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.

 

Bodies strapped to seats on AA77, Pentagon?

page: 21
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by pinch
 


These are witness statements only!
If you want to believe, their statements then you have to believe eyewitness statement that said NO AIRPLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!




Seriously, how is it that TY and pinch have no problem using eyewitness reports to back up their delusions but then turn around and dismiss eyewitness reports that contradict, simply because they are....just eyewitness reports.




posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by jackal17
 


Because they are tying to shove the Government lying 911 conspiracies down our throats
By cherry picking, what “they” want us to believe.
Nothing new here with those two.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackal17

Seriously, how is it that TY and pinch have no problem using eyewitness reports to back up their delusions but then turn around and dismiss eyewitness reports that contradict, simply because they are....just eyewitness reports.


Well, if you want to reduce this to nothing more than a numbers game, Preston and his one (1) "no fuel" witness is trumped, horribly, by the multiple others who do say there was jet fuel present.

I like the Super Bowl analogy. Let's say you couldn't watch the game, for whatever reason, but that you had a ton of money on the game on the Pats. The next morning, you ask one person who said they were there who won and they told you "The Patriots did!" The next 15 you ask say "That's BS. The Giants won! Great last minute drive. Manning and Burris were phenomenal".

Who would you believe? Preston and his ilk would stick with the one (1) "eyewitness" who said the Patriots won, in the face of the 15 who said it was BS, all because *everything* that have in this world is bet on the Patriots winning.

That is all they have - their whole "no fuel, ergo no aircraft" argument is built upon a single (1) "eyewitness" who's experience goes at odds with everyone else. At some point you need to accept reality and go on with life knowing the Giants are Super Bowl champs.

If you want to hitch your reality wagon to the April Gallop "no fuel ergo no aircraft" horse, by all means, go ahead. Its pretty funny, though, especially given the fact that whenever April smells aviation fuel, "it all comes back".



[edit on 27-10-2008 by pinch]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   

posted by jackal17
Seriously, how is it that TY and pinch have no problem using eyewitness reports to back up their delusions but then turn around and dismiss eyewitness reports that contradict, simply because they are....just eyewitness reports.


posted by pinch
Well, if you want to reduce this to nothing more than a numbers game, Preston and his one (1) "no fuel" witness is trumped, horribly, by the multiple others who do say there was jet fuel present.

I like the Super Bowl analogy. Let's say you couldn't watch the game, for whatever reason, but that you had a ton of money on the game on the Pats. The next morning, you ask one person who said they were there who won and they told you "The Patriots did!" The next 15 you ask say "That's BS. The Giants won! Great last minute drive. Manning and Burris were phenomenal".

Who would you believe? Preston and his ilk would stick with the one (1) "eyewitness" who said the Patriots won, in the face of the 15 who said it was BS, all because *everything* that have in this world is bet on the Patriots winning.

What a stupid analogy. We could just call up either team and they would tell us the truth about who won. Or we could pick up the paper or tune in the sports update. Or we could ask the groundskeepers who won. Or the guy we bet with would tell the truth like he always does.

But in reality, in your silly analogy the Giants own the media and half of the spectators and their scouting agents have confiscated all the videos of the game, and the game was not televised. The Giants scouting agents have gone around telling big mouth spectators, exactly who officially won and why it would be wise to keep quiet. The Mainstream Sports Media refuses to discuss the game, and when anybody insists the Patriots really won, they call them crazy and all sorts of names. Your pResident and his daddy, who have $millions invested in the Giants, come out and announce that they do not want all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories about the Patriots winning the game. Their 15 eyewitnesses are paid disinfo agents and shills who are attempting to steal the Super Bowl. Then they hire a bunch of football pseudoskeptics for the worldwide sports forums to spread disinformation and specious nonsense all over the internet.

The Patriots witness is the only spectator who did not sleep through the game, and when the Giants owner ordered her to LIE, she refused to LIE and told the truth; the Patriots won. The Patriots won the Super Bowl even though they are too poor to buy off all the liars.





[edit on 10/27/08 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
posted by pinch
Who would you believe? Preston and his ilk would stick with the one (1) "eyewitness" who said the Patriots won, in the face of the 15 who said it was BS, all because *everything* that have in this world is bet on the Patriots winning.



Originally posted by SPreston

The Patriots won the Super Bowl even though they are too poor to buy off all the liars.


Your honor, I rest my case.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by pinch]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
As a Patriots fan, I request we used different teams in this analogy. (don't even THINK about using the Red Sox.)

Thank you



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
As a Patriots fan, I request we used different teams in this analogy. (don't even THINK about using the Red Sox.)
Thank you


As you wish....

