Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If 9/11 was a inside job, How many people were involved?

page: 17
3
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Not a single one? Please go to : Patriotsquestion911.com site and read the list of military, professional and others who DO make a point about it!! There are some there who were at the Pentagon that day and KNOW that there was no plane there..if you have not seen that site you really have not seen the major list of people in the know who want some real answers.

You will be suprised at who you see there, like the former FBI director and others like that, Generals, etc. Go read the names and see what they say and then come back. Thanks.




posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86




ONE hole, not two..but TWO big 6 tons each engines..strange huh? NO wings broken off outside from hitting the biulding: The story is that they somehow ' followed ' the plane into the 10X12 foot opening!!! And some people actually believe this stuff!! Unreal. The witnesses have NOT confirmed the official story; on the contrary, as Craig Renke has shown here on ATS, witnesses say totally different things and have different perceptions based on many factors..often eyewitnesses are the worst evidence to rely on: just ask the men released from death row lately after DNA proved them innocent: They were ALL there because of a POSITIVE eyewitness!! A witness who was WRONG!!

There is MASSIVE evidence of NO plane at the Pentagon, and NO evidence presented so far that proves it. Just the fact that the FBO will not release the many videos it has of the event tells it all: The big shots believe that it is in the ' interest of national security ' that the people not know that a group of insiders pulled 9-11 off for their own agendas, using their official positions to commit murder and treason...they think it would unravel our nation and cause a scandal that we could not recover from..they cover it up, just like Kennedy..just like B. Kennedy..just like...



Let's go over a couple of things here.

First of all , show me proof that it was only a 10x12 entrance hole. Most photos and details brought forward show a hole up to 30-35 feet. There was a 10x12 hole in the pentagon, the so called "punched out hole", three rings in. Oh, by the way, what would have created that "punched hole" ?

Second of all, the comparison of 1 witness in a murder trial, is MUCH different than 100's of witnesses during an event such as 9/11. In fact, there is no comparison. Sure, one person can be wrong, but there must be something if 10's or even 100's saw a similar thing. Now , your theory is based on what witnesses saw or say, or LACK of what they are saying. I don't understand, why is that better proof? You are discounting witness that saw a plane hit the pentagon, but rely on witnesses that don't say anything or what is NOT being said.

Okay, so show us PROOF to back your thoughts................? Oh I know, you can come up with lots.......but not the kind of proof that you are asking of those that believe in what really happend......Flight 77 did hit the pentagon. You cannot show a photo of a missile hitting the Pentagon, you cannot show material or debris that came from a missile. You cannot come up with officials saying they saw or removed parts of a missle etc.

See, that's the thing with this event, or 9/11 on the whole. Why can't it just be (not said lightly) terrorist doing this? That style of "fighting" is happening all the time, as we speak, when these terrorist strike. How many vehicles are being driving into structures or people and detonated in Iraq? I believe that there were hundreds of people involved with 9/11, hundreds of people that HATE the US, and they all live over "there".

Take a look at this link.

www.poe-news.com...

When you first look at the picture (non 9/11 related), EVERYONE thinks it's a doctored or impossible, IMPOSSIBLE photo. But when explained, you can see how it happened. But, I guess there will be conspiricists that would think.....naaaa....not possible.

Simnut

[edit on 16-12-2007 by simnut]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by simnut

Let's go over a couple of things here.

First of all , show me proof that it was only a 10x12 entrance hole. Most photos and details brought forward show a hole up to 30-35 feet. There was a 10x12 hole in the pentagon, the so called "punched out hole", three rings in. Oh, by the way, what would have created that "punched hole" ?


Well, unless the fuselage circumference of a 757 is less than 30-35', the "official" verision already has a severe problem. Then there are wings and tail fins attached to a 757.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

What many 9/11 conspiracy theorists forget is the number of people who would know that the government was lying about what happened after the fact IF 9/11 was an inside job and the government was trying to cover it up.


What some people may not be aware of is that low to high level conspiracies go on all the time, and have throughout recorded history - many quite successfully for years. Eventually, there are those that are exposed.

Enron is but only one prime recent example. Walmart is another. The Mafia is another. It certainly does not end there.

Then there is one of the most massive conspiracies of history - the rise of Hitler to power, with the direct assistance of US and British Zionist and WASP elitists. Eventually, subtantial substantiation will and has surface. But then there is the problem battling those, with the power and money, who actually were or are involved in high level conspiracies. That can be a highly frustrating effort of massive proportions. Few people are willing to put themselves in harm's way and/or live with the frustration of one discovery leading to another, to learn the truth at the very base of any conspiracy.

