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.

 

9/11: Attack On The Pentagon Now Public on Google

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I have to admit that my own inclination would be to hold fire until I had solid evidence, before making a public announcement about the matter, but she is on the spot, she is an ex-congresswoman, she's not stupid. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, until I learn more about the matter.


That's freaking hilarious. Certifiable Moonbat McKinney makes accusations that the US Government executed 5,000 prisoners and you side with her because she is "on the spot". And she's an ex-congresswoman (as if that means anything). And she's not stupid (if you believe that, then again, there's no point in continuing any discussion. By virtue of this logic you have just ceded defeat in any and all debates from here on out).

What about the other million or so people in who are "on the spot" who haven't said word one about something like this?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised about that from someone who, even 7 years after the fact, can't still get their head around 9/11.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by pinch]




posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
If you do nothing then we have the status quo, which is N644AA crashed into the Pentagon.

All stated without proof, well done.


The FBI had/have the piece-parts to the aircraft, including all the various serial numbers for N644AA and are not releasing the evidence as per standard ongoing-investigation procedures.

Your proof for this is where?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
However the DVD version is a much better quality and helps support more good patriotic investigation into the 9-11 Inside Job Attack On America.


Still huckstering for Captain Bob and the boys. You must have quite the investment in this thing, Preston. No wonder you will never take it to court. This little shtick you guys have going on would end.

How does the Tree Fort go about charging its members, though? I would have guessed that all members of the Secret Truth Society and who own the secret rings would get a DVD for free.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
There is a reason that airplanes are called fixed wing craft.
They can not fold their wings against their sides like a bird diving into water.
So where is the damage to the pentagon from the wings?
There is none, just a sixteen foot hole.
So flight 77 was the first fixed wing craft in history to fold it's wings against it's sides?


Yeah that intrigued me too for hmmmm, about fifteen seconds.

The answer is that AA77 didn't come in to land all nice and level the same as a 757 being landed at the airport with the only difference being that it just happened to have the pentagon in front of it..

Or that the shiny-eyed pilot cared less about the stresses placed on the aircraft



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinch



One area affecting the potential return on investment in M&S is credibility. Lack of M&S credibility can severely constrain M&S uses - and hence limit the possible payoff from using M&S. Many people consider computer models a new plateau in the art of deception. Brian Arthur, an economist from Stanford University, captures a common perception by noting that, early in his career, he believed "by and large people who couldn't think analytically resorted to computer simulations...[and] that you could prove anything you wanted by tweaking the assumptions deep in your model." Computer M&S are permeating every discipline and are being accepted as necessary tools, but the use of those M&S must be watched carefully.
Bold mine.


External quotes fixed by me.

At the risk of going off topic.

Let me ask you pinch. Where does your faith lie when it comes to the computer simulations of NIST et al for the towers' and wtc 7's collapses without any evidence, physics, or experimental data to back it up?

Wouldn't your Computer M&S quote be equally valid for them? But, I'm sure you'll give me some reason why it's not.


Further, I am in no way, shape or form prepared to accept Captain Bob's nor his group of aviation "professionals" assurance that his interpretation of the data is accurate.


Then interpret the data yourself. Either that, or listen to the government who always tells you the truth. Right?


If Captain Bob was serious about this "simulation" being an accurate and credible representation of events, he would submit the sim to an outside professional organization that is experienced in FDR particulars and simulation development from same. Staying within his own coterie of aviation "professionals" for verification and validation of this sim is nothing but pure nepotism.


Bolding by me.

Again, pure hypocrisy. But, it's A-OK for NIST to do the same with their data and simulations on the towers? Even worse is that as far as I've seen, PFT have their data available for all the world to see. Not so with the government's "findings", eh?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
SPreston's and Balsamo's confession that they have no evidence of a "flyover."


Originally posted by SPreston

We let the viewer determine if it is possible for a 757 to navigate such a region and cause the physical damage reported at the Pentagon.


Well, Spreston, you claimed AA77 "flew over the Pentagon." So you are chickening out of the claim knowing full well you can't demonstrate a flyover. Instead, you want readers to determine if a flyover occurred. This tactic is a so old and transparent: when one has no evidence to support his claims, just punt.

We want your evidence of a flyover, SPreston, not more weaseling.


Many common arguments made by those who make excuse for and support the government story are also addressed.


As you know full well the evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon is completely independent of whatever the government says or does not say about it.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnsrings
reply to post by ashamedamerican
 

There is no public outcry because the sheeple, just want to live in their own little corner of the world. They don't want to even think that our own government, could murder thousands of their citizens, to aid their agenda.


If you can't provide any evidence after seven years, then we have to believe you are deluding yourself that the government was behind 9/11.

Perhaps you find comfort in the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
The null hypothesis is that something happened at the Pentagon. We can all agree that there was some type of explosion and damage to the structure.

