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.

 

Explosive information on the Pentagon to be released soon.

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

True, by my count, five cleary state they saw an aircraft impact the building. Aydaz Kizildrgli, Dan Creed and two colleagues, and Sean Boger. So far, your explosive evidence is based on the eyewitness testimony of three. I eagerly await the complete disclosure of your evidence and theory.


Not a single account in the entire investigative body directly contradicts the north of the citgo claim.

However; even the witnesses we will present were fooled into believing the plane hit the building.

[edit on 16-2-2007 by Jack Tripper]




posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Even the witnesses we will present were fooled into believing the plane hit the building.


But the five I referenced clearly stated they saw an aircraft impact the building. Not, thought, not felt, not assumed....saw. If you contend they were mistaken or lying, one could easily contend the three witnesses of the "North of Citgo Approach" were mistaken or lying as well.

But...I assume you have additional evidence, and as I've said.....I look forward to it.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

With the plane on the north in relation to the sun there would be no shadow on the station at all.

One of the witnesses specifically said on his own that there was no shadow on the station at all.

I know what you're talking about and I believe it was added.

The citgo security video is extremely dubious.

There is zero reason to accept such bad quality video evidence that was sequestered for 5 years as valid.


I understand. Another note Jack, is there anyway that you could point out where a plane flies over the Pentagon? Using the first released frames, and the Hotel video?

1. First Released Pentagon I can't figure out how a plane would pull up and fly over.

2. Hotel Pentagon I can't use this as evidence anyways.

I was just wondering if you could help me out on this last thing before we kick off the video.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

But the five I referenced clearly stated they saw an aircraft impact the building. Not, thought, not felt, not assumed....saw. If you contend they were mistaken or lying, one could easily contend the three witnesses of the "North of Citgo Approach" were mistaken or lying as well.


Yes one could do that.

However the accounts we will present are captured on video and filmed on location and there is even actual hard proof that some were present on 9/11. Hearing the testimony coming direct from the mouths of the witnesses puts the viewer in a much better position to judge whether or not their detailed testimony seems honest or not.

The other accounts are merely a few words on paper with no proof that the witnesses were even present at the time.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigMoser

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

With the plane on the north in relation to the sun there would be no shadow on the station at all.

One of the witnesses specifically said on his own that there was no shadow on the station at all.

I know what you're talking about and I believe it was added.

The citgo security video is extremely dubious.

There is zero reason to accept such bad quality video evidence that was sequestered for 5 years as valid.


I understand. Another note Jack, is there anyway that you could point out where a plane flies over the Pentagon? Using the first released frames, and the Hotel video?

1. First Released Pentagon I can't figure out how a plane would pull up and fly over.

2. Hotel Pentagon I can't use this as evidence anyways.

I was just wondering if you could help me out on this last thing before we kick off the video.


Obviously, in light of the evidence we have obtained, I do not accept the government released videos that were sequestered for years as valid.

I believe they have been altered.

The dubious details surrounding all of the videos is examined in the Researcher's Edition of our film.

[edit on 16-2-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Awesome, that does set me straight for when I watch this documentary piece by piece.. my mind is at ease. I do believe the government will do whatever it takes to convince us, but your out to prove them wrong and I can't wait for the story to be officially changed so we can rest at peace and throw out who we need to throw out.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
99.9% and compiling!!

well, I can dream if I want to.... just passing the time



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigMoser
99.9% and compiling!!

well, I can dream if I want to.... just passing the time


I promise we'll release the "Smoking Gun" version early next week!





posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   
sweet, thats all i wanted to read. lol



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Jack,

You started talking about this video back in November claiming you had hard core evidence as to the Pentagon. I have a few questions that I hope you can find some time to answer. It may be possible that your video explains them. Just in case here are a few:

- Of the 4 witnesses you have from the Citgo Station... ALL of them saw the plane hit the pentagon. Correct?

- 89 other people ALSO saw a plane hit the pentagon. Correct?

- Your claim is that the plane they saw flew OVER the Pentagon and did not hit it. Correct?

- There is not a SINGLE eyewitness claims seeing the plane going over the pentagon. Correct?

- The light poles, fence, and generator damage were all planted? Correct?

- If the light poles were planted... then the people that almost got hit by them..were planted witnesses?

- All the physical evidence was planted?

