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 Pentagon attack jet flew directly over the Navy Annex fatally contradicting the official story..

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
All testimony from people 6 years later.....


Yet none of them saw the plane flyover. (many said they saw th impact)

I also like the way government officials that were witness to the impact are dismissed because they are suspects. What other witnesses would you have at a government building?




posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
so are you trying to say flight 77 didnt hit the penatagon? because clearly it did and nothing suggests it didn't. if you want to latch onto witness testimony then why don't you latch on to the fact that dozens of people said they specifically saw an american airlines jet? some, familiar with aircraft, specified an AA 757. i think that cancels out anything you are offering.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
double post. why does it keep doing that? i hit the button once. please erase.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


Ahh a new guy.

What's up man you play bass? I used to play drums in a funk band back in the day. I'm kind of doing a reggae thing now.

Anyway there was a deception on 9/11.

We have evidence that proves it.

Yes there was a plane and sure it may have had some characteristics of an AA jet and yes many people believed it hit the building after they saw the plane tree top level and either heard or saw an explosion off in the distance a few seconds later.

But most could not see the alleged impact or the Pentagon at all.

The plane did not hit bro.

Go to the website in my sig and you'll see.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
For the benifit of anyone new:

This last post by Craig is pure propaganda. As is, IMO, almost all of his posts.

First: the plane absolutely did hit the Pentagon as evidence by thousands of eyewitnesses. Many of whom were in grid lock traffic trying to get to work at the Pentagon, or nearby.


THE APPROACH



I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395… we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon - Bauer, Gary


“I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down and came down right over 395 right into the Pentagon.” - Wright, Don


“coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there—very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station…[note: this statement is ambiguous as to whether it was N. or S. of the gas station but…] then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport.” - Elgas, Penny


CIT would have you believe these people are plants. Liars. Government spooks throwing out dis-info. Or, my favorite, irrelevant because they work in government and therefore, are specifically ‘in on it’.


FINAL SECONDS



“[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.” - Sepulveda, Noel



“The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.” - Washington, Rodney


“The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.” - McGraw, Stephen


Now keep in mind CIT believes these light poles were planted. As in, cut down before the event and planted after the event………with not a single witness to that ‘alleged’ activity. Not a one. More than six years later.


THE IMPACT



“I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11… [It] slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon.” - Anderson, Steve


“I saw this plane right outside my window… Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon… It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon).” - Anlauf, Deb & Jeff


“[I] saw the plane hit the Pentagon.” - Bradley, Pam


“I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon.” - Carroll, Susan


“I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first… It did not hit the roof first… and yes, it did impact the Pentagon… There was none of this hitting-the-ground first crap I keep hearing…” - Riskus, Steve


“The plane hit the Pentagon.” - Snaman, Steve


“I saw it hit the building.” - Stanley, G. T.


“It added power on its way in…The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.” - Timmerman, Tim


‘I hadn’t even reached the back of the van when I felt the fireball. It slammed into the building just a couple hundred feet from him… Wallace switched on the truck’s radio. We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side.” - Wallace, Alan



“I just watched it hit the building. It exploded… I could actually hear the metal going through the building.” - Boger, Sean


“I saw it fly right into the Pentagon… ‘It just was amazingly precise… It completely disappeared into the Pentagon.” - Donley, Daryl


“[It went] inside the side of the Pentagon.Obviously, it was going in the Pentagon purposefully.I told my husband ‘he’s going into the Pentagon.’We heard the direct hit—huge crash, saw this fireball, flame and smoke.”Reporter: ‘so you actually saw the plane impact the side of the building?’[Isabel:] “Yes I did.” - James, Isabel



“It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere… It was very sort of surreal.” - Kean, Terrance


“We watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon, and there was no indication whatever that it was doing anything other than performing a direct attack on that building.” - Mitchell, Mitch


And it goes on and on and on and on. If this was the sum total of the counter-evidence, this alone would be devastating to CIT’s crazy assertions.

Here’s the catch: it’s not even close to the sum total of the evidence surrounding the attacks of 9-11 and the Pentagon attack in particular.

