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 PentaCon

page: 16
65
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nybaseball44


The 2nd guy was an absolute mess, who seemed confused by even what he was saying and reportedly changed his story after the filming.



Absolutely incorrect.

He has NOT changed his story. Where did you get that?


(the rest of your post is all the same old logical fallacy arguments that everyone is using and not even worth being addressed)




posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
...the rest of your post is all the same old logical fallacy arguments that everyone is using and not even worth being addressed...


Jack, I gave you a WATS for your work on this and I respect your ambition.

But if you didn't have a pat answer ready to deal with questions involving your interviewees who claim to have watched a plane hit the Pentagon, then you didn't really think this through very well.

With all due respect, you have to address those statements by your interviewees.
Your research has no chance of being taken seriously unless you do.

(Apologies if I've overlooked a prior explanation in this thread...)



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
...the rest of your post is all the same old logical fallacy arguments that everyone is using and not even worth being addressed...


Jack, I gave you a WATS for your work on this and I respect your ambition.

But if you didn't have a pat answer ready to deal with questions involving your interviewees who claim to have watched a plane hit the Pentagon, then you didn't really think this through very well.

With all due respect, you have to address those statements by your interviewees.
Your research has no chance of being taken seriously unless you do.

(Apologies if I've overlooked a prior explanation in this thread...)


Oh yeah of course it's been addressed.

I am not going to reply in detail to every skeptic/critic that comes in here with a sarcastic tone and bombards the board with some lengthy emotional outburst to try and antagonize me.

People who have logical questions and ask them appropriately will be addressed.

Since you asked in that manner I will answer.

While all 3 citgo witnesses BELIEVE the plane hit the building.......they all ALSO admit that the actual "impact" was concealed by the fireball.

This is all about POV.

It comes down to this.....

Their point of view was PERFECT to determine what side of the station the plane flew.

Their point of view of the "impact" was far from perfect and admittedly concealed by the fireball.

It is not logical to suggest they could ALL be simultaneously mistaken about what side of the station the plane flew.

Furthermore it is not logical to suggest that they were correct about this claim AND that the plane is what caused the physical damage.

In fact this is impossible.

So since these claims CAN NOT simultaneously be true.....which one is more logical to believe?

The one where their POV was perfect or the one where their POV was far from perfect?




posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Cause and effect,

Effect: Fire ball
Cause: Airplane impact with building.

Cause preceeds effect and the witnesses saw the cause, they state unequivocally that they saw the airplane impact the building.

No one said they saw the airplane fly over the building then saw a fireball, and no one said they saw a fireball and then saw the airplane fly into it.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Cause and effect,

Effect: Fire ball
Cause: Airplane impact with building.

Cause preceeds effect and the witnesses saw the cause, they state unequivocally that they saw the airplane impact the building.

No one said they saw the airplane fly over the building then saw a fireball, and no one said they saw a fireball and then saw the airplane fly into it.




Effect: Fireball.
Cause: Pre-planted explosives and pyrotechnics.

The witnesses say the plane was on the north side of the station making it impossible to be what caused the fireball so you MUST come up with alternative explanations.

It is not logical to suggest that they simultaneously hallucinated the same thing.

You are quite incorrect when you say that "no one" saw a plane flyover.

In fact many saw what they believed to be other planes fly over even some that report one following the passenger jet but "veering away" and flying over the pentagon "3 to 5 seconds" after the explosion.

Where did these reports come from if nobody saw a plane fly over?

PLUS......we have credible information of witnesses who say that they saw what they believe to be THE plane fly over. It's simply not easy to get military workers to go on record about such things.

(unless they don't understand the implications like Lagasse and Brooks!)

Bottom line there may have been 100's that saw a plane fly over but they were simply told it was one of the other planes reported in the area or they are too scared to talk.

Unless you interview every single person that was in the area at the time you can not accurately say that NO ONE saw a plane fly over.



[edit on 6-3-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
How's the Researcher's Edition coming along?

and

B) Is there information on it that will put the sarcastic ones back in their place?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper


Effect: Fireball.
Cause: Pre-planted explosives and pyrotechnics.



well, i wont go just saying thats bs outright, however i would like to see your research concerning the bomb damage. i wont say why i dont think its a bomb just at this time because id rather see then discuss your bomb damage assesment.

could you provide some information on that?

thanks



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a valiant fight here Jack. I didn't realize how many people don't buy it. kind of makes me seem disingenuous. I think what you're saying re: fireball obscuring the getaway is more plausible than people are giving you credit for. How about those "second plane' stories? that's the plane, right? And they just think 2nd plane 'cause the first one "obv" blew up.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
jack , you should change your name to " trippin' " cause you truely are .
i honestly never realized how many " o.j simpsons " there are involved
in this 911 thing . people who honestly believe their own bs and lies about
what they make up in their own minds.

here's one of your own quotes - " the rest of your post is all the same old logical fallacy arguments that everyone is using and not even worth being addressed "

your answer only shows that o.j's like you just can't deal with reality and
the truth as your own eye's see it . sorry , just m2c .


