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.

 

911 at the Pentagon is a done deal I reckon but there is this one thing keeps ringing bells

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2020 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


With you saying yeah for my side, some person claims to have seen a photo of concrete that probably had a covering over it on 9/11 with no scuffs?


Sounds about right. The second ring had no scuffs either.




posted on Aug, 20 2020 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


So? What’s easier to fabricate? A claim concerning a single photo not provided for scrutiny? Or all the physical evidence, and all the physical events witnessed at the pentagon? So what is the more likely?


The misinformation has been think, taken years to work through. Take each case on its own merits. The physical evidence is the best to work with, it has no agenda as it's just an object. These parts establish strong facts around the situation.

Witness statements also help put it all together. There is usually some inconsistent statements among it all, different perspectives and understandings, memory errors, intentional lies and misdirection. Overall it does provide an important part of putting all the facts together.



posted on Aug, 20 2020 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
that one thing the missing scrape marks.......


Be careful pinning it all on the Pentagon.
What if they hid those tapes until they were beneficial?

Giving the impression that planes didn't hit the Pentagon could be a brilliant 4d chess move.

Of course I could be a disinfo agent.

Edit to add...
I'm lead to believe a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.
That's why I'm skeptical, I don't disagree with you, I disagree with us.
edit on 20-8-2020 by Krahzeef_Ukhar because: Editing is fun



posted on Aug, 20 2020 @ 07:50 AM
link   


Can some one tell me the name of the flying trining Companie that train'd the terrist.
they must be the Best. just train in a light air craft and you can fly the big jets!

a reply to: buddha

The pilot of American 77 was Hani Nanjour - he received training at Jet Tech in Mesa Az in a 737 simulator

&37 and 757 are almost identical as both are Boeing Products

His instructor signed him off as making "tight turns" , just like the 270 deg turn needed to line up on Pentagon




8th February - 16th March 2001: More flight training

Hanjour undergoes flight training at Jet Tech International. Part of the course involves training on a Boeing 737 simulator.

21st February 2001: Boeing 737-200 systems ground training

Hanjour (as "Hani Hanjoor") receives a certificate showing he's completed "60 hours of Boeing 737-200 Systems Ground Training" at Jet Tech International



posted on Aug, 20 2020 @ 07:58 AM
link   


. Being the Pentagon that is the best video.

The gas station and motel had video.

One frame of a passenger jet I go away.

But, these blurry frames settle nothing for me.

a reply to: whyamIhere

The camera in question was observing a PARLING LOT ……. Because of this the camera was triggered to take one photo a seconds to save storage space on tape (this being 2001, was recorded on video tape, not digital )

Slow scan camera are not designed to track fast moving objects

Surveillance camera are designed to watch things like entrances or parking lots, not scan sky for rouge aircraft



posted on Aug, 20 2020 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere

The problem is it’s hard to interpret evidence and judge scale.

When you go into the situation with your mind already made up .


so let me rephrase my position. Due to the size difference is there’s no way on earth it was a missile .
edit on 20-8-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2020 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: zatara

Indeed, even the 911 Commission noted many times in its report that "we found no evidence" to support various claims made by the official story.



posted on Aug, 20 2020 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: zatara

Indeed, even the 911 Commission noted many times in its report that "we found no evidence" to support various claims made by the official story.



Good thing nobody so far has referred to the 911 commission other than you.



posted on Aug, 20 2020 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Many people posting today were born after the event took place. They do not even know there was a commission, just as many don't know what the Warren Commission was.



posted on Aug, 20 2020 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Many people posting today were born after the event took place. They do not even know there was a commission, just as many don't know what the Warren Commission was.


The only reasonable explanation for the damage at the pentagon was a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon. Sorry.

And that is backed by radar data, the bulk of eyewitness accounts, human remains, flight path damage, and the release of human remains for burial/cremation.

Sorry. But keep pushing truth movement lies.



posted on Aug, 21 2020 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

LOL, yes a large commercial jet with no engines or landing gear left at the crash scene.



posted on Aug, 21 2020 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

LOL, yes a large commercial jet with no engines or landing gear left at the crash scene.


You can only refer to the large commercial jet because the damage at the pentagon fits no other conclusion.

Sorry.



posted on Sep, 18 2020 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: abeverage those Pentagon tapes have been held in secret for nearly 20 years.



posted on Sep, 18 2020 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: RimiroAnlyss
a reply to: abeverage those Pentagon tapes have been held in secret for nearly 20 years.



Except the videos released from freedom of information requests and lawsuits.



Judicial Watch v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (No.06-1135)
www.judicialwatch.org...

edit on 18-9-2020 by neutronflux because: Fixed more




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join