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.

 

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

page: 19
1
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:
SMR

posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by SMR
I have not fully investigated the passengers yet.I first want to know what hit the petagon and go from there.If it is found to be another aircraft,we then need to find out where the bodies and plane are.



Hundreds of eye witnesses (including my brother) saw the passenger jet fly low and fast over the busiest highway in Washington, DC on its way to the Pentagon just 400+/- yards from the thruway.

The speculation about it being "something else" is based on people looking for attention, and not doing any real research.

I have already said I wouldnt go with ANY eye witness due to the fact that there are so many that contradict eachother.
I post 2 examples of people that were there.



Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395.He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people,headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said. "At first I thought 'Oh my God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon ... I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. It was like Oh my God, what's next?" He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."




A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "It added power on its way in," he said. "The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball." Smoke and flames poured out of a large hole punched into the side of the Pentagon. Emergency crews rushed fire engines to the scene and ambulancemen ran towards the flames holding wooden pallets to carry bodies out. A few of the lightly injured, bleeding and covered in dust, were recovering on the lawn outside, some in civilian clothes, some in uniform. A piece of twisted aircraft fuselage lay nearby. No one knew how many people had been killed, but rescue workers were finding it nearly impossible to get to people trapped inside, beaten back by the flames and falling debris.


Now seeing that both these guys were right there,yet somewhat different.
One says a small 8-12 jet,the other says it was a 757
Who do you believe?Most would go with the pilot because of the fact.
If you read the many reports from people who saw it in person,there are contradictings ones just as these 2

This is why I choose to ignore any of the eye witness accounts because here you have 2 people that saw it and both say different planes.I think one can tell the difference between a 757 and a 8-12 passenger plane.To confuse the size of the 2 is boggling




posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   
So basically even though 100's of witnesses state that they saw at least some type of airplane you choose to ignore all the witnesses just because a few mistook it for a smaller aircraft.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I could understand if half said it was an airplane and half said it was something other than an airplane.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
So basically even though 100's of witnesses state that they saw at least some type of airplane you choose to ignore all the witnesses just because a few mistook it for a smaller aircraft.


Actually it goes beyond that... The one fellow he's quoting as a witness has been discounted even by most conspiracy theory websites purely because of the location of his apartment block. He had no view of the aircraft hitting the Pentagon, he would have had a limited view of the aircraft going by (for about 5 seconds), and he watched the story unfold on his TV because he couldn't see anything other than smoke in the sky behind the building that blocked his view. His story also changed from interview to interview.

But, I guess if it's on the internet, it must be true.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   
But then again he doesn't go by witness accounts so its a moot point. He must have some other proof it wasn't an airplane. I mean surely someone so entrenched in his opinion must have an overwealming amount of undisputable evidence to back up his opinion.

[edit on 12-9-2004 by Skibum]


SMR

posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Show me he has been discredited.
And how can you say such a remark



But, I guess if it's on the internet, it must be true.

Did you not just make a huge post on your findings from INTERNET SOURCE

Geeze,,,,,think before you speak


Skibum
Keep being the follower that you seem to be.
Rather than make stupid remarks,maybe make some findings yourself as I have,be them agreed upon or not,and then make your cool guy replies


[edit on 12-9-2004 by SMR]



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   
And exactly what original "findings" have you made. Everything you have posted on this topic has been beat to death long before either of us registered on this board. You have yet to post any new "evidence" or anything that can be construed as evidence. But I guess reposting someone elses garbage opinions like you do would be considered a leader in your eyes....



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:21 AM
link   
The reason it is so easy to believe that the government perpetrated a fraud on 911 is because it fits a basic pattern.

All the legislation that is passed is designed for American Corporate campaign contributors and not for the Nation or it's people.

The CIA has been dealing drugs for decades as well as any number of other nefarious activities, such as assassinations, manipulating election results etc.

To go to war in Iraq all sorts of so-called evidence as to why we should go to war was subsequently shown to be false and that the Administration knew it was false.

For me it is easier and more consistent to believe that 911 was a hoax as presented by the US government.

PS Catherder there are real problems with the tail section of your siloette overlay of a 757 in the video. And if it is a 757 what is causing the plume of smoke that is shaped like a global hawk?
.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
PS Catherder there are real problems with the tail section of your siloette overlay of a 757 in the video. And if it is a 757 what is causing the plume of smoke that is shaped like a global hawk?


