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: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   
www.snopes.com...

The above is a photo of a piece of debris on the lawn.

Here even Rense gets something right once and a while.


Edit:


[edit on 3-9-2004 by HowardRoark]



SMR

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I have said in many threads about this,that it was in no way possible a 757 that hit the Pentagon.I cant seem to figure out why people insist that it was.

People are also forgetting what they post in previous posts.Those in favor keep saying it hit and vaporized,and later say the wings were sheared off.Now how does this make any sense?If it hit in one piece,there should be alot more that what we are being shown.If the wings came off,then we would have wings almost undamaged on the ground.
Too many are contradicting themselves on this issue.
As for facts about what it was,I think the images speak for themeselves and speak 1000 words.

Sooner or later,something is going to bust this issue wide open,and I feel it will be video footage of what REALLY hit that place.It maybe in the hands of a John Doe that was not known to have it and is affraid right now that he could be sought after,or the leak of security tape from another camera.....one of the ones that we are not being showed for some reason or another.
ONE security cam at the Petagon.....yeah right.

As for the link above with the images.Those images show me nothing but a heap of metal and other junk.For all we know,that metal could be from green filing cabnits

There is one image of what seems to be a wheel,but wha ttype and from what?Could be any type of plane.

And another thing.If this was a 757 and it hit,went inside and exploded and created such disaster,why are these pilers still standing in this image www.rense.com...
If the pilers in the WTC couldnt hadle it,how did this?
And using photos from AFTER most debre was taken away does not make anyone think WHY?Why no images before it was taken away?If they want us to think it was a 757,they should have showed us more PLANE evidence,not a pile of undiscribable metal.

[edit on 3-9-2004 by SMR]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


The above is a photo of a piece of debris on the lawn.

Here even Rense gets something right once and a while.


Snopes doesn't like leechers ...


SMR

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Guess not

The image he wanted to post was that small debre that was on the lawn.
www.snopes.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
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.


I have to disagree with you here. I think there are plenty of explanations of how flight 77 could have hit the pentagon, but the evidence doesn't support it.

The stuff that would be used in court (photo evidence, video evidence, eye-witness account (see my earlier post), and analysis of the debris) is really the stuff we need to be focusing on. Simulations are not evidence, they are to help establish the possiblity that a theory could be true. Charts and diagrams and expert opinions only explain how a plausible a theory is, but they are not evidence.

In fact, the evidence supports anything else hitting the Pentagon just as well as flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by piboy
[I have to disagree with you here. I think there are plenty of explanations of how flight 77 could have hit the pentagon, but the evidence doesn't support it.
In fact, the evidence supports anything else hitting the Pentagon just as well as flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.


Seriously now, did you look at any the sites I posted? Let me repost the site posted by Bleys.

www.rense.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by piboy
[The stuff that would be used in court (photo evidence, video evidence, eye-witness account (see my earlier post), and analysis of the debris) is really the stuff we need to be focusing on. Simulations are not evidence, they are to help establish the possiblity that a theory could be true. Charts and diagrams and expert opinions only explain how a plausible a theory is, but they are not evidence.

In fact, the evidence supports anything else hitting the Pentagon just as well as flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.


So start with the eyewitness testimony from the link I posted at the beginning of the thread. Make a spreadsheet of who saw a plane, who saw nothing but heard something, who saw the AA, who saw props, who saw the actual impact, etc.

Like I said the accounts of - type of plane - what it did - the speed - differ from person to person, but they all said it was a plane.

These people's testimony must be examined and discredited before theories of a missile can be brought into the equation. And more importantly before alternative theories can have any credibility.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Bleys...thanks for those pictures. I think they are pretty conclusive that it may have been an aircraft.

Grady...perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see a single link that you provided that visual evidence of an airplane crash (ie debris). No need to go any deeper on this, maybe I just missed it. Edit: My fault...didn't see your Rense link, only saw Bleys link!