Any time two or more people are involved in secret activities, that is a true conspiracy. Every secret society is a conspiracy.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jthomas

I find it interesting that people are still claiming AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon. The claim is based entirely on the notion that the government wants us to believe a 757 hit it but in reality something "else" supposedly hit it, like a missile.




Then perhaps you will consider reading Dr. Peter Tiradera's book 9-11 Coup against America! The Pentagon Analysis




Actually, that doesn't address my post.


Actually, it does if you read the book. It explains and substantiates why a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Dr. Tiradera is an ex-USAF officer, whose job duties entailed investigating military jet crashes. As a physician, it served well in forensic examination of bodies and remains as well. He was also involved in forensically examining the debris of crashed aircraft. In other words, he is credible experienced professional expert substantiating what he wrote in his book.

Did you expect laypersons in forums to be able to explain, or even fully substantiate, what takes expertise from an experienced field hands-on professional or career technician?

[edit on 16-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86

Not a single one? Please go to : Patriotsquestion911.com site and read the list of military, professional and others who DO make a point about it!! There are some there who were at the Pentagon that day and KNOW that there was no plane there..if you have not seen that site you really have not seen the major list of people in the know who want some real answers.

You will be suprised at who you see there, like the former FBI director and others like that, Generals, etc. Go read the names and see what they say and then come back. Thanks.


I've been to the site many times. I went back to see if anything was new. Here is what I found.

1. None of the people quoted about the Pentagon produced any evidence.
2. None of them did more than give opinions and make claims with no evidence to support their claims.
3. None of them were any of the 1,000 or so people who went inside the Pentagon and saw what wreckage WAS there.

I made an extensive list of of the quotes concerning the Pentagon by people at that site, far too many to post here. But here is a sampling of what we have:



"Following a cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry." (Who says? What is his evidence for that claim?)

"If an aluminum Boeing 757 had struck that fortified building, there would have been more aluminum on the ground outside than what went inside." (According to whom or on what data? This is just a claim, not evidence.)

"CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre reported from the Pentagon on September 11th: "From my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon." (McIntyre refuted this claim long ago. Why is it still posted?)

"It was only later when pictures emerged showing the inappropriate damage to the Pentagon - reported to have been caused by a large aircraft crashing through several layers of external wall - that professional doubt was aroused in my mind." (What is 'inappropriate' damage? Where is his evidence?)

"Why was there no evidence of a passenger jet debris at the Pentagon crash site? " (There was - inside and outside.)

"There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. " (Tell us what 'one should expect.' Again, an opinion, a claim, nothing more.)

"And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile." (Yet this person never saw the wreckage and makes a claim on what he thinks he 'should have' seen.)


The rest of the quotes are in the same genre - lots of claims of "should have or "would have", yet not a stitch of evidence and none of them ever saw the wreckage inside. It is a good example why skeptics don't talke 9/11 conspiracies seriously.
don't take 9/11 conspiracies seriously.


[edit on 16-12-2007 by jthomas]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jthomas

What many 9/11 conspiracy theorists forget is the number of people who would know that the government was lying about what happened after the fact IF 9/11 was an inside job and the government was trying to cover it up.


What some people may not be aware of is that low to high level conspiracies go on all the time, and have throughout recorded history - many quite successfully for years. Eventually, there are those that are exposed.


Conspiracy theories, like 9/11 was an inside job, go on all the time also. Yet there is nothing that says a conspiracy theory automatically has to become a proven conspiracy. It requires those who believe in a conspiracy theory to support it with massive, irrefutable evidence.


Any time two or more people are involved in secret activities, that is a true conspiracy. Every secret society is a conspiracy.


"Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1735

We've still got over 1,000 people at the Pentagon who can supposedly keep a secret.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   


Well, unless the fuselage circumference of a 757 is less than 30-35', the "official" verision already has a severe problem. Then there are wings and tail fins attached to a 757.


And the hole, plus the impact damage to the facade roughly match the dimentions of a 757......so whats the "severe" problem?



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Actually, it does if you read the book. It explains and substantiates why a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Dr. Tiradera is an ex-USAF officer, whose job duties entailed investigating military jet crashes. As a physician, it served well in forensic examination of bodies and remains as well. He was also involved in forensically examining the debris of crashed aircraft. In other words, he is credible experienced professional expert substantiating what he wrote in his book.


Evidence by innuendo? Did you notice Titadera just asks a lot of questions? Like:


"Notice that there is no impact gouge or turf damage to the Pentalawn from any aircraft part. They just floated down like feathers, right?"
911exposed.org...


