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.

 

The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

page: 12
292
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv


P-700 Granite Missiles do not have landing gear and wheel housings.
Unless, of course, you think someone threw those in the building....


Can you show us who took these photos and where, when?

How do you know that these photos are not bone yard debris? Since there was no investigation done on any of the alleged four plane crashes according to the FBI.

Can you prove to ATS members that rim in above photo belongs to said aircraft, and that is the correct rim for a boeing 757?



edit on 19-2-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

You premise was no wreckage and identification at pentagon.

One, you are making allegations of a murderous government. The burden of proof is on you.

Two, the burden of proof is on you to show the investigation didn't collect, catalog, and identify the wreckage inside and outside the pentagon.

Three, provided links showing photos of wreckage inside the pentagon belonged to 757.

Four, numerous eyewitness accounts verify the physical evidence of 757 wreckage inside and outside the pentagon.

Five, collecting photos of wreckage and wreckage was part of the pentagon investigation. Why would the investigation report anything on the wreckage enless there was an abnormality.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: firerescue



The landing gear is one of the strongest things on the aircraft - it must be able to resist being slammed into
the runway at speeds above 150 mph thousands of times


911 myths.com, seriously do you really believe we all have IQ's below 70?

Sorry, but I have to kindly disagree with your "opinions" and your sources.




I do expect you to give a factual rebuttal, not a emotional rant.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

Rense.com

How interesting that you use a bias website that only supports the OS narrative as your sources. Ironic isn't.


Again, a rant with no facts to debate.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Again, your biased opinion is part of this.

Please state why you think the logged 19,000 pieces of human remains recovered by law enforcement from the WTC debris is a fabrication?



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

How do you know for a fact, and can prove these parts allegedly found at the Pentagon were not planted there before explosion accord?


This investigation indicates that the only wheel matching that found at the Pentagon is the main gear wheel of a Boeing 757-200,


What investigation? Who did the government investigation into said airplane at the Pentagon? Why hasn't the government release a report that verifies their claims that serial numbers were tagged and matched alleged plane to the American people?

What you posted as your sources is someone's "opinions" and I might add a very biased "opinion" in supporting the OS narratives on a very bias website at that.

How do we know the alleged photos on that website of wheels being from a Boeing 757 are of a 757 when one cannot see the body of alleged plane.

Furthermore how do we know that the distance photo of planes taking off showing a vague description of all the holes was not photo shopped?

I hope you can clear this up with better sources?

edit on 19-2-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

Rense.com

How interesting that you use a bias website that only supports the OS narrative as your sources. Ironic isn't.


that's exactly why WMD went with just posting the sections from the website instead of providing the link.

he knew exactly what the rebuttal would be if he simply posted the source to his information.

that says all it needs to say in and of itself.


You are making allegations of a murderous government too. The burden of proof is on you.

Prove the link provided was not an actual account of the pentagon investigation collecting, cataloging, and identifying 757 wreckage.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


One, you are making allegations of a murderous government. The burden of proof is on you.

Two, the burden of proof is on you to show the investigation didn't collect, catalog, and identify the wreckage inside and outside the pentagon.


No sir, in debating, the door swings both ways here. You are not exempt in proving your allegation and this debate in not a one way debate.


Four, numerous eyewitness accounts verify the physical evidence of 757 wreckage inside and outside the pentagon.


Your own word repeatedly to me on every 911 thread about eyewitness accounts are NOT credibal and have been dismissed according to you. Yet now all of a sudden eyewitness accounts are credibal, when you use them. How ironic.



edit on 19-2-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I don't have too. Again burden of proof is on you. I provided links to photos taken by investigators backed by official and documented eyewitness accounts the 757 wreckage was at the pentagon.

Care to state which eyewitness accounts are lies?

Care to list how the photos are fabricated?

Care to state how the linked wreckage analysis is technically incorrect.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


How about the Jones thermite paper that was presented as peer reviewed and totally bypassed the referee. The journal that was in charge of the peer review was caught for pay to play. If I remember right, Some material in Jones paper was supplied by a colleague that become one of the peer reviewers.

Wood and Dustification.

The one or two people with the false claim Flight 93 emitted an ACARS broadcast after flight 93's crash.

People that claim there was no WTC steel inspection when there are videos of investigators picking out steel columns for analysis, video of investigators cutting columns for metallurgical analysis, WTC metallurgical reports, reports on WTC welds, and reports on the failure of WTC floor connections.

