the best documentary I have ever seen regarding 9/11

documentaryheaven.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Talltexxxan
4 words:

SHOW THE F**KING VIDEOS!!

Any number of computer animations will not suffice, until I see the 80+ actual videos of the event from around the pentagon. Why will they not show these videos? If I remember right,They wont show the other videos because it was for security reasons . That is a load of horse pucky! With sooooo much contrivercy surounding this, what national security risk can the have, that is more important than the truth?

An actual plane may have hit the Pentagon (I dunno), but that does not negate the rest of the highly questionable events of that fateful day.

~much love~
edit on 21-6-2011 by Talltexxxan because: (no reason given)

Do yourself a favor and do a little research about the 80+ videos. They are not from around the Pentagon. Look it up, there was a FOIA request and response that listed the videos and their content. They only one of the 80+ videos that was responsive to the FOIA request was the video taken from the gated entrance which everyone has seen.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by R3N3G4D3
 





Birds fly into airplane engines and have the power to bring them down, but metal poles are just sheared in half? I don't buy that.


I don't buy the missile theory myself, I consider it a honey pot. but, this post shows something that most people are ignorant of, or completely ignored.

the light poles in question are designed to break at the base, in the event of a car smashing into it. the wings didn't shred or destroy anything, they clipped the poles, and the poles snapped at the weak point as they were designed to.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Hooper~
Wrong
Ive seen atleast 2 other videos that were from surrounding buildings that showed "something" that looked like it could be a plane. I cant find the videos anymore, but Ive seen more than just that crappy 3 frame security video. And saying that one of the most guarded and secure buildings in the US doest have COMPLETE video surveillance is just ignorant.
~thanks



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


1) I thought you might say that, so here's the Shanksville plane crash site which didn't hit any buildings for comparison: Where's the debris?

2) You're right, I don't know that for a fact, I just assume that one of the most important buildings in the United States would have more than a terrible quality security camera looking at it's face. Actually I think I remember in some video that near or above the area where the plane hit, there were camera's of a much higher quality which could have seen the plane, I'll try to find that. But I find it unbelievably suspicious that the only footage we get of the plane hitting the Pentagon is terrible quality with the one important frame where the plane is seen is missing.

3) Speaking about the speed and altitude, the witnesses who had experience in flying agreed that the plane was flying much slower than what we were told it was. Instead of the plane being visible from their vantage point for 3-4 seconds before hitting the Pentagon, the aviation experts agreed that it was visible for 10-15 seconds, which would mean that it's flying much slower than 450knots.



I've seen the interview, and all I see is a very confused old man. He doesn't know where his car was and although he says it was planned, he also says he wasn't supposed to be there. So how does he know it was planned? One old confused guy of over 100 witnesses. This is no smoking gun to me - sorry.


I'm sorry dude but that old man is not confused, he is a terrible liar who cannot think on his feet and ends up looking stupid. He is without a doubt lying to try to back up his side of the story, and his wife being in the FBI just adds to the suspicion. He's presented with evidence to debunk his claim that he was in the path of the plane according to the OS, and he has absolutely nothing to say to defend himself.

"One old confused guy over 100 witnesses"-- what do you mean by this? Many credible witnesses agree that the flight path of the aircraft was different from what the OS tells us, and there's a taxi-driver whose wife works for the FBI who gets hit by a pole according to a flight path several hundred yards from the actual flight path? Nobody sees his car get hit by the pole, and nobody also see's the mysterious man help him remove the pole from his car. This old man was clearly involved in 9/11 although he does not want to be as he stated. The poles fell into a man's windshield according to a non-existant flight path, and as I've stated the witnesses which saw the plane approach and hit the Pentagon unanimously agreed that the plane approached from a different direction at a different speed. This old man is the single human witness who can back up the OS flight path with physical evidence as well as eyewitness testimony, and he coincidentally has a wife who works in the FBI, and when presented with evidence that his car was positioned hundreds of yards away from where the plane actually flew, he lies, gets called out several times and is competely dumbfounded and cannot defend himself. That is a smoking gun.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
On the topic of 100% proof...