The tail: As is noted besides the caption, I took another plane that was flying "close to" the same angle as what was in the video. It's not banking the right way, it's not even the same airliner... but it sure fits the general picture.

The smoke: The plane took down, or sheered off, over 10 steel lightpoles on the way in. It wouldn't surprise me if one of the engines was damaged and smoking... And the smoke is not shaped like a globalhawk, that's about as much proof as looking up and seeing an elephant and a tiger in the shape of the clouds on a nice summer day.

Besides, the surveillance camera footage is very poor quality and not much to base anything on (I've said so dozens of times) for either side of the arguement.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   
There seems to be an enormous amount of discussion on this subject. Given the sensitivity of the subject and the possible ramifications, the arguments often get ugly.

If the governments claims are true and evidence existed that this is the case, why are we not seeing this undeniable proof? Me must have undeniable proof because we went to war over it.

In my opinion, something very fishy is going on and continues to go on. We do not know the truth and those who do know are not providing it.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   
To all who defend the official story of the pentagon attack.

You have opened my eyes, and I can now no longer be sure of either way. I'm now in that group of people who doesn't pretend to know, but I'm open to suggestions.

Good job, especially to CatHerder.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Well I still am of the belive that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon,

Thanks to the Researchers of the Pentagon Attack
This presentation is almost entirely a synthesis of facts and analysis compiled by other researchers. Many people made this work possible, from the people who took the photographs shown here, to the those who created the photo-montages showing the extent of the damage to the Pentagon. Some of the researchers deserving credit are:
Therry Messian, author of Le Pentegate
Eric Bart, researcher who compiled body of eyewitness accounts
SilentButDeadly, creator of the 757-Pentagon impact simulation graphic
Skydrifter, author of 9/11 and the Impossible
Dick Eastman, originator of the Flight 77 Pentagon flyover theory
Eric Hufschmid, author of Painful Questions and producer of Painful Deceptions.
Killtown, Researcher and inventor of The Amazing Penta-Lawn 2000
Jerry Russell and Richard Stanley, authors of The Five-Sided Fantasy Island
911research.wtc7.net...


The Pentagon Attack Frame-Up
Overview

Numerous things about Pentagon attack were suspicious from the start.
Eyewitnesses report seeing an approaching twin-engine jetliner.
There are no photos or videos show an approaching jetliner or substantial remains of such an aircraft.
Comparing a 757 to documented impact damage shows them to be incommensurate.
Officials improperly removed evidence, and seized evidence yet to be released
What Hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01?
What first made me suspicious
o Lack of pictures of jetliner attack
o Lack of air defense
o Amazing approach maneuver ... supposedly by pilot reported to be incompetent
Evidence contradicts account that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
o Jetliner dimensions versus damage to Pentagon
o Damage to immediate surroundings
o Absence of aircraft debris
Skeptics embraced the drone/missile attack theory
Meanwhile, eyewitness accounts spoke of approaching jetliner
Government coverup -- more sophisticated than first thought
What Raised My Suspicions
In the weeks after the attack, several things about the official story stood out as suspicious.
no photographs or video of a jetliner approaching or impacting Pentagon
no military response to protect the capital and military headquarters
Part of Pentagon hit was mostly unoccupied
No high-level military officials were killed
The amazing aerobatic approach to the Pentagon
Dubious piloting skills of alleged hijackers
The Lack of Military Intercepts
How did a large aircraft attack the heart of the U.S. military an hour after the nation came under attack?
The Pentagon was hit 1 hour 29 minutes into crisis.
o 8:15: Flight 11 went off course.
o 9:43: The Pentagon was struck.
Flight 77 had been flying toward the capital for about an hour.
o 8:46: Flight 77 first went off course.
o Planes are easily tracked by radar, even with transponders off.
Andrews Air Force Base is 11 miles from the Pentagon.
o Andrews AFB had 2 combat-ready fighter wings on 9/11/01.
o Scramble times (fighters airborne) are 2-5 minutes.
o Travel time is under 1 minute.


Spiral Attack Maneuver Avoids Top Brass
The aircraft, coming from the north, crashed into the west block of the Pentagon by executing an 270 degree spiral, and descending 7 thousand feet in 2 minutes.
Dulles Air Traffic Controllers thought it was a military plane.
The west block of Pentagon was under renovation, and sparsely occupied.
No high-level officials were injured or killed in the attack.
The maneuver circling over Arlington meant additional exposure to interception.