The Canadiens are playing the Bruins......
Univ of Miami is playing Boston College.....
Lakers are playing the Celtics....
Brown is playing MIT....




posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
We can make the Lakers and Celtic's work


Not a one liner



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
newsmine.org.../questions/flight-77-no-arabs/foia-10001.jpg
newsmine.org.../questions/flight-77-no-arabs/foia-10002.jpg
newsmine.org.../questions/flight-77-no-arabs/foia-10003.jpg
newsmine.org.../questions/flight-77-no-arabs/no-arabs-on-flight-77-part-1.txt
newsmine.org.../questions/flight-77-no-arabs/no-arabs-on-flight-77-part-2.txt



Robert L. Prestel
former Deputy Director, National Security Agency

Mr. Prestel served as Deputy Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) from 1990 - . He was the senior civilian presiding over this Defense Agency whose principal missions are the production of foreign Signals Intelligence and the protection of official U.S. Government communications and information systems.
[Didn't want to you get confused about who were the fallen passengers]

Back to More Passengers

Robert Ploger and his wife were added “late” to the original CNN passenger list. He is the son of Major General Robert R Ploger USA, Ret, another “flag” link. The other “late” addition was Sandra Teague, a physical therapist at Georgetown University Hospital.

John Sammartino and Leonard Taylor worked at Xontech (missile defense), another company connected to the intelligence community, also with ties to Boeing.

Vicki Yancey worked for Vreedenberg Corp, yet another company connected to the intelligence community. Her father describes her death as a “planned murder.” Her widower works for Northrup-Grumman.

Mary Jane Booth was in a position to know what was going on at Dulles Airport as secretary for American Airlines general manager.

John Yamnicky, 71, Capt USN Ret, was a defense contractor for Veridian who had done a number of “black ops,” according to his son.

The physicians, lawyers, biotech representatives, and “human interest” victims who were aboard, could also provide important clues, but in the interest of space, we will save for future consideration.

Many readers recall a particular Fox Television TV show called “The Lone Gunman” which was aired on March 2, 2001. In the show, the bad guys control a passenger airplane by remote control with intentions of flying it into the World Trade Center. The villains were from the arms industry; the motive being to inflame the public and thereby increase arms sales to use against “terrorists.” Life indeed imitates art. Here is the synopsis:


It has been reported that some people were warned not to fly that day. One was reported to be Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco. Another was Muslim author Salman Rushdie. The person on that flight MOST likely to be warned was Robert Speisman. He was an executive at Lazare Kaplan, a diamond merchant, and son in law of Maurice Templesman. Templesman was Jackie Kennedy’s long time lover and is highly connected accoring to Time Magazine. Time also reported about about his “special access” to the National Security Council. He has also “stepped out” with Madeleine Albright.

I attempted on three occasions to obtain a final passenger list from American Airlines. They refuse to give a list and in fact won’t even verify that they gave the first list to CNN. Since the list is in the public domain, I find it curious that they would not take ownership nor provide a current, “correct” list.

Would it even be necessary to “lure” all expendables onto the designated death flights? Why not just grab those you want to get rid of and then slip them into the pile later? Have you seen an interview with the check-in personnel for the flights who can tell us who actually got on any of these flights? Not a chance. In fairness, Washington, D.C. and it's suburbs draw a great number of contractors for the military and intelligence communities in their normal course of business. It may be mere coincidence that these passengers were all on the same flight; however; the government refuses to release information which would relieve our concerns.

I am interested in corresponding with family members who know the truth.

Thomas R. Olmsted. M.D.



edit to repair link, fmcanarney



[edit on 27-10-2008 by fmcanarney]

[edit on 27-10-2008 by fmcanarney]

[edit on 27-10-2008 by fmcanarney]

[edit on 27-10-2008 by fmcanarney]

[edit on 27-10-2008 by fmcanarney]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Here.



This is an image of wreckage from 'flight 77'. Apparently, that is a serial number from '77'. I put that in hyphens so I do not take flak. Someone analyze this.

Why even both with the serial number stuff? Certain posters on both sides will maintain analysis methods that focus on conjecture and not hard fact. They can just say that it was planted and the serial numbers planted to give gravity to government's argument. People say 'fact' and 'proof' too often on this forum. No one waste a post asking why most pictures of the wreckage feature no visible serial number.

NO ONE DISMISS THIS PICTURE BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT

I want someone with experience in this specific sort of field to explain this. It is a picture displayed in the book "911 Pentagon".



[edit on 28-10-2008 by newagent89]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I hate to see stories like this. It kills any credibility that any truth movement tries to bring the to table. It's an easy way to continue with the muddying of the waters around this terrible event. It's basic conspiracy theory 101. The best way to confuse the truth is to create so many screwed up lies and messes around the little truth released that the waters are too thick with mud to see the reality behind it.

