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: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   
The Tomahawk Cruise missile, which is a long range ballistic missile, is the most commonly used missile in long range strikes against enemy encampments.

Below, you will see a link to a page. It is very possible to mistake one of these babys for a plane, especially if it's streaking past you at 500MpH.

And when most people think 'Missile', they think something that looks like a sidewinder. Small, with underpronounced fins. Not easy to mistake for a Plane.

But, for crying out loud, the Cruise has WINGS! I'm sure that people who were distracted at the time, and later told it was a plane are likely to say, "hey, that was a plane."


Link




posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank


My guess on what happened to the real flight 77 is they crashed it into the Atlantic Ocean.


I have thought about this. I believe that air traffic controllers lost contact with the planes over the Atlantic at one point. I would love to find a good source for that info.

A couple of interesting things regarding this, why were the jets going the wrong way?

The “squadron” ordered to fly out over the Atlantic instead of easily intercepting Fl77 before it reached the Pentagon was actually a two plane section of ready alert F-16s, launched late from Langley Virginia and vectored out over the Atlantic – away from the Pentagon. .............But instead of flying at 1875 miles per hour or two-and-a-half times the speed of sound, both fighters flew at a leisurely 500 mph – slower than the airliners they were supposedly “pursuing”.......... But instead of being vectored over Washington DC, the Cape Cod F-15s were ordered to fly circles over the Atlantic.

www.willthomas.net...

The base dispatched fighter jets from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, but they headed first east over the Atlantic Ocean instead of toward the Pentagon. One minute before the crash, the fighter jets were redirected toward Washington but they were 150 miles away.

edition.cnn.com...


I thought that the nation was under attack. What was going on out in the ocean?



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Actually, the radar records show that they lost contact with AA77 just on the western border of West Virginia.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I could have sworn that at some point they did track them over the Atlantic though. I'll have to think where I read that, it was in a special report on the radar folks on 9/11.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Hm...My question is how they lost radar contact...that's just supposed to monitor what sort of big metal chunks are flying around. It's not like it's a cell call, where the pilot has to be careful not to fly through a tunnel, or whoop! he disappears. Honestly...



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
What was going on Sept 11th? We were shown some maps, but what do we really know about these maps? Several maps came out, some different than others. Most were from a company called

Flight Explorer This is a company that tracks aircraft. From what this readed has found, they recieved their infomation from the FAA.

How does the FAA record this data? From what I have found, it is done mainly from the transpoder codes from the flights. The problem being , is that all of the flights were reported to have had their TXcodes turned off. So then how did we get reliable maps?

We didn't. It appears that the rest of the data was "filled in" as best possible.

Add this to the fact that flight 93 changed its transponder code, and so did flight 175. It appears that 175 changed its code TWICE.

I have to ask why a hijacker would change the transpoder code?

We were told that the tranponders were turned OFF so that the military could not track the plane. Turning them back ON would only alert the controllers to where they were.

link


Interesting stuff along the lines of what you are thinking about here. It is strange that they lost contact.

Did you also know that the two jets that crashed into WTC I and II nearly collided with each other in New York state? I thought that was pretty godamn wierd.

FAA worker says hijacked jeltiners almost collided before striking World Trade Center



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
The Tomahawk Cruise missile, which is a long range ballistic missile, is the most commonly used missile in long range strikes against enemy encampments.

Below, you will see a link to a page. It is very possible to mistake one of these babys for a plane, especially if it's streaking past you at 500MpH.

And when most people think 'Missile', they think something that looks like a sidewinder. Small, with underpronounced fins. Not easy to mistake for a Plane.

But, for crying out loud, the Cruise has WINGS! I'm sure that people who were distracted at the time, and later told it was a plane are likely to say, "hey, that was a plane."


Link


Okay if you say so.
Its not like the hundreds of witnesses in the area don't know what passenger airplanes look like. This isn't some podunk area that might see an airplane once in a blue moon. There are MANY airplanes that fly around this area. Its not difficult to tell the difference between a cruise missile and a passenger jet. But if saying that hundreds of witnesses eyes are lying to them makes your interpretation of what happened work for you,so be it.
I can't help it if you WANT it to have been a missile that you will just brush aside testimony from many witnesses that will say it was an airplane. If you want to beleive the testimony of people who say they "heard something that sounded LIKE a missile" go ahead. I have yet to see a witness say "it definately WAS a missile". All I have seen is quotes taken out of context to fit some twisted individuals need to prove it was a missile.

