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: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Look at the animation in earthtone's post. There is NO red. There is NO blue. All the mergered colors aren't grey or blurry.

IT IS PURE WHITE. JUST LIKE A GLOBAL HAWK.

LOOK AT THE SHAPE. IT IS EXACTLY THE CAMEL HUMPED PROFILE OF A GLOBAL HAWK.

note to piboy: look at the post with the wheels that match the Global Hawk and the jet engine that is way too small to be from a 757. If those photos have come from the pentagon crash, as far as I am concerned the pentagon was hit with a missile from a global hawk and the global hawk itself.
.




posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I think the white is a plume of smoke slank. have a look at this one I just did, like a jet or smaller plane.




You would expect something like this ( i tried to get the tail size accurate, it's about right)




posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Why would anyone try to bring up a conspiracy story of our own government sending a missile into the Pentagon?

This video is filled with totally bogus information.

If you have a 757, with an almost full load of fuel, striking a building at 530 mph almost broadside, you're not going to get an intact fuselage, intact wings or an intact empennage.

The missile theory is totally bogus when you consider all the witnesses that saw a 757, flying on a course contrary to normal flight paterns.

And then there's the witnesses of the actual impact itself.

Can't buy it and won't never buy it.

To much evidence of a passenger airliner flying into the Pentagon to deny the facts.

In other words, it was a plane, not a missile that did the damage to the Pentagon.

[edit on 5/9/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
To much evidence of a passenger airliner flying into the Pentagon to deny the facts


I have not mentioned missiles. I thought I had quite clearly outlined my problem with this. This footage is not acpturing something that can be compared to a 757. When this is the only available video evidence (because the government wont release it) I think that is worth looking into. I find it hard to believe becuase of the people who saw it too. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop looking for the 757. Jeeze.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 08:05 AM
link   
.
earthtone, puff of smoke from what? A missile? With pure white smoke?

I think we are looking at the craft itself.

As your post shows WHERE IS THE 757? It must be one of those new models of 757 with the CLOAKING DEVICE we stole from the KINGONS.


I notice alot of the people defending the Government press release version seem like the very patriotic type. Coincidence? Come on guys see with your EYEs NOT your preconceptions based on words.

Set aside the govenment you THINK you know and just look,
then decide.
.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone

Originally posted by Intelearthling
To much evidence of a passenger airliner flying into the Pentagon to deny the facts


I have not mentioned missiles. I thought I had quite clearly outlined my problem with this. This footage is not acpturing something that can be compared to a 757. When this is the only available video evidence (because the government wont release it) I think that is worth looking into. I find it hard to believe becuase of the people who saw it too. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop looking for the 757. Jeeze.


Instead of people jumping to conclusions and saying "it didn't look like a 757", has there been actual studies on the footage that is availabe to disclaim what everyone believes to be true?

The Pentagon is a very huge building and a 757 is not a 747, so I find it quite possible people could make mistakes when they do see footage of the event.


[edit on 5/9/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   

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


......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.


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.


You know, this argument is sooo ludicrous! Think about! Since when do planes VAPORIZE and DISAPPEAR when they crash???!!! All this talk about the enormous heat blah blah blah. What....did flight 77 have some kind of super fuel that made it burn hotter so that it incinerated it into nothing? Because, that's what would have to be the case because OTHER plane wrecks DON'T VAPORIZE! GIVE ME ONE OTHER VAPORIZING EXAMPLE THAT'S EVER HAPPENED! I'm getting really pissed off about the stupidity about the terrific heat argument. And then, when people then ask, why other wrecks don't vaporize, we get the answer that, "oh, well THIS one vaporized because it hit the PEENNTAAGOON" What the hell? Seriously! So a concrete wall on impact makes the fire hotter and accounts for the plane to vaporize?? "Well, this is the first time anything has crashed like this" BS! That's not even close to a competent answer! And, even better is the fact that, despite your (and the gov's) arguments that the plane VAPORIZED, you are all cheery to point out those few pics of some debris inside the pentagon. PLUS, the plane that vaporized due to hitting a magical concrete wall (which is what accounts for the reason for the vaporizing heat) STILL managed to penetrate several rings!


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.


Haha, the SAME plane that PUNCHED THROUGH LAYERSSSS!!!! So, let me get this straight. The plane vaporized and disappeared, except for just a couple pieces, that bust through several layers. But it vaporized. And it also tore through walls making holes only 7-8 ft in diameter. But it disinegrated. On the other hand it also pulverized reinforced concrete, but on the other hand it vapo...........


