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: 35
292
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

They didn't fly at 10 feet until just before impact. The FDR data shows them descending through the light poles, then there's a slight G effect about the point where they're into ground effect, and at 4 feet immediately before impact.


that's not what the pentagon security camera shows. it was flying straight all throughout the lawn. there's no way that's "just before impact."

please look at the pictures and post I put up about a page or so ago where the commission report contradicts the pentagon report which contradicts the NTSB and commission report trajectory of flight 77.

they're literally ALL contradictory details.

for emphasis:





this plane was flying 10-20 feet above the ground *well* before impact at 530 mph. every single flight trajectory reported by NIST, NTSB and the 9/11 commission report *DOES NOT* show the portion that the security camera details. it *outright contradicts* the pentagon report's illustrations.

how does this make sense to you?

please show me any other aircraft flying straight as an arrow, 10-20 feet off the ground maximum, at 530 mph.

if you can't show me that, then please explain to me how the above makes any sense to you.

EDIT:

speaking of light poles... the NTSB and 9/11 commission report flight simulations show "flight 77" completely missing ALL the light poles you're referring to. I say again - based on the official government's simulation of what happened, none of the light poles were anywhere near the plane.

please post the FDR data you're referring to for comparison if possible.

thoughts?


edit on 22-2-2017 by facedye because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   

edit on 2/22/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue



Hole in C Rig was left by section of landing gear which travelled through building

Do you agree ?? YES OR NO Explain otherwise ......


forgive me for laughing but - LOL, NO!

this is so silly it doesn't even deserve an honest and well thought out rebuttal. how can you even ask me a question like that with confidence? do you have any idea how illogical that is?!

please cite exactly where you got this information from so I can proceed to rip it to shreds, like the rest of your baseless and non-sourced assertions.

please ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTIONS TO YOU about the obvious gaping hole in reasoning *provided by the OS itself.* you call it babbling? I call it clearly pointing out contradictions in a completely contrived and contradictory "investigation."
edit on 22-2-2017 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

*cough*



in case you needed a visual aid.

*cough*



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I spent a 20+ year military career in Aviation related endeavors. When I first saw the aftermath of the Pentagon scenario I knew it was not an airliner crash. There was absolutely zero debris at the "crash site" that is always apparent at jetliner accidents. No seat cushions, no luggage, no sheet metal, no wreckage of any type. That is not within the realm of possibilities.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Xenogears




weren't these 9 11 pilots, barely trained pilots. One would think they wouldn't attempt to perform a difficult almost directly horizontal crash, but a more angled crash.


75 years ago barely trained Japanese pilots were able to hit moving ships - Ships there were shooting back !!



weren't those planes smaller and slower, easier to maneuver, and they only had to fly straight to the target.


originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Xenogears

No, they all had commercial pilot ratings and several were doing the transition program to get type rated for 737s.

A more angled crash is harder. Diving on a target requires all kinds of changes to the aircraft to compensate for forces on the aircraft.


Commercial pilot ratings but with how much experience. Passing a certification for most any profession does not an expert in that profession make you. How many months, years of experience did they have, and experience doing unusual maneuvers?

So it is easier to dive near the ground and maintain very high speed and go near horizontal than crashing into the roof of the building or say at a 30-45 degree angle?



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: HeadScratcher

wtf are you talking about, why do you people ignore the obvious..

There was debris found outside as inside, + witness accounts who saw the debris.


Debris

A plane hit The Pentagon, get over it.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

at what angle, and at what speed did a plane hit the pentagon?

know what's funny? no matter how you answer this question, you'll be contradicting the OS. why?

because the OS contradicts itself.

also Rense as your one and only source to back up your post... man oh man.

you would have had better luck citing the commission report, NTSB or NIST. you know.. the "investigations" where Rense is getting most if not all of its positions from.

that is.. if the links still work.

try again.

at what angle, and at what speed did a plane hit the pentagon?



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
There would be no reason to use a Russian missile, the USA has it's own missiles.
To think the would grab a Russian missile off the bottom of the sea and use it is beyond reason.
I guess coming from a bunch of people that don't know how to use a wrench, it would appear plausible.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

You have to remember all the other cr4p the truther side has claimed re 9/11.From the death ray from space, full size DAYLIGHT holograms projected onto nothing, everything turned to dust when it wasn't just some of the straws clutched at to convince themselves they are right.

edit on 22-2-2017 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
There would be no reason to use a Russian missile, the USA has it's own missiles.
To think the would grab a Russian missile off the bottom of the sea and use it is beyond reason.
I guess coming from a bunch of people that don't know how to use a wrench, it would appear plausible.



Didn't the expresident Bill, slip up and say the pentagon was bombed, after which I hear he paused in a "oh S#^T!" moment but he couldn't take it back.

Like when he slipped regards Hillary falling frequently, before correcting, a video that was later edited to remove the falling frequently slip by the MSM, but not before the original raw unedited video was backed up by alternate news sites.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

You can deny all you want, that doesn't make the photo evidence and witness accounts go away.

I don't care about the angle the plane hit when there is tons of evidence that a plane actually hit the Pentagon, it's so obvious, and you guys deny it...As i said get over it.

And stop your irrelevant troll question, you clearly denied the pic's and witnesses... you know the people who actually saw the plane and the debris, answer that instead.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal

I seen a bunch of people say this.
I am willing to be convinced.
Pm me some links so I can check it out, please.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
This thread is so far off its original point I don't know what's going on anymore.

Come to think of it, the OP refers to a "strange coincidence" and I'm not really sure what that was all about in the first place.

