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.
I am not saying that the Pentagon was not hit by anything. I am saying that if it was hit by an airliner then there should have been sufficient debris....
....and there should be sufficient photographic evidence of that debris to show that it was indeed an airliner.
So why aren't there plenty of photographs of seats....
....and more than just one photo of one wheel that we can't even tell the size of?
So you're saying that one engine penetrated through the c-ring, but the other didn't even put a dent in the outside wall. In response, this "numb nutz" presents Exhibit A:
Eventually, all of the nearly 8,000 windows in the Pentagon will be replaced with fixed double-pane glass mirroring the original architecture but offering improved thermal and ultraviolet filtering properties. However, the new exterior outermost E-Ring windows facing the perimeter roadways and the innermost A-Ring windows (at the courtyard center of the complex), being the most vulnerable, will be blast resistant. The new windows are an insulated, laminated, fully-tempered assembly that is designed to absorb and resist the blast loads without shattering into small projectiles or leaving the frame as a single unit. This design meets the client criteria for translucency and energy efficiency, as well as for safety in a blast event.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by Cassius666
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by Cassius666
To even speculate we need information about the ammount of debrie recovered. As other posters said, you cant just assume everything has been posted online in pictures.
If you say that the debrie has been planted, how do you think it has been done? Before the explosion, after the explosion? imbedded during the renovation of the wing? You dont touch on that.
Don't assume anything.
But that also means you don't ASSUME an airliner went into the Pentagon. It needs to be PROVEN that an airliner went into the Pentagon. So why can't people who say an airliner did that provide sufficient pictorial evidence for debris sufficient to be an airliner? The empty plane would have been about 100 tons. How could 50 tons be cleared out without lots of pictures from such a news worthy event?
psikedit on 26-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)
How do you account for the debrie that has been found? Planted evidence? Photoshop, pictures not taken at the pentagon?
Is there any testimony of the people who have been on the site that there was foulplay involved? So far the evidence for a wrecked plane at the site seems to be pretty overwhelming, such as landing gear, tires etc. and you do not account for it.
I am not saying that the Pentagon was not hit by anything. I am saying that if it was hit by an airliner then there should have been sufficient debris and there should be sufficient photographic evidence of that debris to show that it was indeed an airliner. So why aren't there plenty of photographs of seats and more than just one photo of one wheel that we can't even tell the size of?
psik
Originally posted by hooper
There's is plenty of photographic evidence of the plane debris.
Originally posted by Alfie1
The wheel has been carefully considered by aerospace engineers who have concluded that it was from a Boeing 757-200.
All that proves is that they planted a wheel.
Originally posted by thedman
As determined from these photos was about 96 ft wide
Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by SimontheMagus
I don't know how long this charade can go on. The people here who post daily claiming that there is ample evidence of a plane crash at the pentagon, cannot for one second make me believe they are for real. Not a shred of doubt, huh? Child, please. This whole 'argument' is by now so phony, that I grow weary of it.
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Originally posted by Alfie1
The wheel has been carefully considered by aerospace engineers who have concluded that it was from a Boeing 757-200.
All that proves is that they planted a wheel. Where's the rest of this 757? Besides the one piece left conspicuously out in the open that has the wrong paint for AAedit on 27-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
Wrong. I would acknowledge it. It would also help if they could show us the video where they got the 5 frames from. You KNOW they have a video with the missing frames don't you? You couldn;t possibly be that dense.... please tell me you're not. Please tell me that you can at least acknowledge that something is being very blatantly and arrogantly concealed.
Originally posted by Alfie1
Lets face it, if the whole aircraft was sitting there pristine in the rubble you would still deny it.
Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by SimontheMagus
I don't know how long this charade can go on. The people here who post daily claiming that there is ample evidence of a plane crash at the pentagon, cannot for one second make me believe they are for real. Not a shred of doubt, huh? Child, please. This whole 'argument' is by now so phony, that I grow weary of it.
Wrong. I would acknowledge it.
It would also help if they could show us the video where they got the 5 frames from.
You KNOW they have a video with the missing frames don't you?