[edit on 6-3-2007 by gen.disaray]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
a valiant fight here Jack. I didn't realize how many people don't buy it. kind of makes me seem disingenuous. I think what you're saying re: fireball obscuring the getaway is more plausible than people are giving you credit for. How about those "second plane' stories? that's the plane, right? And they just think 2nd plane 'cause the first one "obv" blew up.



Right.

I think.

If I understand you correctly.

Basically accounts of the 2nd plane "veering away" within "3-5 seconds" after impact are planted in order to explain the flyover to anybody who may have seen it.

Actual planes with actual pilots were called in to help confuse the story but none of them really "shadowed" the jet and veered away within seconds.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Were they called in with them knowing or with them not knowing?



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigMoser
Were they called in with them knowing or with them not knowing?


Good question.

According to the C-130 pilot they told him to track the actions of the jet but did not tell him it was hijacked.


Here are some other odd facts:

1. The c-130 reportedly took off at 9:30 even though national groundstop started at 9:26.

2. He claims that he was not even aware of what had happened in New York!

Did he forget to read the news? Did air traffic control forget to tell him? This was 27 minutes after the second tower was hit so we were confirmed under attack!



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 04:50 AM
link   




(the rest of your post is all the same old logical fallacy arguments that everyone is using and not even worth being addressed)


Well I saw this one coming... really quite sad. Keep pushing your theory which your "100% irrefutable witnesses" themselves contradict.

A jet plane manages a precise flyover within feet of the top of a roof (though only 1 witness even reported even a slight upwards turn and he said it was to clear the road only, before the impact) through a massive fireball (which magically does not harm this plan filled with fuel) set off by "explosive devices" specifically designed to make an plane impact-like hole and magically shoot out plane debris while doing it.

Said explosive show and resulting smoke then manages to obscure the nearly limitless possible angles and vantage points available to witness said jet fly over the entire length of the pentagon roof and rising back into the sky.... so that no witnesses see this incrediblely brilliant trick.

Yea I'll believe that over the witnesses that actually saw the plane hit the building... including all 3 of yours. One even saying hes "100% sure it was a plane hitting the building and not an explosion+flyover" (which we are supposed to deny, yet believe 100% that hes correct about the flyover location) yep.

You provide NO EVIDENCE what-so-ever that impact site could have been caused by a bomb. NO EVIDENCE that a plane can fly through a massive explosion or withstand the heat of a massive explosion. NO EVIDENCE that any such manuevers have ever been attempted or completed in the past by any pilot. NO EVIDENCE of witnesses seeing the event exactly as you describe it. NO EVIDENCE of how the plane parts got to the site. NO EVIDENCE or graphical recreations of how the fireball and smoke stack of the exact size during this event could in fact hide the flyover the roof and get-away of a large plane, from every angle of your witnesses...not to mention the dozens of other witnesses to this event who you did not interview or take into account at all.

You'd think if you are going to make such a claim as you did, and then tell us its the 100% undeniable truth, you'd at LEAST provide evidence that the event at least could have happen without the plane exploiding, various witnesses seeing it, people not noticing a plane make the sudden rise to clear the roof, people actually being fooled by an explosion which could somehow mask this plane before and after the impact. But no, you provide no proof that any of your theory at least possible, let alone providing evidence that it did happen.

Keep clinging on to your theories and dismissing any type of logical critics.. I'm sure you'll get far with that attitude.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by nybaseball44]

[edit on 7-3-2007 by nybaseball44]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
You are quite incorrect when you say that "no one" saw a plane flyover.


You're right. Sorry Jack.

None of your credible witnesses saw "the" airplane.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by nybaseball44
Keep clinging on to your theories and dismissing any type of logical critics.. I'm sure you'll get far with that attitude.




nybaseball44 please let me respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath and exhale slowly. I don't think there is any point going into convulsions over this issue.

I believe all of Jack's witnesses saw a large plane, probably a Boeing 757 but no Boeing 757 ever hit the Pentagon ever. There is no damage where the wings would have hit and there is not a big enough hole for the plane to have crashed through.

There was one little piece of aluminum painted up to look like it came from the plane, laying on the grass. It was bright red. white (or silver) and blue and contained no discoloration or scuff or burn marks yet it supposedly came from the area of the cockpit window on the right side of the airplane.

We have the problem that the Pentagon clocks show the first explosion at 0931. That was about 2.6 seconds after the Citgo flyover. But both the ATC records and the time stamp on the Flight Data Recorder read 0937. So that means whatever ATC was tracking on radar didn't hit the Pentagon until 6 minutes after the Citgo flyover.

Whatever flew over the Citgo gas station was not what ATC was tracking; either it flew over the Pentagon and went somewhere else or it was a holograph. With the technology available today (at least 50 years ahead of where anyone in the public sector knows about according the to the late Ben Rich, head of Lockheed Skunkworks) it would be no problem projecting an image complete with sound and other effects.

The concept of such a holograph is impossible for todays public brain filled with modern science to imagine. It can't conceive of anything that technologically advanced.