Ultra-Daring Tree-Top Final Approach
An amazing feat of piloting!
After steep descent, levels out to tree-top height.
Approach is so low that plane supposedly clips lamp poles on highway.
Flys inches above ground without touching it.
All while supposedly flying at 400 MPH.



Jetliner Aerobatics by Flight School Flunky
Hani Hanjour replaced original suicide pilots of Flight 77 in official story when originally accused pilots were revealed to be alive.
Who would have thought?
Hanjour had never flown a jet.
Was denied rental of a one-engine light plane.
Was described as clueless by instructors.
New York Times, May 4 2002 quotes two flight school instructors:
He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course.
I'm still amazed to this day that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.





Actual Versus Expected Damage of 757 Impact
Is the damage to the Pentagon consistent with the impact of a 757-200? To answer this requires knowing:
The size and shape of impact damage to such a building expected when impacted by a 757 at 400 mph.
The size and shape of impact damage to the Pentagon documented by photographs.



A Jetliner Did This?
Reconstruction of immediate impact damage using photos.
Maximal width of ground-level puncture damage is 90 feet (long red arrow).
Maximal height of puncture damage is 26 feet (top of second floor).

Windows remained unbroken, and masonry unscored, where wings and tail would have to have impacted

Building Damage Pattern Compared to 757-200
Pattern of damage to buildings hit by aircraft is somewhat predictable. Function of:
Size, shape, mass, construction of aircraft
Construction of building
Trajectory of aircraft
Velocity of aircraft
Trajectory, inferred from downed lamp-posts, gives wall angle of about 45 degrees. Velocity was about 400 MPH, similar to WTC attack planes.
* At 400 MPH, velocity of jet is like bullet
* Kinetic energy ~ velocity^2
* Jets left impressions in Twin Towers all the way to ends of wings and tails because of their kinetic energy.

A 757-200 is similar in weight and speed to the 767-222s that hit Twin Towers.



Boeing 757-200 Size, Shape, Weight
A Boeing 757-200 is a substantial aircraft.
Seats 200 people.
Weighs over 80 tons empty.
Engine pods are 10 feet in diameter.
Engine pods extend 5 feet below fuselage.



Boeing 757-200 Dimensions




wing span 124 ft 10 in
overall length 155 ft 3 in
tail height 44 ft 6 in
fuselage width 12 ft 4 in
technical specifications

plane dimensions relating to impact:
width of profile against building facade given approach angle 177'
height of tail if engines are resting on ground 40'

actual maximal impact damage:
width of broken-away walls at ground level 90'
maximum height of broken-away walls 26'



Extent of Impact Damage
A section of the west block collapsed 25 minutes after attack.
Photos taken between impact and collapse allow reconstruction of impact damage pattern, in spite of partial obstruction due to smoke.
Area of broken-away walls is outlined in red.
No windows above second floor are broken (between yellow arrows).


Using Photos to Determine Impact Damage
No single photo shows full extent of impact puncture damage, pre-collapse.
A composition based on the available photos does.













Area of impact damage (walls broken):
No more than 90 feet wide across the first floor
No more than 13 feet wide across the second floor
No more than 26 feet high
Detailed Analysis of Damage.
Red line outlines areas of broken-away walls.
Orange lines show surviving columns.
Windows, outlined in green, are unbroken, except as indicated by white ovals.
Section of building that collapsed is bounded by yellow dotted lines.

Columns remained standing near the center of the "hole," where the densest, longest parts of a 757 would have to penetrate.
Damage pattern shows only a superficial relationship to the profile of a 757.
Columns are bent towards the center of the hole and/or outward.
Windows are broken where 757 would not have hit, unbroken where it would have.

The Essence of the Problem
Compare dimensions and shape of building damage to dimensions, shape, and trajectory of plane
* There is no impression of the tail or wingtips.
* Areas that would have been impacted by 757 show blast damage but not impact damage.
* Regions of 'hole' that would have been obliterated by densest part of aircraft have standing columns.


guardians article on crash

Damage to the Pentagon's Surroundings
Proponents of the official story say the jet hit the ground first to help explain the too-small damage to facade. However:
The lawn shows no gouging nor even major disturbance.
Undisturbed objects were directly in flightpath.



