The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

Just to be curt, the black plume of smoke from the Pentagon impact sure looks like an open kerosene fire to me. Nothing about the damage is consistent with an explosive warhead either.

Could it have been a smaller jet, I think so.

originally posted by: Psychonautics

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Psychonautics

Oh boy, here we go.

what do you mean by that? what exactly are you implying?

An aircraft did not hit the Pentagon, pretty sure you said that right?

maybe i'm not remembering this well - please, when did i say that "an aircraft did not hit the pentagon"?

You say it wasn't a plane, plus the content of this thread, lead me to believe you agree with the missile theory.

again, forgive me if i'm not recalling this properly - when did i say "it wasn't a plane"?

looks like you were misled. i enjoyed the work, effort and interest the OP put into this thread to lay out his ideas and observations. i felt they were concise, informative and utilized deductive as well as inductive logic very well.

i agree with a lot of OP's perspectives. but where did i say a missile hit the pentagon?

So, what exactly are you saying happened? A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, but you have no guess as to what did?

i have my guesses as to what hit the pentagon. i could tell you, but it looks like you might imply 10 things about me before i finish my thought.

"oh boy, here we go."

You're clearly just here to argue with people....

Funny thing is you aren't good at it.

Easiest way to tell someone is full of it? Every time you ask them a question, they answer with two questions.

Edit: I might have completely fudged user names and am replying to you accidentally... I need to go back and read through a few pages but I'm going to pre-apologize now LOL

you should be ashamed of yourself if your edit is true.

if you don't care enough to remember the points of view of specific members, and be so sure of yourself as to throw such blatant mud, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Psychonautics

Oh boy, here we go.

what do you mean by that? what exactly are you implying?

An aircraft did not hit the Pentagon, pretty sure you said that right?

maybe i'm not remembering this well - please, when did i say that "an aircraft did not hit the pentagon"?

You say it wasn't a plane, plus the content of this thread, lead me to believe you agree with the missile theory.

again, forgive me if i'm not recalling this properly - when did i say "it wasn't a plane"?

looks like you were misled. i enjoyed the work, effort and interest the OP put into this thread to lay out his ideas and observations. i felt they were concise, informative and utilized deductive as well as inductive logic very well.

i agree with a lot of OP's perspectives. but where did i say a missile hit the pentagon?

So, what exactly are you saying happened? A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, but you have no guess as to what did?

i have my guesses as to what hit the pentagon. i could tell you, but it looks like you might imply 10 things about me before i finish my thought.

"oh boy, here we go."

Yeah, no I wasn't mistaken.

When someone else stated it wasn't a missile, but a plane, you asked for evidence of a Boeing hitting the Pentagon (knowing you wouldn't get acceptable evidence)

Then you quoted the post about the no skid marks as evidence for the no plane theory with "WOW"

It's pretty clear you've been purposely skeptical of the plane theory, while bringing literally zero substance to the conversation. You just keep shooting everything down and asking silly questions when I ask you legitimate ones...

Jesus stop being so obtuse.

a reply to: Psychonautics

i've brought a lot of substance to this conversation. it's really not my fault if you haven't been paying attention.

please review my well sourced replies to other members here who can hold a civil discussion without being nauseatingly aggressive without cause.

it could have been something other than flight 77. this is my point of view. i have a lot of sources and citations, that i have listed throughout these past 20 pages, to substantiate this point of view.

would you like me to spoonfeed it to you in bullet points?

EDIT:

and if you're sure that you were talking about me, then the request to cite exactly where i said what you're stating still stands.

when did i say it was definitely a missile?

when did i say it definitely wasn't a plane?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: facedye

Anything is possible, per se.

If it were a plot, those light poles coming down like that are what seal the deal, so ensuring they got hit no that might be something worth exploring, but I've beaten to death this light pole thing with the best of them in this site in the old days and never seen this explained worth a lick.

since you've beaten this to death, i'm really curious.

where do you lean on this these days? what do you think may have happened?

a reply to: facedye

Where do I try to belittle people.

I address the behavior of the truth movement. Especially where they scrutinize anything posted by a "skeptic", but any theory like stolen sunken missiles gets them admiration. (Evidently not well researched if the person was confusing IBCMs vs curse missiles. behavior desperate to find the smoking gun and keep conspiracy relevant.)
This is in the context the truth movement has never proven a missile hit the pentagon vs a passenger with DNA in the first place. Also-also in the context, the same people that give thumbs up to a crazy conspiracy theories want everything from a skeptic peer reviewed. Behavior that turns off normal people from conspiracy, so the conspiracists in return label them as sheep.