Anything that attempts to explain this event is an alternate hypothesis that needs proving.

Indeed, and your statement was without evidence to back it up.

You go on in this post to attempt to question every point of evidence I produced, but this is not what I asked you. I want you to list evidence for alternate theories so we have a good list of the evidence before we try and debate individual ones.


It's so much fun playing with believers. Try a little harder, as you're still not supporting your alternative hypothesis with proof.

My friend, in this context, "believers" means "anyone who believes anything". Your playing is merely denial. You request a ridiculous standard of evidence, and then when it is not matched you act as if you have some sort of superior evidence of an alternate hypothesis.

This is what I am trying to pin down, please show the evidence for alternate hypotheses, and we can see where the balance of evidence lies.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Let me ask you pinch. Where does your faith lie when it comes to the computer simulations of NIST et al for the towers' and wtc 7's collapses without any evidence, physics, or experimental data to back it up?

Why are you claiming this Griff? You know that it is not true in any way. I can only assume you've read the NIST reports and so you know that in fact there is both evidence, physics and experimental data available. Why is it that you feel free to parrot "truther talking points" when you must know them to be incorrect?


Again, pure hypocrisy. But, it's A-OK for NIST to do the same with their data and simulations on the towers? Even worse is that as far as I've seen, PFT have their data available for all the world to see. Not so with the government's "findings", eh?

NIST has released models on FOIA request, I don't see PFT's model anywhere, even though their video claimed that they would prove the topography was accurate and give access to it at the end of their video.

Furthermore, Pilots For Truth charge for DVDs and similar, they are raising funds in this manner. NIST do nothing of the sort.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent


This is what I am trying to pin down, please show the evidence for alternate hypotheses, and we can see where the balance of evidence lies.


This is completely unnecessary and not our burden of proof.

This isn't an academic discussion.

It is the burden of the government to provided enough evidence prove the official story and they have failed.

Furthermore P4T and CIT present enough information to prove the official story false.

If that's not enough to get you to join us in demanding an end to the fraudulent "war on terror" and demanding full congressional hearings and indictments of those in control of the U.S. military that were involved then it's clear your priorities are mixed up to say the least.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This is completely unnecessary and not our burden of proof.

This isn't an academic discussion.

Indeed it isn't a discussion involving you at all. We're starting from the null hypothesis here, so both sides have a burden of proof.


It is the burden of the government to provided enough evidence prove the official story and they have failed.

Furthermore P4T and CIT present enough information to prove the official story false.

Care to list the points of evidence you provide? I see it as this:
  • 3 direct north side witnesses
  • 7 indirect north side witnesses (may have my numbers wrong here, i can only think of 5 offhand)
  • 3 potential north side witnesses
  • At least 2 government operatives lying to you in your investigation
  • 1 potential flyover witness

This is not a strong list of evidence compared to the list I produced above.


If that's not enough to get you to join us in demanding an end to the fraudulent "war on terror" and demanding full congressional hearings and indictments of those in control of the U.S. military that were involved then it's clear your priorities are mixed up to say the least.

I have always been against the "war on terror", though I believe terrorists (specifically Al Qaeda) do exist, a war is not the best way to deal with them. I am also British, and so I am more concerned with my government's involvement.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


Exactly. And the very exact same can be said for NIST and their computer models and simulations of the miraculous collapses of the buildings.

Yes, computer models can be tweaked to show what the presenter wants people to see. The problem with this argument though is that the same can be said for the 'other' side that they are trying to defend.

It's a huge mess and I believe that the people that pulled it off are simply trying to keep it that way until finally there comes a day when people have simply lost interest in truly finding out what happened. When one day it becomes another JFK story. Shrouded in mystery but never really answered. Where the 'secret' documents about the event will be sealed off for 6 decades so that anyone involved will have passed on so they cannot be held accountable for their actions.

It's a crime and a damn shame but alas who really cares in government about that?

This event was actually for the 'greater good', now wasn't it?

[edit on 14-10-2008 by dariousg]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


You have zero independent verifiable evidence to support the official story.

ZERO.

We have a mountain of independent verifiable evidence proving it false.

Besides 13 confirmed north side witnesses (which is plenty enough in itself) we have plenty of evidence to support the east side approach which also proves a military deception on a whole other level.

Not to mention proof of evidence tampering with the citgo video and of course the NTSB and 84 RADES data as well as non-disclosure of evidence to the point of being a blatant cover-up

Compared to the zero amount of independent verifiable evidence that tail #N644AA piloted by Hani Hanjour hit the building, it's clear that if you were a true skeptic who was against the war on terror that you should be helping to highlight and promote the evidence we have uncovered while demanding a response from both the U.S. and British governments.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Furthermore, Pilots For Truth charge for DVDs and similar, they are raising funds in this manner. NIST do nothing of the sort.


Talk about disingenuous.