The truth has thousands of eyewitnesses, bodies, missing aircraft, aircraft wreckage that clearly came from flight 77 inside and outside of the building. The entire event filmed on tape (although admittedly not ideal footage), the FDR, the FFA radar tapes, transmissions from the plane, cell phone calls from loved one on the plane to name just some of the evidence.

On CIT’s side they have four witnesses. Of these four witnesses, three disagree with CITs ‘conclusions’.

Again, in case anybody missed it: three of the four ‘witnesses’ for CIT, disagree with CIT and believe the plane hit the Pentagon..

So, in conclusion, more than six years later, the best ‘witnesses’ that CIT can come up with don’t agree with them.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Oh, and perhaps the most important piece of video evidence as to what happened: the Double Tree Hotel security camera footage.

What your looking for:
The Pentagon is in the upper, left hand section of the frame. Flight 77 approached the Pentagon (more or less) towards the camera. So, in the frame you will see the Double Tree parking lot, an interstate, then the Pentagon in the background. You won't see the approach, but you will see the massive fireball as the plane impacts.

Stay with me, here is what you should see, and wont:

the fictitious fly-over.

Why? Because it didn't happen. Look for yourself:





[edit on 24-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Of course this government sequestered, controlled, and supplied video is invalid evidence within the context of an investigation into government involvement but clearly this does nothing to counter the evidence presented in this thread anyway.

Even if we accept it as valid, you would not be able to see the flyover in this grainy awkward side view from a mile away with a tree blocking it.

The plane would be a tiny blip compared to the fireball and would be flying away from the camera view.

This government evidence proves nothing and certainly does not refute the independent verifiable evidence we present.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Of course this government sequestered, controlled, and supplied video is invalid evidence within the context of an investigation into government involvement but clearly this does nothing to counter the evidence presented in this thread anyway.



Anything that isn't CIT controlled is not valid. That is your stance. You have ignored evidence from day one.

where are the flyover witnesses?

where is the flight path..that is possible and works?

how were thousands of pounds of debris planted in the middle of a building that was burning and on the verge of collapse?

how many were involved in the planting of DNA evidence?


[edit on 24-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


Anything that isn't CIT controlled is not valid. That is your stance. You have ignored evidence from day one.


Incorrect.

Please refrain from telling me what my stance is because you are wrong and deceptive by doing so.

My "stance" is that data that was solely controlled and supplied by the government is considered invalid within the context of an investigation into government involvement.

Simple, logical, and 100% true.

You can't honestly conduct an investigation into government involvement and cite evidence that they control as proof of their innocence.

If you were a true skeptic and didn't have such incredible faith in the government story coupled with such a ridiculous confirmation bias you would understand the pure logic and truth in this "stance".



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I agree. If the suspect is the Gov and that suspect has almost unlimited resources then really anything that the Gov puts out-- can be seriously challenged especially if alternate evidence comes forward.

To have a working hypothesis or theory the standards of evidence are different as well as for the case by reason of deduction. This case is by deductive reasoning coupled with testimony in line with that reasoning.



[edit on 24-4-2008 by talisman]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
[edit on 25-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Of course this government sequestered, controlled, and supplied video is invalid evidence .......


Okay, here Craig would have you believe the video has been tampered with. By someone. Somehow. Actually how, he doesn't know. But he is convinced it has been tampered with. The evidence? Well, nothing but, he says so and everyone knows the government doctored all of the 9-11 evidence.

Now, for the reality the rest of us actually live in:

The Double Tree hotel video is widely available on You Tube and can be examined for evidence of tampering. It's been available for ages. Do date, I am not aware of anyone, anywhere that has even suggested the possibility that it has been "tampered" with.

So, the omnipotent government orchestrated a cover-up involving thousands (at the very minimum). Rather than just confiscate the Double Tree tape and never return it, "they" felt that it would be wiser to hold the tape, tamper with the tape, risk that tampering being discovered and then released said tape as part of their NWO "disinformation" campaign into the public domain.

Uh-huh.

So again, avoid the evidence at all costs! After all, CIT really likes their propaganda and evidence has a pesky way of cropping up and spoiling all of the fun.

The only people this rationalization makes sense to is the three members of the CIT 'team' and the 50 or so registered members on their web site.

Sorry guys, the Loose Change fraud has sailed, and you missed it.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join