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: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie
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


Uhhhh.......I looked at every single photo. So...which pics would you be referring to exactly? There's only one on there where no debris was shown, and that's because the photo is from a distance and the fireball explosion is still in the process of happening. (one of the 79 crashes) All the others have ample pieces all over the place.

But it is a cool site. It has documented many and most of the major airline crashes in history. Oh yeah, one thing I thought was a little funny, they didn't include the pentagon crash on the site, but they had the WTC. Haha, nice citations there native. So how is this supposed to support the official story again???




posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
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.



I'm sorry, but you just have to look at the initial photos. Directly infront on the the lawn their appears to be little or no wreckage. I don't mean some large piece of fusalage or a bunch of seats, I mean like the hug wing span and tail section that couldn't have possible passed through the pentagon. They would be left and the the actual body of the plane plows into the pentagon. Think about it.

Becuase if you subscribe to the offical story then you agree that the plane almost completely disintegrated because of the "reinfocred concrete walls" of the pentagon. If that were true then it is impossible that the plane would smash through that many of the struts in that way. I thought it was vaporized upon impact?



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   
it doesnt make any sense to me to shoot a missle into the pentagon and make it look like it was a plane? why would someone do that? what would the point of it be? given that two planes flew into the twin towers, the plane hitting the pentagon wouldnt have been a swaying factor on the war on terrorism-- i can think of no motivation for performing such a big operation.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
You know, this argument is sooo ludicrous! Think about! Since when do planes VAPORIZE and DISAPPEAR when they crash???!!!


well actually….the FACT that a plane traveling faster than normal, having more fuel than normal and crashing into a ‘harder’ object at more of a right angle then normal. Producing a hotter fire and less debris would be based on well…..physics and reality…..
As far as giving you an example…you give me an example of another plane of that size, flying at that speed at a right angle to a hardened target (that will probably give you your example as well). and just as an aside do you have any pictures of the wing and tail sections from the WTC crashes....those buildings where not half as hardened as the Pentagon...so acording to your logic the wings and tail sections must have fallen...yet when you watch the actual tapes there was no big wing and tail section debris visible....hum... wait I get it those where fake too.

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
I'm getting really pissed off about the stupidity about the terrific heat argument.

Just a question…does scientific reality often piss you off…..wow.
I would really hate for you to see some of the weapons systems that the pentagon is working up…like a plastic bullet that due to speed penetrates the amour of a tank and actually explodes due to that speed. That would probably really piss you off. Or some of the EMF weapons that they have announced they are currently testing.


Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Rumsfeld's slip about a missile, etc!

I know at 18 you make few speaking mistakes but wait till you’re in your late 60s…you’ll understand a little more. Now before you get’em in a bunch, my point is most of his peers are drooling their lunch out right now, I was not trying to compare or guess your age.


Originally posted by SimpleTruth
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 that is my point….ever heard of the little boy who cried wolf…..my main problem with this is that you guys are creating cover for any future misdeeds…by inuring the general populous with overreaction to paranoid delusions. Before we start with the brash conjecture and the hyped demagoguery let's get just smallest amount of physical proof, or at least a plausible theory, not the idle ponderings of some one with a lack of experience or expertise in a certain area saying…that’s it I think I see something therefore it must be.


Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Why was a plane not seen on the video footage?

Already been explained.


Originally posted by SimpleTruth
So how does that explain the small size of the one thing we DO see

Again already explained.


Originally posted by SimpleTruth
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.

Which would probably be associated with anything but the mildest of turns and smooth altitude transitions. And even so what are you trying to point out that the air force found some pilots who not only wanted to kill themselves but many others?



A plane was flying erratically and change course towards the capitol for 40 minutes after two confirmed terrorists attacks. Yet the city wasn’t even alerted till 5 minutes before it hit. That in itself is enough to raise serious questions and eyebrows.