That's a technique common to all types of conspiracists. Ask a lot of "questions" then "suggest" an answer. I don't think you'll ever find a serious researcher resorting to such low standards of supporting a case.

This one is even more egregious and a dead giveaway:

"Why is this part from the landing gear so heavy rusted? Other than the rust it has no other damage what so ever — there is no: scratches, gouges, deformation, or broken pieces. Notice the polished protrusion on the left, completely unscratched, and free of rust. It appears that this piece had been sitting in an outdoor scrap yard for some time. The protrusion was inside a fitting and therefore never was exposed to moisture, thus keeping its natural smooth finish. This part was not from any plane that hit the Pentagon. "


He is leading the reader that certain things should be "expected" to be seen without a stitch of supporting evidence! All the reader has to do is think it's plausible and that the author, for some unexamined reason, must know what he is talking about.

How is it that 9/11 conspiracists who claim to be "skeptics" of the government can so easily let their guard down when someone like Tiradera comes along, writes a lot of stuff without evidence, and is believed?

Also, he is really just quote-mining, repeating a lot of debunked claims, and not providing evidence to back up his claims.

Now, look at this:


# Flight 77 was not a scheduled flight and interestingly was filled with an assortment of high-tech defense-contractor employees.
# Flight 77 was ten minutes late — this accounts for the reason that the 9/11 Commission had to change the time of attack.
# Flight 77 never went off course.


Read it carefully. Tiradera says AA77 was not a scheduled flight , yet, amazingly, it was 10 minutes behind schedule! Not only that, Tiradera was able to tell it was not off course.

This means that Tiradera must have knowledge of AA77's flight plan as a non-scheduled flight. Yet, nowhere do I see Tiradera producing that flight plan or explaining how he got it. Maybe I missed it.

Furthemore, given the extensive knowledge that AA77 was a scheduled flight on 9/11/2001, Tiradera is faced with the fact that the hundreds of airport personnel involved with every single commercial flight in the country to confirm AA77's existence as a scheduled flight that day or not. Add that to the silence of 1,000 or so witnesses to the crash AND wreckage and you've got a lot of people who can keep quiet!

Why don't you ask Tiradera about that?


Did you expect laypersons in forums to be able to explain, or even fully substantiate, what takes expertise from an experienced field hands-on professional or career technician?


It was quite easy for me. I am a skeptic, after all. Maybe you should question your own beliefs.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
What a bunch of nonsense!! As if NO evidence equals evidence..this is getting aggravating. WHERE are the parts being hauled out of the Pentagon? Where are the supposed 1000 people who claim to have seen the engines and luggage? Where are they? Where are the photographs they took? The fact that they do not exist means nothing to some people; some folks would rather believe in the most outlandish garbage rather than plain logic.

The first newsman, Jamie McIntyre, says that there are no plane parts there and no evidence of a plane crashing there....and some call this NOT real facts? We are supposed to IGNORE the testimonies of the people there, military and professional, who also saw NO plane or debris, inside or out over the imaginings of people who want to protect the perps? The perps are AMERICANS, not ' terrorists ' and the official story is so shot full of holes that it is beyond lunacy to argue it any more.

LOOK at thge pictures of the PRE-COLLAPSE hole at the Pentagon...it is NO MORE than 12 X 12 feet wide and high..look at it!! AFTER the collaapse, there was about 35 feet wide and as high as the building. BUT before it was a MISSLE hole, and NOT a plane hole. The difference? I TOLD you already: The ENGINES WOULD have left great holes and damage from impacting the Pentagon: There were NO holes...NO damage whatsoever (!!) from the engines. HOW do you explain that? WHY did the engines hit the wall and leave no marks? ANSWER that before going on to more silliness.

The naysayers all want evidence trucked into their living rooms to examine before they will believe anything: Unless it comes from the perps themselves!! And then they swallow it whole!! Unreal..just unreal. I am sick of wasting time and effort trying to convince the people who are living in denial..ONLY a state of denial can explain the ignoring of the evidence and the silly demands made by the people defending the tortured lies of the Bush cabal. People who are afraid of what the truth means will NEVER see the facts, only the smoke and mirrors that they are told to see. Sad.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
What a bunch of nonsense!! As if NO evidence equals evidence..this is getting aggravating. WHERE are the parts being hauled out of the Pentagon? Where are the supposed 1000 people who claim to have seen the engines and luggage? Where are they? Where are the photographs they took? The fact that they do not exist means nothing to some people; some folks would rather believe in the most outlandish garbage rather than plain logic.