Ok...so I will try to wrap this up... Here's what Bush &Co were thinking:

Lets fly two planes into the WTC. Blame it on OBL. Send another plane to the pentagon. Instead of hitting this building, lets fly over it without one person seeing it...hide it somewhere with all the passengers..and then kill them all or give them all new identites. In the mean time, have a team of people planting landing gear, other airplane equipment, black box recording devices, body parts,... oh... broken light poles, damaged fences, and generators. OH...and remove frames from security video equipment.

All of this done while the entire world is watching us in the middle of the day!

Sorry but your video looks like you are creating it to fit your agenda. I will watch the video next week with the naive hope that you will have some solid evidence rather than relying your entire investigation to 4 people that actually ADMIT to seeing what you say didnt happen!


[edit on 2-19-2007 by Springer]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Jack,

You started talking about this video back in November claiming you had hard core evidence as to the Pentagon.



That is correct. I obtained the testimony in the beginning of November.




- Of the 4 witnesses you have from the Citgo Station... ALL of them saw the plane hit the pentagon. Correct?



Incorrect. One could not see the pentagon because he was up the street on Columbia Pike. Although all were convinced the plane hit the Pentagon most were honest enough to admit that the fireball concealed the actual impact.




- 89 other people ALSO saw a plane hit the pentagon. Correct?



Absolutely incorrect! If you are referring to the published witness list only a very small amount literally claim that they "saw" the plane hit the building. Many of those witnesses were not any where near the pentagon and simply claim that they saw the plane.




- Your claim is that the plane they saw flew OVER the Pentagon and did not hit it. Correct?



Correct.



- There is not a SINGLE eyewitness claims seeing the plane going over the pentagon. Correct?


Incorrect. There are reports of a second plane "shadowing" the 757 and veering off just after the explosion. Since there was no 2nd plane that actually did this we believe it was a cover story created to blend the identity of the flyover with other planes in the area.

There could have easily been eyewitnesses to the plane that flew over but they were simply told that it was a different plane then what hit the building and pointed to reports of other planes in the area.



- The light poles, fence, and generator damage were all planted? Correct?


Correct.



- If the light poles were planted... then the people that almost got hit by them..were planted witnesses?


Perhaps some. Most merely saw the downed poles after the fact and simply mentioned them in their accounts. We talked with 3 witnesses who are regularly cited as actually "seeing" the poles get hit but all 3 admitted they simply deduced it after the fact.

The only one who had physical contact with a pole was Lloyd the cab driver and we know his account is impossible. (see thread in this forum)

We don't claim to know Lloyd's level of involvement. He may be a vicitim that was coerced or manipulated.




- All the physical evidence was planted?



Correct.



Ok...so I will try to wrap this up... Here's what Bush &Co were thinking:

Lets fly two planes into the WTC. Blame it on OBL. Send another plane to the pentagon. Instead of hitting this building, lets fly over it without one person seeing it...hide it somewhere with all the passengers..and then kill them all or give them all new identites. In the mean time, have a team of people planting landing gear, other airplane equipment, black box recording devices, body parts,... oh... broken light poles, damaged fences, and generators. OH...and remove frames from security video equipment.

All of this done while the entire world is watching us in the middle of the day!



It seems incredible and it is incredible. It's very easy to describe this operation in a sarcastic tone to make it seem impossible. But that doesn't mean that it is impossible or make the evidence go away.



Sorry but your video looks like you are creating it to fit your agenda. I will watch the video next week with the naive hope that you will have some solid evidence rather than relying your entire investigation to 4 people that actually ADMIT to seeing what you say didnt happen!



Of course we have an agenda! And that is an agenda to figure out the truth of what happened at the Pentagon and prove it to the world.

Glad to hear you'll give the film a chance.

Now out of respect for our forum I request that you remove the ridiculing image of Jack Tripper as it has no relevance to the discussion. Thanks in advance.

(I like Jack with a mustache much better!
)



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I liked how you were straight to the point on those questions Jack, some people just ramble on in this world and get off subject...

The picture thing above didn't strike me as offensive, I didn't pay no mind to it, but it is a forum for your team, so I understand where BOTH of you are coming from...

I saw the picture of Riddler fallen down, it seems, of the overwhelming speed of the questions Cameron was asking.. I got exhausted too after reading all of them at one time! lol

Anyways, as long as everyone gives it a chance, I'm sure its all that you ask of people.


[edit on 17-2-2007 by BigMoser]

[edit on 17-2-2007 by BigMoser]

[edit on 17-2-2007 by BigMoser]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigMoser
I liked how you were straight to the point on those questions Jack, some people just ramble on in this world and get off subject...