Well seeing as how this was a first, I found it amazing they received a warning….also with the well reported lack of interagency cooperation 40 minutes should probably be a record or something. And BTW at WTC they had people on PA systems saying it was alright to return to work.


Originally posted by SimpleTruth
I rest my case.

Better put…..you rest your rant. BTW that name is already taken.


[edit on 5-9-2004 by keholmes]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Is it just me, or does it seem that in those photos of plane accidents that the Airbus A-300 caused more damage to that suburban area than a Boeing 757 did to the pentagon?

Just a thought.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by rustiswordz
A 757 is almost as big as one of the segments of the pentagon its a HUGE aircraft.
[edit on 5-9-2004 by rustiswordz]



That's actually quite a common misconception. People don't really have a good method of juding sizes of different objects when those objects are not beside one another.

Here is the Pentagon before impact:


Here is the pentagon after impact: Its a HUGE, [upgraded and reinforced against bomb blasts between 1992 and 2001], building. It's NOT a normal building, but it still took a a LOT of damage.


Some info about the Pentagon: The structure is supported by 41,492 concrete piles. There are five floors, plus mezzanines and basements. The building alone sits on 29 acres; is 77 feet, 3.5 inches high. Each outside wall is 921 feet long (source1)(source2). A 757 is 124 feet 10 inches from wing tip to wing tip (source). A ~125 ft wide, hollow, aluminum, designed to be light and fly further on less fuel, airplane would not wipe out a building constructed the way the pentagon is.

Now, everyone can agree that 921/125= roughly 7.4 right?

Lets see how huge a 757 is beside the pentagon:



I think you can see that one 757 would not flatten the entire pentagon... Actually one 757 is relatively small compared to the how massive the pentagon actually is.

-=-

As for "where is the wreckage?" here is the wreckage - note: head must be pulled out of sand prior to viewing images.

Read this entire site please also note: I realise there will still be many of you who will claim it's all a fabrication, including the interviews with eyewitnesses (one of whom is Mike Walter from USA Today) all the photographs of the crash site, the WRECKAGE of the plane (clearly visable in many, many, photographs, etc etc.) but hey - keep right on living in denial and being mislead by people who create bogus websites and delude themselves from what is reality and what is fantasy (hell, many are probably created BY government agencies just to distract people away from other REAL stories in the world...).

It's amazing how people will accept the word of a few folks who claim they've been abducted by aliens (yet have no photographic or tangeable evidence to support them) yet they will not accept the eye witness accounts of dozens and dozens of people (including a pilot who was a witness and identified the plane as a 757 to news reporters only moments after) who saw the 757 hit this building.

[edit: fixed a couple mistakes in typing, added 2nd source]

[edit on 5-9-2004 by CatHerder]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
That someone actually believes my theory
I am telling you you can find out lots of stuff through channeling with a Miller Lite bottle, or lots of them
.




Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by edsinger
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!



LOL! That is about the closest thing to reality in this thread (other than a couple people in here who actually do some research outside of the normal conspiracy theory sites)... An acquaintence of mine (I can't really call him a friend, we've only worked on a couple different small projects together) from Oracle was near the naval offices, with 2 people from work, and they ALL saw the plane, they ALL heard the plane, and they ALL saw the plane hit.

Oh wait, sorry, he was probably abducted by those aliens from EdsAnus and brainwashed. My bad.




posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
CatHerder
Oh catherder why oh why did you show them the size comparison. Look at the damage now they will realize that damage was too large for a 757. They were totally ignoring that fake decommissioning of the battleships story a while back, and now they will put two and two together and realize the government actually crashed those battleships into these buildings....



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Whoops, I blew the numbers. A 757-200 or 757-300 is actually 124 feet 10 inches, not 124 feet 5 inches (I don't know where I started the typo that led to the 5 inches instead of 10 inches, dammit). I guess I'll need to redo the images in that post and adjust the planes each to be %0.010033 larger.


Just as an additional tidbit of information, a 757-200 is 44 feet 6 inches high, the height of a the pentagon is 77 feet 3.5 inches.