Both P4T and CIT provide all of our presentation for free online.

In fact this thread is specifically regarding the release of their latest presentation FOR FREE.

Do you think NIST worked for free?

Please look into how much they got paid and who paid them and report back.

Thanks.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


If I was to try to "Prove" anything I would need some evidence. As would you. I am quite sure we can all aggree that ther are more than 4 frames of footage of the event. Without that key piece of information, nothing can be "proven". Eye witnesses are not 100% reliable. There are a bunch of things that don't add up for me, but If I was to be shown that the pentagon issue was just as it was reported by the media, than the rest of the questions I have would probably be less important. I am open to the truth. I have yet to hear it. And I don't claim to have any proof of my own, just questions. Show me the money Jerry.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
it's clear that if you were a true skeptic who was against the war on terror that you should be helping to highlight and promote the evidence we have uncovered while demanding a response from both the U.S. and British governments.


Here is the crux of your point. Typically a fallacy.

"You either agree with us, or you don't believe in truth".

Sorry Craig, but I believe in the truth, and all I see is your endless posturing and attempts to decide on what counts as "evidence". Lets not forget that you found 2 eyewitnesses at least that confirmed a south side path, but you simply called them liars and decided that was enough proof.

I have already made my position clear, and trying to claim that because I don't agree with you means I'm not really a sceptic is pointless. You don't agree with me, but that doesn't mean I accuse you of anything other than deceiving yourself.

I am aware NIST were funded in order to complete their investigation, they also undertook actual simulation, actual testing and actual work. I appreciate that you have, and I understand that in fact you may well have costs to consider. Pilots For Truth do not, they have presented a disingeous model and despite claiming they would release the 3d data I have yet to see it (had a quick look through their forums with no joy).



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent


Here is the crux of your point. Typically a fallacy.

"You either agree with us, or you don't believe in truth".


I never said that.

I listed independent verifiable evidence proving the official story false.

You have provided ZERO independent verifiable evidence that tail #N644AA was piloted by Hani Hanjour and hit the building.

Yet you choose to dismiss the evidence we present in favor of your purely faith based claim that the official story is true.

This demonstrates an inherent confirmation bias on your part and a complete disregard for critical thinking principles.



I am aware NIST were funded in order to complete their investigation, they also undertook actual simulation, actual testing and actual work. I appreciate that you have, and I understand that in fact you may well have costs to consider. Pilots For Truth do not, they have presented a disingeous model and despite claiming they would release the 3d data I have yet to see it (had a quick look through their forums with no joy).


Why are you changing the topic?

How much did NIST get paid and who paid them?

How much taxpayer money went to fund the independent investigations of P4T and CIT?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by saturnsrings
reply to post by ashamedamerican
 

There is no public outcry because the sheeple, just want to live in their own little corner of the world. They don't want to even think that our own government, could murder thousands of their citizens, to aid their agenda.


If you can't provide any evidence after seven years, then we have to believe you are deluding yourself that the government was behind 9/11.

Perhaps you find comfort in the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale.
No sir, I was far more comfortable believing the official theory was the correct one. The fact that the many coincidences that had to fall perfectly in place that day, for the whole government explanation to work has to be billions to one. Perhaps trillions to one. But then again, there are millions that claim the government can't keep a secret. Yet they did a fine job with the Manhattan project.

Perhaps you can answer my first and biggest coincidental question.
Military exercises dealing with hijacked aircraft crashing into buildings, the very day that it happened?


How about the pentagon release some video of the alleged 757 crashing into the building? That one thing would change my mind, and I bet nearly all of the rest of the truthers out there.

George Bush telling us to not pay attention to the conspiracy theorists?


You believe the governments official explanation, but those are the same ones that possibly pulled this off, or at the very least let it happen, so why would they let an independent investigation happen?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

I am aware NIST were funded in order to complete their investigation,


Actually this proves you went so far as to lie in an attempt at character assassination of P4T while trying to create a blatantly false impression that NIST was independent or objective and somehow worked out of their own pockets.

You claimed NIST provided their reports for free and that P4T charges when the opposite is true and you just admitted that you already knew this.

Shameful.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Why is it, that those that criticize the people putting forth the effort to investigate these events, never seem to realize that the same criticisms can be applied to the official story to which they so eagerly subscribe, often to a much greater extent. We could revisit the ridiculous 'particle beams from space' theories, and the official story still holds no more water than the 'death ray' theories.

Unfortunately, the source of the information on the events of that day absolutely cannot be used to weigh credibility, even when, and perhaps especially when, the source is a US government agency.

Those who believe the official story, do so because of the source of the story, not because the story has any factual merit. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, who may or may not be too ignorant to realize that they believe it solely because that "theory" has the word Official in front of it. None of the theories of what happened that day can be proven, that's why they're "theories". This includes the "Official" theory.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join