Fit the 757 Behind the Post
First video frame shows apparent plane behind post.
Size of 757-200 relative to post can be estimated using geometry.
The Pentagon's facade is 72 feet high.
A 757-200 is 155 feet long


guardians calculation of plane size in scene

A Bright White Explosion


Features of explosion on video:
White-hot
So bright it illuminated objects
Rapidly grew in nearly spherical shape
Was 130 feet high while still white-hot
Shows no yellow or orange coloration


Jet fuel fireballs:
Are never white.
Go from yellow to orange to black.
Expand slowly compared to explosives.
Have shape determined by momentum -- not spherical.
Compare to fireball from South Tower impact.
WTC fireballs were not white even early in their expansion.
Colonel Pierre-Henri Bunel, a Battlefield Damage Assessment officer in the French Army during the 1991 Gulf war, thinks that the Pentagon attack involved an anti-



Video Shows Evidence of Forgery
Explosion frame shows peculiar patches of color.
Forger appears to have limited proficiency with Photoshop


Brightness is elevated uniformly, even in shadow of explosion.
setback north of explosion casts no shadow on facade hidden from explosion




Shape of explosion disregards presence of building.
Explosion is radially symmetric about axis deep inside building. Its shape develops as if the building is air.



Explosion fails to cast shadow.
Lawn under explosion is illuminated despite sun being on opposite side of explosion



Whatever Struck the Pentagon Was Not a Boeing 757.


Thanks to the Researchers of the Pentagon Attack
This presentation is almost entirely a synthesis of facts and analysis compiled by other researchers. Many people made this work possible, from the people who took the photographs shown here, to the those who created the photo-montages showing the extent of the damage to the Pentagon. Some of the researchers deserving credit are:
Therry Messian, author of Le Pentegate
Eric Bart, researcher who compiled body of eyewitness accounts
SilentButDeadly, creator of the 757-Pentagon impact simulation graphic
Skydrifter, author of 9/11 and the Impossible
Dick Eastman, originator of the Flight 77 Pentagon flyover theory
Eric Hufschmid, author of Painful Questions and producer of Painful Deceptions.
Killtown, Researcher and inventor of The Amazing Penta-Lawn 2000
Jerry Russell and Richard Stanley, authors of The Five-Sided Fantasy Island
911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 02:57 PM
link   


Acutally, if you tilt the plane slightly counter clockwise a bit, and move it over slightly to the right, it lines up pretty well with what catherder posted in the other thread.








posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Sauron, that's a very good gathering of evidence from quite a few sources (even from me!)


There are a few points I'd like to ask in a reply to your post, I've been pretty distracted by another thread and another body of work I've been diligently gathering information for so I apologise for the late (and somewhat brief) response.

These images were not altered or enhanced by me in any way, other than cutting and pasting portions of the image (and enlarging some cut and pasted portions) to show zoomed in areas or point out features in the frame.

When you look at the original frames, and not the version of this animation where somebody has intentionally overexposed frame 2 to make it appear like it's an explosion rather than a fuel explosion you see something else.

I think the 757 is here in the photo - I am also positive all the armchair math placing the 757 closer and 2x as large is flat out wrong. (And mislead you on the other altered version of these frames.)


Here is the above section zoomed in and outlined. You can see the familiar mickymouse pattern (the face) of the 757. A few people have commented on this, including one of the ATS posters who works at a US airport and spent many years on the tarmac/apron around 757's and 767's. He's also confirmed "... that rim in the photo is a rim from a 757."


You can see the explosion is not white. It's a regular aviation fuel explosion that turns red and black 1/6th of a second later. (The plane was travelling at 512.9 MPH according to the flight data recorder recovered in the wreckage.



from Sauron:
Jet fuel fireballs:
Are never white.
Go from yellow to orange to black.
Expand slowly compared to explosives.
Have shape determined by momentum -- not spherical.


It's note white.
It goes from yellow to orange to red to black.
It expands at the velocity expected from an aircraft moving 780 feet per second when it impacted the wall.
It is not round, it is oblong and expands in 5 seperate directions. Matter of fact it looks like a giant wave hitting a reef - or a giant wave of jet fuel hitting a wall.

Something interesting in frame 3 - what appears to be the tail of the aircraft revealed in the explosion. (Thanks to LL1 for pointing that out.)


