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.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
You do realize the plan struck the Pentagon on the side facing one of the busiest highways in the nation during morning rush-hour and there are dozens of eye-witnesses (if not hundreds) who saw the plane (including my brother). The plane flew low-and-fast over the highway before hitting the Pentagon.
Soft aluminum plane hits big strong stone building at high speed. There won't be much left.
Originally posted by godservant
There is no way a plane hit the petagon. Look again at the single photo in my previous reply. The wings would have AT LEAST cleared out the windows completely - not to mention the engines. Some say a plane did hit nearby on the helo-pad, but it definately wasn't the building.
You are in denial. Read again my information about the highway... a very busy highway... during morning rush hour... with hundreds of people who would have seen the plane... and several who said so on national news, moments after it happened. Also... do you forget the Pentagon windows are bullet-proof?
Originally posted by godservant There is no way a plane hit the petagon.
Actually, the only conflicting stories are from the likes of you, who twist facts in the hopes of finding a conspiracy theory... thereby hurting the credibility of real efforts to discover scandals and conspiracies. If a plane didn't hit were indicated, why aren't there hundreds of people (who were driving on that highway) saying so? Why did they say-so within 1-hour of the event (the initial heliport accounts were from media on the other side of the building). If a plane didn't hit were indicated, why aren't there hundreds of civilian rescue workers who were in the Pentagon at the time saying so? If a plane didn't hit were indicated, why have we seen wreckage of engines and landing gear on the Pentagon lawn in the photos of the rescue effort? If a plane didn't hit, what else cause the collapse inward of an exceptionally strong building? When people such as this ignore logic and focus on fantasy, the entire conspiracy community looses credibility... and this has been going on all too often on the Internet.
Originally posted by godservant With so many conflicting stories,
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by godservant
With so many conflicting stories,
Actually, the only conflicting stories are from the likes of you, who twist facts in the hopes of finding a conspiracy theory... thereby hurting the credibility of real efforts to discover scandals and conspiracies.
If a plane didn't hit were indicated, why aren't there hundreds of people (who were driving on that highway) saying so? Why did they say-so within 1-hour of the event (the initial heliport accounts were from media on the other side of the building).
If a plane didn't hit were indicated, why aren't there hundreds of civilian rescue workers who were in the Pentagon at the time saying so?
If a plane didn't hit were indicated, why have we seen wreckage of engines and landing gear on the Pentagon lawn in the photos of the rescue effort?
If a plane didn't hit, what else cause the collapse inward of an exceptionally strong building?
When people such as this ignore logic and focus on fantasy, the entire conspiracy community looses credibility... and this has been going on all too often on the Internet.
Actually, the only conflicting stories are from the likes of you, who twist facts in the hopes of finding a conspiracy theory... thereby hurting the credibility of real efforts to discover scandals and conspiracies.
But how can you do that when most of the information on the Internet ignores reality and is based on false assumptions?
Originally posted by CanadaCANfight all i can do is filter through all the information on the subject and come up with the conclusion that seems most logical to me...