The picture thing above didn't strike me as offensive, I didn't pay no mind to it, but it is a forum for your team, so I understand where BOTH of you are coming from...

I saw the picture of Riddler fallen down, it seems, of the overwhelming speed of the questions Cameron was asking.. I got exhausted too after reading all of them at one time! lol

Anyways, as long as everyone gives it a chance, I'm sure its all that you ask of people.


How am I going off subject? I asked VERY valid points and JAck answered them. Honestly I may add and I give Jack a thumbs up for at least doing that.

I was not trying to be sarcastic. I was being REAL.

I think most people would find it ODD that:

- after seeing a plane (or whatever) slam into the Pentagon... that they see SEVERAL men placing MANY broken light posts in the middle of the highway.

- After a massive search and rescue effort at the Pentagon...truck loads of airplane, and body parts are being delivered to the crash site and dropped off.

- of the SEVERAL (not 89) witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon, not one has admitted to seeing it make a manuver to fly over it at the last second.

I am not being sarcastic...really...I just dont see how ANYONE can get away with this and not be seen by ONE person. Dragging light posts onto the highway????

How much does landing gear weigh?? How many people carried that ??

Sorry Jack... I would have removed the picture but the EDIT button is missing from my post. Please feel free to have one of the MODS remove it. I was just trying to add a little humor to the thread.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

How am I going off subject? I asked VERY valid points and JAck answered them. Honestly I may add and I give Jack a thumbs up for at least doing that.

I was not trying to be sarcastic. I was being REAL.


I know Cameron, I wasn't talking about you.. I was talking about other people in general who do not have common sense in this world.

But anywho, you're bringing the strong basic points to the table for Jack's video and thoughts, and so far, it hasn't been proven the other way around (i.e. it hasnt been proven that the light poles were down before 9/11 or being brought down by people in broad daylight)

[edit on 19-2-2007 by BigMoser]

[edit on 19-2-2007 by BigMoser]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigMoser

I know Cameron, I wasn't talking about you.. I was talking about other people in general who do not have common sense in this world.

But anywho, you're bringing the strong basic points to the table for Jack's video and thoughts, and so far, it hasn't been proven the other way around (i.e. it hasnt been proven that the light poles were down before 9/11 or being brought down by people in broad daylight)

CameronFox to Jack Tripper

:
- The light poles, fence, and generator damage were all planted? Correct?



Jack Tripper to Cameronfox:

Correct.


Jack does claim that the lightpoles were planted. There is not one witness to support this claim. This is quite a leap trying to say broken light post are planted int he middle of a highway. One of MANY things that do not...and will NEVER add up. (IMO)



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
If there is a witness in the video and not anywhere else saying that the lightpoles werent touched by the plane, but otherwise knocked down/ removed... What would your response be?



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
If people witnessed Government officials planting evidence

For one, the government wouldnt of released their names as witnesses for us to chase down and question
For two , chances are they were avised its in there interests to forget what they saw.




Ive learnt that with september 11, your either VERY FAR to the LEFT
or VERY FAR to the right.

You either believe it all happened as they say, and they had NOTHING sinister in it at all

OR

They were deeply involved, to the point it wouldnt of happened WITHOUT them.

Luckily, there's enough evidence coming out daily, to show who was duped, and who wasnt.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
CameronFox,

Has it been proven that the anonymously taken landing gear photos that were first released on RENSE.com were actually taken in the pentagon?

Even if they were would it have been impossible to have the parts planted BEFORE the event in the newly renovated wedge of the pentagon that was very lightly occupied?

Same with the light poles.

4 out of the 5 were likely planted in advance while ALL of them were likely downed in advance.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Jack Tripper,
my hats of to you, I have a good feeling about the smoking gun evidence u will be bringing to us soon, i'm really looking forward to it. I really hope that unlike so many other people making a documentry in this sensitive subject, u don't discredit yourself and the information by adding loads of unprovable crap that even the best documentries to date are littered with. I'dont need to go into detail because im sure u are fully aware of this. What i find most promising about yourself is that u are releasing this ' smoking gun version' which i hope takes all the hard and non-disprovable facts from the 3 hours of documentry u will be bringing out a bit later. I appreciate the time and effort u have gone through to have this ready for us, and i want u to know that for all the flamers and debunkers on the web there are a lot more of us who will show u gratitude.

thanks dude

chris



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Jack -

When can we expect The Pentacon "Smoking Gun" to be released? I know you said early THIS week - but there are many highly anticipating it's arrival. Keep us up to date please!!





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join