I have found irrefutable evidence of alien existence! - just fill your eye holes with this undeniable footage!





...There's no denying the truth now!!! The proof is in the pudding...and there's hair in it, too!
edit on 21-6-2011 by deadgirl66613 because: Video clips not showing up...

edit on 21-6-2011 by deadgirl66613 because: I think I got it!!!



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
National Security Alert documentary by Citizen Investigation team could have suggested that there was a plane that flew by the Pentagon, but at the same time others have said that it did not fly low enough to make the alleged impact. According to another eye witness testimony there were two planes, although it is possible he was confused due to the explosion and seeing the supposed 2nd plane take off. This may suggest that it was an explosion within the Pentagon itself.
I'm just speculating, of course...I'm not really sure about anything except that the official story is a myth.


edit on 21-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
How does that vid prove anything?

Where is the explanation of the physics that allows the carbon-fiber nose of the plane to punch though reinforced concrete, but not the engines and wing spars, and are not to found in front of the pentagon?

What physics allowed the plane to punch through, but then disintegrate on the inside where there was nothing but columns and empty space.

Did that vid even address these points?


A tornado can cause a piece of straw to spear through a tree...

I think you're understanding of "physics" is a bit limited on this one.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 



And saying that one of the most guarded and secure buildings in the US doest have COMPLETE video surveillance is just ignorant.


Complete, of course, meaning that every cubic inch of space in, around, over, above, under, through and about the Pentagon is covered by high defintion recordable video surveillance? Why? Or just where you want it, when you want it? Don't embarrass yourself with these appeals to fiction.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Bush did not lie..he is a puppet ."they" made a mistake



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Some people like to play with the subject like Kids play with toys "lets turn this block around that way"...
There was no plane at the Pentagon. We dont need to split hairs or get scientific about it. All we need is a healthy pair of eyes and a functioning brain.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Planes don't give off smoke trails and show me a video of the plane please... also i would like to see plane wreckage, luggage & body parts, perhaps a little blood... people in the Pentagon like April Gallop smelling cordite... wtf is going on here? Cass Sunsteins minions hittin up ATS?




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Hmmm, I don't know. Maybe because people have OPINIONS and that's what they do with them. They state them, like you do yourself. The only thing I know is, the Government has caused the truther movement. Simply releasing the videos would dispel all of these conspiracies (or prove them correct). You see what they're doing? Divide. Conquer.

It's all apart of the bigger picture, there's too much going on in the world than to bicker about something that happened a decade ago (we will don't know the truth about JFK!). When will we learn? Move on, all of you. We'll have time to figure things out.

edit: I did not flag your thread, mostly because you're outright rude to opposing opinions.

edit on 21/6/11 by Indecent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


it was most likely that it was a global hawk drone that hit the pentagon..



do the research


edit on 6/21/2011 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel
Some people like to play with the subject like Kids play with toys "lets turn this block around that way"...
There was no plane at the Pentagon. We dont need to split hairs or get scientific about it. All we need is a healthy pair of eyes and a functioning brain.


Nonsense. The Pentagon was in the middle of an industrial park and two major highways ran parallel to it. The plane came in during broad daylight and in the middle of rush hour, and hundreds of people from an immigrant from El Salvador tending the lawns to an accountant packing to move from his apartment all saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon. The conspiracy mongors here who are so much in love with the idea that some sinister conspiracy is afoot are bickering in desperation over such ridiculously anal retentive things such as whether this witness was standing 100 yards vs 101 yards away or that witness knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who works at the FBI, but despite such antics the fact of the matter is that it was still a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon.

Claiming that it didn't happen simply because there are no photographs of the precise moment it hit the Pentagon is being uninformed and ignorant. There is just too large a preponderance of eyewitness accounts available that make the absense of photographs or video completely moot.
edit on 21-6-2011 by GoodOlDave because: Corrected my spelling to placate the grammar Nazis



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


that's why they disposed of ANY and ALL footage, correct?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


what was it then? Because there's no way in hell that it was a plane.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join