What really hit the pentagon. ?

Why does this thread even still exist. Isn't there already a number of threads on this topic already? Haven't all of these issues been done to death here over and over again?

I have a question about this, or two.

Was the plane that alledgedly struck the pentagon the same type as those that hit the wtc?

Assuming it was:

They said the sheer heat from the fuel of the plane/s burning melted the steel infrastructure of the tower/s causing the collapse, we saw bent steel girders. Accepted.

Why then did the same effect not more severely damage the pentagon?

Given the obvious angle of descent of the plane that alledgedly struck the pentagon, it would seem strange that street cams? did not catch its low and almost completly level flight into the building?
If it was hijacked and a forced descent from normal altitude, would the angle of descent, as evidenced by the hole, not be steeper, i.e through the ceiling between the first or second rings?

Given the same assumption of low and level flight (is that even acheivable in that type of aircraft except on landing?) would this plane not have stuck or clipped any other buildings on the way in? Was its flight well controlled or erratic?

sigh

The actual plane that hit the pentagon

The actual plane that hit the south tower

The actual plane that hit the north tower

The actual plane that crashed in Pensylvania



[edit on 13-1-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Why does this thread even still exist. Isn't there already a number of threads on this topic already? Haven't all of these issues been done to death here over and over again?

i made several valid points in this thread, if you can prove/disprove any of them i'd love to hear it. i did so w/o speculating it was not an airplane that hit...

What point exactly? That the witness statements vary? So What. Even the witnesses to a simple car crash usually have trouble agreeing on what they saw. Plus, this was the biggest event in these peoples lives, something to tell their grandkids about. A little embelishement would be normal human behavior.

Originally posted by jprophet420
...that the only video is known to be doctored as it was released with the wrong date, the eyewitness reports are contradictory, and that there are 2 missing videos of the incident. those things alone prove

Originally posted by jprophet420
there is definately cover up as to what really happened.

also, there are several other inconsistancies and lack of evidence. first of all, the autopsy report for flight 77 has no arab passangers, and neiter does AA list of passangers. secondly cell phones do not work at 30k feet- period- and at least some of the reports require for that to have happened. and finally the paths that the planes took according to air traffic control would produce a gforce that would render any pilot (and passenger) unconcious.

autopsy report here

jprophet420, what are you doing? You are quoting yourself and your link titled Autopsy Reports links to a thread with nothing of the sort on it.

Why are you guys posting here? There is already an appriopriate topic:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I'm reporting you guys to the moderators.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by AtheiX]

This thread was started in 2002,

Originally posted by AtheiX

I'm reporting you guys to the moderators.

Be sure to report that I made a one line post right here!

Originally posted by asala
This thread was started in 2002,

Well I first saw it in 2005.

What really hit the Pentagon was Donald Rumsfeld's brain, moving in an accelerating situation. One of the most masterful high-speed psy-ops in all of history, and he earned my respect by pulling it off. Throwing dirt into the eyes of the enemy. Blinding them with blocs of colossal misinformation. In the hopes of at least slightly confusing them for the immediate moment. An excellent war strategy.

A missile DID NOT hit the Pentagon.
A Boeing 757 DID NOT hit the Pentagon.

I'm not sure excactly what it was...


1. The object in the video is smaller than a Boeing 757.

2. The bright red fireball (if you know anything about fires) was caused by explosives, judging by its size, colour and how quickly it expanded.

3. There are frames missing from the video, the US government have something to hide.

4. They conviscated the other videos, because they had something to hide.

5. The wings and tail should of caused damage to the Pentagon.

6. If the fire was hot enough to melt most of the debri, it should of burnt the lawn of the Pentagon.

Thats just a few things that are wrong with the Boeing 757 theory.

i linked to myself becasue you asked whai is my point and mentioned like one point out of seven. the link i posted does most certainly have the officialy released pathology reports on it on page 2.

if you want to debunk what i said that is fine but complaining about this thread within the thread and attempted debunking with no logic only hurts the credibility of this fine community.

now as i stated before please post constructively in this thread or not at all. thank you.

What appeared to hit the Pentagon and the WTC buildings was at some stage manipulated illusion
Like the rest of the world order
And how things are

Originally posted by dh
What appeared to hit the Pentagon and the WTC buildings was at some stage manipulated illusion
Like the rest of the world order
And how things are

AH, The hologram theory. Just how does that work exactly?

Did the TPTB create a giant holodeck outside the Pentagon and the World Trade Center?

[edit on 14-1-2005 by HowardRoark]

I studied this a whole lot before I ever heard of ATS. So far I have heard (from news sources): "there were curiously few eyewitnesses." and later read a page of eyewitness testimony. I have seen photos of the Pentagon lawn both covered with aircraft debris during firefighting operations, and photos of the Pentagon lawn at the same area during firefighting operations with zero aircraft debris. On the morning of 9-11 the news suddenly switched to a live anchor at the Pentagon who said there was a fire alarm somewhere but nothing else was happening. Looked like an error in a script or timing. Was it really? I can't say.

The 757 routinely comes with it's fuel tanks in the wings. There is an option to increase range by installing extra fuselage fueltank. Physics seems to tell us that a fuel-laden airplane wing will not lever backwards and slide into a concrete building, they will smash on the outer surface of the concrete and either burn there or leave a hole where they punch through. Neither was seen. I presume (and here may be my error) that fuel would routinely be used first in the fuselage tank for crash safety reasons, and then the fuel in the wings used later. The last option is that the pilot pumped the wing fuel into the fuselage tank berfore striking the Pentagon, and the wing tanks were empty, and indeed folded back as if on hinges, exactly the same on both wings, and disappeared into the hole. Or bounced back onto the lawn. Or something.

If I had say $30 million I could get a lot of eyewitness testimony, especially if they worked for me.

I vote for a Rumsfeld psyop, either to sugar-coat by misdirection the actual shoot-down of the PA plane, or else as stated above, to confuse the enemy. As we ALL know, the other scenario is that it was part of the planned coup-de-etat. That one is fanciful. The oddities surrounding the Flight 77 story are not.