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.

 

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

page: 215
100
<< 212  213  214    216  217  218 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
^Obvious...Many witnesses claimed to have seen Jean Charles de Menezes wearing a backpack with wires sticking out. They saw him jump a gate and run. He fit the description of known suspects. He was shot dead. He had nothing to do with the bombings, and none of the eye witness reports were true. So much for eye witness reports, huh? I don't need witnesses, I can see with my own eyes, can you?




posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Ok, I am a newbie here and a little confused so maybe someone can help me out with some answers to these? Firstly, is this the first known photo of the pentagon hit?
Is that a group of 3 people standing talking?
Where in relation to this photo are the vehicles that are on fire?
Thanks



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intheshadwos Ok, I am a newbie here and a little confused so maybe someone can help me out with some answers to these? Firstly, is this the first known photo of the pentagon hit?
Is that a group of 3 people standing talking?
Where in relation to this photo are the vehicles that are on fire?
Thanks
Your photos are blurry, making it look like people standing there, the pic provides a more clearer picture, as well as the burning vehicles on the left side. Hope that helps. [edit on 13-7-2007 by deltaboy] [edit on 13-7-2007 by deltaboy]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic a 757 knocked a 90ft wide, 30ft high hole in the Pentagon. Please see here and couble-check before repeating this "fact." frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... I've been wide awake for entirely too long.

I feel sorry for these guys' girlfriends - their careful analysis of the Pentagon evidence gets it in the wrong hole. And we all know it's not good to get germs from the fallacy hole in the truth canal.
... i'm not a person from the truth movement....i believe a 757 hit the pentagon...and anyone that claims to get something from the five clip footage is prolly not right....i cant make out the foreground from the back ground.... but i have a very reliable friend who told me we're not being told everything....and i trust him....because he was on awacs that day above nyc....



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Ahh, friday the 13th. Agreed, anyone claiming they can proove anything using the guardshack footage is pretending. My son just asked why I snorted/laughted when I saw catherders thread back in the mix. 911 was an earth altering event, we need some answers fron the people we elect and pay and the pentagon strike is at the heart of the thing. Was there a stand down? Who exactly had the piloting skills to pull this manuver? Just my first 2 questions if I was granted 2 wishes.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret

I feel sorry for these guys' girlfriends - their careful analysis of the Pentagon evidence gets it in the wrong hole. And we all know it's not good to get germs from the fallacy hole in the truth canal.
...
Thanks for noticing that line... It's not quite PC or whatever...

i'm not a person from the truth movement....i believe a 757 hit the pentagon...and anyone that claims to get something from the five clip footage is prolly not right....i cant make out the foreground from the back ground....
I've tried - video evidence. It is inconclusive. BUT it doesn't conflict w/a 757 strike IMO - don't prove or disprove. Just inconclusive.

but i have a very reliable friend who told me we're not being told everything....and i trust him....because he was on awacs that day above nyc....
Now that sounds interesting - I'd like to learn more. Awacs - air stuff - eye in the sky - if it's real, very valuable info, and first-hand for you... please do share?



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Maybe interesting for some of you.

