Originally posted by Vision Ammunition
It was an A-3 Skywarrior with a missile attached to it.

Now it’s been proven that there was A-3 Skywarrior jet engine debris found in the rubble around the building.

Wonder where I was at when this "Proof" was presented? hmmmm....

its now been proven a3 pieces were found, yet i will not back up anything!!


you obviously dont use a condom, cause you dont cover your bases here either.

Yes interesting theory, it has been discussed in a few threads. I would like to see more about it.

Originally posted by blatantblue
you obviously dont use a condom, cause you dont cover your bases here either.

And may I suggest, you do not be rude to other members, you will find your self on the short end of the stick.

[edit on 17/5/2006 by Sauron]

Whhoops! sorry for the double link post.

ive been on the short end many times, sir, what doesnt kill us makes us stronger!

just a little bit of humor !

wont happen again

[edit on 17-5-2006 by blatantblue]

Originally posted by blatantblue
ive been on the short end many times, sir, what doesnt kill us makes us stronger!

just a little bit of humor !

wont happen again

[edit on 17-5-2006 by blatantblue]

No problem really, it's just some people get really offened,( and against the T&C of ATS) and from there the thread has a habbbit of de-railing and ending in the trash bin.

[edit on 17/5/2006 by Sauron]

understood, thank you

Originally posted by elevatedone

Originally posted by Vision Ammunition
It was an A-3 Skywarrior with a missile attached to it.

Now it’s been proven that there was A-3 Skywarrior jet engine debris found in the rubble around the building.

Wonder where I was at when this "Proof" was presented? hmmmm....

My first guess would be you were not researching and probably watching the news, no offence it is an addictive thing.

Now after seeing that video clip, i'm more convinced than ever that it is a fake.

I love it when they repeatedly insult our intelligence. If anything it was a low flying bird.

i repeat, where is this A3 evidence?


if they really wanted to insult our intelligence, they would fake a video, instead of sending out one just as bad as the first that fuels the fires of conspiracy. 5 years, and a they put out a video just as bad, and somehow its suspicious? im sorry it doesnt ring conspiracy bells for me

I have come to the conclusion that the Pentagon damage was done by an A-3 Skywarrior firing a missile ahead of it while the CIT north-of-Citgo flyover occurred and also by bombs inside the Pentagon.

Originally posted by micpsi
Prove that the Pentagon police officers were lying when they said they saw a plane as large as a commercial jet fly low towards the Pentagon on the north side of the Citgo gas station, not the south side required by the official story. The problem here is that there is CONFLICTING testimony. When that happens, you believe whom you want to believe. And I find the testimony of four police officers, who did not realise that their account conflicted with the official one, MORE believable than those of anonymous people found by TV crews on the day to give 15 second news bites about what they THOUGHT they saw.

No, actually, you need to prove to us that you're not quoting this statement out of context to suit your purposes. Flight 77 originally approached to the north of the Citgo station, but it was flying too high to hit the Pentagon. The plane then circled around and dropped in altitude until it lined up on an attack vector to the Pentagon, which was to the south of the Citgo station. Depending on what point of time during the attack it was, the plane was both to the north AND the south of the Citgo station. Go look at the the flight path those Pilots for 9/11 truth characters are putting out, to see for yourself.

The fact is, there wasn't just one or two people who saw the jet hit the Pentagon. It came in over TWO major highways during rush hour traffic, in full view of numerous industrial parks, so there were hordes of people who specifically saw what hit the Pentagon, from an immigrant watering the lawns to a software engineer packing to move out of his apartment. When you have to resort to arfully picking and choosing exclusively only those bits and pieces that give the veneer of support to threse conspiracy claims, and even then, quoting those those bits and pieces out of context, it only makes your own claims look suspicious, not anyone else's.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
No, actually, you need to prove to us that you're not quoting this statement out of context to suit your purposes. Flight 77 originally approached to the north of the Citgo station, but it was flying too high to hit the Pentagon. The plane then circled around and dropped in altitude until it lined up on an attack vector to the Pentagon, which was to the south of the Citgo station. Depending on what point of time during the attack it was, the plane was both to the north AND the south of the Citgo station. Go look at the the flight path those Pilots for 9/11 truth characters are putting out, to see for yourself.

That's sounds like something I didn't know. And I doubt it. Show me.