And people wonder why conspiracists are not taken seriously?

I try to ask specific questions. When people try to pursue a tactic of belittling/character assassination instead of answering, I try to stand up for myself as tactfully as possible.

I will try to answer questions directed to me, but will not fall into the trap of answering question after question so the person setting the trap gets out of providing evidence/proof of their argument.

There are individuals that frequent the 9/11 forum that many "skeptics" have answered their questions over and over again. When any past argument makes its way into a thread, the individuals act like it's the first time everytime. They demand answer after answer, never answering questions directed to them, then they resort to character assassination, and try to use only snippets of posted comments as out of context quotes against the author. Sorry you were caught up in the "on going struggle" that is rooted in many other threads.

Finally, the truth is the truth.

Doesn't this forum come with a disclaimer you are crazy to post here?

a reply to: neutronflux

i'm sorry. i really don't have anything to say in reply to you, nor do i really care about what you posted above.

i have no idea why you're talking to me about any of what you just posted.

Dude, we can all go back and read the posts.

You've been here fanatically arguing against the official story. You've argued with every single poster with the same argument. The same useless argument, because you don't believe the official story. We get it.

The thing is, you ARENT offering anything of substance, you're simply shooting down everyone who doesn't agree with you, asking for sources we all know you'd shoot down, dodging legitimate questions by asking your own pointless queries.

All the while, offering NOTHING of your own opinion. Yo literally haven't said anything on your view, or offered any evidence of said NON view.

You've just been arguing against the official story, the whole thread.

So if you aren't saying a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, and you aren't saying it was a missile (the entire point of this thread) what exactly are you saying? You're saying you didn't say both, what are you even saying then? Nothing...

Nothing. You're just here to argue. We get you don't buy the official story, I don't either... but the topic of this thread is a supposed missile hitting the Pentagon, and not a plane... so if you aren't commenting on either of those scenarios, isn't it arguably off topic?

Until you can address my valid questions, which I've posted multiple times, and everyone has ignored, I'm just going to assume you simply enjoy pointless debates on the internet...

a reply to: Psychonautics

Until you can address my valid questions, which I've posted multiple times, and everyone has ignored, I'm just going to assume you simply enjoy pointless debates on the internet...

LOL .. i wonder why you didn't get the replies you were looking for. you know, if the way you approach the situation doesn't seem to be working for you, maybe you should change your approach.

if you can go back and read the posts, then it looks like you're really triggered at the moment because my point of view really isn't that hard to figure out.

the official story has serious, undeniable, frightening holes. this is why people care enough to still try to piece the event together in any way they can.

i've made no declarative statements as to exactly what happened to the pentagon. you know this, because you refuse to cite what you claim i declared. i don't know that it's flight 77. i don't know that it's a missile. i don't know that it's a UAV.

what i do know is that the official story should be challenged, exposed, criticized and refuted every time someone tries to speak to its legitimacy. it has none.

you seem like you want to yell out "WELL WHAT ARE YOU OFFERING TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THE OS?"

i will only respond with what i can prove. i, like many others here, can and have proven the official story is bull@*%t, and so can you.

i, like many others, can and have proven that to this day, vital information that would clarify this entire event has been forcibly withheld.

that means that the notions of a variety of missiles, UAVs, explosives and alternative aircrafts are all on the table for reasonable speculation.

is that good enough of an answer as to my point of view for you? i can clarify further if you'd like.

also, you used a really interesting phrase to describe my inclinations: "fanatically arguing" eh?

what's fanatic about my point of view?

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

i'm sorry. i really don't have anything to say in reply to you, nor do i really care about what you posted above.

i have no idea why you're talking to me about any of what you just posted.

Then tell me what evidence there is a missile hit the pentagon, and why I shouldn't be critical of this stolen missile theory.

I do mean this as respectfully as possible.

For science fiction, I go to the bookstore.

I came to ATS for a serious look at 9/11.

How does this stolen missile theory get us closer to the truth of 9/11?

Want a true conspiracy.

Seems things are released to keep groups of people looking for the truth at odds with each other.

Or people release things with concern only for their own notoriety. The same trap ufology and cryptozoology has fallen into.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Psychonautics

Until you can address my valid questions, which I've posted multiple times, and everyone has ignored, I'm just going to assume you simply enjoy pointless debates on the internet...