Nothing remarkable in frame 4 other than some smaller debris pieces being thrown from the impact.


What appears to be a significant portion of the tail section being thrown up and to the left of the impact and explosion. Gound witnesses who participated in the gathering of debris all say that almost everything outside of the Pentagon was recovered to the left of the crash site.



According to the NTSB: Data from the flight recorder showed that; the plane was travelling at 400 knots (780 ft/s) (512.9 mph) at a magnetic bearing of 70 degrees when it struck the Pentagon. It had approximately 36,200lb of fuel (5,300 gal) and weighed approximately 181,520lb

According to Boeing Engineers:
The weight in each wing was composed of the following:
  • Exposed Wing Structure: 13,500 lb
  • Engine and Struts: 11,900 lb
  • Landing Gear: 3,800 lb
  • Fuel: 14,600 lb
  • Total: 43,800 lb
    The balance of the weight was in the fuselage. In the normal course of use, the center fuel tank is the last filled, and the first used. Thus the weight of the fuselage was 181,520-(2x43,800)= 93,920 lb. Of this, 36,200-(2x14,600)= 7,000lb was fuel in the center tank.

    This has been freely available information since January 2003. The conspiracy sites are either too inept to be able to locate it, or too lazy to try, or it is simply just too damaging to their already incorrect "evidence" for them to desire to include it in their presentation. You're also welcome to go review the ACSE/SEI (American Society of Civil Engineers / Structural Engineering Institute) Pentagon Building Performance Report which has been freely available online since January 2003.

    A question: do you ever read links to factual evidence posted by other ATS members? BBC News: Extract: 'We have some planes' What about the people on flight 77 who called family members?


    Ultra-Daring Tree-Top Final Approach
    An amazing feat of piloting!
    After steep descent, levels out to tree-top height.
    Approach is so low that plane supposedly clips lamp poles on highway.
    Flys inches above ground without touching it.
    All while supposedly flying at 400 MPH.


    The plane was going 519MPH when it hit, the Pentagon (according to the data recorder) was throttled up once they decended to 2000 feet after a slow 2.5 minute banking decent away from the Pentagon.

    What about all the reports to the contrary that say flight 77 comitted it's two and a half minute turning descent BEFORE it got to the Pentagon (because they realised they were too high). It never circled the Pentagon - that's another untruth spread across the internet by people who are unwilling to find the truth by themselves and instead rely on bad information from misleading conspiracy theory websites. And anyone that says a 2.5 minute descent of 5,000 feet in a wide banking turn is skilled piloting, or anything amazing is just a shoddy reporter looking for a more entertaining story...

    He did not "level out to treetop level - unless Washington has 2000 foot trees. The flight data recorder shows he leveled out at 2,000ft and proceeded to fly in a straight line at the pentagon while decending from 2000 feet. You're either embellshing your report, or you're relying on terrible information.


    Notice how small this TO SCALE 757 is compared to all the images of a 757 in your photos... Your "proof" by using models that are 80-90% larger is just bad science. I know many of us guys are known to make certain tube shaped things sound larger than they really are, but it's not wise when talking about a plane hitting a building.


    A well thought out post, but you're using poorly designed theories by people intent on having a conspiracy, and not by people intent on discovering the truth of the matter. Much of the evidence you show actually support the fact that a 757 hit the Pentagon. You're just having a hard time seeing it because you're using models that are too large; you're placing the plane in the wrong position in the surveillance footage; you've failed to take into account the large heavy generator the right engine impacted; you're relying on an intentionally overexposed "explosion" frame; you aren't including the flight data recorder numbers in your theories; you aren't using the facts provided by Boeing regarding the flight characteristis of a 757; and you are not taking into account the reinforced (armored) exterior wall of the Pentagon.

    If you doubt the validity of the camera footage I've provided here, and you are depending on your camera footage as being fact. Answer yourself this one simple question: IF the explosion was brilliant white, and it literally brightened the surrounding area, so much so that the entranceway by the surveillance camera has an almost purple/gray road surface instead of a brown one - WHERE ARE THE NEW SHADOWS THE BRIGHT WHITE EXPLOSION would have caused the objects in front of the camera to cast??

    You DO have the original uncropped versions of your surveillance camera photos right?

