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: 21
287
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

please show me anywhere in this entire thread where I asserted "eyewitness testimony doesn't matter."

i'll wait.

have eyewitnesses ever been wrong before? how many people were wrongfully accused based on eyewitness testimony throughout our written history? probably a lot, right? so what did we do to increase the accuracy of eyewitness testimony? the phenomenon of DNA testing and modern day forensics come to mind.

what about the eyewitness testimony asserting that there were explosions going off before and after the planes hit the WTC towers? looks like you would agree that those eyewitnesses were not understanding what they're experiencing.

so if you're willing to put so much faith in eyewitness testimony, let's discuss the multitude of eyewitnesses hearing explosions not related to the planes crashing into the towers. what do you make of these witnesses?




posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Amdusias
Can anyone here to date. Actually state confidently that they saw personally the "plane" hit the pentagon? To my knowledge no alleged footage of said event has ever been released......



Not at you.......

How does a movement labeling itself as the truth movement hide facts, or not address all issues.

It's very telling how the truth movement picks and chooses data, and conspires to control the narrative. Not a group bent on being totally transparent.




en.m.wikipedia.org...

Reagan Airport controllers asked a passing Air National Guard Lockheed C-130 Hercules to identify and follow the aircraft. The pilot, Lt. Col. Steven O'Brien, told them it was a Boeing 757 or 767, and its silver fuselage meant that it was probably an American Airlines jet. He had difficulty picking out the airplane in the "East Coast haze", but then saw a "huge" fireball, and initially assumed it had hit the ground. Approaching the Pentagon, he saw the impact site on the building's west side and reported to Reagan control, "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir."[22][36]




posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

I don't think I ever said never mattered?

My point is for you to prove eyewitness accounts are false and do not confirm the evidence an American Airlines jet did hit the pentagon.
edit on 20-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed an and took out not



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a rep


eyewitness testimony and the pieces of an aircraft they found on the lawn?
ly to: facedye

Lets see

Eyewitness testimony (some only yards away) reporting jet aircraft coming in low and hitting building

here is extensive list of witnesses who saw and heard ( and felt after impact)

911research.wtc7.net...



Pieces of aircraft debris on lawn and inside of building

911research.wtc7.net...

sites.google.com...

Aircraft debris inside of building

rense.com...

Video of aircraft debris

www.youtube.com...



Recovered body parts DNA matched to passengers on Flight 77

web.archive.org...://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf




Two years ago today, Suzanne Calley died aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked the plane and sent it crashing into the Pentagon. She was homeward bound from a business trip and planned to celebrate her and Jensen's 20th anniversary the next day. Her 43rd birthday would have been just a few days later.
Rescue crews were able to pull Calley's body from Flight 77's wreckage. Now, after a long period of hesitation, Jensen plans to let the Pacific waters take her cremated remains.


Personal effects of victims



"During an interview earlier this week, Koch delicately handled eerie mementos of the crash found during cleanup: Whittington's battered driver's license... a burnt luggage tag and a wedding ring lie on a book dedicated to those lost in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The wedding ring belonged to Ruth's daughter and the luggage tag belonged to one her granddaughters."




Jensen [Calley’s husband] spent last year’s anniversary of the national tragedy in Washington, D.C. There, a Pentagon official - assigned to Calley’s family as a liaison - gave Jensen his wife’s wedding ring, which had been recovered from the plane.”


Now any SANE individual examining this would conclude airplane hit the building

Even in absence of video .........



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Eyewitnesses

Several say it took a path north of the Citgo
At least one saying it hit the light posts as it past south

Who do you believe...



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

I don't think I ever said never mattered?

My point is for you to prove eyewitness accounts are false and do not confirm the evidence an American Airlines jet did hit the pentagon.


why are you responding to a comment I made to fleabit as if I made it to you?

are you and fleabit the same person, or were you just not paying attention?



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

thank you for your response.

your post contains information about:

- personal items recovered

- matching dna from body parts (that we never see)

- small pieces of wreckage, one containing a "C" presumed to be from AA flight 77.

let me know if I missed anything.

my response here will no doubt frustrate you, but i'll give it bluntly - without video evidence/clear photos showing body parts and obvious plane wreckage, doesn't look like any 'ol plane hit it.

case in point - the IRS Plane Crash in Austin.

2010 Austin Suicide Attack



why do we have only bits and pieces here and there at the pentagon, but huge intact pieces here? what's your opinion?

EDIT:

and, if you are inclined to respond with a line of argumentation that is referencing an "apples to oranges" comparison, I would request that you state exactly why these two situations are intrinsically not the same in any way whatsoever.
edit on 20-2-2017 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Sry, not paying attention. Just like all the people that choose to ignore the DNA evidence, FAA evidence, a pilot of a in flight aircraft who gave a real time account of watching an American Airlines jet hitting the pentagon, the light pole evidence, the news videos and photographs that showed passenger jet wreckage on the lawn, the documented passenger jet wreckage in the pentagon, and all verified by eyewitness accounts.