But if we can temporarily suspend our preconceived notions of what is scientifically possible and consider the possibility of a holograph then we have a solution for what the wtinesses saw. Hope you're feeling better.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
For everyone's consideration, I'm providing the following link to a site that performs some of the best analysis of the impact and entry holes in the Pentagon I've seen.

www.earth-citizens.net...

And for those who don't believe that a considerable amount of airplane wreckage was discovered please review Catherders thread:

9/11: A Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon

This picture seems to show one large piece of fuselage aluminum and thousands of shreds of aluminum littering the background. I cant confirm all those little pieces are aluminum but I'm sure they're not concrete, steel, or paper.




If you're in the "they planted the evidence" camp, then I guess you needn't bother with Catherders thread.

Regarding holograms and advanced technology. I agree that technology beyond the belief/comprehension of the average Joe exists, and is the hands of the government, however that does not explain the aircraft parts unless they were:

a) planted
or
b) teleported into the crash site



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Here's a quote from a credible witness who saw the airplane enter the building: It comes from the impact analysis website I linked above:


Steve Storti, who used work as a fire lieutenant in Cranston , was asleep in Crystal City apartment when he was roused by a phone call from a friend ". . . 'What's going to happen next,' Storti, 46, recalls thinking as he stood on his balcony. Then he caught the glint of silver out of the corner of his eye. He looked up to see a passenger plane with the trademark stainless-steel fuselage and stripes of American Airlines. Time seemed to slip into slow motion as he watched the plane cross over Route 395, tip its left wing as it passed the Navy annex, veer sharply and then slice into the Pentagon. 'I remember thinking that whoever is flying this knows what they’re doing,' Storti said. "The plane traveled straight as an arrow.'(sic) When it had plunged in as far as its tail fin, there was huge explosion"
projo.com / Barbara Polichetti / 12 Sept 2002



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
@jack, just wondering if you saw my last post, would be very interested in what data you had for a bomb damage assesement or anything to indicate the type of charges or their implementation. again, would rather see your data before i put out my reasons or opinions.

@john. well, holograms aside, i would ask a simple question about the timestamps. is it possible that the clocks on the recording equipment are wrong? i mean, i have 6 time keeping devices between my computers, cellphones, vcr, the kitchen stove, microwave and alarm clocks and they dont always have the same times on them. same goes for my cellphone and the clocks on cnn or even tv guide channel, sometimes off by several minutes. so, would you and others i suppose, be willing to at least entertain that as a possibility? yes, CCTV cameras for places like that are used in criminal actions in the event of robbery or drive offs, but at the end of the day, they were set by some guy looking at his watch when programming the equipment. i wont say that IS what happend im saying it is a possiblity. (cmon, lets be fair. you are after all asking us to open our minds to the possibility that it was a hologram, so would you be willing to open your mind to the possibility of human error?)

also mr lear, i guess i dont know your personal history so well, but would it be safe to say that at some point in your career in aviation you flew military jets? armed military jets? it will be a more relavant question when jack responds to me. thanks



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by Jack Tripper


Effect: Fireball.
Cause: Pre-planted explosives and pyrotechnics.



well, i wont go just saying thats bs outright, however i would like to see your research concerning the bomb damage. i wont say why i dont think its a bomb just at this time because id rather see then discuss your bomb damage assesment.

could you provide some information on that?

thanks



Well you see I've just been overwhelmed after the Pentagon provided me with all of the necessary data to analyze that.

It'll take some time but we'll certainly get back to you.


Give me a break dude.

This is the PENTAGON. The most secretive, richest, techonologically advanced defense agency on earth.

They probably used all kinds of stuff including napalm which is made of jet fuel.

"Powder monkeys" can do just about anything with explosives.

The "impact" area was under renovation for years.

You guys keep wanting me to speculate about stuff while IGNORING the evidence which is the testimony.

Do you really believe that all 4 witnesses were so insanely incorrect about their placement of the plane?



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Here's a quote from a credible witness who saw the airplane enter the building: It comes from the impact analysis website I linked above:


Steve Storti, who used work as a fire lieutenant in Cranston , was asleep in Crystal City apartment when he was roused by a phone call from a friend ". . . 'What's going to happen next,' Storti, 46, recalls thinking as he stood on his balcony. Then he caught the glint of silver out of the corner of his eye. He looked up to see a passenger plane with the trademark stainless-steel fuselage and stripes of American Airlines. Time seemed to slip into slow motion as he watched the plane cross over Route 395, tip its left wing as it passed the Navy annex, veer sharply and then slice into the Pentagon. 'I remember thinking that whoever is flying this knows what they’re doing,' Storti said. "The plane traveled straight as an arrow.'(sic) When it had plunged in as far as its tail fin, there was huge explosion"
projo.com / Barbara Polichetti / 12 Sept 2002


Yeah so?

Can you prove he was really there on 9/11? Did you interview him and get video tape of his view from that window to get his view?

Either he is deducing the impact or he is lying.

Most people were fooled but certainly some were planted witnesses and some accounts were completely fabricated.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join