All you believers in the official story always ask us nonbelievers what is our problem, and why don't we just believe our government. Well I wanna know why YOU people think we SHOULD?! Is our gov immune to corruption or something?? I mean, look at the video feed, the piss poor skills of the supposed hi-jackers, the seized and unreleased video of all spots except the one, the lack of debris on the lawn or damage on the lawn (oh yeah, I forgot the plane vaporized and disappeared into the building
), Rumsfeld's slip about a missile, etc! My question is, why do you just believe the gov, especially in the face of all these blatant problems??!! Now, I would believe the gov if their story didn't have all these problems, but it does! So, I notice these problems, and am not foolish enough to ignore or deny them just because our perfect and almighty and all-explaining gov says something one way! Just read some history and you'll find out that OH YES, people in power are VERY capable and VERY willing to do EVIL things, EVEN in our great nation. The laws of human nature STILL apply to us just like all other places! And if we want to keep our democracy, we must constantly be all over the gov, and questioning it so that it doesn't get out of control! And some of you think that I WANT it to be this way? Well I'm INSULTED BY THAT! I must be some sick freak to you guys if I WANT this. First of all, if you ever knew me personally, you'd know that before 9/11, I'd never believed or been interested in any conspiracies, and I LOVED Bush and jumped for joy when he was elected. I was one of the first to believe the administrations and gov explanations until a couple years later, I notice the wealth of info that flies in its face! And I can ADMIT I was WRONG in believing the official story and thinking our gov could do no evil. Because the truth is more important to me than trying to protect my reputation of never being wrong, than my pride. By NO means, did I EVER want this to happen, especially like this!




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.


So how does that explain the small size of the one thing we DO see? Is it supposed to make the object magically smaller, because it's a slower cam??? Why not release all the OTHERRRRRRR tapes???????? What an easy solution to this PROBLEM.



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.


Oh really, where's the engine??

........Oh, you mean this engine?????




Just like this one?????


Oh, ok............

(pics courtesy of Sauron who already posted these earlier in thread)



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.


Since you want to bring up eyewitnesses, there were others who described a missile. There were others who said there was no way it could have been a 757. There were others who said their minds could not account of how the damage of the pentagon resulted from a 757. So who are we to believe??

AGAIN, LOOK AT A PIC OF A TOMAHAWK, OR SIMILAR MISSILES. THEY LOOK LIKE PLANES. ESPECIALLY TO PEOPLE ALREADY HEARING ABOUT PLANES AT THE WTC. THERE MINDS WERE ALREADY OCCUPIED WITH INFO ABOUT PLANES. THE OBJECT WAS MOVING FAST AND LOUD OVERHEAD. IT'S NOT HARD TO IMAGINE WHY MANY WOULD SAY IT WAS A PLANE, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE GOV ANNOUNCING THAT IT WAS.

Oh yeah, did Rumsfeld slip about a missile.......? I think he did.

Don't forget the air traffic controllers who monitored the planes who described military type maneuvers, of which they were a bit suprised and confused.



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.


I'm encouraged to see that you're not completely trusting then. And that you see at least some of the problems of the whole scenario.

I rest my case.



[edit on 5-9-2004 by SimpleTruth]

[edit on 5-9-2004 by SimpleTruth]

[edit on 5-9-2004 by SimpleTruth]

[edit on 5-9-2004 by SimpleTruth]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
has there been actual studies on the footage that is availabe to disclaim what everyone believes to be true?


If there is then I'd love to see them.


The Pentagon is a very huge building and a 757 is not a 747, so I find it quite possible people could make mistakes when they do see footage of the event.


See this image

this image

(Can't get the picture up)

It was taken, as you can see, very close to the booth with the CCTV. It's not as far away as you might think. So what I am saying is that even due to the low quality and speed you would expect to see a large object ( a bloody commercial airliner! ) wizzing past, or even just creating a blurred movement across the screen. All you get though is a possible tail section (the rest of whatever that craft it is hidden by the toll booth) and a trail of smoke, white smoke. It doesn't add up.


[edit on 5/9/2004 by earthtone]

[edit on 5/9/2004 by earthtone]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
earthtone, puff of smoke from what? A missile? With pure white smoke?

I think we are looking at the craft itself.


earthtone's doodle above shows a trail of smoke just behind the aircraft. You can see the tail of the aircraft just in front of this smoke. Up until recently I always thought the white smoke was the airplane! The clarity of that clip sucks!

Why remove all other footage that possibly caught this? Noone has bothered to address that, at least not to my expectations. We've seen different clips of the WTC towers and the 2nd impact. What does it hurt to show the videoclips of the pentagon that will ultimately lay these questions to rest? Why keep this from the public?