Or the different people that repeat the post of "does this fan / rotor discs look like the right size?" People that do not realize a turbofan jet is comprised of several fan discs that are relatively smaller or larger in relation to each other. Or a rotating fan disc can have the blade tips knocked off when they strike something.

But that doesn't bother the truth movement. They would rather just post a picture with no context or scale, Inserting a leading comment like "jet engines are huge!", and then ask "does this small part look right?"

They don't want to take time to document which engine part and why it's not right.

The truth movement needs to better police itself from the con persons that only troll for an emotional and faithful audiences. Then label everyone that doesn't fall in line as a government agent.

People only striving to create new scientific fiction with the only goal of staying relevant, and not getting to the truth while the conspiracy cow can still be milked.

edit on 20-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Added t to no for not



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Was that building hardened with kevlar etc?


Still avoiding the Lightpoles Problem, everyone?
edit on 20-2-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: facedye

Was that building hardened with kevlar etc?


Still avoiding the Lightpoles Problem, everyone?


I was trying to figure out the Kevlar thing? Is it a protection? Military over expensive moisture protection. Or used to keep loose material in place for renovation?



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: fleabit

please show me anywhere in this entire thread where I asserted "eyewitness testimony doesn't matter."

i'll wait.

have eyewitnesses ever been wrong before? how many people were wrongfully accused based on eyewitness testimony throughout our written history? probably a lot, right? so what did we do to increase the accuracy of eyewitness testimony? the phenomenon of DNA testing and modern day forensics come to mind.

what about the eyewitness testimony asserting that there were explosions going off before and after the planes hit the WTC towers? looks like you would agree that those eyewitnesses were not understanding what they're experiencing.

so if you're willing to put so much faith in eyewitness testimony, let's discuss the multitude of eyewitnesses hearing explosions not related to the planes crashing into the towers. what do you make of these witnesses?



This is a discussion about the Pentagon, not the twin towers, I'd be happy to discuss that in a thread dedicated to the topic. And I certainly never said you claimed eyewitness testimony doesn't matter.

When you suggest eyewitnesses have been wrong before, I agree. But the sheer number of witnesses in this case has to be taken into account. It wasn't one or two or even 10 but rather dozens of eyewitnesses. That matters. Did dozens of people claim there was a missile? But there were dozens that claimed they saw a jetliner plane flying close to the ground. If you want to discount even 10 people as having mistaken what they saw, there were plenty more who saw the same thing.

Good example: dozens saw a large jet. 2 people reported seeing a smaller private jet. So.. there is your mistaken observers. What's more likely.. that dozens of people were wrong, or it was actually a large jet flying close to the ground? I'd say any clear minded thinker would assume the latter is true. When people could even determine if a large jet's landing gear was lowered or raised, I'd say they got a pretty good look, wouldn't you?
edit on 20-2-2017 by fleabit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

They can do all sorts of things with kevlar fiber. 20 years ago I was poring a slab for a patio and we ordered it with the fibers already in it.

The Pentagon (especially that outer wall) would have been built a bit tougher than your average building is the point though.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: facedye

Was that building hardened with kevlar etc?


Still avoiding the Lightpoles Problem, everyone?


Lightpoles, if impacted and not somehow blown over, should have sheered the wings and cause the plane to crash, but the grass was green all the way up to the wall, which is another marvel, given that it impacted the first floor.

Quite the flying feat by Hanjour as well to exceed the flight envelop and spiral down to come around and hit that particular wedge of the Pentagon..

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



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Thanks for the Info , the Lords of War...


the p700 granite Missile is like a bunker Buster ...


apparently the p 700 granit Missile was mention and another forum in 2012

Granit Hits Pentagon?
pilotsfor911truth.org...



A couple of points here on the SS-N-19 Granit
> the Russian submarine Kursk sank in Aug. 2000.
> Halliburton was a sub-contractor to raise the Kursk Aug 2001.
> It had the capacity for 24 SS N 19 Granit missiles.
> Why were only 22 were recovered?
> A Granit has an internal guidance system that has pre-set targets. US Military installations (Pentagon)
> Can evade SAM and Phallanx anti missile systems by twisting and turning in the terminal phase of flight.
> Speed 2.5 mach cruise, 1.5 on the line of attack.
> Heavily armoured. 7000 KG enough to break a destoyer in half without warhead.
> Coventional and nuclear warhead capable.
> Rocket propellant creates a white exhast plume.
> drops down to sea / land level skimming before striking.
> This would explain lamp poles and generator trailer damage as well as penetration of Pentagon and "punch out" hole.


from wiki spooks

Pentagon damage
wikispooks.com...
wikispooks.com...

