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: 51
287
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Very interesting! Thank you for sharing. I really appreciate the effort you have made to make your post easy to follow with the paragraphs breaks. Some posts here do my head in with the big blocks of words




posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No Corruption, have you ever tried to find the clip on youtube? Would be interesting to see.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
a reply to: firerescue

Are you really saying you think the plane would travel through 6 concrete walls of the Pentagon?

Aluminum planes will atomize at 500 MPH into concrete.



AAC



Yes. Its funny that in one instance we are led to believe that the aircraft that struck the towers vaporises like the video, yet in the other instance with the pentagon we are led to believe that the plane passed through three sectors?



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Monkeygod333

The 911 commission likes to edit the laws of physics to accommodate different scenarios, and other folks go along with it from peer pressure and the fear of ridicule.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sharparrow
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No Corruption, have you ever tried to find the clip on youtube? Would be interesting to see.


I have seen a few but none were the one I saw on the news that day it happened. You could see a small white object with no wings or tail and then see it hit and explode, and when it was shown that single time they reported that a missile had just struck the pentagon. They said a few words like they would say more when new details were known, then commercial break, and after that there was never any mention of it again by any news reporter except to deny that they ever reported any such thing or that any footage ever existed when asked many days later.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Monkeygod333

Usual deceptive claims by "truthers" .......

One -the F4 jet is hitting a solid 10 foot thick concrete wall as part of experiment to see if would breach
concrete containment around a reactor (It didn't)

Pentagon wall are ordinary brick with outer E Ring covered with a limestone façade to simulate marble

Plane had to penetrate this wall and then slide inside - if didn't strike a support column the heavier debris
would continue to travel through building until struck C Ring (another brick wall)

In addition the 2 lowest floors do not have a wall at D Ring so nothing substantial in way (except column)



As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events.




The perimeter exterior walls of Ring E are faced in limestone and backed with unreinforced brick infilled in the concrete frame. Nearly all remaining exterior walls are 10 in. concrete. The first story at AE Drive is brick infilled in the concrete frame, with no windows.The concrete walls have 5 by 7 ft openings for windows and include columns built in as pilasters, corresponding to column locations below, and girders reinforced within the wall.



Totally different if post REAL information instead of lies and misinformation.......



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Monkeygod333

Ah the old F4 fuselage NO engine or landing gear into concrete designed for a Nuclear Power Station you would know if you worked in the construction industry that concrete comes in different crushing strengths depending on the application. As for your BS claim about the jets they didn't vapourise. They snapped the bolts at the spandrel plates joining the column trees look at the dhape of the holes. Also in the caes of the Towers half the wall area was GLASS !

If YOU bother to actully find out things for yourself YOU may learn a few things.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Well, at least the mission was accomplished at the pentagon--the congressional audit effort was ended when most of the auditors and records were destroyed.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Well, at least the mission was accomplished at the pentagon--the congressional audit effort was ended when most of the auditors and records were destroyed.


Please prove there was no offsite record backup?



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Still like an outline of how a missle would have created the damage at the pentagon.

Starting with if there was a supposed missile explosion? If there was a missile explosion, why it didn't punch into the basement?

How a missle weighing at most 16,000 pounds would punch through all those walls and leave landing gear?

How a missle at most 36 inches in diameter would punch a hole in the outer wall of the pentagon larger the the run between 4 or 5 horizontal windows? And at lest the vertical height of two window rows?


edit on 19-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Made last paragraph more specific.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Sharparrow
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No Corruption, have you ever tried to find the clip on youtube? Would be interesting to see.


I have seen a few but none were the one I saw on the news that day it happened. You could see a small white object with no wings or tail and then see it hit and explode, and when it was shown that single time they reported that a missile had just struck the pentagon. They said a few words like they would say more when new details were known, then commercial break, and after that there was never any mention of it again by any news reporter except to deny that they ever reported any such thing or that any footage ever existed when asked many days later.


I've had an experience like yours regarding other footage that was soon pulled from public view, definite censorship.

As Casey noted, when everything the American people believe is false, we will know how successful our misinformation efforts have been.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
Still like an outline of how a missle would have created the damage at the pentagon.

Starting with if there was a supposed missile explosion? If there was a missile explosion, why it didn't punch into the basement?

How a missle weighing at most 16,000 pounds would punch through all those walls and leave landing gear?