Cruise missile stats
Length: 18 feet 3 inches (5.56 meters)
Diameter: 20.4 inches (51.81 cm)
Wing Span: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters)


757 stats
Wing span 38.05m (124ft 10in), length 47.32m (155ft 3in), height 13.56m (44ft 6in). Wing area 185.3m2 (1994sq ft).

OH YEA I can really see how hundreds of people can mistake a cruise missile for a 757. They are almost exactly the same size and have a very similar profile....NOT

Its like mistaking my daughters barbie volkswagon for a greyhound bus.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
[Its like mistaking my daughters barbie volkswagon for a greyhound bus.






Funny how there is no commercial airliner though. Funny how this footage has the crucial frames missing. Notice the white aircraft? Whatever it is it is coming in at a very low trajectory. I just couldn't imagine a 757 coming in liek that. You have to watch the video(1st post of this thread) and it's quite clear that it is not a large plane.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   


That is a good still from the footage.

Question, Why did it takeso long to release these photo's and who released them?







[edit on 4/9/2004 by earthtone]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Its hard to tell what it is in that video.
But its not surprising, considering the area of focus of the camera. The camera is focused on the area a few feet in front of it not 100's of feet away. At best I would have to say there is an object in the video, Looks more grey than white to me, but because of the lack of focus on the object its difficult to tell exactly what color it is.
IMO It doesn't appear to be a cruise missile though, comparing the size of the pentagon and the airplane, the object doesn't look very small to me. If you have ever seen the pentagon in person its not exactly a small building. photos don't do it justice.
But to stay on topic, the object in the photo is still way too big to be a missile. Its debateable as to what type of aircraft it is in the photo, due to the poor picture. But combining the photo with the testimony of many witnesses I would have to say it was at least a large passenger jet.
Many people might not be able to tell you the difference betwenn a 757 or a 747 but most will be able to differentiate between a passenger jet and any other theory presented here or anywhere else.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
I would have to say it was at least a large passenger jet.


Yes the object is certainly not a typical 'missile' of any description. All I am trying to point out is that is clearly not a 757. It's the wrong color, shape, and size. It still may be large, but as long as it is not what 'they' say it is, then the conspiracy is on.

Another thing. Looking at the explosion I still ifnd it strange that the surrounding lawn was not burnt badly. It's odd. This video took 6 months to surface. It could have been altered.

edit: TO elaborate on the idea of the video being altered. In the frame where the object first strikes the building the shot is clearly lighter than the others, and the camera lense is visible for that shot. Probably means nothing.

[edit on 4/9/2004 by earthtone]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 03:23 PM
link   
IMO,,I think it was a Global Hawk with a radio transmitter / receiver, in the pentagon.
Remote controlled buy someone in another aircraft, and the G.H. may have been equipped with a missile. How big are these Global Hawks?
they do look like airplanes to me.





www.freedomfiles.org...


Question: When does anyone put a fire truck beside a helipad 2 hours before anyone is suppose to be there?



www.freedomfiles.org...



Mother of All Lies About 9/11

Barbara Olson's "Phone Call" From Flight 77



This is a story about a little white lie that bred dozens of other little white lies, then hundreds of bigger white lies and so on, to the point where the first little white lie must be credited as the “Mother of All Lies” about events on 11 September 2001. For this was the little white lie that first activated the American psyche, generated mass loathing, and enabled media manipulation of the global population.

Without this little white lie there would have been no Arab Hijackers, no Osama Bin Laden directing operations from afar, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine. Clearly the lie was so clever and diabolical in nature, it must have been generated by the “Power Elite” in one of its more earthly manifestations. Perhaps it was the work of the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission?

No, it was not. Though at the time the little white lie was flagged with a powerful political name, there was and remains no evidence to support the connection. Just like the corrupt and premature Lee Harvey Oswald story in 1963, there are verifiable fatal errors which ultimately prove the little white lie was solely the work of members of the media. Only they had access, and only they had the methods and means.

The little white lie was about Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator for CNN and wife of US Solicitor General Ted Olson. Now deceased, Mrs Olson is alleged to have twice called her husband from an American Airlines Flight 77 seat-telephone, before the aircraft slammed into the Pentagon. This unsubstantiated claim, reported by CNN remarkably quickly at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT] on September 12, was the solitary foundation on which the spurious “Hijacker” story was built.

Without the “eminent” Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16 about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September 11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial “seed” that started the media snowball rolling down the hill.

