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: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
I just came across this and I think it adds to what Rummy had said





The flying object was a U.S. Air Force cruise missile. In the case of the murder of German citizens on 9-11-1, sources in the FBI have informed the German police that the flying object that hit the Pentagon was a U.S. Air Force cruise missile (oral information in January 2003). This has been confirmed by French intelligence bomb experts who have found evidence of shaped charges (directional explosives).



source: www.cloakanddagger.ca...

[edit on 4-9-2004 by Sauron]


Can you give a link to somewhere other than the obvious joke of a web page that has rumsfeld saying that.




posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Yes, lets kill this stupid missile hitting the Pentagon theory once and for all.

A plane, named flight 77, hit the pentagon. PERIOD.

Thousands of eyewitnesses everywhere on the ground all agreed they saw a plane. Jazzerman, your statement that eyewitness accounts should only be looked at if hard evidence is lacking sounds like something the govornment wouls day.

Thousands of people on the ground saw the plane. They watched it as it clipped the streetlights on the Beltway. They watched it conduct incredible maneuvers. And they watched it plow into the side of the pentagon.

The rescue workers recovered the bodies and remains of passengers who were on flight 77. They recovered wreckage.

Anyone who has ever been to the pentagon will understand both the video footage and the reason the plane is not scattered all over the law in big chunks.

The pentagon is a heavy duty super fortified hard concrete structure. It is VERY intimidating to look at. A plane is made of aluminum, a lightweight metal that does not hold up well under extreme heat and pressure and impact. Thus, a light weight craft of aluminum would accordion and crump[le, even parts vaporize, under the intense force and pressure of impact with the super hard bomb resistant concrete of the pentagon.

Pentagon employees on the inner rings were struck by the engine, which is harder than the body of an airplane. It was heavy and going at such a velocity ti was capable of punching through walls. Anyone who has ever seen aircraft engines up close and personal knows just how heavy duty those babies are.

Why was a plane not seen on the video footage?

Again, anyone who has been to the pentagon knows why.

The camera on the pentagon is designed for monitoring activity outside. Normal activity outside the pentagon includes people and vehicles. people and vehicles move MUCH slower than a plane. The camera at the pentagon was not designed to watch planes flying into it on the ground. It was designed to catch people and vehicles. Thus, the speed of the camera is considerably slower than one designed to film fast flying pbjects like jets. It was a camera at a guard post which monitors and admits people and vehicles into the premesis for parking. last time I checked, no known ground vehicles known to the public or driven in public travel 500 miles an hour.

the frame rate and refresh rate on the camera was simply not fast enough to catch something going 500 miules an hour. period.

A plane hit the pentagon. Thousands of eyewitnesses on the ground saw a plane. Many of those witnesses either worked for the military or have in the past. I would say its safe to say, that many of them would know damn well the difference between a plane and a friggin missile.

I consider the testimony of thousands of eyewitnesses on the ground and such far better evidence and far more reliable than the idiotic insane ramblings of some Frenchman who was no where near the area, and probably never has been.

I have no doubt a plane hit the pentagon. My question is not what hit the pentagon, I already know: flight 77 and its doomed passengers and crew. My doubts are focused on why flight 77 was allowed to go wayward for 40 minutes after 2 planes hit the WTC with no response from Washington, no jets to pursue it, no massive securityu measures taken in the capitol.

A plane was flying erratically and change course towards the capitol for 40 minutes after two confirmed terrorists attacks. yet the city wasnt even alerted till 5 minutes before it hit. That in itself is enough to raise serious questions and eyebrows.

But I believe thousands of people, many experts, who witnessed the plane. They said it was a plane. All evidence Ive seen say it was a plane. It was a plane, period.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Well stated, evil one. I would only add that the actual damage done by the airplane was obscured by the collapse of the floors above the entry point of the plane and that the wings of the aircraft also house fuel tanks. There was debris on the lawn of the Pentagon, but of course, these were all neatly explained away as part of the conspiracy.

[edit on 04/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   


Yes, lets kill this stupid missile hitting the Pentagon theory once and for all.


NO thanx - I think we are progressing with useful insights here. keep them coming.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Thanks, Grad, forgot to mention that.

The reason you dont see a plane sticking out of the pentagon is the same reason you dont see em stickin out of the WTC. They are covered in collapsed wreckage from the buildings. When most planes crash, they crash outside. Thus, theres nothing to collapse on top of them.

Another thing to remeber, folks, is that the pentagons lay out. The lawn doesnt go directly up to the building. Around the permemeter opf the pentagon is a wide concrete sidewalk that is wide enough for service vehicles to drive on too. It doesnt follow the entire length of the building, just the parts not directly acceable from the road. Thus, the angle the cameras are shot at do not show the size of it. Thats where alot of the wreckage was found: closer to the building. the furether away you are from the building, the narrower things look.

The pentagon is HUGE. A 757 is pretty small in comparison to the size of the monster. Its very intimidating to look at. If anyone who has been there, you know what im talking about.

BTW, im sure you all know the pentagon has surface to air missiles in it, to defend from air attacks. I wonder why people dont focus more on why those missiles werent used to defend it, instead of speculating that some friggin missile hit it.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
ASCE Pentagon Report

Two photographs (figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the TOP of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken.
757 fuselage height is 13'2" ; 20 - 13'2 = 6' 10" max height without landing gear down


When it was approximately 320 ft from the west wall of the build-ing (0.42 second before impact), it was flying nearly level, only a few feet above the ground
fire.nist.gov...
One witness report says the landing gear hit the top of her car, but i don't see it in any official report so far.

