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: 26
267
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Thejaybird

T&C man, i respect this site and its contributing members way too much to become a moderator's problem.

if we were at a bar this would be a completely different story.


"That is the easy way out" was not directed at you. Just read it and saw that it could be construed as such.

I am with you on the T&C's, though.




posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thejaybird

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Thejaybird

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.


I guess you didn't have time to teach them how to chase down references?

Care to do your own research when you make alligators of falsehoods?

Still ignoring the issue of DNA evidence that correlates with eyewitness accounts.


First, I absolutely teach them how to chase down references, and they could smoke your a** in a debate ten ways to Sunday, based on their instruction. No lie. I would be more than happy to bring you to my school and unleash them upon you in a debate.

Second, I do not make "alligators" out of anything. I do, however, make "allegations", and I stand behind all of them. However, if your evidence trumps mine, I am the first person to step back and admit that I was wrong and change my viewpoint. You have yet to do so.



Then state how the DNA of passengers ended up at the pentagon, discredit the eyewitness account of the in flight pilot, the passenger jet wreckage on the lawn, and the other eyewitness accounts that a passenger jet hit the pentagon.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Interesting observations.

There's still the problem of the what hit the lightpoles? I can tell you first hand, that subject was beaten to death back in the day. I'm no "Skeptic", and for the longest time remained on the fence, but eventually (when CIT was stomping around) helped lead the charge in bringing Pentagon No Planer noise to a collective close.

My old thread:
First things first: What Hit the Lightpoles?!

I doubt many of the images from that era still work, but the arguments should hold true.

We had many other threads in those days that went on for eternity. I got a pretty good taste for much of them.


originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


No Planes all begins and ends with the lightpoles.

Anyone who has ever done construction work will laugh at any and all notions that the 'work' on the poles could be done in a jiffy.


originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
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.


originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
the grass was green all the way up to the wall, which is another marvel,


I dont claim to have all the answers to every aspect, but I know that the grass around those lightpoles would be ground into dirt/mud by the time dozens of big strong burly construction men were out there in work boots with heavy tools, equipment and building materials.

That entire highway scene would have literally become a construction site for the entire duration.

Maybe if you had a impact gun crew per pole, basically a dozen guys per pole working like clockwork maybe it could be done in 20 minutes. That is if they had been practice drill rehearsing at a mock replica site for a couple weeks, and if somehow the logistics of getting all those men, trucks and equipment in and out of there amidst all the choas, witnesses, first responders, traffic jams.

Then, in addition to the grass being all disturbed around this construction site, there would be the threat of other visual evidence of tampering on the pole mounts, along with accidentally forgot a tool or a nut on the ground.

So while all that above is going on then there be something like a dozen plus special effects people out there handling the rest of the scene up on the highway pavement. And they'd have to be able to get in and out with their tools and effects.






posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

I asked how the DNA and remains of the passengers from flight 77 ended up in the pentagon. Physical evidence backed by eyewitness accounts. How is this a wrong statement?


Good question considering everything else was mostly claimed to have been consumed by fire. The official version uses every available possibility to lie, but then the glaring contradictions seem to debunk their own story. Planted DNA is the likely explanation. Only a fool would believe the lies coming from the status quo elites in government. Besides, I and my entire family watched the original video footage aired on ABC news and CNN of a missile streak in and explode, and it wasn't the same one as posted in an animated gif earlier in the thread. Right after it was aired it wasn't shown again and not mentioned again, then later denied completely to even exist. What is even more suspect are the dozens of confiscated videos that were classified secret or TS. The real fantasy is the one you keep peddling, but then I can't blame those going that route since everyone has to go to work everyday and keep their jobs to survive. Sometimes at the cost of your most important asset..



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

You haven't answered anything.

State how the DNA of passengers and crew ended up at the pentagon? How are the eyewitness accounts of the jet hitting the pentagon wrong?

If you answer my questions, then provide the quote from the thread.


next time you find the courage to post in a different 9/11 thread, be ready for me to ensure that every single participating member in that thread gets a front-row view to this exchange we just had.

you're purposely playing dumb. it's never been more clear than it was just now when you refused to address what i just challenged you with.

you have an ulterior motive to posting in these threads.

you want the answer i already gave you? turn back *not even 2 pages* and read.

EDIT:

look at how easy it is for me to find. why's it so hard for you? are you partially blind, or does this phenomenon only pertain to your comfort level?


originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.


if flight 77 actually hit the pentagon, there's every reason in the world to consider that the craft was controlled in the same way a UAV is controlled. why would i state this? because of the near-impossible maneuvers in their trajectory.

i'm also becoming impatient with you, so allow me to personally destroy your presumed understanding of the pentagon incident by offering two points from the official story circus show. i'm going to need you to respond to this directly, and stay focused on the point:



9/11 Commission Report



two issues i pose to you:

1. the commission report clearly gives a description of the descending nature of this plane. the video released from the pentagon security camera shows an object heading *straight ahead* at the pentagon. how is this possible?

