It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Let's kill the Pentagon Missile attack once and for all.

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:54 AM
The Real Story

Okay. So, we've all heard the stories.

It wasn't a 757.
It wasn't even a plane.
Personal opinion?

One of two scenarios. A high powered inbound ASM, or something a bit sinister...a pre-arranged bunker-buster missile, aimed and fired directly at the Pentagon for a reason.

Watch this, tell me what you think. They did a great job.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:03 AM
I've seen that video a few times now, and Its really made me rethink how I viewed the events surrounding the pentagon attack. In every picture there, and in some I tracked down via google image searches, no parts of a plane can be found anywhere. Considering the wingspan of the plane, the wings should have been found sheered off at the crash site, probably impacted against the lower levels of the building, but I never saw the first piece. I can't say for sure that I believe it was a missile, but it definately is getting harder to believe an airplane hit the pentagon.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:09 AM
You also have to consider that flight 77 didn't deviate from plan until it was close to Camp David.


It wouldn't be hard to pull it off course, land it at camp david, and launch a short-range ballistic missile from said compound, straight into the pentagon.

Also consider that in the video, it shows that the top of the fuselage of the 'craft' was only twenty feet off the turf...

A Boeing 757 is more than 20' tall. Much more than 20' tall. So, you have to ask...was it really a 757?

IMHO, no freaking way it's possibly a 757.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:18 AM
I have seen the video before and I just want to add"


Had to get that off my chest. As far as the video, it really is compelling evidence. No plane fragments found, the security camera filming the incident, etc...I think this is something well worth a descent investigation! Spread the word my friend...

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:37 AM
Ya I seen this vid a lil while ago, I agree with it, for it is hard proof on everything and not some plane fairytale. like i stated in another planes that went into the WTC they blew up front back and sides, why isnt there any debri anywhere???

anyway thanks for bringing this up. I was going to do it later but you beat me to it.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:40 AM
All those confiscated videos probably have the missing pieces to figuring out wtf was going on that day, and I doubt any of us will ever get to see them in our lifetimes. I would honestly like to believe that were not being lied to on a scale like this, but it definately doesnt look too hot at the moment. And if it was a missile, would it have been fired by our forces ( following the general line of thinking that 911 was government created ) or could it actually have been fired by terrorists from the ground?

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:41 AM
If your intent is prove or disprove whether a plane hit the Pentagon then you should present all information that's out there.

I have posted this list of witnesses who saw a plane crashing into the Pentagon before. Link The statements were made by your average joe civilian. military, and various reporters.

"I saw this very, very large passenger jet," said the architect, who had been packing for a move. "It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere. . . . It was very sort of surreal."

"I looked in the rearview mirror to check the traffic and saw only a plane, flying very low. I followed it in my left outside mirror. I braked, looked out my left window and saw a large commercial aircraft aiming for the Pentagon." "The aircraft, so close to the ground, was banked skillfully to the right, leveled off perpendicular to the Pentagon's southwest side, then went full throttle directly toward the building. The plane vanished, absorbed by the building, and there was a slight pause. Then a huge fireball rose into the sky."

" turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there." "Now there are some people who say that it skipped and went into the Pentagon and it may have gone that way, but thats not what I saw. What I saw was the jet went very low into the Pentagon and it went straight." "It seemed like it was a slow, graceful bank and then once it straightened out, that's when it sped up." " could see chunks of the wreckage on the ground, pieces of the plane.... It literally disintegrated on impact. It hit, and as it went into the side of the building it sheared off the wings."

There are dozens more accounts at the link - while everyone's account differs slightly, but they all agree that it was a plane that hit the building.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link why no plane fragments? Eyewitness accounts should only be considered after a lack of hard evidence in a circumstance. Thus, the issue of there being no plane fragments and the security camera evidence should be taken into consideration first...before eyewitness accounts. If their is hard evidence showing that what the eyewitnesses saw was correct, then and only then should their accounts be taken as proof. Eyewitness accounts are often not credible, and perhaps that is just something I have learned by being an Historian. Perception is often distorted, especially in the event of high stress levels, and if a missile that looks like a plane they may be confused. This is why eyewitness accounts of the UFO phenomena are often not conclusive at all, because there is no evidence base for what they are saying.

PS- Do you have a link for who said this because it sure doesn't seem to be worded like an "average joe" (its your second quote): "The aircraft, so close to the ground, was banked skillfully to the right, leveled off perpendicular to the Pentagon's southwest side, then went full throttle directly toward the building. The plane vanished, absorbed by the building, and there was a slight pause."

[edit on 3-9-2004 by Jazzerman]

[edit on 3-9-2004 by Jazzerman]

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:58 AM

"It hit, and as it went into the side of the building it sheared off the wings."

The thing is in thsese pictures, and many others I dont see the 58 foot wings anywhere. I would really like to know the explanation why the wings that were sheered off dissapeared. Some damage to the wings is expected, but would it have disintegrated them to pieces so small be unrecognizable from the debris of the building?

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:02 PM
Bleys...I appreciate what you're saying there, but look at it.

I'm tending not to believe those eyewitness accounts, because for one thing...if you watch the vid...that thing was moving way faster than you'd expect, or at least by perspective it was...

It took up alot less of the frame than you'd expect from a 757 passenger jet.


A hole about 8-10' across punched through three rings of the Pentagon. That's FAR FAR FAR too small for it to be caused by a Boeing 757.