In this movie its states the official report states says 2 feet off the ground, I'm having trouble finding that exact figure.
pages.infinit.net...

Note: to skibum, please read carefully 6 walls NOT 6 foot walls.
thx
.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Rumsfeld in an interview with Parade magazine:
Note: HE mentions the missile 'from out of the blue'

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.
Note: He clearly differentiates between the Airline flight at the WTC and the MISSILE at the pentagon.
www.the7thfire.com...

Just listen to it straight from the horses mouth.
.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
BTW, im sure you all know the pentagon has surface to air missiles in it, to defend from air attacks. I wonder why people dont focus more on why those missiles werent used to defend it, instead of speculating that some friggin missile hit it.

I've never heard that as fact only rumors. I do recall that after 9/11 they set up patriot missile batteries around the pentagon and other parts of D.C.



Note: to skibum, please read carefully 6 walls NOT 6 foot walls.
thx

I stand corrected (slaps self in forehead) lol



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   
skibum,
Maybe because the people in control in the Pentagon didn't want them to defend the pentagon. Just like the scarmbling of jets to aquire and assist the offcourse airliners for some unknown reason
was phenomenally below par on that particular day.
.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.


Good, but what exactly does he mean by that , If this were truly a cover up don't you think thry would have "corrected" that slip somehow. I mean the same quote actually shows up on the DoD website. If the government is that careless with this huge coverup that is purported, don't you think that there would be some hard evidence they had missed?



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
skibum,
Maybe because the people in control in the Pentagon didn't want them to defend the pentagon. Just like the scarmbling of jets to aquire and assist the offcourse airliners for some unknown reason
was phenomenally below par on that particular day.
.


AS i was saying I have only heard rumors of anti aircraft weapons at the pentagon before 9/11. But these were rumors.

After 9/11 patriot systems were deployed, saw them on the local news.
But before 9/11 I have no evidence to show that any anti aircraft systems were in place other than rumors.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkibumHere we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.


Let us consider, as I have stated elsewhere, that the definition of a missile is anything that can be projected to a target. I have seen city ordinances that refer to flyers (paper advertisements placed on the windshields of cars) as missles. And let us consider that the audio of the interview with Rumsfeld was garbled to the extent that some of his statement was inaudible and since we are accustomed to taking a grain of truth and expanding beyond all recognition, reinterpret Rumsfeld's statement, to wit:


Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens as the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.


Can we not recognize the irony in the statement by the Secretary of Defense who is known for his wit, when he speaks of hijackers using plastic knives to hijack the aircraft filled with passengers and using those as missles to target the WTC and the Pentagon? Can we not see that the aircraft used in the attacks were, in fact, missles, even though they were not designed or catagorized as such? Did God design rocks to be thrown or are they not simply utilized particularly by Islamic extremists as weapons against the superior Isreali army?

Please, folks, let us deny ignorance not disseminate stupidity.

www.merriam-webster.com...

[edit on 04/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
Rumsfeld in an interview with Parade magazine:
Note: HE mentions the missile 'from out of the blue'

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.
Note: He clearly differentiates between the Airline flight at the WTC and the MISSILE at the pentagon.
www.the7thfire.com...

Just listen to it straight from the horses mouth.
.


Are you sure he wasnt misquoted

using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, as a missile to damage this building. That would change this whole statement

If this quote was real "using a American Airlines flight" as what? He never finished that statement.and why is there a (inaudible) part if they could understand him there how are we suppose to believe they didnt get other parts wrong.


I really dont see there being a huge cover up and then Rumsfeld just blows the whole thing in a interview that would be pretty dumb and a first that I know of.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I'm not even responding. There were so many eyewitnesses it's ridiculous. My best friend from the Marine Corps saw the entire thing happen from his house in Arlington. It was a plane. Whether there were any modifications or whatever or stuff in the Pentagon I don't know but I am certain a plane hit the thing. People are blowing this way out of perspective simply because it wasn't taped like the WTC was.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   
You know at one point on 911, I remeber hearing a news report that it was a truck bomb.

It was chaos that day. Do you really think that every rumour that flew around that day is true?



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Mossad was very busy in US that day. A lot of their stuff didn't pan out, just the aircraft situation. Local law enforcement > Feds ^^



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Mossad was very busy in US that day. A lot of their stuff didn't pan out, just the aircraft situation. Local law enforcement > Feds ^^


Uh huh. . . .

And you're implying, what?



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
People are blowing this way out of perspective simply because it wasn't taped like the WTC was.


Correction, this was taped by more than just the camera at the pentagon, there's multiple sources that captured the impact but were seized by federal agents. They have yet to be shown to the public.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Would you ever refer to something that contained living people in it as a missile? For me the very idea that he would have been talking about an aircraft with real people on it is almost sick.
A airplane, a vehicle that carries live people.
A missile, an inanimate machine that generally blows things up.
.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   
This is waht I like about this board, people will believe anything if it suits theier needs. Bush did not attack the Pentagon, it was attacked by flight 77, and if you dont think so and want to belive otherwise, just ask the family members of Flight 77, I am sure if they did not die in the vrash then the insurnace companies wouldnt have paid.

I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you....


Actually if you want to know the truth, there were no passengers on the plane and it was being flown remotley by ET's based on the secret space base on my anus.


GEEZ.............IT WAS A PLANE!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join