LOL .. i wonder why you didn't get the replies you were looking for. you know, if the way you approach the situation doesn't seem to be working for you, maybe you should change your approach.

if you can go back and read the posts, then it looks like you're really triggered at the moment because my point of view really isn't that hard to figure out.

the official story has serious, undeniable, frightening holes. this is why people care enough to still try to piece the event together in any way they can.

i've made no declarative statements as to exactly what happened to the pentagon. you know this, because you refuse to cite what you claim i declared. i don't know that it's flight 77. i don't know that it's a missile. i don't know that it's a UAV.

what i do know is that the official story should be challenged, exposed, criticized and refuted every time someone tries to speak to its legitimacy. it has none.

you seem like you want to yell out "WELL WHAT ARE YOU OFFERING TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THE OS?"

i will only respond with what i can prove. i, like many others here, can and have proven the official story is bull@*%t, and so can you.

i, like many others, can and have proven that to this day, vital information that would clarify this entire event has been forcibly withheld.

that means that the notions of a variety of missiles, UAVs, explosives and alternative aircrafts are all on the table for reasonable speculation.

is that good enough of an answer as to my point of view for you? i can clarify further if you'd like.

also, you used a really interesting phrase to describe my inclinations: "fanatically arguing" eh?

what's fanatic about my point of view?

Literally embarrassing. Don't answer the questions, it's fine.

Once again, that wall of text was essentially useless, and of no substance.

You offer nothing.

a reply to: Psychonautics

it looks like you only asked me one straight forward question in your previous post.

So if you aren't saying a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, and you aren't saying it was a missile (the entire point of this thread) what exactly are you saying? You're saying you didn't say both, what are you even saying then? Nothing...

i responded to this specific question with:

i will only respond with what i can prove. i, like many others here, can and have proven the official story is bull@*%t, and so can you. i, like many others, can and have proven that to this day, vital information that would clarify this entire event has been forcibly withheld. that means that the notions of a variety of missiles, UAVs, explosives and alternative aircrafts are all on the table for reasonable speculation.

this is what i'm saying. why do you find this unsatisfactory? do you need me to cite all of the sources i'm basing my point of view on for you?

It really sucks.

If you set up a governing body for the sake of credibility, then you fall into intusinlized dogma.

If you don't have a governing body to insure credibility, the you get groups like the truth movement, ufology, and cryptography that offer no ability to police themselves from con artists.

a reply to: neutronflux

do you have any other songs in that jukebox?

If this thread isn't evidence of how much OG ATSers miss the real ATS, idk what is!

S&F for a very ATS post. Its been too long.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

do you have any other songs in that jukebox?

Can you even answer in good intellectual faith?

If there is no proof a missle hit the pentagon, why should this thread be taken seriously.

My stance. No missle hit the pentagon on 9/11. There is no relevance in the stolen missle theory.

Your turn to prove you are here for true debate...

Facedye, what hit the pentagon on 9/11 and why is this thread relevant?

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

do you have any other songs in that jukebox?

Do you?!

So vapid.

I'm not going to post my questions for the FIFTH yes fifth time. I've asked the questions five separate times, five different posts, at least one directed specifically towards you.

a reply to: neutronflux

this thread is relevant because there's just as much reason to believe a missile hit the pentagon as there is to believe flight 77 hit the pentagon.

no.. i take that back. there's *more* reason to believe a missile hit the pentagon than there is to believe flight 77 did. that doesn't mean that's definitely what happened. it means that the official story doesn't prove flight 77 hit the pentagon.

Theseus' Ship

a reply to: neutronflux

There are individuals that frequent the 9/11 forum that many "skeptics" have answered their questions over and over again. When any past argument makes its way into a thread, the individuals act like it's the first time everytime. They demand answer after answer, never answering questions directed to them, then they resort to character assassination, and try to use only snippets of posted comments as out of context quotes against the author. Sorry you were caught up in the "on going struggle" that is rooted in many other threads.

I can't believe you stoop to write such balderdash. This is exactly the garbage you have been dishing out to me and others on here.

Any reader on here following this thread "can see it".

Back on Topic:

Can you produce a credibal video of said airplane hitting the Pentagon?

a reply to: Psychonautics

that's entirely your choice, and you're entitled to it.

just know that i will never turn you away for asking me questions to clarify my position, in case that is what you wish to know.

especially in this regard. don't like my answer? please point out what's wrong with it and i'll happily adjust my response.