Not to mention, the hole was PUNCHED into the building. It looks very similar to an entry by a heavy-tipped low explosive bunker buster missile. The holes, speed, trajectory, EVERYTHING points to a projectile, and not a passenger jet.

For example:

You see in the film that the object maintained a direct flight path, even through 3 rings of the pentagon. A passenger jet, due to it's shape would have changed paths after one, maybe two rings, as well as collapsing everything within it's area of affectation.

I'm no physics major, but that damage was NOT caused by a passenger jet that large.

Like I said. Simple case of a missile vrs. pentagon. That's all.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:06 PM
Well, if it was a missle, were there any reports of sonic booms before the pentagon was hit?

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:10 PM
While I agree that eyewitness accounts as to details are notoriously bad - I do not agree that they are with respect to generalities.

For example: we can safely assume that witnesses to a car crash agree they saw the cars crash - but each person's recollections regarding the specifics of the crash may be different.

At the link I posted above all of these people saw a plane, some saw a commuter plane, some saw a large plane. Others saw the AA on side and noted the wings being folded back before the explosion. So while the details may differ from person to person - they all agree that a plane was involved.

Check out the link for yourself. BTW-my post was meant to provide balance. Any time you are attempting to research a subject to prove a theory - you must also be willing to accept information that is contrary to your theory and reevaluate your position. The best researchers play devils advocate with their own beliefs.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:10 PM
OH for the love of god and all that is holy....

IT WAS A PLANE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT WAS A PLANE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT WAS A PLANE !!!!!!!!!!

there's no conspiracy about it other than who's really responsible and don't get me started about that.... it was a plane !!!!!!!!!!

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:12 PM
Also note that to the untrained (I'm steering from ignorant) eye, a large enough missile would confuse people who are already in a panic. Not to mentioin that the instant it hit, it went out on the airwaves as 'airplane', and most eyewitness accounts were taken after they were told what to think.

Do not underestimate the power of suggestion.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:55 PM
There was a site that took all the eye-witness statements and analyzed exactly what they said. The site showed that often the newspapers would paraphrase some things and directly quote others. Like this:

John Doe was there. When the 757 flew over, he could hear the engines roaring. "It came in very low. I thought it would land on the road."

In this fictional example, John Doe doesn't say he saw a 757 flying low. He saw "it" flying low, but we assume that he meant a 757 because the newspaper supplied that information. (Actually he didn't even say it was flying). And the newspaper said that he heard the engines, but it is not directly quoted.

The website had a large number of witness accounts, and they showed that no one was actually quoted as saying they saw what looked like an American 757 and that they actually saw it hit the Pentagon.

Some people may have seen something that looked like a plane, another perhaps said they saw the explosion, another perhaps saw a plane going toward the Pentagon and then heard an explosion (but didn't see it), and another might have said that something buzzed their office window, but no one was directly quoted to have said that they saw a plane that looked like American Flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon.

I can't remember where that site is. There are so many flight 77 sites now that I can't find it.

So when you read eye-witness accounts, you have to read exactly what they were DIRECTLY quoted to have said they saw. Paraphrasing must be taken with a grain of salt.

Now with this approach, go to the eye-witness account pagse and re-read the accounts. Here's webfairy's:

Finally, what do you do when the accounts conflict? What about the accounts of the plane hitting the ground first? Creating a crater in the lawn?

Why does all this matter and why nitpick? When people are called to testify in court, they are told to say in their own words exactly what they saw. No paraphrasing. No summaries by others. No retelling the story with an assumption of what really happened.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 01:08 PM
What about the bodies of the passengers on that flight? Were any bodies recovered? Or did any DNA match up? Anyone know?
Personally I believe that it was the AA plane that hit the pentagon but I think that movie is very interesting and it does make me feel that it is at least a .0001% possibility that something other than a plane hit the pentagon. I just don't see how that airplane and the passengers on board could simply disappear without anyone knowing and certainly if there was a coverup, someone who was in on it would have come clean by now. Too many people would have to have been involved and there is no way that you can get that many people to keep their mouth shut for so long!

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 01:15 PM
The main point is: Where is the plane fragments? If no one can come up with evidence to suggest that it was an airplane of some sort then that can effectively be ruled out. This should really be an easy enough thing to investigate. Either there was plane fragments or there was not? So, if someone wants to present evidence suggesting that it was in fact a plane then go right ahead, but I want to visually see remnants of a plane.

If this evidence cannot be produced, then we should all rule out the possibility of it being such, and focus on the another question... we know its not a plane, what was it?

I would believe that it was an airplane if someone puts visual evidence of it up, but until then all we can assume is that it was not a plane because that is the only hard evidence presented so far.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 01:29 PM
I posted this information in another of the dozens of threads on this subject. There is plenty of evidence here to confirm that AA 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

Doesn't the name of the site from which the video was taken tell anybody anything: " - A Hilarious Collection Of Media For The Masses"

I did some internet research on the Pentagon crash. It is amazing how much you find regarding the incident is just a rehashing of the same old conspiracy stuff.

I have not tried to give a balanced view, as the conspiracy theories are well represented. This will not be an easy read, but I believe that the truth is to be found among these sites.

[edit on 04/9/3 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 01:34 PM
Anyone think that the blur in the video could have been something similar to this?

AGM-86C/D Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 01:36 PM
I absolutely despise this site, but they have the best collection of pictures from the Pentagon showing debris. If I find anymore I send you the links U2U.


new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in