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.

 

Pentagon Struck By Enhanced SLCM/BGM-109A Tomahawk Missile

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
The passengers were in the Pentagon.


Says who? where is your proof? All you are doing is believing a DoD/FEMA report that was rammed down your throat by CNN.




posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Snoopy, if you have any new or different information I would be happy to hear it. If you are going to repeat the same old stuff over and over and over I would appreciate if you would not address it me. Thanks for your consideration.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Snoopy: Because you are making outrageous claims here, please describe the difference between:

Impact, shattering and the resultant dynamic particle system

and

Liquification

Please cite a dictionary or other reference book of your choosing.


[edit on 12-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]


Please respond to this question Snoopy. I am awaiting an answer to this.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by snoopy
The passengers were in the Pentagon.


Says who? where is your proof? All you are doing is believing a DoD/FEMA report that was rammed down your throat by CNN.


I already posted pictures. There's tons of testimony. There's DNA testing. What more do you want? What more could possibly convince you? Perhaps the passengers surviving the crash and signing autographs? All you are doing is believing a conspiracy theory that has no evidence that you are shoving down our throats.

John, You have yet to answer the questions I keep posting. The questions are important because without the answrs your claims don't seem plausible. If you cannot, that is fine, but I cannot accept to believe your claims due to a complete lack of evidence. So long as it is left as opinion, no one can argue with taht, but it can't be expected that others should follow just because it is your opinion. And it's not fair to imply that people are less intelligent or what not because they chose not to agree with your opinion and because they require evidence to determine their beliefs.

When people start to dismiss something that has substantial evidence for something that has none, I can't help but wonder if personal opinion is swaying their findings. It's a lot easier to simply write off someone elses evidence than it is to provide ones own.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Snoopy: Because you are making outrageous claims here, please describe the difference between:

Impact, shattering and the resultant dynamic particle system

and

Liquification

Please cite a dictionary or other reference book of your choosing.


[edit on 12-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]


Once again, not my claim. These claims are made by a large team of structural engineers and physiscts. And the links on this thread show the scientific analysis done by the engineers at Perdue University. Are you saying that you are more qualified? What are your cridentials that give you the wauthority to claim that these engineers are making outragious claims.

Liquefaction is referred to in physics, chemistry, and genetic engineering to the process of condensing a gas into a liquid, while in geology it refers to the process by which saturated, unconsolidated sediments are transformed into a substance that acts like a liquid. In the energy industry either liquification or occasionally liquefaction refers to reforming coal or gas into a liquid form that is economical to transport and use as fuel.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
I already posted pictures. There's tons of testimony. There's DNA testing. What more do you want? What more could possibly convince you?


As I stated above... all you are doing is listing "evideince" from the SAME SOURCE... DoD/FEMA.

DoD was PROVEN to lie about 9/11 according to the 9/11 Comission... so the only leg you stand on is the WORD of a FEMA investigator or two. Hardly proof.

You have posted NO photos (nor should they probably be posted) of ANY passengers.

NO ONE has seen ANY DNA evidence and even if we did, how would we verify the authenticity? The chain of custody is total BS.

So, in summation, why not just post: BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL STORY BECAUSE I SAID SO. THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Originally posted by jab712




I cannot really see what you mean here John. So much so that I am having trouble coming up with a question to ask to even begin to understand it.

Yet I am going to try....



1) The flights never existed?


Don't now for sure.


2) The list of people aboard the alleged planes never existed?


Don't know for sure.


3) The people claiming to have lost family members on that flight don't exist?


Don't know for sure.


4) All the people who have given interviews about their family members being lost on those flights or told other people of their non-exisitant family members that were lost on those flights are lying?


Don't know for sure.


5) if the answers to questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all yes, then you have hundreds of people lying?


Don't know for sure.


6) If you answer to number 5 is yes, how on earth, could you possibly get that many people to lie and stick with it to this day? And can I have their names, cuz I would love to know someone who could actually keep my secrets that well.


Don't know for sure.

The only thing I know for sure is that my opinion is that no Boeing 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
yay john lear is here!!!

questions (for him):

if the US gov't wanted to make a terrorist attack that revolved around a plane hitting the pentagon then why didn't they fly the plane into the pentagon???

also, if the US gov't wanted to make a terrorist attack that revolved around planes hitting the world trade center, then why did they want those buildings to fall (with those explosives)???

wouldn't it be enough to just crash (and maybe missing) the plane into the pentagon and hit the world trade centers and not making them fall???

i am sorry if this isn't that clear...




[edit on 12-10-2006 by they see ALL]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by jab712


I see your point. You believe it even though there is a huge loose end.


Thank you for your understanding.


However, because I, Emulsion, as well as many others, do not accept the loose end, does not make us wrong in believing it was not a missile...correct?


Correct.


Also, let me make sure I understand this as well, because YOU don't need to know what happened to the passengers does this no way mean that the discussion is no longer up for debate. Correct?


This discussion is always open for debate particularly with people llike yourself who are just interested in finding out the truth.


