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: 16
267
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

LOL, IIB - just to clarify my own position here: there's ample evidence that the twin towers were hit with planes.

not to give too much away about a thread i'm currently working through, but my confirmation of this comes from first hand experience (i almost lost family).

your thread from way back when is actually ridiculously intriguing. can't wait to read through it tomorrow.





posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

I already posted what the NYPD believed happened... please post a source citing something contrary...and at a former date during the investigation timeline...

Apr. 26 - News sources say that the NYPD is not ruling out foul play
Apr. 29 - News sources say that after further investigation the NYPD believes no foul play involved...

A2D



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

why did you just remove the quote from the article you yourself cited?

is it because they haven't actually concluded anything?

no really, please post the exact quote where it shows that they "concluded there's no foul play and the landing gear simply landed there."

i'd love to put this matter to rest. where did they "conclude" that in the article you posted?

for emphasis:



“It had just enough clearance to fall in, but we haven’t reached any definitive conclusions,” Browne said of the piece of wing-flap support, which was discovered at the site last Wednesday.

edit on 20-2-2017 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Try this again.

The DNA and physical evidence at the pentagon confirmed an aircraft with passengers hit the Pentagon.

The DNA at the pentagon confirmed the passengers were of flight 77.

A inflight pilot identified a jetliner that he watched crash into the pentagon.

There was 757 wreckage on the lawn from the 9/11 pentagon crash.

There was documented 757 wreckage in the pentagon.

Eyewitness accounts correlated, confirmed , and fixed the context of the physical evidence at the pentagon.

Please indicate through evidence which of the listed items are falsehoods. If you claim the following listed items are a lie, then burden of proof is on you.

If you are accusing eyewitnesses of lying, the burden of proof is most definitely on you. You need to say which testimonies are lies and provide evidence.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

I'll ask again.. Please find me any article saying that they came to a conclusion other than "it fell there"... because that's what all the sources I've cited have said... You on the other hand, haven't provided a single source. Just as a reminder...I'll put this here again...


Cops believe the newly discovered piece of WTC plane wreckage found near the Ground Zero mosque wasn’t intentionally placed there — but instead blasted into the tiny alley on 9/11.

“There’s no evidence to suggest that it’s part of a hoax,” NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said yesterday of the discovery of the rusty, 5-foot-long chunk of metal next to 51 Park Place.

A law-enforcement source said, “Right now, the feeling is it fell from the plane after it hit the building.’’ Photos of the piece of wreckage released by cops right after it was found showed a rope oddly looped around one end of it. This prompted speculation that the part may have been lowered from the building’s roof by clueless construction workers at some point to clear debris.


Call the NYPD if you really want to hear...but I have a feeling you just want to keep your head in the sand.


A2D
edit on 20-2-2017 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

that's not what your article says LOL, i cited it a few posts above because you removed that section!



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

this isn't what i asked you for. i have no idea what you're on about.

show me a plane hitting the pentagon or kindly buzz off.

*swats screen with fly swatter*



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

I didn't remove anything... unless it was by pure accident... I've been having internet issues with my network adapter so sometimes i double post...sometimes i don't post at all...

and that's most definitely what the source says... I mean I quoted directly from it... so just because you get caught up on the words "no definitive conclusion" (because at the time the case was still open) doesn't mean anything.

You completely ignore the fact that they are saying it landed there... and that there is no evidence of foul play... instead you focus on the fact that the investigation was still open.... ridiculous

I'll post the source, again, so anyone can read that what I quoted is directly from the gdamn article...

nypost.com...

A2D
edit on 20-2-2017 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

...LOL.. but you were actively editing the post.. i have some time on my hands right now, so i watched you add and remove material before my very eyes.

you even omitted it when you edited your post above!

here's the natural progression of the article:



“It had just enough clearance to fall in, but we haven’t reached any definitive conclusions,” Browne said of the piece of wing-flap support, which was discovered at the site last Wednesday. A law-enforcement source said, “Right now, the feeling is it fell from the plane after it hit the building.’’


looks like you're intentionally omitting parts of the article for everyone reading this. several times.

but OK, "must have been a pure accident." kinda like the acts of nature you were referring to a page ago, right?




posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

this isn't what i asked you for. i have no idea what you're on about.

show me a plane hitting the pentagon or kindly buzz off.