Dimitri Khalezov a former soviet intelligence officer and whistleblower responsible for nuclear intelligence claims that a stolen soviet P-700 “Granit” missile equipped with a standard “Navy-type” 500 kiloton thermo-nuclear warhead was responsible for damage to the pentagon.


Dimitri Khalezov
wikispooks.com...

Moreover, Khalezov claims that he knew about the in-built so-called “emergency nuclear demolitions scheme” for the Twin Towers as long ago as the 1980's, whilst a serviceman in the Soviet Special Control Service.


????? emergency nuclear demolitions scheme ?????

AHHHHHH yeah ok .. lol
edit on 12017MondayfAmerica/Chicago250 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I have been doing a little digging into the radar information about flight 77 and came across this little gem. I do not believe many people are aware of this transcript that was recorded at Indianapolis Center ATC facility.



I would like to illuminate the fate of Flight 77 after it vanished from radar because it looks to me that many people don't know much about it, despite its importance.

At 8:56, the blip of Flight 77 vanished from the radar screens of Indianapolis Center, the responsible ATC facility, and at the same time radio communication was lost. This is a well known and well confirmed fact. Just take a look at the ATC transcript:

0911.site.voila.fr...

The controllers thought it had crashed and submitted their assessment to other ATC centers, FAA headquarters and American Airlines. This caused the top AA management to believe that Flight 77 crashed into the South Tower - they believed it until the Pentagon strike! There were also rumors going around that a plane crashed near the Ohio-Kentucky border (as confirmed in Richard Clarke's "Against all enemies"), which is exactly the area where Flight 77 vanished (take a look at the Flight Explorer animation in the transcript link).

For sure, the controllers activated primary radar as soon as they lost Flight 77 to look for him, but this measure was obviously not successful. Flight 77 was not detected by any controller until it was picked up at 9:32 by Dulles TRACON controllers. (The only man who knew its position at 9:25 was Norman Mineta...)

For someone who's aware of Operation Northwoods this stinks of a plane swap: Flight 77 crashed or landed somewhere near the Ohio-Kentucky border, and the plane that was detected by the Dulles controllers was not Flight 77.

The 9/11 Commissioners are surely aware of Operation Northwoods, but advocate another theory:

The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center.142 The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.

According to the radar reconstruction, American 77 reemerged as a primary target on Indianapolis Center radar scopes at 9:05, east of its last known posi-tion. The target remained in Indianapolis Center's airspace for another six minutes, then crossed into the western portion of Washington Center's airspace at 9:10.As Indianapolis Center continued searching for the aircraft, two managers and the controller responsible for American 77 looked to the west and southwest along the flight's projected path, not east-where the aircraft was now heading. Managers did not instruct other controllers at Indianapolis Center to turn on their primary radar coverage to join in the search for American 77.143

In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or were looking toward the west. Although the Command Center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C.144

So the Commission thinks that at first, Flight 77 slided into a radar hole and was therefore not visible to controllers. This raises the question why the controllers, who surely were familiar with the position and extent of this alleged radar hole, were so quickly convinced that Flight 77 had crashed.

After that, the Commissions surprises us with their finding, obtained through "radar reconstruction", that Flight 77 reemerged at the radar screens of Indianapolis controllers, but was missed by them, because they were looking into the wrong direction.

Someone here who has the same little trust in the competence of professional controllers?

Then the Commission continues with the claim that Flight 77 crossed the border to Washington Center at 9:10, heading eastwards. But the Washington controllers didn't detect the plane either, because they were "not told to look for primary targets."

This is a breathtaking claim. Of course, Washington Center was informed by Indianapolis pretty early about the loss of Flight 77. Did the controllers expect it to reappear with full transponder data, and did they refrain from activating the primary radar routine for this reason?

The claim is not only an insult to the intelligence of the controllers, it is also wrong. Here is a transcript snippet between Washington Center and NEADS which proves that they were indeed looking for AA 77 for a long time:

09:34:01

WASHINGTON CENTER: Now, let me tell you this. I—I'll—we've been looking. We're—also lost American 77—

WATSON: American 77?

DOOLEY: American 77's lost—

WATSON: Where was it proposed to head, sir?

WASHINGTON CENTER: Okay, he was going to L.A. also—

WATSON: From where, sir?

WASHINGTON CENTER: I think he was from Boston also. Now let me tell you this story here. Indianapolis Center was working this guy—

WATSON: What guy?

WASHINGTON CENTER: American 77, at flight level 3-5-0 [35,000 feet]. However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.


Bottom line: Whatever happened to Flight 77, it's official flight path after 8:56 is pure speculation, and the evidence suggests that it didn't fly back to Washington at all. To those who say that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or are agnostic on this question, this is another serious blow.