Hey John,

Remember we already agreed that I now understood what you meant. Sorry you ended up answering the questions 1 thru 5 that I had posted prior to once I figured out what you mean.

Sometimes these threads get confusing when posts cross.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

As I stated above... all you are doing is listing "evideince" from the SAME SOURCE... DoD/FEMA.

DoD was PROVEN to lie about 9/11 according to the 9/11 Comission... so the only leg you stand on is the WORD of a FEMA investigator or two. Hardly proof.

You have posted NO photos (nor should they probably be posted) of ANY passengers.

NO ONE has seen ANY DNA evidence and even if we did, how would we verify the authenticity? The chain of custody is total BS.

So, in summation, why not just post: BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL STORY BECAUSE I SAID SO. THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH.


No I am not. The evidence was compiled and presented by one source, but studied and determined by 1000s of scientists for many different organizations. Most of which were independant. You are simply giving a cop out saying that it is all lies. Yet you cannot provide any evidence of any lies. And YES I have posted pictures of passengers. And there is the DNA evidence of the passengers. And there's the personal belongings of the passengers.

What do you mean no one has seen any DNA evidence?? it's irrefutable. You might as well be saying "how can you verify the sky is blue". You do nothing but make these empty accusations that anyone who presents anything taht disagrees with your opinion is lying and wrong. Yet you cannot back those claims up. Let's please have an adult discussion here instead of just blankly saying everything you don't agree with is lies. Back your claims up or else you don't have any.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Originally posted by they see ALL




yay john lear is here!!!


Thank you. Thank you. One and all.


questions (for him):

if the US gov't wanted to make a terrorist attack that revolved around a plane hitting the pentagon then why didn't they fly the plane into the pentagon???


Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how risky that would be? You mean fly a Boeing 757 right into the Pentagon? That would take tremendous skill because you would have to fly it 5 feet off of the ground in order to impact the Pentagon without leaving marks on the lawn OR at the top of the Pentagon. Besides getting a pilot that skilled to kill himself would be very, very difficult, I don't care how many virgins you promised him. Or even a civilian pilot as skilled as John Lear? I know that wouldn't appeal to him if he could even fly the profile which I doubt. If you are asking why the U.S. Government didn't fly a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon it is painfully obvious that you don't have the slightest idea the skill level or technical expertise required for that. Two words: too risky.


also, if the US gov't wanted to make a terrorist attack that revolved around planes hitting the world trade center, then why did they want those buildings to fall (with those explosives)???


Because Larry had to collect double insurance for his part of the deal (he had to settle for a little less). Had there been the slightest structure left the insurance company may have made him try to rebuild. No. Hadda be a total.


wouldn't it be enough to just crash (and maybe missing) the plane into the pentagon and hit the world trade centers and not making them fall???


Well yes, thats what real terrorists would have done. But in your first question you asked 'if the U.S. Government wanted to make a terrorist act," so I assumed the following questions related to that supposition.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Hi John:


John >> See what I mean?


Yes. We can provide them pictures of the Missile, the white vapor trail and the white explosion and they still must run back to the ‘passengers’ that have nothing to do with any Missile at all. It is difficult to simply accept that your opinion is wrong and you have been duped by the DoD and Bush Administration, even when no 100 Ton Jetliner exists in any of the evidence. I believe America is ready to live under a Fascist Dictator and Martial Law by the testimony of these PLANE Theorists.

One of the owners (Springer) has taken a personal interest in me and now is harassing me every day with something. He will likely come in here and move this thread to SomeWhereElseVille like he did all of my Christian work from the Religions room. Good for him. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I have found somewhere else to spend my time. The true terrorists are working behind the scenes through a shadow government that manipulates our elected officials. They are developing their cover story for a well placed nuke to strike somewhere in California and probably a twin cities location like Oakland using similar smoke screen tactics we see at the Pentagon. Everyone here should prepare themselves to live under the chaos perpetuated by these behind the scenes terrorists bringing in their New World Order. People like Springer would rather you stay sound asleep.

GL, it’s been real,

Terral



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   
There is actually plentry of evidence left the the 757:


I doubt your theory, but anyway it's still fairly convincing, although not enouph for me. This made me beleive that a 757 hit:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also where do you think the 757 went? Also John, would it REALLY be that hard to fly that profile? I have a few hours in a Level-D sim and it was fairly easy to fly at 250knots 20feet high.


[edit on 13-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Originally posted by PisTonZOR



There is actually plentry of evidence left the the 757:



PisTonZOR, was this image your 'plenty of evidence? This was your evidence of a 250,000 pound airplane crashing into the Pentagon? That little scrap of aluminum?


I doubt your theory, but anyway it's still fairly convincing, although not enouph for me. This made me beleive that a 757 hit:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I remember reading this, seeing the wheel hubs and compressor section and thinking, SO? WHERE IS THE AIRPLANE?


Also where do you think the 757 went?