So, now we have two pieces of evidence. One in the form of engine fragments, wheels, scrap metal from the structure of the plane, etc. On the other hand we have a video showing many of the same pictures, but leaving out the evidence of the plane. Logically, one can only believe the source with more evidence to support it...so, the Pentagon was struck by an aircraft. Or at least something resembling an aircraft.

Now that there is enough visual proof to conclude that it probably was struck by an airplane, what next? The question remains...who did it?

Grady presents good evidence that we were struck, by an outside source perhaps (ie terrorists). The video shows how the govt. seized film of the "plane" crashing into the side. Something is going on here, right? So, how about some more evidence for both arguments (Terrorists vs. the US Govt. behind the crash) and see where we go from there.

PS- That missile that looks like an airplane is quite intriguing. Anyone have evidence to disprove it? Here is the link again from another poster:
www.fas.org...


[edit on 3-9-2004 by Jazzerman]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Seriously now, did you look at any the sites I posted? Let me repost the site posted by Bleys.

www.rense.com...


Yes I have seen them. Let me play a little devil's advocate....

Do the photos on rense.com show evidence of a 757, or just some aircraft? Do the parts in the photos show parts unique to a 757? Do the photos show parts unique to an American Airlines 757? Do the photos show parts unique to American Airlines Flight 77?

If the photos do not show parts unique to even a 757, then there is not really evidence that the plane was a 757. There is only evidence that there is a plane. Explanations then surface that the plane was a 757 (or an American Airlines jet, or flight 77), but the evidence is not conclusive.

That's why need need evidence that excludes all other explanations but one. And we don't have that.

There are other sites which show the debris to be consistent with other types of aircraft, but I didn't think we even need to go there to see that the evidence on rense is not unique to flight 77.

[edit on 3-9-2004 by piboy]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
So start with the eyewitness testimony from the link I posted at the beginning of the thread. Make a spreadsheet of who saw a plane, who saw nothing but heard something, who saw the AA, who saw props, who saw the actual impact, etc.


I think this is the right way to go. But I would change what you said to be: "Make a spreadsheet of who was directly quoted to say they saw a plane, who was directly quoted to say they saw nothing but heard something, who was directly quoted to say they saw the AA, who was directly quoted to say they saw props, who was directly quoted to say they saw the actual impact, etc."

And then who was directly quoted to say they saw everything you just listed (not just some parts).

I wish I could remember where that site was that did this...



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
May I also suggest a map of the Pentagon and surrounding area. That way you can link actual testimony (vs hearsay) to a time and place. Who was where and when. Also will establish if a person could have seen what they claim - is there a difference in times between one persons sightings and anothers?

I believe there is also a site out there that shows the plane's flight path and times - also useful for showing credibility.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
If this is a little mini-investigation we are conducting here then I think it is still to early or eyewitness reports. The evidence is almost 99% overwhelming that it was an aircraft of some sort. However, someone provided a link for a missle that looks a lot like an aircraft. We need to completely rule out the possibility of it being a missile first. For one, since I'm not an expert on this, do missiles have wheels (as there was a few pictured in the wreckage), could any of the plane fragments on the Rense site be from a missile, etc. and if it is concluded that the missile that looks like an aircraft could NOT have had these things the final conclusion would then become that it WAS an aircraft.

Only after all hard visual evidence is collected should one turn to eyewitness reports...



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 02:46 PM
link   
A Smoking Gun:
Video Showing the Collapsed Building and Possible Landing Gear

You can clearly see from this video that there was never a huge gapping hole created in the Pentagon wall. The hole is only one story high, first floor and all the other floors collapsed down on top of it. There is no way a Boeing 757 could ever have gone through there. This leaves us with two questions

What did hit the pentagon and the other relates to who was involved in 9/11 that created this massive lie? It is easy to point fingers at the administration as they most certainly are suspects in my mind, however they couldn't do it alone. How many others were involved in this cover-up and treason?

The Global Hawk





Possibly a Global Hawk wheel found in the wreckage

Close up of the wheel on the Global Hawk. Now this looks more realistic in terms of what we would expect.