Missile stolen from sub - nope
Missile hits Pentagon - nope
Coincidence? ... nope

The last guy who claimed to have any knowledge of these alleged missing missiles was some guy called Michael Shrimpton who ended up in prison for wasting everyone's time and hatching a hoax that the Germans had stolen them from the wreck of the Kursk and intended to use them against the British.

Are we entirely confident that missiles were stolen or is the OP working off the same theory advanced by a convicted hoaxer?

Strangely, even though Shrimpton was convicted and sent to prison with his career in tatters - he managed to sound more convincing than some of the arguments and theories on here despite his source being "someone who lunches with the Pope"

I mean who lunches with the Pope?!

It's all rather convenient that any evidence to support these outlandish theories has been filed away as Top Secret. I haven't heard from one expert who has anything even remotely controversial to say on the subject. There was a guy on YouTube a few years ago who spoke as an authority on missiles because he worked on a ship that carried them - he could've been the bloody chef for all anyone knew.

To suggest it was an inside job is to credit the Bush administration with way too much intelligence.

Mistakes were made and I suspect covered up by individuals to save their jobs or because they were ashamed, I don't know. I guess at the end of the day the whole thing shattered the illusion that the US was invincible and that required a response.

It occurs to me that if people interrogated their own distasteful theories with the same vociferous level of scrutiny that they have applied to the official story, they might see that you could drive an oil tanker through many of the arguments.

Another thing that really gets my goat is the naivety in believing that if you were "getting close to the truth" you would be able to post your theory on a website! Do you really think that a super computer isn't reading everything you post and censoring what needs to be censored or flagging key phrases for interrogation? If it was an inside job (and I don't believe it was) and "the powers" orchestrated the whole thing, do you really think they would give a tiny rats @$$ about your right to free speech?

People died for Christ's sake. They were murdered in the most hideous and disgraceful way imaginable. Get angry about that.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears


Didn't the expresident Bill, slip up and say the pentagon was bombed, after which I hear he paused in a "oh S#^T!" moment but he couldn't take it back.

I dunno, did he? People make language mistakes all the time.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

this is an awful reply.

the photo evidence, the OFFICIAL 9/11 REPORTS YOU BASE YOUR CONFIDENCE ON, and the witnesses, ALL contradict each other as I have repeatedly shown.

you're not even willing to address it and say you "don't care."

absolutely laughable.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Inc_9x
This thread is so far off its original point I don't know what's going on anymore.

Come to think of it, the OP refers to a "strange coincidence" and I'm not really sure what that was all about in the first place.

Missile stolen from sub - nope
Missile hits Pentagon - nope
Coincidence? ... nope

The last guy who claimed to have any knowledge of these alleged missing missiles was some guy called Michael Shrimpton who ended up in prison for wasting everyone's time and hatching a hoax that the Germans had stolen them from the wreck of the Kursk and intended to use them against the British.

Are we entirely confident that missiles were stolen or is the OP working off the same theory advanced by a convicted hoaxer?

Strangely, even though Shrimpton was convicted and sent to prison with his career in tatters - he managed to sound more convincing than some of the arguments and theories on here despite his source being "someone who lunches with the Pope"

I mean who lunches with the Pope?!

It's all rather convenient that any evidence to support these outlandish theories has been filed away as Top Secret. I haven't heard from one expert who has anything even remotely controversial to say on the subject. There was a guy on YouTube a few years ago who spoke as an authority on missiles because he worked on a ship that carried them - he could've been the bloody chef for all anyone knew.

To suggest it was an inside job is to credit the Bush administration with way too much intelligence.

Mistakes were made and I suspect covered up by individuals to save their jobs or because they were ashamed, I don't know. I guess at the end of the day the whole thing shattered the illusion that the US was invincible and that required a response.

It occurs to me that if people interrogated their own distasteful theories with the same vociferous level of scrutiny that they have applied to the official story, they might see that you could drive an oil tanker through many of the arguments.

Another thing that really gets my goat is the naivety in believing that if you were "getting close to the truth" you would be able to post your theory on a website! Do you really think that a super computer isn't reading everything you post and censoring what needs to be censored or flagging key phrases for interrogation? If it was an inside job (and I don't believe it was) and "the powers" orchestrated the whole thing, do you really think they would give a tiny rats @$$ about your right to free speech?

People died for Christ's sake. They were murdered in the most hideous and disgraceful way imaginable. Get angry about that.


I'd have to check the source of the quotes, and the details in the quotes. But there are those here claiming the official story has self contradictory statements from the various parties involved. In math you often prove something is wrong or false by showing it self contradicts.

One of the reasons I initially doubted a plane hit the pentagon was because of the high resolution close up pictures of the pentagon after the impact. IIRC, virtually no debris. I hear they say the wings are supposed to have completely folded in and gone through the central hole. I mean if you see the Twin tower holes, you see the wing shaped region of the hole the wings went through, in the pentagon there is none of that, and we're supposed to take it the wings went through the central hole?

Perhaps, I'm open to the possibility.

IIRC, one of the things that I seem to recall is that there was lots of insider trading that benefited from 9 11, and the 9 11 commission didn't dig through it to the roots, to those who profited.

I also recall claims that the funding of the 9 11 commission was lower than the monica lewinsky investigation, which if that claim is true would be a travesty.


edit on 22-2-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

It would be more unusual for witnesses not to contradict each other as that would suggest collusion.

Contradiction does not support nor does it evidence conspiracy, it's just what happens because people are human and emotional.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Why would it need to be a power tool what about a handheld impact wrench, I can unlock a bolt with one in less than ten seconds , it really is not a big time consuming deal



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

And so what, do you deny the evidence or what, that is the question...you do don't you, you are a waste of time.



new topics

top topics



 
292
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join