Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

One point to me is a glaring with a huge something is wrong Is why didn't the missile defense grid go into action which when it was built around the Pentagon it bragged it could identify a incoming threat and shoot it down before reaching its target . Pentagon or the greater DC area . This was to protect the pentagon and DC area . Not the US states wide defense system .

It was suppose to go off on ANY flying object not broadcasting the military transponder code .

I get confused on this issue you read old papers and web sites bragging about how good it is and others say it never went live. I have read convincing articles on both sides .

To me if our defense system cant track and destroy what they said it could ( ANY flying object with out friendly transponder broadcast ) Then what are we spending these billions on then ?

2 possibilities the systems don't work and we as tax payers were scammed , Or they work and were off lined during 9-11 .

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness
One point to me is a glaring with a huge something is wrong Is why didn't the missile defense grid go into action which when it was built around the Pentagon it bragged it could identify a incoming threat and shoot it down before reaching its target . Pentagon or the greater DC area . This was to protect the pentagon and DC area . Not the US states wide defense system

Care to point to a valid source for this mythical "missile defence grid"

It was suppose to go off on ANY flying object not broadcasting the military transponder code .

Yopu do not apparently realise that there is a major airport near the Pentagon...

you read old papers and web sites bragging about how good it is

links to those websites?

Then what are we spending these billions on then ?

links to the budget where money has been spent on such a system?

2 possibilities the systems don't work and we as tax payers were scammed , Or they work and were off lined during 9-11 .

or they do not exist...

[edit on 7/2/10 by dereks]

reply to post by Spiro


I looked at the comparison of photos contained at the Aerospaceweb.org website and found it very amazing that anyone would think that the aircraft part found in the Pentagon is the same as a Rolls Royce RB211.

First of all, the two photos I compare are publicly available, however the ones I am referencing come from:

Pentagon and Boeing 757 Engine Investigation

Now, to the casual observer these two components may seem similar enough to be called the same. But, then again, we are not called to be casual observers, are we? There is nothing casual at all about anything that surrounds 9/11, so it only seems fitting that the most critical and exact analysis me made when every possible. Well, analyzing these two photos is actually quite simple to do, and yet, people put stock in the analysis contained at the Aerospaceweb site, mostly because they just post a lot of useless information to give the impression that they have actually been thorough. This is all to get you, the casual reader, to not look too carefully at their conclusions. Well, I did look carefully, and here is what I found:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/717afa785984.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 7-2-2010 by downisreallyup]

quote
You honestly think it would be easier for the government to hide 64 people and an entire plane and then launch a missile mocked-up to look like the exact same plane, rather than just use the plane itself?

How many extra people (and extra potential leaks) would that complicated plan involve? Dozens? Hundreds?

Yes I do.
There are a number of airports very close to the Pentagon and an aircraft landing would be unremarkable surely.
ONe of the expert truthers can probably recall a very mysterious aircraft landing and being cordoned off. Sorry the name of the airport eludes me but this incident has been linked to the Pentagon attack and the airliner in question.
I think it far more possible that an airliner landed elsewhere, that 64 people were maybe murdered in cold blood than I believe it possible that one huge Boeing flew into a tiny hole and vanished.
The first proposition is feasible, the second a sick joke for the gullible.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


What..you think assuming this whole shabang was an inside job, the perps would have trouble accessing and altering the computer scheduling software, just prior to releasing the flight information?

Come on, if your here to debunk, and having read some of your posts, you do appear to be, it's not good form to use logic and then ignore it, if it interferes with your scenario.

There are myriad ways a schedule could have been altered. As for how many AA employees there are in the area, the huge majority won't have any business knowing a flight schedule verbatim, it wouldn't be in there job description. So employee numbers are irrelevant really aren't they.

The question is, in the confusion and relatively shocking atmosphere that followed after the events of 9/11, would many if any, people remember there wasn't a flight 77 listed for that day, if the FBI and other powerful official say it was? Not to mention a post attack computer insertion for that day...they'd probably think they must have missed it, or confused with shock or something.

Of course, all speculation, and no proof of any of it..it's merely to illustrate there is always a plausible alternative.

Nothing in this disgusting episode in our recent histories is black and white. A successful lie rarely is 100% falsehood.

Originally posted by Emilymary

Yes I do.
There are a number of airports very close to the Pentagon and an aircraft landing would be unremarkable surely.

