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: 24
285
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Psychonautics

Ironic some individuals are quick to point out most people don't trust the government on 9/11.

Then the individuals will not make a stand on what they believe.

Then, then the same individuals will belittle you when you take a stand and provide backing evidence.
edit on 20-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed trust

edit on 20-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed they




posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

As I have for over a decade, I lean on this kind of stuff unless being rock solid can only divert important energy, it can only divide a movement, it can only weaken a movement, all the while no matter how compelling this kind of notion could be argued half the people out there simply would never believe it.

It's the opposite of what I've always referred to as "Actionable Consensus" material, and therefore it should be discarded while things like geopolitics, and the staging of the general ordeal should be in focus.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Long time reader and lurker, not-so-frequent poster.

Facedye, thank you for fighting the good fight.
What you have posted in the past twenty something pages deserves to be lauded. Job well done.

To the rest of you who are exercising mental and linguistic gymnastics to support the OS, you really need to stop. Anyone who supports the OS will be found to be on the wrong side of history eventually. Here's looking at you, Psychonautics and neutronflux.
edit on 20-2-2017 by Thejaybird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Thejaybird

this means a hell of a lot to me. thank you for your kind words.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

And Hani Hanjour pulling that maneuver to hit that particular wedge of the Pentagon?



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Then the best part after answering a long string of questioning with nothing in return?

The old reply's of: The wreckage was fabricated. The DNA is fake. The FAA, pilot in the air, the news reporters, local eyewitnesses, the victims, the local first responders are all lying.

Then you ask for proof, the allegations of being a government agent start flying.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

this might be one of the more tightly-packed statements i've read on ATS.

i commend your skills of consolidation.

would you care to unpack that for me a little bit?

namely: without committing to a declaration of your convictions, what does it look like to you? does it look like a plane simply knocked these down?



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

please quote one person in this thread who stated any 9/11 eyewitness, pilot in the air, or news reporter was lying. just one.

should be simple enough if it's as common as your post implies.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I dont have all the answers, just an uncanny spotting & craftiness at unfolding BS when I see it (long story).



a reply to: facedye

- Concrete Goals for all who actually cares about the truth behind 9/11
- Insanely Incredible Issues as Proof of a 9/11 Conspiracy

Old stuff. I'd write them a bit different now. Really should. Just no time (for anything I've been doing in ATS you wouldn't even believe it).

The jist of them combined is get out all the wacky stuff but if need be the ridiculous amounts of endlessly arguable angles on the whole lot (by design I argue) would be the way to go, while the coverup and stuff like that is where the umph should be placed.
edit on 21-2-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

I agree, the idea of a missile hitting the Pentagon is just as possible, is there proof? No. However the fact is the hole entry was way to small for a boeing 757-200 to go through.

Criminals love to play on people's intelligence, because arrogantly they believe they are smarter than the rest of us.

There were many reasons for 911 to happen, and our own government is not exempt from them, as they desperately want us to believe.

History has proven that governments around the world commit atrocities to fulfill an agenda and in that process many people are killed, worst of all, these government lie to the people to cover up their illegal crimes.
edit on 21-2-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
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


List one piece of evidence a missle hit the pentagon on 9/11 vs a passenger jet that left DNA evidence? The DNA evidence backs that a pilot of an in the air cargo plane identified and watched an American Airlines passenger jet hit the pentagon.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Psychonautics

Ironic some individuals are quick to point out most people don't trust the government on 9/11.

Then the individuals will not make a stand on what they believe.

Then, then the same individuals will belittle you when you take a stand and provide backing evidence.


The OS is nonsense. I told my wife the literal day of 9/11 that the official story was crap. At the time, I taught a zero period class, which started at 7:00 a.m. My father-in-law called me before I left for school and told me to turn on the t.v. to see what was happening. I watched for five minutes and had to leave, so I turned on the radio in my car. The local dj's of "Wild 94.9", who were irreverent by nature, were already claiming that bin Laden was the mastermind of the events in all seriousness, which was far removed from their normal shtick. When I got to school and jumped online, it was the same information. As a conspiracy theory and false flag researcher at that time, my Spidey senses tingled immediately. The fact that the Patriot Act was trotted out soon after only led me to investigate further. I have never believed the official story.

The OP, as well as facedye's posts, ask legitimate questions and bring up legitimate points. We are one generation removed from the last generation that blindly supports our government as a benevolent entity.

If you are of the persuasion that upholds the OS, you are deluded. Points to support such a supposition? They have been provided for you on more than twenty pages on this thread.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Thejaybird

this means a hell of a lot to me. thank you for your kind words.


Not a problem. They are well deserved.

Let us all continue to unpack this event to arrive at the truth.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

do you live on a carousel by choice or by consequence?

your last sentence doesn't make any grammatical sense, by the way.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thejaybird

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Psychonautics

Ironic some individuals are quick to point out most people don't trust the government on 9/11.