You couldn;t possibly be that dense.... please tell me you're not.
Please tell me that you can at least acknowledge that something is being very blatantly and arrogantly concealed.
Good God, do you really think they would try to pull off something this big without at least planting some tokens for you lemmings to grasp onto as "evidence"?
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Wrong. I would acknowledge it. It would also help if they could show us the video where they got the 5 frames from. You KNOW they have a video with the missing frames don't you? You couldn;t possibly be that dense.... please tell me you're not. Please tell me that you can at least acknowledge that something is being very blatantly and arrogantly concealed.
Originally posted by Alfie1
Lets face it, if the whole aircraft was sitting there pristine in the rubble you would still deny it.
Good God, do you really think they would try to pull off something this big without at least planting some tokens for you lemmings to grasp onto as "evidence"?
Originally posted by hooper
There are no "missing frames".
Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Alfie1
Your 'link' is pure drivel. In the last page they write, "the main THEORY still has some unanswered questions" , so back off. This is not proof of anything but a cover-up. How you can wake up and look at yourself in the mirror everyday is a mystery.
Originally posted by smyleegrl
Greetings, ATS!
I’ve been looking into the 911 conspiracy issues for the past couple of months. I know there’s a plethora of 911 threads on ATS already, but I’d like to make this thread different.
I’m aware that many folks don’t believe a plane hit the Pentagon, or that a plane crashed in Shanksville. Recently, to my surprise, I discovered that some folks even question whether or not the passenger planes hit the WTC. According to a few threads I’ve read, the other theories about what hit the WTC include remote-controlled military plane, a missile, or even a hologram.
I don’t have the expertise to debate the impact sites at the Pentagon, the WTC, and Shanksville. I can’t intelligently discuss what caused the WTC buildings to collapse the way they did, or even if that collapse was unusual. I have to accept what the professionals tell me, and I’m very well aware that the professionals disagree, sometimes quite vehemently. So I decided to take a different route.
Here’s what I’d like to do. Let’s use logic and discuss only one issue: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PLANES? Where did the planes go, if they didn’t crash into the WTC, Shanksville, or the Pentagon? Did the planes fly to some unknown location where the passengers and crew were executed? If so, why?
To me, it seems illogical to fly a missile into the Pentagon and attempt to pass it off as a passenger plane. After all, there were witnesses who saw the plane (and personally, I think I’d remember a plane crashing a couple hundred yards away). More importantly, why use a missile instead of the actual plane? Was it to cause less or more destruction? And if you use a missile, what happened to the plane?
If the 911 attacks were planned by the government to raise support for the War on Terror, then it would be counter-productive to use a missile instead of a plane. This sounds callous, but I believe it to be true; to really enrage the public, you would prefer a higher body count. It would, in that light, make more sense to crash the plane into the Pentagon. Same with the WTC and Shanksville.
So, to recap: this thread is to discuss the logic of the 911 attacks and not to debate free falling buildings, debris fields, etc. ATS has a wonderful reservoir of bright and analytical minds, and I look forward to reading the different viewpoints and ideas.
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by 4hero
Originally posted by Nathan-D
There have been rumours circulating on the web, especially over the last few months, that a plane didn't actually strike the Pentagon, in fact, apparently according to some eye-witnesses, they didn't see a plane at all, but a definitive missile-like shaped object. Recently footage of this 'missile' surfaced. The following video purportedly shows a missile-shaped object just before the Pentagon explodes, and perhaps even more unbelievably, this so-called 'missile' was manned. There is even footage from inside the missile's cockpit: www.youtube.com...
edit on 26-4-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)
Yep, people sitting in traffic near to the pentagon said they saw no plane, go figure. Even early reporters said that it did not look like a plane had crashed. Obviously they had not been handed their scripts by them.
Whoever wrote all the scripts for that day forgot to brief everyone. When real eye-witnesses say there was no plane I'm inclined to believe them.
A witness to a "no plane" is nonsense. The only thing a witness can say is " I didn't see one"
Perhaps you could provide your list of witnesses who say they didn't see a plane to counter this list of plenty who did..
911research.wtc7.net...