Gosh, the hole in this building looks to be about HALF the height of the building! Imagine that.

Check out this link for some really great photos taken by an office worker right after the crash. Note the lightpoles which were sheered off by the plane. Man, that would have had to be one bigassed missile with wings over 140 feet wide (cough) to sheer off those poles on the way in!

Oh hey, wait a second, somebody must've thought to toss this CHUNK OF THE PLANE on the lawn before taking this photo while firefighters fought the blaze on the outside of the building... sheesh




[edit on 5-9-2004 by CatHerder]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Have you flown on a plane in the last decade? they have cell phones built into the back of the seat in front of you. It's called "Airfone."



Im gonna one up ya, Roarky ol boy.

In case people havent paid attention to technology over the years....

We have a thing called SATELITES.

Now, if anyone knows about phone plans for cellular communications, ones knows there are varying degrees of plans, quality, prices, ect.

Now, how can people across the ocean call people from cell phone to cell phone, since there are no towers in the middle of the ocean?

SATELITES.

There are many phone models and cellular plans that connect phones not simply through cellular towers, but through satelites. Hell, how do you think the CIA track bin laden and his calls, for christ sake? The filter through the millions of cell phone calls that are routed through satelites.

It is not only possible to use a cellphone on a flight (provided you have the right one and the right plan) I have seen it done, this summer, when flying back from the UK. I also have recieved phonecalls from family members on thier cell phones who were still in flight, informing me they were about to land in an hour. Example, my uncle was flying into Chicago to visit my great uncle. He had just bought a very fancy cell phone and a sweet super duper cell package. He was about an hour out, and he called us, inflight, on his phone (since he didnt want to waste money on the airphone) and informed us he was about to land, that they had been delayed at SFO, and to call my great uncle and let him know not to worry, the plane would be an hour late.

Seeing how the families of those killed on flight 93 were actively in communication with thier loved ones, who were talking on the phones, family members who had called the police in panic when recieving the phone calls.

Now, lower level cell phones, ones with less deluxe packages, who are confined to limited areas of reception, and cell phone tower transmissions, would not be able to sucessfully call. But what kind of phones/packages could people on flight 93 afford?

The best. Many of them were from the Bay Area, which is the most high tech place in the world. Silicon Valley. Stanford university. Plus, one of the most expensive places to live. I grew up there.

Everyone has some latest gadget there, and businessmen are no exception. The folks on 93, Todd Beamer, Tom Burnett, ect, all were high level managment, executive type travelers who went everywhere on business, so its safe to assume thier cellular plans and systems were also very cutting edge, to allow constant communication no matter what.

As for the whole missile thing, Ill share with you my surprise on 9/11.

I sat with my friend on the couch, watching in horror. I was talking to my friend, I knew we were going to get hit (years earlier). I told him, however, this was beyond anything I had ever predicted. I had thought they would release poison gas or use a truck bomb, Id never dreamed they would use fully loaded planes of people as MISSILES aginast us.

Its a metaphor, not a reality. Those werent missiles. Those were planes used in the same way a missile would be used. They were fully loaded missiles with humans on board. But they were still designed and used previously as airplanes.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
If they did divert the real airliners, how did they do it? I assume the standard airliner doesn't have a remote flying device does it? Would they have found someone willing to take over a plane and spend their life destroying it? I find that hard but not impossible to believe. More likely I would think they would have crashed them with remote. But that would have meant they would have had to install the remote controls prior to 911. Would there be any good way of tracking the service records for the 4 airline flights to see if there were remotes installed or unusual service proceedures performed?
.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
I assume the standard airliner doesn't have a remote flying device does it?
.


Yeh they do. Those planes could have been flown by remote control.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone
Yeh they do. Those planes could have been flown by remote control.

Do you have a link that details the automatic take off remotes for airliners?



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   
These planes have these things called computers. It enables them to be flown without a pilot.

