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.

 

Remote viewing the 911 attacks

page: 20
42
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Doctor Smith

You literally went from

Man! It's looking more and more like a missile hit the Pentagon.

To

And that doesn't rule out remote controlled planes.

With a single post between them.

You've flopped and changed your story/theory based on the tiniest things, while ignoring the bigger things that prove you wrong.

And this is why you are funny and not taken seriously.


I'm not set on any one theory on the Pentagon plane. Many claim to have seen an American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon. Some debris found days later. At the same time the flight path is illogical, next to impossible and a pilot that had very little training. No clear footage of the impact.
Lack of footage doesn't prove a thing.

What about all the debris found ON THE DAY?

The whole day was illogical. Why would the flight path be any different?


The silliest are the ones that buy into just one scenario and viciously defend it no matter what. Those are the ones I don't take seriously.
You mean the scenario that has evidence for?


Nobody supposedly takes me seriously but somehow their is always someone here waiting to respond 24/7.
Because of different time zones of people throughout the world.




posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




Answer is that you cannot, and the government has not proved any of the above. What you claim above is merely pentagon talking points, and the pentagon is notorious for its mendacity.

The government has released pictures of all those plane parts.
The investigators have made reports on what they found.

Conspiracy side:
No pictures of remote control equipment on planes.
No first hand witnesses to said remote control equipment.

So who has more proof OS or Conspiracy ?



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

The lack of footage demonstrates the refusal of the pentagon to release any footage. If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding it? All they give us are 5 frames from a parking lot camera?

Coverup.

If they have nothing to hide, if their story is so strong, why are they hiding so much? Why can nobody examine the wreckage?

Coverup, that's why.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

The lack of footage demonstrates the refusal of the pentagon to release any footage.


Exactly what footage taken at the Pentagon have they not released?


If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding it?


Please show some evidence that they are hiding footage taken at the Pentagon.


If they have nothing to hide, if their story is so strong, why are they hiding so much?


Please show some evidence they are "hiding so much"


Why can nobody examine the wreckage?


Now you are being silly, you want any random to be able to examine any wreckage from any plane crash, I also expect you think you should be allowed to examine any car crash, or examine the body of any dead person....

Just when you thought conspiracy theorists could not get any sillier, you come out with that!



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: TerryDon79

The lack of footage demonstrates the refusal of the pentagon to release any footage. If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding it? All they give us are 5 frames from a parking lot camera?
I have never seen the footage of you doing anything. Does that mean you're a coverup?


Coverup
Lack of evidence does not mean proof of an opposite.


If they have nothing to hide, if their story is so strong, why are they hiding so much? Why can nobody examine the wreckage?

Coverup, that's why.
You haven't researched this outside of conspiracy sites, have you? The wreckage was examined.

(Saying coverup doesn't make it so)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yes, the "wreckage" was "examined" by a group of humans known to "make things up". Did you know there was sentiment amongst the various members of the 911 Commission to charge some of the pentagon witnesses with perjury because they changed their stories so often?

Coverup dude.

They have something to hide, and they are very good at hiding it.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yes, the "wreckage" was "examined" by a group of humans known to "make things up". Did you know there was sentiment amongst the various members of the 911 Commission to charge some of the pentagon witnesses with perjury because they changed their stories so often?
Im sure you've got a source to back you up?


Coverup dude.
Prove it, dude.


They have something to hide, and they are very good at hiding it.
They have something to hide? If you know they have something to hide, you would say what that something is. You would also offer some evidence to back up your claim.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Sure, happy to oblige.

What they are hiding is the fact that AA77 did not hit the pentagon.

If that airplane had hit the building, they would have gobs of footage, and we would already have seen it. If their story was true, they would have proved it in the public realm years ago.

The story is not true. It is not supported by the evidence.

I don't know about you, but I still rely upon common sense in analyzing stories and statements. Common sense easily shows that when a mendacious group does not prove its story when it could be easily proved, that group is covering something up.

Common sense, dude.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
If that airplane had hit the building, they would have gobs of footage,


Footage taken from where exactly?


Common sense, dude.


Except you think "common sense" is allowing any random to be able to examine any wreckage or dead body that they wish to!



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: TerryDon79

Sure, happy to oblige.

What they are hiding is the fact that AA77 did not hit the pentagon.
Evidence?


