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 can Prove That It Was Not An Airplane” That Hit The Pentagon : Retd. Major General

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Anyone with eyes can see that the hole in the pentagon was too small. How can a four story plane create a one story hole? Why were lampposts found surgically cut on the freeway on the supposed flight path? Even the derbris didn't match the lettering the airlpane company uses. We were all lied to.




posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
reply to post by awakehuman
 


Isn't this the same guy who tried to become invisible and walk through walls?

en.wikipedia.org...


Seems like they are using a study he worked on that they green lit to dicresit him now. It wouldn't be mocked, but only lookes at with interest if not for his opinion on the pentagon. He seems very lucid. I personally think the pentagon aspect is questionable especially since it was such a convenient strike. I so bwlieve planes hit the buildings in new york of course. Just seems like with all the swcurity and tourists wed have one real video of the pentagon.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Another article on the same topic.......

www.veteranstoday.com...

So debunkers want Physical Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony??

From the article:




Physical Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony That A Missile Hit The Pentagon – NOT a Boeing 757

The following physical evidence and eyewitness testimony is presented in detail below, most of which is video footage:

1.Analysis of the physical damage to the Pentagon and lack of debris. You can’t fit a 125 foot wide Boeing 757 into a hole 16 feet wide. The theory that the plane vaporized is idiotic. And, what happened to the wings that allegedly sheared off? DOT

2.The official story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon by making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour is absurd. A Boeing 757 could not possibly perform that maneuver according to experts. DOT

3.AA Flight 77 was lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. and then allegedly reappeared 36 minutes later at 9:32 am. According to Danielle O’Brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport, the plane that showed up on the radar was not Flight 77: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.” DOT

4.No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon. The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building. Only a military aircraft with a special IFF transponder (identifying it as a friend) would have been allowed to approach the Pentagon. DOT

5.CNN reporter on the scene shortly after the impact saying that there was no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon. DOT

6.Aerial footage showing no debris (confirming the report by the CNN reporter), plus more analysis showing the size of a Boeing 757 compared to the size of the hole in the Pentagon. Recall also that the initial hole was only 16 feet wide and the CNN reporter said that the Pentagon structure did not collapse until about 45 minutes after impact. DOT

7.Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and 9/11 Commission Member Timothy Roemer both saying that a MISSILE was used on the Pentagon. DOT

8.Analysis of the Pentagon video footage of the alleged Boeing 757 (it certainly doesn’t look like a Boeing 757) hitting the Pentagon that concludes it was faked. DOT

9.A leaked video showing a missile hitting the Pentagon. DOT

10.Expert testimony that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicated that a “depleted uranium warhead may have been used” DOT

11.Two witnesses who were at the Pentagon who said there was no debris or jet fuel, and another witness who “was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” DOT

12.KEY POINT. Many people reported seeing a low-flying plane heading towards the Pentagon. Thanks to a series of videotaped interviews with multiple witnesses by the Citizens Investigation Team, we find out that: (a) a plane did approach the Pentagon, but it was smaller than a Boeing 757, and it approached from a different angle than reported by the 9/11 commission; (b) the plane did not actually hit the Pentagon, but instead flew past the Pentagon at under 200 feet – immediately after the missile hit; (c) the downed flag poles at the Pentagon were staged, which was admitted by the taxi driver whose taxi was supposedly hit by one of the falling poles. DOT


Connecting the dots, a very clear picture emerges: (a) American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) disappeared from radar and never re-appeared; (b) instead, a smaller military craft appeared on radar 36 minutes later that was capable of performing a difficult maneuver and could approach the Pentagon without being shot down; (c) a low-flying military craft approached the Pentagon but merely flew past the Pentagon immediately after the Pentagon was struck by a missile.


I have always wondered about number 4.......you would think that the most important military complex on the planet would have had some sort of missile defense capability but it has never been discussed when talking about 9/11.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





Bunker busters dont have such a massive fireball and black smoke.


I am going to try this again...let us see if this statement is correct.



Well, quite obviously, this quoted statement is incorrect. Bunker busters do INDEED have a massive fireball and subsequent black smoke.
edit on 11-8-2013 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
For those members that believe that the AA 757 didn't hit the Pentagon:

1. Did it take off that day?
2. If it did take off, where did it go?

Oh, and tell us again how all the parts from a 757 ended up at the Pentagon as wreckage...



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


How does posting links to videos of people describing a plane at the Pentagon refute Arlington Police calling in an American Airlines plane crash ?

April Gallup was inside the Pentagon and in no position to see anything but are you aware she sued American Airlines in respect of injuries and distress suffered by her and her child as a result of their plane crashing into the Pentagon ?

What I was hoping you would explain to me is why Arlington Police were calling in a plane if there wasn't one. Can you do that ?



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Before asking more questions can you explain 1-12 I posted above?