Then the individuals will not make a stand on what they believe.

Then, then the same individuals will belittle you when you take a stand and provide backing evidence.


The OS is nonsense. I told my wife the literal day of 9/11 that the official story was crap. At the time, I taught a zero period class, which started at 7:00 a.m. My father-in-law called me before I left for school and told me to turn on the t.v. to see what was happening. I watched for five minutes and had to leave, so I turned on the radio in my car. The local dj's of "Wild 94.9", who were irreverent by nature, were already claiming that bin Laden was the mastermind of the events in all seriousness, which was far removed from their normal shtick. When I got to school and jumped online, it was the same information. As a conspiracy theory and false flag researcher at that time, my Spidey senses tingled immediately. The fact that the Patriot Act was trotted out soon after only led me to investigate further. I have never believed the official story.

The OP, as well as facedye's posts, ask legitimate questions and bring up legitimate points. We are one generation removed from the last generation that blindly supports our government as a benevolent entity.

If you are of the persuasion that upholds the OS, you are deluded. Points to support such a supposition? They have been provided for you on more than twenty pages on this thread.


You're being emotional, I already stated I don't buy the OS.

However, I do not believe in controlled demolition, or missiles. Real planes full of real people hit those buildings, leaving plenty of evidence.

To suggest otherwise is shameful and ignorant.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Psychonautics

how about UAV's?

EDIT:

how about fitting a boeing with the same remote abilities found in a UAV to make it look like the hijackers actually knew how to fly those damn things straight as a hawk at 500+ mph well under an elevation of 1,000 feet?

if you find the above assertion to be absurd, please express why it would make less sense than the OS you stated you don't believe in.
edit on 21-2-2017 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Thejaybird

Thanks for a rant to try to discredit a person in an attempt to shame them by implying two intellectually superior people that have no established credentials have an opposing view.


Then it should not be hard for you to answer how DNA of passengers ended up at the pentagon which is backed by an eyewitness account of an American Airlines passenger jet hitting the pentagon.




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, 21 2017 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Psychonautics

originally posted by: Thejaybird

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Psychonautics

Ironic some individuals are quick to point out most people don't trust the government on 9/11.

Then the individuals will not make a stand on what they believe.

Then, then the same individuals will belittle you when you take a stand and provide backing evidence.


The OS is nonsense. I told my wife the literal day of 9/11 that the official story was crap. At the time, I taught a zero period class, which started at 7:00 a.m. My father-in-law called me before I left for school and told me to turn on the t.v. to see what was happening. I watched for five minutes and had to leave, so I turned on the radio in my car. The local dj's of "Wild 94.9", who were irreverent by nature, were already claiming that bin Laden was the mastermind of the events in all seriousness, which was far removed from their normal shtick. When I got to school and jumped online, it was the same information. As a conspiracy theory and false flag researcher at that time, my Spidey senses tingled immediately. The fact that the Patriot Act was trotted out soon after only led me to investigate further. I have never believed the official story.

The OP, as well as facedye's posts, ask legitimate questions and bring up legitimate points. We are one generation removed from the last generation that blindly supports our government as a benevolent entity.

If you are of the persuasion that upholds the OS, you are deluded. Points to support such a supposition? They have been provided for you on more than twenty pages on this thread.


You're being emotional, I already stated I don't buy the OS.

However, I do not believe in controlled demolition, or missiles. Real planes full of real people hit those buildings, leaving plenty of evidence.

To suggest otherwise is shameful and ignorant.


Dude, I'm an INTJ. We do nothing based on emotion. Try again, especially when it comes to your "shameful and ignorant" nonsense.

If you do not believe in controlled demolition, you have faulty eyesight. But, that is not what this thread is about. It is about the Pentagon, which obviously, beyond a shadow of a doubt, was not hit by a plane. This thread is an exploration into what other explanations come into play. You desperately cling to the OS. I have to ask: why?



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

The fist question you haven't answered was how DNA from flight 77 ended up at the pentagon? Eyewitness accounts confirms a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Thejaybird

Thanks for a rant to try to discredit a person in an attempt to shame them by implying two intellectually superior people that have no established credentials have an opposing view.


Then it should not be hard for you to answer how DNA of passengers ended up at the pentagon which is backed by an eyewitness account of an American Airlines passenger jet hitting the pentagon.




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]


Seriously?


First, six years ago, I showed my sixth graders how to edit Wikipedia. One of them altered Hillary's page to read that she "loved cupcakes and farted rainbows". It stayed on for over a month. While Wikipedia is now much more trustworthy, it is still generatedby whoever the f*** wants to edit it.

Secondly, please re-read the quote you have posted, and read it from an objective standpoint. It is, at best, not the most stable foundation to stand upon.
edit on 21-2-2017 by Thejaybird because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
285
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join