2. if the plane descended into the pentagon from above, and did not fly straight into the pentagon, how in the world would it have enough force to penetrate several walls and leave a punch out hole?

edit on 21-2-2017 by facedye because: facedye delivers



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Thejaybird

www.archives.gov...

Here is a link to O'brain's testimony. Sorry I cannot cut and past from the PDF due to slow internet.


Holy cow. You keep posting crap like this and fail to see THIS IS PART OF THE OS! Of course this transcript reads the way it does. It had to. They needed it to fill out the narrative.

Is this really that hard for you to see?



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Thejaybird

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Thejaybird

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.


I guess you didn't have time to teach them how to chase down references?

Care to do your own research when you make alligators of falsehoods?

Still ignoring the issue of DNA evidence that correlates with eyewitness accounts.


First, I absolutely teach them how to chase down references, and they could smoke your a** in a debate ten ways to Sunday, based on their instruction. No lie. I would be more than happy to bring you to my school and unleash them upon you in a debate.

Second, I do not make "alligators" out of anything. I do, however, make "allegations", and I stand behind all of them. However, if your evidence trumps mine, I am the first person to step back and admit that I was wrong and change my viewpoint. You have yet to do so.



Then state how the DNA of passengers ended up at the pentagon, discredit the eyewitness account of the in flight pilot, the passenger jet wreckage on the lawn, and the other eyewitness accounts that a passenger jet hit the pentagon.


OS. OS. OS.

Please post your "evidence" of what you have written.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Thejaybird

nobody gonna tell me what the issues with the light standards are?



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Here goes the tool you'd use to swap the nuts on those light pole mounts:


To pull off that job in less than several hours out there, they'd need one of those per crew running simultaneously at each 'swapped' pole (dragging those heavy heavy-duty air hoses through the grass and all).


I've seen one of these in action first hand after being on a cross state run with a max size commercial Ryder truck delivery, and an inner back dualie tire blew out. After sitting out there on the side of a highway service drive on the Ohio Turnpike for over an hour, beginning deep into sundown, out came Jimbob with one of these beasts to change the wheel.

edit on 21-2-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Thejaybird

You mean just stating DNA was planted is an answer.

I state there was a passenger jet that hit the pentagon.

One, prove the fire burned long and hot enough to destroy all human remains and DNA. Remains have to be totally ashed before the possibility of obtaining DNA is zero.

How many fires totally incinerate human bodies, bones, and teeth.




archive.northjersey.com...

While trace evidence like fingerprints and footprints may not survive a fire, DNA typically does because it can withstand high temperatures, said Lawrence Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science and chairman of the Department of Sciences at John Jay.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You've shown me an air impact?
Whats the significance of that?



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Scroll up up, that's in addition to what I've already well articulated about the "job" to swap out those lightpoles assuming a plane didn't hit them.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: D8Tee

Scroll up up, that's in addition to what I've already well articulated about the "job" to swap out those lightpoles assuming a plane didn't hit them.

Takes nothing to knock over a lightstandard if they are designed with frangible bolts. I hit one with my truck at perhaps 3 mph and it fell over. Hardly dented the bumper.
edit on 21-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Thejaybird

hey you know that whole T&C thing i was going on about just then?

forget it. mods, sorry if you have to remove this in advance. i can't help myself.

a reply to: neutronflux

i feel like i have enough justification to say this at this point.

you're either mentally unstable, or directly benefiting from your presence in the 9/11 forums.

either way, you've proven beyond a doubt that nobody here should be paying any attention to anything you have to say in these threads.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Thejaybird

Just going to continue with the insults while I put an honest effort in doing research and try to answer questions with out belittling people?



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

You stated DNA was planted because it could not survive a fire?

So where did they get charred remains to plant that matched the passengers and crew of flight 77? Charred remains that still yielded DNA?

So can or cannot get DNA from charred remains. How many fires totally destroy human bones and teeth?
edit on 21-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed the charreds


(post by AnAbsoluteCreation removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

I think you had better deal with my work presented on this page before speaking in absolutes about went down out there.




posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I saw. But I think the evidence I lay out over the next couple days will deem your position obsolete.

I'm not asking you to trust me, just be patient.

It's coming.

AAC

edit on 21-2-2017 by AnAbsoluteCreation because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Somebody has already posted numerous items on the light poles. I think out of a willingness to be intellectually honest you would have addressed the light poles as replies to which has already been posted?



new topics

top topics



 
267
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join