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 MysterX
as remote control gear had to have been fitted to enable the highly unusual flight characteristics such as pin-point accuracy, speed beyond design at low altitude etc. demonstrated by the jets that hit WTC)
one comes in and touches down, the other cloned aircraft is taking off at the same time (there was a brief period the jet went off the screen, this is probably when the switch was made).
The bodies are easily disposed of after that,
Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Alfie1
So an huge Boeing airliner made this hole into Pentagon. Again the size looks rather quite small for an huge airliner doesn't it?
edit on 12-8-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)
I am sorry but you are obviously so ill-informed about this that you don't know the entrance from the exit hole you have linked.
Your accusing me of being ill-informed? thats rather odd for a new member whose also soul focus is into defending the GW Bush Government's official line.
No offense meant, going off with the accusations of ill-informed by claiming that i dont know that the image shows the entrance from the exit.
Since you want to play that way.
Here you go.
Now do explain how can an Boeing airliner of that size accomplish it?edit on 12-8-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)
I will also point out that people could see a plane flying over head and assume that hit the building only to be duped by a decoy.
That's just an attempted diversion. You alleged that any aircraft debris at the Pentagon could be picked up by hand. Do you think you could pick up the landing gear ? And how could it have got right into a blazing Pentagon ?
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
I will also point out that people could see a plane flying over head and assume that hit the building only to be duped by a decoy.
So they convinced an American Airlines pilot to fly his airliner to appear as if he was going to hit the Pentagon, but not actually hit it. Then when he landed they executed everyone on the plane and cremated their bodies.
They shot a missile into the Pentagon, then had a cargo plane drop the parts of the 757 into the building in a precision strike.
Something about this doesn't seem believable to me.
Originally posted by matadoor
reply to post by awakehuman
My niece was giving a presentation the morning of 9/11 to a very large client and she could see the Pentagon in the distance as she spoke.
She watched the plane hit, and STILL has nightmares about it.
Sorry folks, it was a plane.
Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Does this even look like Boeing?
There are no defenses to stand down. All America can do is react and counterattack which they can do with devastating swiftness and that is our main defense-you will be sorry. The Taliban and Al Qaeda learned that lesson the hard way. The whole 'Operation Northwoods' claim of a past cold war deceptive invasion somehow proves America would engage in such swagger in modern times just shows ignorance about that time period. That is just another silly CIA plan right along with 'Mongoose' and the exploding cigar, the contaminated wetsuit and the drug to make Fidel's beard fall out.---just rubbish.
That is just another silly CIA plan right along with 'Mongoose' and the exploding cigar, the contaminated wetsuit and the drug to make Fidel's beard fall out.---just rubbish.
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Alfie1
So an huge Boeing airliner made this hole into Pentagon. Again the size looks rather quite small for an huge airliner doesn't it?
edit on 12-8-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)
I am sorry but you are obviously so ill-informed about this that you don't know the entrance from the exit hole you have linked.
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Does this even look like Boeing?
Yes it does actually......
Any proof at all that the Pentagon is the "most guarded building on earth?
Any proof at all that "there are more CCTV cameras covering this building than any other building on the planet"
Also we have a youtube video with added music, which = hoax!
funny, several times you made the claim "the Pentagon is the most secure building" but every time you are asked to back that claim you run away!edit on 12-8-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)
Yes it does actually..
funny, several times you made the claim "the Pentagon is the most secure building" but every time you are asked to back that claim you run away
Any proof at all that "there are more CCTV cameras covering this building than any other building on the planet"
Also we have a youtube video with added music, which = hoax!
Originally posted by MysterX
How does a passenger aircraft's engines not create entrance holes
plough deep channels into the soft ground,
' flimsy nosecone and fuselage apparently is able to punch through multiple, steel reinforced layers of concrete creating a neat round hole that exits,
If the majority of the aircraft, including the bulk of the wings, tail, seating, baggage, passengers and even the engines was vapourised (as has been the claim) upon impact
2.3 Trillion of them...since the data centre that contained the records of the whereabouts of the 'untracked' (stolen, missappropriated, used for black ops, lining the pockets of the big boys and girls, whatever) budget money was in the 'impact' area and was obviously destroyed.
(Just as the WTC 1&2 towers had been very recently retrofitted / upgraded just prior to 9/11)
Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by theRhenn
but still.. where did those people go that were on that flight?
I've seen this question asked repeadedly and the answer really is very simple.
Short answer is they were murdered, assuming there was duplicate / substitute aircraft used (IMO highly likely, as remote control gear had to have been fitted to enable the highly unusual flight characteristics such as pin-point accuracy, speed beyond design at low altitude etc. demonstrated by the jets that hit WTC)
IMO, the most likely scenario is that they were disembarked, after gas or acrid smoke was pumped into the cabin to cause a reasonably believable excuse to make an emergency landing...the passengers were probably told there was a fire / electrical problem and to disembark immediately upon landing...meanwhile, the retrofitted cloned aircraft were taking off parallel to the genuine jets landing...one comes in and touches down, the other cloned aircraft is taking off at the same time (there was a brief period the jet went off the screen, this is probably when the switch was made).
The passengers would not have been aware of anything untoward at this point, and would have been more concerned with exiting their aircraft they thought was on fire, or about to explode via the emergency exits and grateful to be alive.
It was then a simple case of shepherding them into a hanger or other holding building and killing them. (take your pick of methods).
The bodies are easily disposed of after that, and nobody is any the wiser.
The 'missing passengers' question is easy to explain and even easier for the conspiritors to handle...probably one of the easiest elements of the whole operation in fact...if you're a cold blooded monster without a shred of humanity or empathy with the hundreds of people on the aircraft and thousands on the ground you're about to murder.
Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Nice try on twisting else words buy claiming i made the claim Pentagon is the most secure building? firstly i am not the person whom claimed that.
Could you rephrase it a bit better?
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Nice try on twisting else words buy claiming i made the claim Pentagon is the most secure building? firstly i am not the person whom claimed that.
You posted a video that you agreed with that made that statement...
Could you rephrase it a bit better?
You posted a video that you agreed with that made that statement...
how about showing why you agree with them?