Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

page: 303
101
<< 300  301  302    304 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I'll also go along and congratulate the OP for all the hard work they did. But it comes up wayyyyyy short. Focusing on equipment of the plane and size and...blahhhhh... I don't know if the OP is a disinfo agent or not but like other's I've seen trying hard to explain how this huge Jet Liner crashed threw the Pentagon...they come up way short as the others. It's not a wheel we should focus on...lol but rather every day objects you should focus on. Like the huge...HUGE cable spool sitting in front of the hole...untouched. Windows...untouched. Before the roof collapse no wing or engine damage to hole or building. Not even scrape marks. . And no, huge heavy wings and engines don't fold up like cards and disappear threw a hole that is clearly not even big enough to fit a plane threw. That hole shows only 1 thing...a Missile. As so many others have said about the guy that hijacked the plane was terrible. All tapes being taken. National security? Why release frames ( that show a missile hitting) instead of from other buildings in the area that would have proven to the American public that it was in fact a plane. If anything...someone only concentrating on a wheel shaft and size of a hunk of metal tends me to think they're on thier Govn't's side since that's all they concentrated on to. Where's the whole plane? All the derbies for study? Did they end up on the same barge as TWC derbies? LoL Anyone believes this crap gets what's coming to them. This OP has ignored soooo many GLARING facts that this post just makes me laugh. Welcome to your new America. Hope you enjoy it!
edit on 21-4-2013 by tracehd1 because: Add




posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent reply to post by Cade
 

I have not seen you explain why the fuselage can accomplish what the wings and motor could not?
And yet dozens of people saw it do just that. You have no structual engineering degree. You have no aeronautical degree. You have no proof to back up your opinion. Your opinion does not matter to the world.
edit on 26-11-2012 by samkent because: (no reason given)
He certainly has common sense, you don't need a degree in anything to figure out what happened at the pentagon! Just some common sense.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
CNN reporter at Pentagon on 9/11 says no evidence of plane hitting near pentagon.
Reporter's mic cut off after saying a "US Air 737" at Pentagon on 9/11



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DeeKlassified
 

CNN reporter at Pentagon on 9/11 says no evidence of plane hitting near pentagon.
The reporter wasn't there when the plane hit. But dozens of witnesses were. They said it was a plane.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DeeKlassified
 
And yet Jamie McIntyre later said he was taken out of context, and meant that no plane had crashed NEAR the Pentagon.

JAMIE McINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There are still people who don't believe a plane really hit the Pentagon on September 11th. I was there, I saw the wreckage, I photographed it with my digital camera. One of the pictures I took shows a yellow fire hose stretched across the heliport surrounded with thousands of shards of metal from the plane. Another shows glass that appeared to be from the cockpit, and another was a part of the fuselage with the colors of American Airlines. In fact, I got arrested that day by an overzealous Pentagon police officer, for taking this particular picture of the Pentagon on fire. He confiscated my camera, but I got it back a few days later. All of the images were intact. The only pieces left that you can see are small enough -- I was surprised to find that my own words are part of the conspiracy presentation. You can see on the Internet clips of me saying on September 11th, from my own close up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon. But I was answering a question, and the point I was making was about an eyewitness who thought a plane crashed near the Pentagon. I was saying no, not near the Pentagon. The only plane that crashed was at the Pentagon.
www.democraticunderground.com... As for the second video, reporters can't make mistakes? There were dozens of mistakes made by the media that day. Everything from more planes down in fields and around the country, to car bombs going off in Washington DC. There was a lot of confusion initially about what kind of planes hit any of the buildings, including initial reports that the first WTC impact was a Cessna.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by tracehd1
 
Unfortunately for your theory there are 100 plus witnesses to a plane on record and 0 to a missile. Many identified it as an American Airlines plane ; including Arlington Police who can be heard here calling it in at 0.32 :- www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by tracehd1 . And no, huge heavy wings and engines don't fold up like cards and disappear threw a hole that is clearly not even big enough to fit a plane threw.
I take it from that you are an aircraft designer or have some kind of structural engineering expertise regarding the Pentagon if not they are just your opinion



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

You cannot dispute the facts, a 757 hit the Pentagon killing everyone onboard and many inside the building. It was a terrorist attack and the only fault with the government here is with their failure to prevent or stop it.
As usual this where i disagree with the thread op. Again look at your own facts which you provided The hole was to small to be of an Boeing 757. But if you want to urge everyone to believe the official version go right ahead.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

You cannot dispute the facts, a 757 hit the Pentagon killing everyone onboard and many inside the building. It was a terrorist attack and the only fault with the government here is with their failure to prevent or stop it.
As usual this where i disagree with the thread op. Again look at your own facts which you provided The hole was to small to be of an Boeing 757. But if you want to urge everyone to believe the official version go right ahead.
Nor was the plane in the single frame the correct proportions to be the aircraft that allegedly hit. "Eliminate the impossible and what remains is the answer, however unlikely". Tons of information going around with people citing as evidence, but people forever ignoring the small pieces of evidence that make the story they believe impossible.
edit on 29-4-2013 by jprophet420 because:
edit on 29-4-2013 by jprophet420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

You cannot dispute the facts, a 757 hit the Pentagon killing everyone onboard and many inside the building. It was a terrorist attack and the only fault with the government here is with their failure to prevent or stop it.
As usual this where i disagree with the thread op. Again look at your own facts which you provided The hole was to small to be of an Boeing 757. But if you want to urge everyone to believe the official version go right ahead.
What hole was to small



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

You cannot dispute the facts, a 757 hit the Pentagon killing everyone onboard and many inside the building. It was a terrorist attack and the only fault with the government here is with their failure to prevent or stop it.
As usual this where i disagree with the thread op. Again look at your own facts which you provided The hole was to small to be of an Boeing 757. But if you want to urge everyone to believe the official version go right ahead.
What hole was to small
The small, rectagular hole in the wall a few feet above the ground that is visible in photographs taken of the impact zone before the wall collapsed. You know - the one with a still intact vertical steel column with concrete around it dividing the hole in two: 911review.org... that the fuselage of the jet managed to squeeze past without snapping the column in two....