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


But that is an unpowered weapon. You are trying to have different weapon systems fit in the same hole and it is not working. The GBU-15 glides into its target. Again, I cannot even get a decent explanation of just what type of ordnance was used. Was it an unguided unpowered bomb? Was it a missile bunker buster? Was it a cruise missile? Explosions are explosions, and depending on the warhead they can look differently. The issue here is that it is claimed that there was a bunker-buster missile. Im sorry, but your bunker-buster video does not look like the Pentagon impact at all, and is lacking a lot. Look at this recent video of a plane crash from Afghanistan:


See that smoke and fuel blast? That is what was seen at the Pentagon:



Now, cruise missiles dont leave such contrails at the ground either. Your bunker busters are all either dropped from aircraft and glide at a steep angle towards their target, they are very small, or are missile assisted, but still small and definitely not mistakable for an airliner type aircraft.

Another problem, what about the fuel? The smell of jet fuel was all over the premises. The fireball was a jet-fuel fireball. The Pentagon video shows it clearly. So trying to claim its a bunker buster bomb/missile/whatever is erroneous and wrong. A bomb is not going to scoot along the ground by itself.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


In order for ANY thought of a weapon used at the Pentagon, one must remember that bombs are dropped from aircraft. Where is there evidence that a fighter jet or bomber was armed with said weapons in the air and actually dropped a bomb onto the Pentagon? Anything at all? Where did the plane come from? Was it an F-14, F-15, F-16, A-10, F-18? Was it a B-52? Was it Aurora or an F-117?
Second, a missile. Missiles are also either air launched or ground launched. Did anyone notice an aircraft launching a missile? What aircraft would have done it? Was it ground launched and if so, from where? Usually a missile launch is a noisy affair, so somebody should have noticed it being launched. Again have you been anywhere near the Pentagon during morning rush hour traffic?



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
See that smoke and fuel blast? That is what was seen at the Pentagon:


No it wasn't..........that did NOT look like the impact of a 757 fully loaded with fuel at over 500mph.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Before asking more questions can you explain 1-12 I posted above?

Apparently questions 1-12 that you posted about explains what happened to the plane and its passengers then?

Or how those pesky pieces of plane arrived at the Pentagon?

I figured you would be happy to tell me.
Thanks for all of your help.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I thought that rockets and missiles leave a fairly heavy smoke trail that doesn`t dissipate very quickly, I don`t see any smoke trail in that video.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Sonny2
 


Love that video, quick and to the point.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Sonny2
 


I agree 100%.........



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012

Originally posted by GenRadek
See that smoke and fuel blast? That is what was seen at the Pentagon:


No it wasn't..........that did NOT look like the impact of a 757 fully loaded with fuel at over 500mph.


I agree it was not typical of a fully fuel laden 757, or the 747 in GenRadek's for that matter, however the smoke and fuel scenario is much the same except for the scale. Is that enough to look elsewhere, and get something more concrete than say, just a missile? We have just lost a member who took the 9/11 bait and lost the rag, a bit of a pity IMO, but that's the way it goes round here, a bit militaristic rather that a calming of the nerves.
For me, the C-ring puncture/punchout is still up for grabs, since it has not been definitively given a cause which would exclude all else, and which fortunately/unfortunately does have very few options, landing gear right side, (do aircraft have inscripted landing gear right and left) right engine, or as 'Defcon' has said elsewhere here, a heavy or strong door of some kind.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Before asking more questions can you explain 1-12 I posted above?

Apparently questions 1-12 that you posted about explains what happened to the plane and its passengers then?

Or how those pesky pieces of plane arrived at the Pentagon?

I figured you would be happy to tell me.
Thanks for all of your help.


Pieces of WHAT plane? You have shown NO evidence of anything.......

Go ahead and Google the picture of the turbine engine that supposedly belongs to some plane that crashed there yet a poster in another thread here claims the right engine was ripped off from hitting a generator outside and the left was torn off by a concrete wall outside.

Really?

By all means show us your evidence of plane parts........



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


You know after seeing how EASY it is to get through the so called "great defense" of the USA and actually bomb the Pentagon itself, you would think it would have been hit 1000 more times by now. After witnessing their great success the terrorists have hit it again..........when exactly?



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


Yeah just like it was easy for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor again after the first time....oh wait.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
The video tapes that have never been released is the smoking gun. What reason would the CIA have for not releasing those tapes? You can't come to any other conclusion but to believe they're hiding something.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012
 


I guess you aren't ready to tell us that plane parts were trucked in before the first responders arrived or they were dropped from a C-130. You want to go with the story that there weren't any plane parts there at all.

The real-time audio of a police officer sighting the plane just before it hit and the fact that that plane and everyone on board ceased to exist afterwards provides pretty strong evidence that the plane did crash into the Pentagon.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join