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bangin
Up until recently I always thought the white smoke was the airplane! The clarity of that clip sucks!


Yeh I thought the same! I found that one and it has a slightly better quality were you can see the black tail better. The problem is it blends well with the horizon.

And Bangin, you are right. People should be demanding the footage which only the government has. Funny how they have the only clear pictures that would prove what hit.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   

[
........Oh, you mean this engine?????






Yeh that piece in particular. That is supposed (looks like the only 757 part it could be from an engine) to look like the bit in the middle.



Size don't look right to me. I would say that it is smaller. You can se here that the guys head is right next to it, and it looks bigger than it. The on in the pentagon picture seems about the size of the workers foot. you could attribute this to the damage it sustained I don't know.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Yeah, I agree with you. I was just using that to make a point to Skadi.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
...like they have done with all other crashes.

I don't want people on the scene minutes after the crash removing debris.

I want to see the required environmental impact report of the fuel and chemicals from the plane.

I want to see the remains of the plane, whatever is left, be is large or small. (of course not all of it vaporized because we have pictures of some peices)

I want to see where the remains fit on the flight 77.

I want to see interviews of eye witnesses on sworn affidavits.

I want to see official reports from the fire department and other first responders.

I want the crash site quartered off and non-investigiation people (including pentagon employees) cannot enter.

I want to see videos of the crash from all avalible videos sources (why would anyone of these be classified. I guess they should have classified the videos of the planes hitting the towers, too)

I want to see whatever they got, and I want it signed off and sworn as to its accuracy from the authorities (NTSB, EPA, FBI, DoD, etc.)

I don't want to rely on a handful of photos and eye-witness accounts from newspapers. I don't want to rely on a terrible Pentagon parking lot video that shown nothing except for the wrong date.

Why I can't I get this? This is what I have gotten with all of airline crashes. Why won't they do a normal investigation on this one? Who knows what we might learn, even if it is Flight 77.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I'm willing to concede the fact that the Pentagon attack may have not been a Tomahawk Cruise Missile, although that seems like it's the most credible of all stories at this point, aside from a strike by a global hawk.

HOWEVER,

Whatever struck the pentagon was sure as hell not a Boeing 757. There is just not enough evidence to support it. The wings most definitely would have been littered across the lawn of the pentagon. All things considered, they caused no damage to the Pentagon, which leads me to assume that they weren't there.

The explosion and subsequent penetration of the pentagon by this object shows me that it couldn't have been something as large as a 757, the damage to the building simply isn't on scale. I'm looking at exactly two possibilites, and outside of that, I don't think that people are going to find enough evidence to support anything else.

1.Global Hawk
2.Tomahawk Cruise Missile

That's all I can see it being.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
oh, and I love that avatar, too, earthtone.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   
posting on the proper thread: im convinced that it was a missile attack like a maverick or even some kind of cruise/drone missile.

thats not the issue, the issue is ...why?



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Someone mentioned the lack of wreckage and I wanted to post this site. It has photos from all major crashes and in many of the more violent ones you will see little to no debris left.

Major Crash photos



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   
two questions:

1- if it wasnt the plane that hit the pentagon, then what happened to the plane?

2- why would anyone go through so much effort to shoot a missile into the pentagon and write it off as a plane? what would the point of it be?



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Look at the impact film.

i was standing next to a 757 @ Fanborough airshow, these planes are HUGE, if one were to have hit the Pentagon those photos of the impact would have been filled with the enormous mass of this massive aircraft.

The impact of this huge mass of metal and fuel would have destroyed 2/3 rds of the Pentagon PLUS!

A 757 is almost as big as one of the segments of the pentagon its a HUGE aircraft.

nah im thinking: Business jet. Military Drone. Cruise missile. Or fighter or a combination.

Im looking at the photos above (of the actual impact) and im thinking an a4 skyhawk drone (like they use for target practice)

Its a fighter (nothing unusual and some units still fly a4's as trainers) its about the right size and it would explain the engine wreckage (which is not half as big as the 757 engine fans)

[edit on 5-9-2004 by rustiswordz]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by spangbr
two questions:

1- if it wasnt the plane that hit the pentagon, then what happened to the plane?

2- why would anyone go through so much effort to shoot a missile into the pentagon and write it off as a plane? what would the point of it be?



Your first question is kind of redundant spangbr. If there really was no 757, and 'they' pulled off an operation of this scale, then it really wouldn't be an issue to redirect that plane with it's passengers somehwere to be destroyed/hidden.

As for the reasons for using something else, possibly it was too difficult to get it right, possibly it was done to minimize damage



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join