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

You cannot dispute the facts, a 757 hit the Pentagon killing everyone onboard and many inside the building. It was a terrorist attack and the only fault with the government here is with their failure to prevent or stop it.
As usual this where i disagree with the thread op. Again look at your own facts which you provided The hole was to small to be of an Boeing 757. But if you want to urge everyone to believe the official version go right ahead.
What hole was to small
The small, rectagular hole in the wall a few feet above the ground that is visible in photographs taken of the impact zone before the wall collapsed. You know - the one with a still intact vertical steel column with concrete around it dividing the hole in two: 911review.org... that the fuselage of the jet managed to squeeze past without snapping the column in two....
I suggest you look at the FULL image to see the position of the hole in your picture above!!! It's not at ground level DOH! you can't see the bottom for water spray it's one floor up
edit on 3-5-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I use to believe in the "no plane theory" but thought it to be a missile. But you cannot explain the light poles, the taxi impact, generator impact, or numerous pieces of aircraft debris (including hitting cars) in a logical manner. And no, preplanted landing gear strut, rims, light poles, etc is no a logical argument. A 757 on autoland with an alignment point of the highway center does make sense. It accounts for pretty much everything, including why the black box data is wrong....throw it out because you don't want an automated landing (minus landing gear being down) showing-up. Did you know American did over 100 747 landings with a touchdown point within centimeters of each other? And major aluminum plane parts do disappear in fires, and aluminum is used to make gunpowder. This is a picture of 747 that burned on a runway in Spain. April Gallop? She had a concusion and two witness saw her exit two doors blown open during the impact. No fuel?...ask the people that could hardly breath and ask them how their lungs are doing. Rich
edit on 3-5-2013 by Oouthere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Oouthere
 
Everyone has an opinion about what happened that day, but ask yourself why there are NO, NONE, ZERO associations or groups of professionals such as architects, engineers, pilots, etc. who SUPPORT the official story. If there was adequate proof of the governments excuses for what happened, no doubt thousands of prominent professionals would gladly step up, join such a group and show how the official story makes sense and is supported by the evidence. But there are none. The only professionals, most of whom have vast credentials, are against the official fairy tale. Sites like patriotsquestion911.com have a massive number of members, all of whom have enough expertise to make reliable and telling observations. I think that the fact that the official story has only a few shills, many not even within government and whose assertions can be easily disproved, are willing to embarrass themselves by supporting the fairy tale. If the official story was likely or even possible there would no doubt be a massive response from the educated professionals, but all we see are architects, engineers, pilots, military brass, FBI agents and many others who do NOT believe the governments nonsensical ravings and explain carefully why. So lets hear why the official story supporters have virtually NO representation and why so many people who disbelieve the official account are willing and able to shred the fairy tale..where are all the educated professionals that can at least match the number of professionals who state that they know that the official story is nonsense? The answer: No competent architect, engineer, pilot , etc. can argue intelligently for the official story and know that any attempt to do so will mark them as morons or government shills. The freefall speed of Bldg. 7 alone defies any and all efforts to support the ' collapse due to fire ' nonsense, and so no real professionals dare try to defend the official story.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 
Hiya Richierich, I didn't mean to insinuate that I believe the official story, only that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. IMO, to stay with the "no plane" argument is being dishonest with ones self if they are only looking for truth and not having an alternate agenda. While a 757 does explain the damage of the Pentagon, it does not explain how the plane got there and who programmed the flight path. No simple terrorist act of hijacking a plane is going to make this happen. It would seem numerous flight simulations with experts in the field had to be run to make this possible. Rich
edit on 9-5-2013 by Oouthere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by tracehd1
 
To the thread op arent you using all the same sources which were used by the Mainstream News outlets? and of course the 9/11 conspiracy debunking websites which the majority of the same topics and title are discussed. Unfortunately i dont believe that an Boeing 757 Struck at the Pentagon due to the size. And its two large engines.
edit on 10-5-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-5-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Oouthere
 
Nice example with that image Oouthere with that that is why the official claim that an Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon has issues. And that image is an good example.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 
How does a plane that burned to the ground in a fire show that a 757 couldn't have hit the Pentagon? The two aren't even remotely similar.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 
To me the burned plane shows a lot. If parts of the aircraft piled-up at impact (i.e. pieces of sheered stabilizers and wings) then they could have burned into nothingness. The inside aluminum could have burned as well with the steel parts and miscellaneous non-burned aluminum parts being scattered throughout the Pentagon impact path. This scenario is the only one that can account for all of the impact damage (i.e. taxi, light poles, generator, building, etc) and the aircraft debris that landed on the lawn with some pieces hitting cars. There is no other intellectually honest and viable explanation of which I can come-up with. Rich



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1 reply to post by tracehd1
 
Unfortunately for your theory there are 100 plus witnesses to a plane on record and 0 to a missile. Many identified it as an American Airlines plane ; including Arlington Police who can be heard here calling it in at 0.32 :- www.youtube.com...
Problem is, when you actually go through the list of witnesses and where they were, less than 25 actually were able to view "a plane" crashing into the Pentagon.






top topics



 
101
<< 300  301  302    304 >>

log in

join