Dulles is the closest, follower by Reagan a few miles further away. There is also a military air field near DC. Do you honestly think an air traffic controller wouldn't have noticed either an unmarked or incorrectly marked plane just...appearing? They would have either changed the transponder designation, which would cause a new craft to just suddenly appear out of thin air, or they would have used the same designator (flight 77), which would also have raised eyebrows, as it was already being reported that 77 had crashed (and had been shown to disappear off of radar, as a result).

Now, you're telling me that not a single air traffic controller on the east coast reported this discrepancy, or reported a mystery airliner suddenly appearing out of thin air?

Really?

ONe of the expert truthers can probably recall a very mysterious aircraft landing and being cordoned off. Sorry the name of the airport eludes me but this incident has been linked to the Pentagon attack and the airliner in question.

If that "expert truther" was Cael-whatever, who posted in this thread earlier, you may want to look for a new "expert". He claims that his sources told him the airliner flew to Cleveland airport, where the passengers were taken to a "NASA building". The same sources who gave him this "information" also apparently led him to post Nazi propaganda videos and anti-semitic rants a few pages back.

I think it far more possible that an airliner landed elsewhere, that 64 people were maybe murdered in cold blood

Any sources?

than I believe it possible that one huge Boeing flew into a tiny hole and vanished.
The first proposition is feasible, the second a sick joke for the gullible.

The hole is the appropriate size (13 feet) for the shape of the plane, as a previous poster demonstrated a few pages back.

Originally posted by spikey

What..you think assuming this whole shabang was an inside job, the perps would have trouble accessing and altering the computer scheduling software, just prior to releasing the flight information?

Come on, if your here to debunk, and having read some of your posts, you do appear to be, it's not good form to use logic and then ignore it, if it interferes with your scenario.

There are myriad ways a schedule could have been altered. As for how many AA employees there are in the area, the huge majority won't have any business knowing a flight schedule verbatim, it wouldn't be in there job description. So employee numbers are irrelevant really aren't they.

The question is, in the confusion and relatively shocking atmosphere that followed after the events of 9/11, would many if any, people remember there wasn't a flight 77 listed for that day, if the FBI and other powerful official say it was? Not to mention a post attack computer insertion for that day...they'd probably think they must have missed it, or confused with shock or something.

Of course, all speculation, and no proof of any of it..it's merely to illustrate there is always a plausible alternative.

Nothing in this disgusting episode in our recent histories is black and white. A successful lie rarely is 100% falsehood.

And you think that manipulating flight records, taking the chance that no AA employee would notice an irregularity, switching the plane for a missile, creating a false passenger manifest, producing fake relatives and fake phone calls, and holding fake funerals for those fake passengers is some how MORE foolproof than just using the real flight 77 as an impromptu missile?

I have never seen proof that the Boing crashed the Pentagon. It didn't seem at the time that a plane that size would make such a small hole and limited explosion. The cable carriers in front of the hole would have been eliminated altogether if a boing had crashed through the walls. Good job on the proof, the pics are self explanatory, everything points to controlled explosions inside the building.

I also looked carefully at the video of the supposed footage taken from a helicopter, which was included as part of the OP. It is clearly a fake for one simple reason:

The CGI projectile hits the Pentagon at the wrong location!

That video shows the projectile hitting to the left of the building-facet center-line, whereas the real projectile struck the building quite a bit to the right of the building-facet center. It seems that the CGI perpetrator paid little attention to the detail of where the real projectile hit.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
I looked at the comparison of photos contained at the Aerospaceweb.org website and found it very amazing that anyone would think that the aircraft part found in the Pentagon is the same as a Rolls Royce RB211.

obviously you also know nothing at all about jet engines. You are comparing a compressor with a exhaust turbine, 2 completely different components with a different purpose, so of course they look different!!

Actually, if you examine the picture you posted the bloke in it is fiddling with the exhaust turbine, which looks exactly like the part found....

Just more "truther" quality research!


[edit on 7/2/10 by dereks]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

And you think that manipulating flight records, taking the chance that no AA employee would notice an irregularity, switching the plane for a missile, creating a false passenger manifest, producing fake relatives and fake phone calls, and holding fake funerals for those fake passengers is some how MORE foolproof than just using the real flight 77 as an impromptu missile?

Well, thinking laterally...that rather depends on whether or not the perps wanted to control the amount and area of damage to some degree of precision or not.