And once the snowball started rolling down the hill, it artfully picked up Osama Bin Laden and a host of other “terrorists” on the way. By noon on September 12, every paid glassy-eyed media commentator in America was either spilling his guts about those “Terrible Muslim hijackers”, or liberating hitherto classified information about Osama Bin Laden. “Oh sure, it was Bin Laden,” they said blithely, oblivious to anything apart from their television appearance fees.more







[edit on 4-9-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   
It would be fair to say that the video alone is not proof of anything, either way. I have pics of my dog running where its difficult to tell what kind of dog she is. I think it would be fair to say that the out of focus pic of an object that is moving in the neighborhood of 350 to 500 miles per hour, where the whole object is not even visible is at best only proof that something was there. But when you combine this pic with eyewitness testimony of hundreds then we should be able to at least conclude that
1. the object is not a missile. (no witnesses have said it WAS a missile, only it sounded like a missile. etc...)
2. the object is a passenger jet. (most of the witnesses have at least described a passenger jet of some kind)

Granted a single eyewitnesses testimony can be picked apart, many people will describe some of the event incorrectly. But when you compare the statements of many witnesses and there is a overwhealming theme to the testimony then its much harder to disprove. If many people were to say it was a missile or it wasn't a passenger airplane then I would be inclined to beleive that way.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Question: When does anyone put a fire truck beside a helipad 2 hours before anyone is suppose to be there?

From what I have seen many aircraft landing facilities have fire surpession equipment on standby in the area. Especially when the facility is in an urban area like the one at the pentagon.

The Fort Myer Fire & Emergency Services Department is a progressive career federal fire department located in Arlington, Virginia. We protect the men and women of the armed services assigned to Fort Myer and the Pentagon. This department also provides fire and ems services to the Arlington National Cemetary, protecting 612 acres of land and buildings as well as the 4 million visitors it recieves each year. We also provide crash-fire-rescue service to the Pentagon heloport with over 1500 aircraft movements a year, the department also has an interservice agreement to provide fire-rescue service to the Henderson Hall Marine Corps base as well.
www.firefighting.com...

So with the amount of usage the helipad gets its not a far stretch to say that there is a firetruck in the area quite often.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
How big are these Global Hawks?


Bigger than I expected.




have a look - p.s sorry about the crappy white line.




You can see that although the shapes are obviously both distorted through the images i have used, the actual shape and curve of the objects design in the CCTV footage does look the same. The distinct nose shape is there. The back landing gear is in the correct place. You can see the slight bulge underneath which the hawk has. Also the back fans out and gets large which is consistent with the jets on the global hawk at the back.


i mean its a rough outline I did in paint, with terrible quality images capturing an object traveling at over 400 miles an hour. I think this one is a good contender.



[edit on 4/9/2004 by earthtone]

[edit on 4/9/2004 by earthtone]

[edit on 4/9/2004 by earthtone]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
earthtone
good find
it seem to fit, from what we have seen so far
only one motor as well, funny thats all they at the pentagon





[edit on 4-9-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I dont understand why if it was a Global Hawk, Missile, remote controled f-16 whatever people think it was. Why would they use two planes in New York which we all saw. But then when it came to the Pentagon they decided to go with something other then a passenger plane.

It makes no sense if they had the power to use 2 passenger planes why not 1 more?

And what off the people on flight 77 where did they go?



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
IIt makes no sense if they had the power to use 2 passenger planes why not 1 more?


Perhaps the damage to the pentagon was being minimilized. The only area damaged was the area under construction. This was done for terror, targeting three of the most important and iconic buildings in the America. The strike on the pentagon ( if done by a factor in the US government) wouldbe the a perfect target to create the maximum amount of fear and feeling of being vunerable. Carrying it out in this way would by more controlled.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
The only area damaged was the area under construction.


This is not true, the area hit was done being renovated not under construction. They were in the process of moving people into that area.
If it were under construction why were the majority of people killed there pentagon staff and not construction workers?



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Now take into account the fact that this plane was so skillfully flown by a novice pilot Hani Hanjour who instructors reported

They were clueless it was clear to me they were never going to make it as pilots
Airschool Employee

He couldn't fly at all

Officially the 'plane' was travelling at 530 MPH 2 FEET OFF THE GROUND. Yet somehow it went above the 4 FOOT HIGH construction spools on lawn in front of impact, left no burned lawn like in most plane crashes.

That means Hani managed to hit EXACTLY the side of the pentagon on the ground floor below intact windows on the 3rd floor above the impact. That is just too insane for me to believe.

Take into account a NEAT CIRCULAR hole punched into the inner wall of the third ring of the pentagon. That is 6 WALLs of REINFORCED CONCRETE that an airliner managed to penetrate.

Can you really believe all that?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join