Pisses me off really.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


The key for the official story peddlers is that as long as any argument assumes that a plane hit the Pentagon, it works in their favor. North side of Citgo, south side of Citgo, body strapped to a seat, and orange jump suit on said body all assume a plane hit the Pentagon. So if we know no plane hit the Pentagon, every subsequent argument which assumes a plane hit the Pentagon is null and void and completely theoretical (i.e. worthless and obfuscating).

Peace


[edit on 28-10-2008 by Dr Love]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

posted by newagent89
This is an image of wreckage from 'flight 77'. Apparently, that is a serial number from '77'. I put that in hyphens so I do not take flak. Someone analyze this.

Why even both with the serial number stuff? Certain posters on both sides will maintain analysis methods that focus on conjecture and not hard fact. They can just say that it was planted and the serial numbers planted to give gravity to government's argument. People say 'fact' and 'proof' too often on this forum. No one waste a post asking why most pictures of the wreckage feature no visible serial number.

NO ONE DISMISS THIS PICTURE BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT

I want someone with experience in this specific sort of field to explain this. It is a picture displayed in the book "911 Pentagon".


Defense Historians Document 9/11 Pentagon Attack

Sept. 7, 2007 – Nearly six years after a terrorist-controlled plane slammed into the Pentagon, killing 184 people aboard the plane and in the building, Defense Department historians have published a book on the incident and its aftermath.

The team of authors learned about more than the individual experiences as they conducted their researched, however. For instance the effects of recently completed renovations to one wedge of the Pentagon that was hit were mixed, said Diane Putne, a historian in the Office of the Secretary of Defense's Historical Office.

“I have ho doubt it was American Airlines Flight 77 (that hit the building),” she said. Her statement is based on visual evidence, a piece of the plane that was discovered and bore the American Airlines logo.
www.defenselink.mil...


We are quite familiar with that 'photo' from the official Defense Department Pentagon 9-11 book. That is the only known 'photo' of the mystery object. That 'photo' suddenly and mysteriously appeared out of the blue about six years after 9-11.

Historian and one of the book authors Diane Putne, apparently thinks this mystery object which suddenly appeared out of nowhere, is what proves that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. She must have been there too, right after 9:39 AM, and did not see aircraft parts or wings or baggage or passengers strapped in seats or engines or landing gear or wheels or tires or a great big tail section or JET FUEL inside the Pentagon either.

This 'photo' of the mystery object only appears in the Pentagon 9-11 book. If an open-minded logical person were to look closely (go ahead zoom on in) at the mystery object, they might notice that there are no traces of burning or smoke damage. This only known 'photo' is printed on a paper page of the book and the serial # is not fully legible. How convenient. No original 'photo' of the mystery object has been released. This mystery object appears to be sitting on some high quality golf course bluegrass turf; not the el cheapo Pentagon lawn.

Need I say more?

Original photo here



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


So AGAIN TO ASK YOU:
Show us proof that all the aircraft debris was planted (ALL OF IT) and not a ingle soul saw it. After all, you are claiming there is no airplane crash, and its all planted, ergo YOU have to prove the aircraft debris which has been ID'd as from a 757, was planted. That is all. An eyewitness, anything that shows men in white suits or black or cloaked, strewing debris around and squirting jet fuel from invisible fuel tanks after the fireball. Come on, that is all you have to do to prove your case. Because up until now, you are lying through your teeth about no airplane in full view of the overwhelming evidence that supports a PLANE crash.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So AGAIN TO ASK YOU:
Show us proof that all the aircraft debris was planted (ALL OF IT) and not a ingle soul saw it. After all, you are claiming there is no airplane crash, and its all planted, ergo YOU have to prove the aircraft debris which has been ID'd as from a 757, was planted.

Which aircraft debris has been proven to come from AA77?

Please, GenRadek, show us all where the alleged wreckage has been proven to be from AA77.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Ah! Ok I get it.

When one woman who doesn't say she smelled jet fuel = NO jet fuel and proves there was no airplane crash, yet numerous eyewitnesses and survivors and first responders and reporters who all DID smell it/see it/taste it/burned by it/etc are all lying/in on it/shills/agents/etc and should be totally and completely ignored and not allowed to enter their testimony to prove the case, because they have been lying all along and it doesnt corroborate with what ONE woman said.

However: When TWO first responders reported seeing a body or bodies still strapped in their seats in the debris, they are lying and totally unreliable/wrong/shills/disinfo/in on it/etc and therefore not enough evidence to support it because there is no photo of it. Is that how the "truther" mind works? I see.


Geeze, you guys really ought to go and work on a cherry farm. With those mad cherry picking skills, you'd be #1 in the business!