This question has been asked and answered many times. But again, I don't know. Maybe it went back on the line. Maybe black ops has it. Maybe they disassembled it and sold the parts. And the passengers? I don't know. They didn't have any problems killing 2600 people in the WTC, maybe they gassed them. Maybe they shot each one in the back of the head. I don't know.


Also John, would it REALLY be that hard to fly that profile? I have a few hours in a Level-D sim and it was fairly easy to fly at 250knots 20feet high.


If your level D is a Boeing 757 and not some pee-popper commuter plane, and it has a print out go ahead and fly the profile with the last 500 to 1000 feet at 5 feet above the ground. Then press print, take it home, scan it, and then post here in this thread. Be sure the radar altimeter prints out. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Anyone who do not believe the official story doesn't need to answer "where are passengers" questions because you have to prove that plane hitting the Pentagon FIRST.

It's the primary source that should be proven. The passengers(no pun intended) to this, are SECONDARY. Those of you who continue to harp on it are just looking for something else to build upon. Show the evidence of a Boeing crashing into the Pentagon, then we can go from there.

Also, keep in mind, that the "witnessess" who saw a plane doesn't CONCLUDE that it was Flight 77. That's where those who believe the official story lack logic and reasoning due to the simple fact that they think that it's ok that "PROPER PROCEDURES" of a crime didn't take place after the crash. Where's the CSI? Why are goverment official quickly cleaning up the mess? Why was the concrete poured onto an undamaged lawn before the damaged wall was taken care of? Come on official story believers, answer those questions.



They(official story believeres) believe it's ok to believe that a 757 can fly 5ft above the ground without any marks made from the the twin engines unto the lawn. They believe that a 757 produces white smoke trailing it(according to the security footage).

But it's ironic that they dismiss the smell of cordite, a statement from the other Pentagon workers

It's ironic that they dismiss that the clocks in the area that was impacted and at the heliport showed "9:32", while the 9/11 Commission report displayed it at "9:38".

It's ironic that they believe that it's humanly possible to just WATCH a plane that traveling that low to the ground without describing any DEAFENING NOISES(those who live near an airport knows what I'm talking about)

That's the thing that get's me about these "witnesses", especially the ones who testimonies are detailed to the "extreme", is that not one of them describe this DEAFENING NOISE. But you all want to us to take what they are saying as gold even though the there's no absolute proof?



[edit on 13-10-2006 by 2smooth4ya]

[edit on 13-10-2006 by 2smooth4ya]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2smooth4ya
No one who doesn't believe the official story needs to answer "where are passengers"


What does that mean? (People who do beleive?)
- + - = +

Ow my head
Maybe you need to re-phrase?

[edit on 13-10-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
so, mr lear, who flew the planes???

real muslim terrorists (ie the gov't allowed them to commit the act) or was it something else???

i am confused: if the planes were remotely controlled (as some believe, then why not just remotely fly it into the ground by the pentagon and just state that it was an attempt to hit the pentagon???

see where i am going???

why did the gov't take such a huge risk and not fly a plane into the pentagon at all and state that it did???

are they that stupid


and, yes, i have no experience at all about flying (but i would like to learn right here)...





posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros

Originally posted by 2smooth4ya
No one who doesn't believe the official story needs to answer "where are passengers"


What does that mean? (People who do beleive?)
- + - = +

Ow my head
Maybe you need to re-phrase?

[edit on 13-10-2006 by Xeros]


It's been rephrased.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Originally posted by they see ALL



so, mr lear, who flew the planes???

real muslim terrorists (ie the gov't allowed them to commit the act) or was it something else???


No muslim terrorist had anything to do with 911.


i am confused: if the planes were remotely controlled (as some believe, then why not just remotely fly it into the ground by the pentagon and just state that it was an attempt to hit the pentagon???


Hitting the WTC with remotely controlled airplanes is no big problem. Hitting the Pentagon with a remotely controlled Boeing 757 with the accuracy required woud not be possible.

The purpose of the Pentagon conflagration was to kill a cadre of people that objected to the direction that our country was and is going. The bomb that was set off 6 minutes prior to the missile entering the Pentagon was specifically to kill that cadre. The missile was to cover up the bomb. The Boeing 757 hoax was to cover up both acts. The bomb and the missile were supposed to go off at the same time. Something went wrong. The reason you saw all of those Pentagon employees picking up debris in front of the Pentagon and the reason the lawn was concreted was that there was something on that lawn which may have compromised the entire operation. It may have been a piece of the missile not common to a Boeing 757. It may have been unburned fuel from the missile. It may have been minute particles of cordite, I don't know.


see where i am going???


I think I can see where everything is going.


why did the gov't take such a huge risk and not fly a plane into the pentagon at all and state that it did???


The risk was the other way.


are they that stupid


They vastly underestimated the intelligence of the American public.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
even more questions:

why not just use that bomb (like you say mr lear) and nothing more and state that somehow a "terrorist" got inside and blew himself up


that's what i would have done if i were this "most evil of planning evil acts person"...

by the way, where do you get your info from???





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join