    [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]



  • posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 10:18 PM
    link   
    Just a note on the color of the explosion. you also have to take into account that the spectral sensitivity / range of that camera is quite suspect.

    You also have to take the oxygen bottles into account.



    posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 10:07 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Jazzerman
    I have seen the video before and I just want to add"

    IF IT IS EVER FOUND THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT or ANYONE INVOLVED PERPETRATED THIS ATTACK THEMSELVES, THEN THEY OWE IT TO THE AMERICAN POPULATION TO LEAVE THIS COUNTRY AND WALK AWAY IN DISGRACE!

    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...


    You have to be kidding? You walk away in disgrace from a really bad mistake or breach of trust. Were there truth to that video, I would think nothing short of public hangings following revolution would be would do order.



    posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 01:35 PM
    link   
    We all saw 747's hit the towers (the destruction of which, in and of itself, arguably justifies all excesses that follow). Why go to the trouble to put a missle into the Pentagon and pretend its a Plane when actual planes are destroying the towers. Seems like that would amount to the most effort expended on the event with least marginal utility. Why bother?



    posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 02:55 AM
    link   
    Why would the goverment blow the Pentagon 40 minutes after the WTC attacks?
    Would it add any more to the whole gruesome picture?. What more it would achieve?. I think it was enough horror for everyone to see at that time. 911 exudes infinite HATE against America and Western civilization all over the place. I dont see that coming from a Western mind.

    As for the "missile", is completely bogus. Remember anything about physics?. A drone is too small and too slow to create such damage against a MASSIVE and really hard buiding like the Pentagon, it would have shattered like a xmas tree ball thrown from a 20 story building onto a concrete road. If it indeed it was a missile, these either explode on contact with their target or penetrate them and explode inside, to assure the maximum damage possible. There are some missiles that go off before contact, like some AA models, but this is not the case. There's no a espherical explosion pattern anywhere in the path of the destruction that can be seen, neither from aerial or ground photos. Only a really massive proyectile could have done this, penetrating each layer as far as the density, speed & weight of the components involved allowed it to do so, it is no brainer why the engines were found at the inner rings .




    [edit on 11-10-2004 by Vladtepes]



    posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 07:57 PM
    link   
    Ok, let's see if I got all this straight. A missile that looked like a plane flew into the Pentagon and blew up, shooting out white smoke. And all the pieces parts that were photographed and pulled out of the building were either placed there before the airplane looking missile hit, or FEMA put them there right after the missile looking plane hit the building just so they would have stuff to photograph and stuff to haul out to justify their jobs. There you go boys and girls. The real deal!! Covers all the angles, uses all the available information and photo/eye witness accounts and is plausable. I can do another just like this one and another and another almost all night long and ALL of them would be plausable. And all of them using the available EVIDENCE, not the rumors or speculation of a bunch of people that want to argue.

    Thank you and have a good tomorrow.



    posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 05:02 PM
    link   
    It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon and it wasn't a missile. Photos of the Pentagon taken from the air the same day show a mysterious 'arrow' on the grass pointing directly at the damaged section. The arrow looks like someone used white dust. It's something that would only be visible from the air. There's a video on Youtube or Google (sorry I don't have the link) where eyewitnesses to the event were interviewed. The owner/manager of the gas station across the street was adamant that he saw the 757 pull up at the last minute and fly OVER the Pentagon just as the building exploded. If all four hijacked airliners were taken over by remote control, as more and more people suspect, then this makes perfect sense. Flying an airliner into the building by remote control and making it hit exactly the right spot would be a tricky thing. Also there'd be no guarantee that the crash would kill the civilian analysts, who were working in the lower floor of that particular section and who were supposed to be tracking down the missing $2.3 Trillion that Rumsfeld had sheepishly admitted to Congress the day before. So the best way to guarantee that they were killed would be to plant explosives in the building. The plane was then flown close to ground level and over the building at the last second, and then most likely redirected over the ocean and deliberately crashed to hide the evidence. Most eyewitnesses saw a plane at low altitudes, then the explosion and just assumed the obvious. The plane couldn't be allowed to actually hit the Pentagon just in case it didn't hit the right spot. How would it look if the plane hit over there but the building exploded over here? The arrow was for the benefit of the E4B electronics plane that was photographed flying over Washington on 911.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    1
    << 16  17  18    20 >>

    log in

    join