People that claim there was no effort to obtain evidence from the WTC. By the way, are you the one that claimed the government does not have a magic DNA sniffing device, and made unfounded allegations the 19,000 pieces of human victims recovered was a fabrication. People that don't take the time to see the videos, documentaries, and logging of the recovered remains, logging of recovered personal effects, and the logging of recovered evidence through hand searching ground zero and the debris shipped to the staging areas.

People making the claims of thermite, bombs, nuke bombs, lasers, missiles, and holograms.


Pot calling kettle!

Thanks for your rant and "opinions" see how that works.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

If you don't say how the wreckage is wrong, there is no debate.

If you don't say how the photos of the inside wreckage was fabricated, there is nothing to debate.

If you don't say how the photos of the outside wreckage was fabricated, there is nothing to debate.

If you cannot say how the technical analysis of the photographed wreckage is wrong, there is nothing to debate.

If you cannot give facts how the eyewitness accounts do no back the wreckage inside and outside the pentagon was indeed from a 757, there is nothing to debate.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Informer1958

I don't have too. Again burden of proof is on you. I provided links to photos taken by investigators backed by official and documented eyewitness accounts the 757 wreckage was at the pentagon.

Care to state which eyewitness accounts are lies?

Care to list how the photos are fabricated?

Care to state how the linked wreckage analysis is technically incorrect.


Your full of #. There has NEVER been ANY evidence regarding 9/11 presented to a court by ANYONE under ANY oath.

You have the NIST report and 9/11 commission. You have NO proven evidence. You have a THEORY backed by politicians and a private firm.

Fu@k off.
edit on pSun, 19 Feb 2017 22:29:41 -06002017 041Sun, 19 Feb 2017 22:29:41 -0600pmAmerica/ChicagoSunday by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


I don't have too.


Clearly you do not know how to debate. "I don't have to" is your response.

Well there is nothing to be gained by talking to a brick wall. Time wasted.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I have documented and provided links to support my statements over and again in numerous threads that you are part of.

To act like you are ignorant of our activity on other threads is intellectually dishonest.

Anyway, debunking sites have addressed and debunked the no 757 wreckage at the pentagon numerous times for the last 15 years.

Its the same arguments over and over again for 15 years. Well? Dr. Wood and Dustification is newer.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Hey.


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Informer1958

I have documented and provided links to support my statements over and again in numerous threads that you are part of.

To act like you are ignorant of our activity on other threads is intellectually dishonest.

Anyway, debunking sites have addressed and debunked the no 757 wreckage at the pentagon numerous times for the last 15 years.

Its the same arguments over and over again for 15 years. Well? Dr. Wood and Dustification is newer.


Did that guy just site a BLOG to support his "evidence" LMAO!!!



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Ok? Please state which eyewitness accounts are wrong.

At first though from the get go.....
Why WTC 7 collapsed was a court case. The insurance companies saying WTC 7 was not properly designed vs Silverstein's group.

Are you still saying there was no eyewitness accounts given under oath. No evidence from the NIST submitted under oath?
edit on 19-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


If you don't say how the wreckage is wrong, there is no debate.


In debating one has a right to ask questions, you have failed to prove wreckage is real. I am only asking questions don't get questions confused with allegations.


If you don't say how the photos of the inside wreckage was fabricated, there is nothing to debate.


And you cannot provide any evidence that said photos was of the alleged plane. So yes, there is nothing to debate.


If you cannot give facts how the eyewitness accounts do no back the wreckage inside and outside the pentagon was indeed from a 757, there is nothing to debate.


On the contrary, there are eyewitness accounts that do not support the OS narratives of the alleged plane crash at the Pentagon and these witness are very credibal, and some do not work for the military.

So now it boils down to whom (eyewitness) you want to believe. Let the cherry picking begin.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Again, please state how the pentagon 757 wreckage photos are fabricated. Especially the 9/11 photos that show the 757 wreckage after the pentagon strike.

And show how the eyewitness accounts of the documented 757 wreckage and a 757 hit the pentagon are false.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

a reply to: Informer1958

Another emotional rant, sad.

If you don't say how the wreckage is wrong, there is no debate.

If you don't say how the photos of the inside wreckage was fabricated, there is nothing to debate.

If you don't say how the photos of the outside wreckage was fabricated, there is nothing to debate.

If you cannot say how the technical analysis of the photographed wreckage is wrong, there is nothing to debate.

If you cannot give facts how the eyewitness accounts do no back the wreckage inside and outside the pentagon was indeed from a 757, there is nothing to debate.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Again, you premise was no evidence of 757 wreckage. No 757 wreckage identified.

That has been debunked.



new topics

top topics



 
292
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join