To further this Global Hawk angle lets look at this engine part found in the wreckage
You can see a person standing next to the motor


the motors are much bigger in size


source: www.freedomfiles.org...


Defense Secretary:
"and the missile to damage this building"

And Rummy said quote: Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."
Source: www.the7thfire.com...

Pentagon 4 days before September 11th click the picture for a full view









[edit on 3-9-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
May I also suggest a map of the Pentagon and surrounding area...



Originally posted by Jazzerman
If this is a little mini-investigation we are conducting here then I think it is still to early or eyewitness reports....
Only after all hard visual evidence is collected should one turn to eyewitness reports...



Exactly right. This is how investigations are done. Why hasn't this been done already by the authorities? How come some nobodies on a web discussion forum can figure out how to properly investigate the crash, but the authorities cannot? Why does the call for a proper investigation get labelled immediately as a "conspiracy theory" when it is just the proper thing to do with events like this? The odd thing is that the authorities aren't doing it.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by piboy
Why does the call for a proper investigation get labelled immediately as a "conspiracy theory" when it is just the proper thing to do with events like this? The odd thing is that the authorities aren't doing it.


That, my friend, is as good as any questions. Maybe just maybe the people of this forum can combine their expertise and try and get this thing solved. This forum has had other research projects in the past, and so fourth, and this one would be just as good as any other.

This event not only needs to be solved for us, but for America's well being.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
A Smoking Gun:
Video Showing the Collapsed Building and Possible Landing Gear

bla bla to much to just let quote


Interesting site there man. really detailed site.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I looooooooooooove this topic. It will never die because ... no 757 could possibly have crashed into the Pentagon. At least none has yet.

Usually some "skeptic something-or-other" comes by to say the eye and ear-witnesses of a cruise missile are all wrong because his brother-in-law knows someone who heard about some witness who thinks they might of seen a jet that resembles a 757. And 'that's that"! Ho hum.

This is an easy one. People saw a large array of different flying aircraft - helicopter/757/cruise missile/C-130/small jet/fighter - take them all with a grain of salt, and move on. Check out this:
www.911closeup.com...

Recently we learned from the government that the WTC towers could not have collapsed due to fire. Link Kinda makes sense, yes? Maybe that explains all those witnesses to explosions bringing down towers 1, 2, 6 & 7?

This new flash presentation is good and brings up the main points of the most likely scenario. Check the entry hole & the exit hole, the suppressed video. Your own eyes reveal that if a 757 jet would discintegrate - wouldn't the bodies too? Wouldn't those wire spools? Videos and pics tell so much more than an unreliable "eyewitness". Classic was the military releasing the video showing the missile - and then going through the pains of clipping out the 2 frames that show the missile in full view. Maybe noone will notice? Guilty, eh?

Imagine if the fuel tanks of that airliner were running on empty? 'Skeptics' may tell you that you could sit at your desk by the outer wall of the Pentagon, and survive the impact of a 757 flying at you at 400+ mph! (Good thing that wall was reinforced!) I'd sit on the far side where Rumsfeld was. I loved that interview (where did I put that link...) with Rumsfeld where he mentions, "...when the missile hit, errr..." [oops! too late.]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
HERE's the damning evidence!!! again from the Rense site that concludes it WAS an aircraft!

This is the hole in the side of the Pentagon.
www.rense.com...
the sign on the left gives perspective.

So a 757 struck this and the wings didn't even scratch the brickwork adjacent to the edges. What rot. they sheered off and vanished? Fine. But no way did they not make the edges crumble and buckle.

That is a high velocity puncture wound fom a small wingless projectile. The wheel debri etc found inside were preplanted. There is no other explanation.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   


go on then. Where are the marks on the brickwork where the wings struck at a > hundred mph



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
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 !!!!!!!!!!


Im sorry, but do you have any evidence which shows that it was a plane, if you are so sure? Im really starting to believe not only after seeing this video, that it defently wasn't a plane at all!!!!

So let's do it the other way around and bring me all the proof and evidence that it was a plane, instead that people have to proof it's a conspiracy!!!

I am really going to alert everyone I know to watch this.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join