If that airplane had hit the building, they would have gobs of footage, and we would already have seen it. If their story was true, they would have proved it in the public realm years ago.
Why would they? Look at the first plane hitting the first WTC building. There's hardly "gobs of footage" for that either.


The story is not true. It is not supported by the evidence.
Have you got any evidence of that?


I don't know about you, but I still rely upon common sense in analyzing stories and statements.
Even when the evidence proves otherwise?


Common sense easily shows that when a mendacious group does not prove its story when it could be easily proved, that group is covering something up.
Common sense does not a proof make.


Common sense, dude.
Evidence, dude.
edit on 462016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yes, evidence is clearly the issue. And there is no evidence to support the official story. Indeed, the preponderance of the evidence available to the public contradicts the claims of the official story.

No airliners where there should have been airliners, one airplane involved and filmed extensively, UA175 is not a stock airplane, and one of its engines that ended up on the street below was the wrong engine for a 767, corroborating the photos.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Are you aware, are you surprised, that the pentagon building has surveillance cameras in many locations?

I'm not surprised. After all, it is the HQ of the US military establishment, and a number of surveillance cameras would be expected IMO.

Yet all we get is several frames from a parking lot camera? It's laughable.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yes, evidence is clearly the issue. And there is no evidence to support the official story. Indeed, the preponderance of the evidence available to the public contradicts the claims of the official story.
All the evidence points to the official story. You have offered none to say otherwise.


No airliners where there should have been airliners, one airplane involved and filmed extensively, UA175 is not a stock airplane, and one of its engines that ended up on the street below was the wrong engine for a 767, corroborating the photos.
Proof?



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Are you aware, are you surprised, that the pentagon building has surveillance cameras in many locations?


Please show evidence that there were camera's covering that area, also show evidence that those camera's were recording....

But you will not be able to!



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




If that airplane had hit the building, they would have gobs of footage, and we would already have seen it.

Please point to video footage of any airplane crash outside of air shows.

Even today with all the cheap cameras and cell phones you never see any airline crash footage.
The first WTC impact was caught only by accident.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Field McConnell - Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot Used On 9/11 Planes, Impossible To Hijack! This pilot no longer fly's planes for fear of who controls the technology. Want more proof of the technology? I can list it all day.




posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


Really


For example a report from a witness.


Noel Sepulveda:

The plane dipped its nose and crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon. "The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low," Sepulveda said. "For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it."
Telephone interview:

I was a medic in the military, and shortly after I ran into the building and started pulling people out. I spent the next two weeks pulling out bodies, out of the Pentagon ... Some of the bodies that we pulled out were still strapped into their ... airline seats.


More reports here The Pentagon


Witnesses also claim to have seen flying saucers and aliens, and I have seen you laugh at those ones claiming witness testimony is unreliable and even laughable. Except now with a program from the status quo claiming an airplane crashed into the pentagon, you are fully in support of.
Hmmmm?

And by the way, I myself saw the originally aired video on CNN showing a streak of flame and white missile shape that hit the building and exploded. That video was only shown once, and later they never showed it again, and when people asked about it, they were laughed at and derided for even saying they saw it.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Field McConnell - Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot Used On 9/11 Planes, Impossible To Hijack! This pilot no longer fly's planes for fear of who controls the technology. Want more proof of the technology? I can list it all day.



Year of video? 2015
Year of 9/11? 2001

The video also offers no evidence that this was used, only conjecture.

Next.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

This is the same guy that claimed all commercial aircraft are rigged with explosives that can be detonated to destroy them if they aren't going where they're supposed to, and that the Indonesia SuperJet crash was either undercover US agents or something to do with pedophiles, or electronically captured and crashed, as were the Germanwings A321, MH370, Air France 447 and just about every other modern aircraft crash.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Before and after September 2001, Moabery was executive manager of SkyWatch™
Manned Mobile Surveillance System, Elevated, Highly Mobile Security Solutions. Vantage point is everything when it comes to surveillance. SkyWatch™ mobile observation towers provide a high level platform for an array of surveillance options. Every portable tower includes the basics for the comfort and safety of the officer inside through adjustable heat and air conditioning, tinted sliding glass windows and comfortable seating. And no matter the application, only one person is required to set up and deploy a unit.

The SkyWatch portable surveillance tower can easily be relocated and is rugged enough to handle even the most primitive off-road conditions. Add: Like a terrorist attack on twin towers

www.flir.com...



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join