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


And here we go around again on the "Ignorance-go round" ride.

So, now we know there was a 757 in the Pentagon since there is debris from A 757 in the Pentagon (engines, seats, landing gear, parts with serial numbers attached) we have proof there was a plane crash. Investigators confirmed its from a 757.

Now since you doubt its from AA77, I ask you, what other 757 AA flights were hijacked and crashed, and what has happened to the passengers that were on board the AA77? By your question of what 757 did this come from, you are conceding a 757 DID crash. Now that we got that out of the way, (AGAIN as I have a strange sense of deja-vu), please, provide proof all debris was planted. Will you please stop this round about ride and answer the question?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SPreston
 


So AGAIN TO ASK YOU:
Show us proof that all the aircraft debris was planted (ALL OF IT) and not a ingle soul saw it. After all, you are claiming there is no airplane crash, and its all planted, ergo YOU have to prove the aircraft debris which has been ID'd as from a 757, was planted. That is all. An eyewitness, anything that shows men in white suits or black or cloaked, strewing debris around and squirting jet fuel from invisible fuel tanks after the fireball. Come on, that is all you have to do to prove your case. Because up until now, you are lying through your teeth about no airplane in full view of the overwhelming evidence that supports a PLANE crash.

That seems fair. Well no, shouldn't the aircraft debris be ID'd from a particular 757; specifically Flight 77 tail #N644AA? What piece of aircraft debris ID'd from a 757? We have not one serial # from any piece of alleged aircraft debris at the Pentagon to relate to. You guys can't even produce a photo of a seat or a passenger strapped into a seat and burned up inside the Pentagon, let alone a seat serial #. So where is your evidence proving this scrap is from a 757, let alone Flight 77 tail #N644AA?

Do you mean that little scrap piece sitting on the golf course just posted? I can't make out the serial number; can you? Besides how can a piece of evidence which suddenly appears out of nowhere 6 years after the crime was committed, be seriously considered as bonafide evidence?

Have you seen a chain of custody documented for it, signed by a licensed official police investigator or licensed aircraft crash investigator? No? So produce your documented evidence along with serial numbers and chains of custody, and we can go from there.

Otherwise you are just blowing smoke up our collective butts, and spreading disinformation. The Defense Department ordered April Gallup to LIE and April Gallup refused to LIE. Can't you guys get anybody to LIE for you?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SPreston
 
So AGAIN TO ASK YOU:
Show us proof that all the aircraft debris was planted (ALL OF IT) and not a ingle soul saw it. After all, you are claiming there is no airplane crash, and its all planted, ergo YOU have to prove the aircraft debris which has been ID'd as from a 757, was planted. That is all. An eyewitness, anything that shows men in white suits or black or cloaked, strewing debris around and squirting jet fuel from invisible fuel tanks after the fireball. Come on, that is all you have to do to prove your case. Because up until now, you are lying through your teeth about no airplane in full view of the overwhelming evidence that supports a PLANE crash.

Since you guys cannot produce documented identification by serial number of any single alleged aircraft part at the Pentagon, the assumption must be that they were planted.

In most aircraft crash investigations, many parts are identified by serial number and documented as so. But here in this official 9-11 fairy tale, not one single piece of aircraft from any one of the alleged four aircraft has been documented by serial number. How can that be? Allegedly, they have several landing gear and four or five engine assemblies and a wheel and a tire and numerous alleged fuselage pieces from the four aircraft, (but no passengers strapped in seats) so why is it that they are unable to come up with one serial number?

You surely know that the airlines, due to strict Federal laws, are forced to keep up redundant records and documentation on all their aircraft, serial numbers and maintenance numbers recorded piece by piece, and on every single maintenance procedure.

Is the reason there was not one single documented serial # for the four aircraft because they had switched all four aircraft for the 9-11 psyops missions? Of course at the Pentagon, there was no aircraft, and Flight 77 had not been destroyed yet, so it might be tough coming up with parts with N644AA serial numbers, and they might have been snared by the stringent airline documentation.

But if they had switched the other three aircraft, then they dare not collect serial numbers, because they surely would have been trapped in their lies. Does that satisfy your curiousity?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
All of you are over thinking the explinations. Plain and simple. The planes with the tail numbers and id numbers involved in the supposed hijackings never crashed at all. They were all swapped out for cia ans us navy remote controll system jets. similar to the system used to opperate the drones we all know and love. This was allready proven in looses change with actual faa and airline documentation, this is yet another dis info/ mis direction ploy. Istead of picking each others arguments apart why dont you start researching who the people posting these threads are, and I will bet you are suprised when you see how many are ex gov. or current gov contractors through civilian shell corporations.


NEW AMERICAN PATRIOT



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join