• The plane that hit the Pentagon was a small, remotely piloted Navy jet. A full-sized Boeing 757 could not have been used because the aerodynamic ground effects would have prevented it coming in so low at full speed without it having to slow right down as if to land.
For more information; www.projectcamelot.net... And this is another look at it. 911truth.tripod.com... This people has done there homework well. [edit on 14/7/07 by spacevisitor] [edit on 14/7/07 by spacevisitor]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK ^Obvious...Many witnesses claimed to have seen Jean Charles de Menezes wearing a backpack with wires sticking out. So much for eye witness reports, huh? I don't need witnesses, I can see with my own eyes, can you?
I'm not sure why i keep reading this thread as it gets more and more .... (edited for content) For anyone to compare mistaken identiy to ...um mistaken airplane...or mistaken plane didn't crash into the pentagon, it flew OVER the ?? Ahhhhh this is flat out crazy. It will never matter to some in here. The evidence is right THERE! You don't want to see it.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic Now that sounds interesting - I'd like to learn more. Awacs - air stuff - eye in the sky - if it's real, very valuable info, and first-hand for you... please do share?
i pretty much told you everything he told me.... "we were on our way back from an overseas TDY when 9-11 happened. it was really sad we flew for just about 24 hours untill we were relieved. We're not being told everything" he's not allowed to talk about it...we had the clearence....but not the need to know.... p.s. ground effect helps a plane just float at minimum speed when it's roughly half the wingspan from the ground....if anything it would have helped the plane be just above the ground at the pentagon.... [edit on 14-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious For anyone to compare mistaken identiy to ...um mistaken airplane...or mistaken plane didn't crash into the pentagon, it flew OVER the ?? Ahhhhh this is flat out crazy. It will never matter to some in here. The evidence is right THERE! You don't want to see it.
You missed my point. It was not mistaken identity, it was witnesses claiming they saw what they didn't, or the witnesses were not really witnesses at all...
You can post witness reports all day but I believe my own eyes and experience first. The evidence is NOT right there. If it was we wouldn't be here discussing it. There is NO evidence a 757 hit the pentagoon.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret ground effect helps a plane just float at minimum speed when it's roughly half the wingspan from the ground....if anything it would have helped the plane be just above the ground at the pentagon....
No it wouldn't. An aircraft flying at 400+ mph is going to be very hard to fly at an altitude literally inches off the ground. The plane will want too climb, holding it level would be very tricky. A plane at an altitude of half its wing length can produce up to 40% extra lift. Try keeping that plane level at that speed and you'll get into trouble very quickly. Then there is the problem of the hole in the pentacon being so low the engines shrouds would have to be touching the ground.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
how can you say that?? You have seen the photos,(debris,bodies,damage,lightpoles) read the DNA reports, listened to the EYE-witnesses. What do you HAVE that proves no plane hit the petagon. Remeber.. LACK of evidence is not PROOF of a bobm or a fly over. (unless you have proof of that) Not even lack... there is ZERO evidence that a plane DIDNT hit the pentagon. You are trying to say that the eyewitnesses did not see what they saw?? And YOU did? What did you see??



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious how can you say that?? You have seen the photos,(debris,bodies,damage,lightpoles) read the DNA reports, listened to the EYE-witnesses.
Bodies...Where? I haven't seen them Light poles....Planted, plane didn't even fly through the light poles. Damage...Not consistent with a Boeing 575. Debris...Very little and easily plantable. Where are all the other wheels? Where are all the engine parts and other stuff that should not have burned up? Witnesses...We already went over this. You can't trust witness reports. DNA reports...Plane burns up into nothing there aint gonna be DNA reports. I have no proof, and neither do you, so don't ask for it. Its just my opinion from experience with aircraft and government methods. There is nothing that convinces me a 575 flew that flight path, crashed into the pentacon and conveniently cleaned up its own debris...
[edit on 14/7/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Anok, It really doesnt matter WHAT you are showed. You came here with your mind made up. Thats all... I on the other hand still search for the truth. People like you pick and choose what you want to see. You can NOT prove the light poles were planted. I however can prove through MULTIPLE eyewitnesses that say they indeed got hit by the plane. You can NOT prove ANYTHING was planted at the scene. I however can tell you the the media was outside the Pentagon PRIOR to the impact of the plane. ( on the opposite side, I was watching the channel that was at the pentagon when they heard the impact of the plane) Therfore, there is no way this debris could have been planted without ANYONE seeing it happening. You can NOT prove the hole was too small for a 757. I however can show you several documents that state clearly that IT CAN and WAS. You state there wasn't any bodies? I saw pictures of the dead bodies that were burned beyond recognition still strapped in their seats.(Massoui Trial Exhibits) The offical report shows SUBSTANTIAL evidence that a plane hit that building. Your theory has ZERO PROOF. Nothing.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious how can you say that?? You have seen the photos,(debris,bodies,damage,lightpoles) read the DNA reports, listened to the EYE-witnesses.
NIST DNA experts had to come up with new DNA testing just for 911. The DNA testing at that time was not good for testing bodies that were burnt or crushed like the bodies on Flight 77. www.nist.gov...

