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.
Originally posted by jthomas
If 9/11 Truthers were around when the Titanic sank, they would have claimed the Titanic was sunk by a US submarine torpedo, that NO ship could be sunk by an iceberg, that all the survivors were forced to lie about the sinking, and the victims who died of hypothermia and drowning were actually shot because they wouldn't lie.
Originally posted by jthomas
If 9/11 Truthers were around when the Titanic sank, they would have claimed the Titanic was sunk by a US submarine torpedo, that NO ship could be sunk by an iceberg, that all the survivors were forced to lie about the sinking, and the victims who died of hypothermia and drowning were actually shot because they wouldn't lie.
Originally posted by jthomasAs we all know, one does not need any video or photos to know that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Why you think we would is a measure of your ignorance.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Keep up the good work!
Originally posted by Unit541
Originally posted by jthomasAs we all know, one does not need any video or photos to know that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Why you think we would is a measure of your ignorance.
Way to speak for everyone. I need a video of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon. Why you wouldn't, is a measure of your ignorance.
If you held the government, and the official story, to the same standards and requirements for proof, that you do the Truth Movement, then you'd be a "truther" too, my friend.
The only reason the Truth Movement exists at all, is because neither the government, nor people like you, can prove that AA 77, or any 757 for that matter, hit the pentagon.
Plane parts at the scene? So what? I have some old Cadillac parts in my garage, doesn't mean one crashed into my house.
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by jthomas
If 9/11 Truthers were around when the Titanic sank, they would have claimed the Titanic was sunk by a US submarine torpedo, that NO ship could be sunk by an iceberg, that all the survivors were forced to lie about the sinking, and the victims who died of hypothermia and drowning were actually shot because they wouldn't lie.
I have to wonder. Why do 100% of the 9/11 debunkers devolve to talking about the titanic? Even though it has nothing to do with 9/11.
Originally posted by Unit541
reply to post by jthomas
So, in your opinion, there are no unanswered questions about the Pentagon?
Originally posted by Unit541
The most important question I pose to those that subscribe to the official story however, is about the video. Yes, I require a video of a 757 impacting the building if I am to believe it was a 757 that hit it.
Why does the burden of proof lie with the Truth movement. Truthers are asked to prove, unequivocally, any claim they make.
Yet the same people that blast the Truth movement for unsubstantiated claims, take the official story at face value, no questions asked, even when, according to the official story, 2 + 2 = 51.
Originally posted by jthomas
You have no clue that they know you are gullible and won't think for yourself and actually examine all of the evidence yourself.
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by jthomas
You have no clue that they know you are gullible and won't think for yourself and actually examine all of the evidence yourself.
One last thing I'd like to say to you. How are you privy to "actually examine all of the evidence yourself."? You got secret clearance that we don't or something? For you to sit there and bold faced lie and say that we can view all of the evidence ourselves is really stretching it.
The p4t have the complete raw data, it shows all the flight of Flight for 24 hours. That alone verifies the FDR is from Flight 77. You guys have it all, why are you denying you have access to all the data from 77's FDR which shows previous flight correctly as flown by the 77 airframe? So you guys can not decode the raw data you have to show the fights are from 77, or you guys are not going to tell everyone the data shows it was 77's previous flights?
Originally posted by johndoex
You have the full decode of the raw file? Great, please post a link for download. As far as i know, you claim to be an "FDR Expert", have worked for the US Govt, and you couldnt even decode the raw file, we did. And we didnt get 24 hours of decode Mr Strawman. Please show us that "24 hours of data that looks just like 77 for days before 9/11". Its rhetorical of course, because we know you cant provide such decoded data to back up your claims. You are caught in more lies.
For your fantasy to work you need to prove the FDR was planted in the Pentagon (group 5 of secret people who planted the FDR)
Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location of FDR
Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's - Location of FDR Part II
Regards,
Rob
Great, but what do you think about the advertised video and the impossible turn by the plane?
Originally posted by johndoexBeachy, you been repeating the same strawman's for months now. Time to come up with something better as perhaps some "critical thinkers" may think you arent too critical. Try not to remove your post content again in order to "save space"... its quoted.
Regards,
Rob
Yes we have the speed from RADAR, and FDR. Plus we have the wreckage of 77 at the Pentagon and a very good estimate of the speed can be made using physics. It was done, you have ignored that evidence also. You have yet to prove the parts of people and the parts of plane are not of 77. People saw a plane speeding along, it is impossible to make the turns you drew with the bank angles confirmed by witnesses. Physics proves this to be true. So unless you can say your "plane" was going 58 to 66 mph (not what witnesses saw, they said fast!), you have a problem with PHYSICS; math/physics people check it out!
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by beachnut
Tell us the vehicle, tell us the speed.
Nobody can know these values that's why you can NOT conclude that the estimated flight path is "impossible".
No decoy plane! Sorry, you have no witnesses for the flyover. But Steve saw the C-130, good job.
Chaconas could not have seen the C-130.
Know why?
Chaconas describes seeing the plane BANK around to what he thought was the airport.
There is no possible way he could have seen ANY bank AT ALL in the C-130 flight path from the RADES data.
Plus the flight path Chaconas describes is irreconcilable with where the C-130 pilot himself says he flew:
He says he flew "NORTH" and "WEST" from Andrews to the south side of The Mall, not Reagan airport:
So in order to suggest that Steve Chaconas saw the C-130 you have to admit that the C-130 pilot himself lied about where he flew and also admit that the RADES data shows something completely different from what Chaconas saw.
I am not "investigating" AA77. Craig Ranke is. Get your facts straight there, sonny.