How a missle at most 36 inches in diameter would punch a hole in the outer wall of the pentagon larger the the run between 4 or 5 horizontal windows? And at lest the vertical height of two window rows?



Missiles can be fixed with shaped charges or don't you know anything about explosives? I would say not since you always deny everything about explosives.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: neutronflux
Still like an outline of how a missle would have created the damage at the pentagon.

Starting with if there was a supposed missile explosion? If there was a missile explosion, why it didn't punch into the basement?

How a missle weighing at most 16,000 pounds would punch through all those walls and leave landing gear?

How a missle at most 36 inches in diameter would punch a hole in the outer wall of the pentagon larger the the run between 4 or 5 horizontal windows? And at lest the vertical height of two window rows?



Missiles can be fixed with shaped charges or don't you know anything about explosives? I would say not since you always deny everything about explosives.

Which missiles have landing gear?
Googled it, can't find any.
Wouldn't a shaped charge go off a the first wall and blow it's load there?



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: neutronflux
Still like an outline of how a missle would have created the damage at the pentagon.

Starting with if there was a supposed missile explosion? If there was a missile explosion, why it didn't punch into the basement?

How a missle weighing at most 16,000 pounds would punch through all those walls and leave landing gear?

How a missle at most 36 inches in diameter would punch a hole in the outer wall of the pentagon larger the the run between 4 or 5 horizontal windows? And at lest the vertical height of two window rows?



Missiles can be fixed with shaped charges or don't you know anything about explosives? I would say not since you always deny everything about explosives.


Then if the missle exploded on impact, how did it punch holes through all the walls? A simile shape charge is not going to act like 150,000 pound air plane. Please point to the evidence of the crater action of a shape charge that gets exponentially weaker from the blast point.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It is impossible to create a shape charge that would totally focus the atmosphere over pressure wave to prevent windows from breaking at the pentagon. Don't you know anything about explosives?



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I was also told the false narrative a Russian missile was used be because buying a missle would create too much of a trail back to the government. In this thread in fact.

But it was easier to mount an overseas theft, repair a saltwater damaged missile, retrofit the missile with shape charges, create a secret lunch platform, and train a lunch team?
edit on 19-3-2017 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I was also told the false narrative a Russian missile was used be because buying a missle would create too much of a trail back to the government. In this thread in fact.

But it was easier to mount an overseas theft, repair a saltwater damaged missile, retrofit the missile with shape charges, create a secret lunch platform, and train a lunch team?


Is all your information this faulty? If you are here to discourage the idea that corrupt elements of our government were involved with certain known events, then you are definitely in the wrong business. I have never seen any of your arguments contain much knowledge or conviction.
Thanks for playing.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
Well, at least the mission was accomplished at the pentagon--the congressional audit effort was ended when most of the auditors and records were destroyed.


Please prove there was no offsite record backup?



It's interesting how so many people who support the official story try to put the burden of proof on Truthers.

The burden of proof is on those supporting the official story. You need to prove there was an offsite backup and that the destruction of certain records was not indicative of any other motive than the motive of 19 hijackers (many still unidentified) that hate our freedom and targeted buildings *cough* but not any specific witnesses or evidence in those buildings. IOW, prove that the official story is true. If the U.S. had actually tried bin Laden for 9/11, they would have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.


The public is the jury with regard to the official story and 9/11. The jury has no burden of proof.
edit on 19-3-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are making allegations of murder, fabricated evidence, laying eyewitness, and local first responders fabricating reports?

The burden of proof is on you.

And there are no regulations regarding the filling, documentation, and preserving government records? Please show how government regulations regarding backing up data does not pertain to the argument?

Thanks for an argument totally based on allegations and emotional.


edit on 19-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Added question mark to second paragraph. Added second sentence to second paragraph.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Am I wrong in there was already reports filed with government agencies before 9/11 on the missing money?

Am I wrong there are records with government agencies that list who the pentagon can contract with?

Am I wrong there would be reports among the government agencies on year to year audits of the pentagon?

Am I wrong in that venders to the pentagon would have their own records in dealing with the pentagon?

How was the false narrative of a missile going to "delete" the financial paper trail again?

Wouldn't there be treasury accounts of money paid out in the pentagon's behalf.

Wouldn't there be records among banking transactions?


A little common sense?
edit on 19-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Changed contact to contract added a little common sense please.

edit on 19-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Added to more points



new topics

top topics



 
287
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join