"The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls. "

www.sianews.com...


[edit on 6/9/2004 by earthtone]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Oh and another thing, (which is described in this link actually) Apparently the planes cannot exceed 1.5g's when being controlled by a human pilot. This is built into the software.

If you look at the footage of the two planes hitting the WTC buildings it is obvious that they are pulling more than 1.5g's. I have read that it was more like 4.5g's. Now that is interesting. I need to look all this up in offical noeing documentation, but the chances are its really hard to get hold of/ removed from the net.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Main landing gear wheel rim wreckage at Pentagon


Engine Combustion chamber


Fuselage (green anticorrosion coating) wreckage at Pentagon


Landing gear Strut


Wheel tire wreckage at WTC and Pentagon

Also read this for more indepth debunkage that points out most of the flaws made by 2nd hand websites


Question No 5

The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit. Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?


Patrick: I'm not certain the models are to scale, and they're certainly not in the correct orientation. Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.

Paul: If you’re going to doctor evidence, do it right: Eyewitness accounts say the plane hit from 45 degrees to the side. Adjust the silhouettes properly, and fix the parallax effect in the second photo. The plane fits the impact area pretty well: Don't look at the collapsed upper floors, but at the wider swatch knocked out of the ground floor. I would expect the wings, being weaker than the building, to collapse on the way in. But with no previous crashes of the sort to guide us, we can't possibly predict what should have happened. If there's anything we learned that day, it's that we are poor judges of what is and isn't possible.


And then theres also
this article that talks about Rumsfield keeping a peice of the plane as memorandum on his desk.


WASHINGTON - The Justice Department investigation that criticized FBI agents for taking items from the World Trade Center site also found that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a high-ranking FBI official kept items from the Sept. 11 attack scenes.

The final investigatory report said the Justice Department inspector general confirmed that Rumsfeld ''has a piece of the airplane that flew into the Pentagon.'' The Associated Press obtained a copy of the report Friday.


Heres also several links that I'm sure most of the conspiracy beleivers wont even read that refute the conspiracy beliefs.

And lets not forget about the black boxes found at the pentagon site.

or, that 184 of the 189 people that died in the plane, were identified at the scene of the crash.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by QuietSoul]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   
to bad there Global Hawk parts
why don't you read the thread before post old info,



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul


the black boxes found at the pentagon site.



Thanks for the links. I thought the black box was said to have been destroyed like at the WTC. Funny how the passport of mohamed atta managed to survive and not the almost indestructable black box.

[edit on 6/9/2004 by earthtone]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I did some more research and found this video on the DoD FOIA website.

The video shows the intense fire damage from the fires and is about 7 minutes long. No signs of plane peices, but it supports the intense heat damage.


Quigley: (in progress) -- leader of a combat camera crew yesterday that was taken through the interior portions of the damaged section of the building, and with the FBI right there, with the building inspectors right there, with the fire chief -- fire department personnel right there to make sure that we were safe and non-intrusive on any of the -- from the law enforcement perspective -- and what we ended up with is a tape that we'll provide dubs to all of you, every inch of it. What we have to start off with this morning, however, is a six-minute edited version, just for brevity, that Terry (Mitchell) will narrate a little bit for you, and that is what we will start off.

Second, Mr. Lee Evey, no stranger to many of you, is the head of the Pentagon renovation project and has been for some time. Following Terry, Lee will then get up and go through a description -- take another step further to the description of the damage that you heard some yesterday, as well as how we're going to take it from here in renovating the -- repairing the damage and moving on for the renovation of the remainder of the building.


Transcript of the video



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Found some more stuff, apparently this is a Army radio station and it was broadcasted the day after the incident in question..

The radio broadcast has several eye witness testimonials


Pentagon Radio Broadcast:

Sept 12, 2001
www.defenselink.mil...

Sept 13, 2001
www.defenselink.mil...

And heres a more concrete link regarding the Black Boxes being found:
www.defenselink.mil...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join