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: 36
267
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Inc_9x
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.


in other words, you cannot count on eyewitness testimony to seal the deal on this. I agree with that whole heartedly.

looks like some other members here take contradictory claims lightly enough to deny the massive contradictions with *every other known facet of the OS.*

"some people said it was a plane, so it must be flight 77."

it's pathetic. it really is.




posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

I get that things can look weird.

My instinctive reaction when I first saw the images of the Pentagon was "a plane didn't do that?"

But actually what I know about plane crashes and impact damage you could write on a postage stamp.

I am not an expert and my instinctive reaction/view counts for nothing.

You can't go through life rubbishing experts because what they say might not accord with your personal view, well you can but if you do you might as well stop speaking to your doctor and take up smoking and go sit in a swamp somewhere.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Inc_9x
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.


witness contradiction is and often does happen naturally. But if there is self contradiction from official investigation account, some supposedly based on video evidence and debris and crash analysis. Well that shouldn't happen. Analysis of the evidence should not lead to contradictory statements regards what happened.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

cite one time in this ENTIRE 35 page thread that you just waltzed into where I have outright denied evidence in my posts.

i'll wait.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Wow---good job



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: superluminal11
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Wow---good job


and to facedye



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

That's a naive view. I see it all the time, that people will say one thing contemporaneously but their view changes when they have had a chance to think.

Once the moment has passed, things creep into a persons mind and they embellish their version with what they think people expect them to say.

Life would be easy if people stuck to their stories. If I asked you about your very first post on ATS you might have some broad idea of what it was about, but if I got into the detail of it, you would probably say something now that contradicted something you said then.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

I just presented pic's and witness accounts, your only comment was about the source, you forget quickly.

What is your opinion on the clear evidence i presented for you ?

And btw, i wasn't addressing you in the first post, .
edit on 22-2-2017 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Inc_9x
a reply to: Xenogears

That's a naive view. I see it all the time, that people will say one thing contemporaneously but their view changes when they have had a chance to think.

Once the moment has passed, things creep into a persons mind and they embellish their version with what they think people expect them to say.

Life would be easy if people stuck to their stories. If I asked you about your very first post on ATS you might have some broad idea of what it was about, but if I got into the detail of it, you would probably say something now that contradicted something you said then.


again witness testimony can contradict, but not an official account of what happened based on an official rigorous investigation.

I mean by sheer logic the official account must be self consistent and noncontradictory. How can you have an account of a crime that say said, the victim was shot in the head and killed, in another part the victim was killed by stabbing from the back, and in another the victim was strangled. I mean that wouldn't be an account of what happened, that be hypotheses about various alternatives. You couldn't have that and say that's officially what happened. Perhaps I got the wrong impression but it seems some suggested there are actual contradictions in the official account of what happened, which can't happen as you can't put contradictory statements as the conclusion of an investigation of an actual event.

I mean I hear things like Judas dying in multiple different ways in the bible. Obvious self contradiction.
Judas death contradiction

That cannot be the description of a real event, real event descriptions, and investigations into real world events must describe things consistently, no one can conclude that a contradictory description is an actual description of a real event, as reality does not self contradict.

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



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

I just saw your edit here.

I agree that this whole thing needs a full enquiry with analysis of anyone who stood to profit from the events that day.

However, I would offer a word of caution. Every company in the world worth anything had an office in the WTC and they were all insured for business interruption. When you factor in the cost of compensating the thousands who probably have some latent asbestos related disease the cost of the events is frankly astronomical.

It was not just an attack on people, it was an attack on the wealth of the West.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: facedye

I just presented pic's and witness accounts, your only comment was about the source, you forget quickly.

What is your opinion on the clear evidence i presented for you ?

And btw, i wasn't addressing you in the first post, .


look deep enough into every single source cited in that rense article you posted, and you will ONLY find contradictory information.

it's literally everywhere. read through the past 35 pages to see why every single position you just had is inconclusive and able to be picked apart infinitely.



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.


talk about waste of time. I don't even know why I bothered entertaining your insulting comments with literally no basis for doing so.

cite one time I denied any evidence. still waiting.

maybe you're the one with the forgetful memory since you can't notice contradictory evidence in your own source.


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



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Inc_9x
a reply to: Xenogears

I just saw your edit here.

I agree that this whole thing needs a full enquiry with analysis of anyone who stood to profit from the events that day.

However, I would offer a word of caution. Every company in the world worth anything had an office in the WTC and they were all insured for business interruption. When you factor in the cost of compensating the thousands who probably have some latent asbestos related disease the cost of the events is frankly astronomical.

It was not just an attack on people, it was an attack on the wealth of the West.


Yes, but often a fraction of the wealthy if they have insider knowledge or have the acumen to somehow predict say an economic collapse, can move assets and buy large quantities of investments for cheap, and become significantly wealthier as a result of adversity to the market at large.

What seemed like Insider trading regards 9 11, which I've heard there's evidence of, suggests some parties had inside knowledge and made financial moves that benefited them based on the fundamentally unpredictable event for an outsider.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

I really do hear what you are saying. I think maybe the problem is the standard of proof that you are seeking.

I mean I don't think you are going to get a conclusion beyond any doubt, maybe the best you can hope for is a conclusion based on a balance of probabilities.

It is the right of anyone to question the OS and I desperately believe in everyone's right to free speech. I think a lot of energy could be better directed into demanding and campaigning for a full, public enquiry.

People have been arguing about this on forums for years. Start a petition, write to a congressman, put your anger to something constructive.

Where I have to draw the line is people hating on each other over this. That's what our enemies want because we are weaker when we are divided.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Still avoiding.

Ok... let me put it very simple.

A plane hit the Pentagon, do you agree or do you disagree, going from the evidence contradicting or not ?

It can be more simple to answer....

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



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

And I agree that if and where that happened, those people should be made to answer questions.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you there.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

I don't think that line of questioning helps.

People are entitled to their beliefs.

If he believes it was a plane, a missile or a herd of elephants what does it matter. None of us is here to police anybody else's thoughts.

Let it go, respect that others may have different views and pull together in the pursuit of the truth.
edit on 22-2-2017 by Inc_9x because: Spelling error



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Inc_9x

Since this is a public forum i come with my opinion, he addressed me out of nowhere, should i then shut up and leave him alone... say what...i don't think so.

Anyway, he says there are contradiction, but that doesn't matter as a plane ACTUALLY hit the pentagon, so what matters is the sorrow for those who died, not some silly fantasy opinions like this thread and comments, i find it disrespectful.


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



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I have one last point to make and then I am going.

This thread probably gathered traction and moved up the boards because people were quick to jump all over it and rubbish it's claims.

Sometimes, if you don't agree with someone the best thing you can say is nothing at all.

Divided we achieve so little, together we can achieve so much.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

You know what, I find it all pretty distasteful too but sometimes in the interests of moving forward you have to break bread with people who have some pretty odious views.

I mean if you could find common ground - things on which you both agreed - that would be pretty powerful stuff given where you both started.
edit on 22-2-2017 by Inc_9x because: After thought



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

I'm going to add something stronger than "a Russian scientist."

My brother worked at the Pentagon. He was away for 9/11. His friends and staff were killed.

It was a plane.

Ask people who were really there, not some armchair third-hand guesser.



new topics

top topics



 
267
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join