*swats screen with fly swatter*


There are real people that are eyewitnesses that have testimony a jet liner hit the pentagon confirmed by DNA, Physical evidence, and an inflight pilot.

This is you chance to state which eyewitness accounts are false, how they are false, and provide evidence.

And the top quoted reply is the best you can do?



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Accusing me of intentionally omitting parts...any evidence? I told you I'm having issues.. I've had to re paste things several times because my internet... that doesn't give you the right to accuse me. I'd appreciate if you give me the benefit of the doubt instead of being so accusatory. I know we don't agree, but please have some decency.

A2D



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

no, the past 10 or so pages chock-full of information and citations is a taste of the best that i can do.

"this is your chance"

are you being serious? i haven't giggled this heartily in weeks.

this is kinda like that one time when i asked you the same question for about 2 1/2 pages in a row to no resolve.

i believe that question was: "have you ever taken a physics class?"

still haven't gotten a reply. so please, forgive me for missing out on an opportunity to "take my chance to provide evidence" to you. i'm actually still waiting for you to pay your intellectual debt to the question above.

it's kinda like how you're missing out on your chance to show me a plane hitting the pentagon.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye


this is kinda like that one time when i asked you the same question for about 2 1/2 pages in a row to no resolve.


Kind of like how I keep asking you to post a source saying that the NYPD came to the conclusion that the wing flap support was planted...

A2D
edit on 20-2-2017 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

you mean like the decency you showed everyone else here by chiming in and discrediting the intellectual veracity of anybody here who doesn't toe the line of the OS?

did you give any of them, or me, the benefit of the doubt?

i'm not accusing you of anything. i saw you add and remove the same exact paragraph which doesn't fit your narrative *several times.*

let's just chalk it up to a freak act of nature, eh?



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

If you cannot provide an intelligent argument how the pentagon eyewitnesses accounts are false, then it stands the eyewitness accounts and physical evidence work in concert to prove an American Airlines jetliner with passengers is what crashed into the pentagon.
edit on 20-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Deleted second the



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

your words:



I'll ask again.. Please find me any article saying that they came to a conclusion other than "it fell there"... because that's what all the sources I've cited have said... You on the other hand, haven't provided a single source. Just as a reminder...I'll put this here again...


where did i ever assert that they concluded there was foul play? why are you asking me for a source on that?

we both know that to this very day, there have been no conclusions about this NYPD investigation.

my point is precisely that the NYPD hasn't concluded anything publicly on this investigation. you seem confused.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

got it, so you can't show me a plane hitting the pentagon. thanks, at least we cleared that up.




posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

What you saw was me repasting my information from my source, which I gave for anyone to verify... If I happened to overlap and erase one of my previous pastes it was by pure accident.

I did not discredit anyones "intellectual veracity"... I don't mind that we don't agree... but I really have nothing else to say when you blatantly ignore sources and information I'm handing you.. but you cite literally zero sources to back your claims.



The NYPD said on Apr 26 that there was a piece of "landing gear" wedged between two buildings with rope around it. They were investigating the situation and weren't at the moment ruling out foul play. Three days later on April 29, the NYPD made a statement again. This time they had verification from Boeing that the aircraft part in question was not landing gear, but a piece of wing actuation support. The NYPD spokesperson also said that after further investigation, they found that the rope was used by a responding officer who tried to move the object to get information and/or serial numbers for further investigation. The same spokesperson goes on record saying that the NYPD believes, at that point in time, April 29th, that no foul play was involved and that they believe the landing gear did in fact land between the two buildings after one of the hijacked aircrafts impacted the WTC buildings on Sept 11th...

My question to you is this... Can you find me a source further in the investigative timeline than April 29th, that says the NYPD thinks foul play is involved? (Saying that they haven't come to a conclusion is dishonest....The wing flap support is not a cold case.... it's most assuredly closed)

A2D
edit on 20-2-2017 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

what are you talking about? we're discussing *the same 2 articles.*



My question to you is this... Can you find me a source further in the investigative timeline than April 29th, that says the NYPD thinks foul play is involved?


no, i can't find you a source on that. that's because to this day, this matter is publicly inconclusive. something you seem to contend, though i have no idea why.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

So the only evidence of a crime is video?

Prove how the eyewitness accounts at the pentagon are discredited by your desire for a video.

You disjointed logic Is telling of your dogmatic belief and having no evidence to argue.

Again, please state who's eyewitness accounts are false?
edit on 20-2-2017 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
267
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join