911woodybox.blogspot.com...

Comments?



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Are you familiar with armored cars? Did you know they dont use steel? Instead they use several thin layers of aluminum. It's the layering that gives them the strength.

So now we have plane wings meant to keep immensely heavy planes full of hundreds of passengers and tons of fuel tens of thousands of feet up in the air at speeds exceeding 500mph (with a service life of years). We're talking 'layers' of alloys out the wazoo (including titanium), we're talking machine milled parts, etc that makes the layering in the walls of an armored bank truck look like crackerjack boxes vs. matchbox cars (the plane wings)...

All that vs. highway grade rolled aluminum pipes attached to the ground with cast aluminum bases. I've seen up close exactly what these materials look like in such a battered state. Hurricane grade yes, but 80 mph truck slamming into them no, the bases are built to break away hence the cast aluminum.

This isn't a comparison of a stoppable force hitting an immovable object. If anything, it was an unstoppable force hitting a movable object.

As I already said and everybody kept ignoring, anyone whose ever done construction work knows there's no way that the 'work' required to do that bang up job via elbow grease couldn't possibly be done in a jiffy. No chance whatsoever.

To do the jobs you'd need the parts pre busted. You'd need to haul them in with flatbed truck(s). You'd need an impact gun (to remove & replace the nuts) the likes of which most people have never seen up close in use (the kind you'd find on big tow trucks that tow big heavy box & semi trucks). You'd need dozens of guys 'trained' to do the construction swap out job alone, taking down poles normally erected with cranes (then whole other special effects teams for the rest of what was seen just up on the highway pavement alone). You'd have to haul in the 'new' poles, and haul out the 'old' ones. And on that part right there the whole thing would never get greenlit. Too risky. Too silly. Too stupid. Not unless everyone on the highway, news helicopters, and every survivor in the Pentagon that could get eyeshot out there for the next hour was all in on it.
edit on 20-2-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: facedye

Was that building hardened with kevlar etc?


Still avoiding the Lightpoles Problem, everyone?


They're avoiding my valid points as well.

Fingers in the ears going lalalala essentially.

Now they're talking about Bunker Busters...

Are you all forgetting the video of the explosion? IT'S A GIANT ORANGE SLOW MOVING BALL OF BURNING JET FUEL.

Go watch videos of airliners crashing, then go watch videos of bunker busters and ICBMs. What looks more like the CCTV footage?

This is just so silly... a Bunker Buster would have easily demolished the entire area... There would not have been a small punch hole because the last wall would not even be there anymore...

You're all suggesting seriously high yield ordinance caused that relatively small amount of destruction?

The logic would follow that you'd need at least five Bunker Busters or ICBMs to destroy the Pentagon... Lol

So much lol.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
The whole light pole thing cracks me up. They would not have even bothered, if this was actually a ploy to trick people into thinking it was a low flying plane. Why bother with a maneuver that has so many chances to fail, to add a little bit of belief into the story? They would have been spotted of course, for one. And then there is the fact that people saw the plane actually knocking them down.

I don't need a few knocked over light poles to tell me it was a plane. I have you know.. dozens of witnesses who clearly saw it, some up close. That is pretty good proof for me.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye



why do we have only bits and pieces here and there at the pentagon, but huge intact pieces here? what's your opinion?


Ah yes the typical "APPLES & ORANGES" argument ......

I take it you never been to plane crash....??

High speed impacts like one at Pentagon (American 77 hit at estimated speed of 530 mph) cause aircraft to be
fragmented into what is called "metallic confetti"

Lots of little pieces, with some larger pieces

Had aircraft crash in my town - after putting out fuel fire walked crash scene marking body parts for coroner to recover

(That's another thing - human bodies are frequently rendered into what is called "human hamburger" - again lots of
little pieces with some larger remains

Biggest piece we found was 2 x 3 ft section of rudder, rest smashed beyond recognition

This from a crash of 350 mph at 80 deg angle to ground

The Austin crash was a PIPER Dakota - lot smaller aircraft travelling lot SLOWER.....

Small light aircraft at low speed = lots of big pieces

Nice try at deflecting argument.....
edit on 20-2-2017 by firerescue because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

you think i was deflecting? i was showing you a clear example of a plane ramming into a building and leaving noticeable wreckage behind.

can you show me any bodily remains found at the pentagon?

yes, if flight 77 rammed into the pentagon, it was definitely traveling faster than 350mph, however the size of the aircraft is exponentially larger, with way more materials.

and.. don't you find this funny? that you and i both have bits and pieces of information to provide each other? whereas nobody can conclusively prove that a plane slammed into the pentagon?

i find that exceedingly interesting and to the point.



new topics

top topics



 
287
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join