Because you can't find anything on the Internet, that means they don't exist? Anyway, I already gave you this link showing you some of those people were. I think you'd better read it:

www.arlingtonva.us...


The first newsman, Jamie McIntyre, says that there are no plane parts there and no evidence of a plane crashing there....and some call this NOT real facts?


Let's go to the transcript:



America Under Attack: Bush Holds Press Briefing
Aired September 11, 2001 - 14:20 ET

Outside the Pentagon, CNN's military affairs correspondent Jamie McIntyre.

And, Jamie, you got very close to where that plane went down.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy.

A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

...

WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

transcripts.cnn.com...


Can you tell us where you get your faulty information from, eyewitness86?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   


Try 2.3 trillion that the Pentacon have lost in 2001 ALONE and dont know where it is.


Now that would be amazing since the Federal Budget for the entire government (fy 2001) was only 1.8 trillion......so according to you, not only did we not fund the rest of the government that year, but we appearantly whistled up another 500,000,000,000 dollars and the Pentagon lost ALL of it. (I can speak for at least 5,000 of that money, my drill pay for the year...)

Do some better research into just what Rumsfeld was talking about when he said that will you?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by seanm
 


Has it ever occured to you, that ANYONE with direct first-hand knowledge of any conspiricy within the U.S. to murder thousands of people on U.S. soil has a VERY good reason not to talk about it? Like conspiracy to commit murder, treason, ETC...



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
These thousands of workers and witnesses you speak of that would make statements. Have you seen all of these statements? I haven't either. We don't know what a lot of those people said because they were either never asked or their testimony wasn't considered in the final reports, many of these people have come forward to ask why their statements weren't included actually. Also, eyewitness testimony for me isn't that conclusive either way. If someone told me they saw a cruise missile hit the Pentagon if be as sceptical as if they said they saw a plane. But someone else mentioned the key point as well: not every "conspiracy theory" involves the government planting everything and arranging it all. I lean toward the idea that they knew about it and let it happen. Many intelligence agents have gone on record as saying they offered personal recommendations of action against selected immigrants and were ignored. Are you saying we should just ignore what they say? These terrorists, if you're so sure they did do it, were issued visas by somebody, so was the agent in on it or was the system just extremely negligent? Either way, if everything you say is true you have some explaining to do on that one. Even people who believe every facet of the official story should have questions about things like that. How about airport security? We're told that 19 men boarded 4 flights from three airports. Isn't it suspicious that almost all cameras in three major airports were either non-existent or malfunctioning on this of all days in the very areas these guys passed through, making it impossible to verify the statements about when they passed through checkpoints and what measures were taken. against them? Also, have you ever read the commission report? They spend 5 pages talking about NORADS response to flight 77. They spend less than two pages talking about the responses to both flight 11 and flight 175. They spend more than twice the amount of space talking about their response to a plane they allegedly were never even notified about, and only 2 pages on the details of how it took over 20 minutes to fly a couple hundred miles to New York. If no one was in on it, which to me is very likely they were not, a lot of people had to have made several major errors. You can see how one or two of these things could happen, but all of them? no matter what the "truth" is, there are not nearly enough answers yet to reasonably satisfy anybody. post=3605557]seanm[/post]



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
One theory I have rarely heard mentioned is this. What if almost everything the government says is true but it was still a conspiracy and only a few key people know about it?

For example, what if the planes really were hijacked by Islamic terrorists who believed in what they were doing and had no idea who they were really working for?

What if there was no controlled demolition at all? Meaning, if you were to just accept that somehow, the buildings probably did collapse exactly the way the government/media/whomever says they did, things would be a whole lot less complicated for a conspiracy theory.

After all, anyone smart enough to pull off a conspiracy like this would probably be smart enough to keep things as small and compartmentalized as they could. Why would they even want to use controlled demolition if they didn't have to? They'd want it to look as much like a genuine terrorist attack as possible. Why would they even need to fake anything?

I believe an evil genius would be smart enough to recruit the smartest people he could find. Shouldn't we assume the people who planned this are at least as smart as the people who can invent computer chips and circuits? (That's assuming the official story isn't true, as much as some of us don't want to believe it) Why wouldn't they be?

Too many theories rely on the conspirators being a bunch of dummies who leave evidence all over the place. IMO. If they were that stupid, I don't buy for a second they could have kept this thing under wraps for this long. Unless there is far more going on behind the scenes than we could possibly imagine. I believe they'd have to be much smarter than they've been given credit for.

edit on 29-11-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-11-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join