A large and pretty massive, commercial aeroplane being flown by an incompetent and inexperienced pilot, would not offer the degree of precision that may have been desired, as a missile would have.

Of course, it's assumption and supposition..but none the less it's a perfectly plausible reason.

reply to post by spikey


You didn't answer my question. Is it easier to accomplish all of the tasks I listed without any of the dozens to hundreds of people involved leaking information, or is it easier to use an airliner?

I also fail to see why "an airliner wouldn't have been that accurate" is an argument. Who honestly thinks the hijackers, whether al Aqaeda or government, cared if the plane hit THAT particular wall, or ANY wall? I would think just having the plane his any part of the Pentagon would have the exact same result, so why does it matter if the plane hit that wall or another? Accuracy doesn't even enter into it.

In response to a post someone made earlier in the thread about a drone being used to hit the pentagon; those drones can be equipped with some pretty heavy fire power can't they? What if one was flown, painted like an AA plane, at the pentagon, but not into it, and while flying toward it, launched some kind of a missile. It would explain the eye witness reports, and explain the damage. Just throwing it out there if it hasn't been already....

Cams.. I hate to say this but any moron can be ordered to witness for the govt... who knows.. maybe all these so called witnesses are the people that were on the "plane" that hit the pentagon.. secondly.. any idiot can recreate screenshots of a radar and say they are legit.. I dont remember seeing any images of radar showing a plane decending into the pentagon... i dont think anyone can recall these images. You need to realise you are dealing with the greatest liars of all time.. the USgovt.

Originally posted by stanlee
Cams.. I hate to say this but any moron can be ordered to witness for the govt... who knows.. maybe all these so called witnesses are the people that were on the "plane" that hit the pentagon.. secondly.. any idiot can recreate screenshots of a radar and say they are legit.. I dont remember seeing any images of radar showing a plane decending into the pentagon... i dont think anyone can recall these images. You need to realise you are dealing with the greatest liars of all time.. the USgovt.

And I'll ask for the tenth or so time...you think all of that would be easier than simply using the original plane, passengers and all, as an impromptu missile?

You think they would produce a doctored radar image, and not a single air traffic controller on the east coast would catch an obvious forgery? You don't think they keep records of what they saw, and would notice a major discrepancy in the faked radar image?

reply to post by dereks



Ummm Did you read where I said I was confused ?? about the sources .

I was hoping for a input of clarity on the pentagon system.

And yes there are numerous airports in the general vicinity . If you didn't know there are NO fly zones in various areas even for commercial jets Pentagon being one White house another .

Ask a pilot what happens if you fly into one of those zones. very shortly you will have a jet on your wing .

As for sources for a missile defense system Try NORAD . SDI Starwars .

NORAD has bragged about being able to track and shoot down flying objects and a flying object with out a transponder signal is considered hostile. So if they cant do what they said that can do .

Back to we were scammed or they were off lined.

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness
I was hoping for a input of clarity on the pentagon system.

What pentagon system?
How about showing us this so called system?

Back to we were scammed or they were off lined.

Again, show us these Pentagon defence systems..Unless they are just something you made up!

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Military vehicles with anti-aircraft missiles have been deployed around Washington, and fighter jet patrols over the nation's capital and New York have been increased as a result of the elevated threat of terrorist attack, Pentagon officials told CNN on Tuesday. It's the first deployment of "Avenger" air-defense systems since September, when Humvees outfitted with ground-to-air Stinger missiles were deployed with Sentinel radars around the Pentagon and other military installations. The "Avenger" is a portable, short-range air-defense system mounted on a Humvee that can rapidly fire eight Stinger missiles.

Does anyone really believe that the Pentagon does NOT have any defenses at all? I have seen some challenge this fact and obviously people have no clue as to what they are talking about when they say that the place does not have any.

Story here

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Talk about beating a dead horse. I'm sure everyone here on ATS already believes or knows the plane didn't cause the damage. Exactly what did really only appeals to your curiosity.

I consider it a waste of time to know how exactly it happened. It doesn't solve anything.

Originally posted by mikelee
Does anyone really believe that the Pentagon does NOT have any defenses at all?

Why do you think it had them? It is just a office building.

I have seen some challenge this fact and obviously people have no clue as to what they are talking about when they say that the place does not have any.

You are the one making the claim, please show us what defence it had.... if you can!