Due to the nature of the World Trade Center disaster, it quickly became evident that traditional methods for performing DNA typing were not likely to be fully successful in identifying all of the recovered remains. Traditional DNA ID methods depend on the presence of long, intact segments of DNA in order to accurately type the sample. The DNA in many of the samples recovered in this situation were so fragmented that these standard methods were ineffective.
I have the NTSB data from the Flight Data Recorder that i received from a FOIA request. The animation done by the NTSB from the Flight Data Recorder shows that the plane was ona different flight path then the official story tells, also at the time of impact the plane was at 180 feet according to the altimeter. [edit on 14-7-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious I on the other hand still search for the truth.
Bullcrap! You're here to find the truth?
You sound like someone else here that always says that, causticfox how are you doing with your new name? How about start with learning the truth about the physics of the South Tower tilt that you and others ignore in your search for 'truth'. What 'theory'? I don't argue theories I argue the physics, and that aint theory. The physics that you de-bunkers ignore while you concentrate on de-bunking un-provable theories. How about contributing to my thread about the physics of the south tower tilt? You and all but one de-bunker stayed well away from that thread, which is usual when the real questions get asked. ROTF you're hear to learn the truth...
The truth is you have nothing. The truth is you ignore all evidence of a force other than fire and gravity acting on the buildings. The truth is you ignore all the physics anomalies you can't find an answer for. OK now we've got the personal slinging out the way, how about debating the points I bring up instead of trying to shoot me down, thanx... Yes my mind is made up, but at least I made up my own mind...
Edit:forgot to dot an i... [edit on 14/7/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Sry dble post [edit on 14/7/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK Bullcrap! You're here to find the truth?
You sound like someone else here that always says that, causticfox how are you doing with your new name? Yes my mind is made up, but at least I made up my own mind...
[edit on 14/7/2007 by ANOK]
You made my day ANOK,"causticfox" now there's alot of 757 hit the Pentagon wrapped up in one word. The longest running thread keeps on keepin' on just like my search for real authentic information thats indesputible evidence Flt. 77 hit the Pentagon. You know, serial #s, FBI reports, terrorist DNA confirmation. It's been 6 years can we see somethin' more than the same old stuff?



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I agree, captain is always saying the facts are there and the rest of us is wrong. But ask a few questions and he dodges the point and goes back to saying things like , I never said anything i said was fact, but you are wrong. So ill try to explain that point again to him. First, the "official conclusion" is most likely bunk based on how do you trust the source when the source is the one being accused? The pentagon didnt let people just go and see the supposed crash right after it happened. and the airspace is restricted. so if a plain was heading there, they would have shot it down. plain and simple. I am tired of hearing the excuse they dropped the ball. That is the biggest crock i have ever heard. And even the official bogus video clearly shows NO PLANE!!! It shows something traveling so fast that not even the video slowed down could identify it. You can tear apart little pieces of what i say and try to down play every point by telling me i have no proof and the official report is correct. And i will say to you, i feel sorry for you.To not question the obvious lack of disclosure and all the hundreds of things that point to a conspiracy that has plagued our society is just ignorant to say the least. Our government has made it clear the last five years that they will and can do whatever they want. And there is nothing we the people can do about it. But i refuse to let people tell me that they know the facts when is is clear they do not. And i will never back down to any power trying to bully me into a way of life that i dont agree with.I normally maintain a certain degree of discipline when debating something. But right about now im a little pissed off. believe what you want to believe. i dont care! But quit saying that these are facts because this is the official report. BULL! BULL! BULL! This will be my last post in this forum until independent proof comes out that clearly shows one way or another what happened. And just to let everyone know, the outlay of the op was great. but its just the same as any other so called proof thats out there now. I will always have my opinion on this matter, but i will never say that any of it is fact. Thank you!



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   
the pentagon "videos" or five clip gifs, are so crappy...(how crappy are they?)....that pretty much alls you can see is the pentagon...and a fireball...that's it... there's niether side that has proof that the holes were too small or too large...(did anybody walk up to the pentagon and physically measure it?) if the hole really was too small or large enough....how come none of the firemen or police officers or any emergency responders come forward and said this is wrong.....sure at the moment they were there they prolly didnt know what was going on...but afterwards?...(you can bribe some people...but not everyone) i'm still waiting for the whole story to be released...yes you can call me a fence sitter...but with someone telling me we're not being told everything....makes me wonder....however...i am biased towards the official story.... ground effect...full trim....and some strength.... p.s. ANOK...was that a sarcastic 575 instead of 757?...or just a dislexic post?? [edit on 15-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]



new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 212  213  214    216  217  218 >>

log in

join