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: 22
7
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
By your question of what 757 did this come from, you are conceding a 757 DID crash.

No, GenRadek. I'm not conceding that a 757 plane crashed and I don't know why you would gain that impression.

Something happened at the Pentagon. I wish I knew what happened. Some people claimed that Flight AA77 crashed there, but I have not seen them prove it to me.

Again, on the merry-go-round, prove to me that Flight AA77 crashed at the Pentagon. It's a tired and well-worn debate, as you simply can't prove it to me.




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

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.


We neither have photographs nor serial numbers nor does anyone, including the FBI and the NTSB, need them to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. You have already been schooled on those facts, SPreston. You're just making more fools of the CIT kiddies then they've already made of themselves.

A reminder of the obvious of which you've been schooled many times:


“Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent."
- Susan Stevenson, NTSB


*SNIP* Mod edit: Insult removed. The next one will be removal of the entire post along with a point penalty.

Courtesy Is Mandatory: Read this link



[edit on 10/28/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

No, GenRadek. I'm not conceding that a 757 plane crashed and I don't know why you would gain that impression.

Something happened at the Pentagon. I wish I knew what happened. Some people claimed that Flight AA77 crashed there, but I have not seen them prove it to me.


No one needs to "prove it to you." You can prove it to yourself. You just refuse to.

Reason is just too offensive to true believers.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
SPreston, I thought I asked for a professional, someone who knows how to analyze a photo. The argument that it is 'common sense' or 'what you see is what you get' will not cut it. I didn't ask you to look at the picture and make claims based upon how you perceive the picture. You want a nice big chunk with a serial number on it? You cannot pick and choose.

Just because you do not see burning does not mean it was not burned.

Just because its origins are unclear does not mean that it should be dismissed.

Just because you think that the grass does not line up with your idea of pentagon grass does not mean it is not the pentagon lawn.

Just because you fail to identify scrap does not mean that it cannot and has not been positively identified.


I also think I said NOT TO DISMISS THIS PICTURE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. I do not think that you are a professional crime scene or airline crash picture analyst and neither am I. I knew that you would probably have something to say about the picture even if you had nothing to contribute.

Stop talking about it. You are wasting space.

Also cut it out with the 'all logical and open minded people believe in my POV'. That's a fallacy and you should know that.

Also, your arguments beg the question when you assume there was no jet fuel or wreckage. (Therefore, your subjects saw none)


[edit on 28-10-2008 by newagent89]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Although I hesitate to join what has become a hateful thread, a simple comment on how a phot like that would be used by a normal aircraft accident investigation.

If a photo like that was presented by an outside source, it would:

1> first be analyzed as to any data within or embedded (digital) in the photo.
2> a careful debrief of the presenter as to location, time , surroundings, etc.

A photo is meaningless to an accident investigation without sworn testimony as to the date, time, location, etc.

An analysis of the photo to determine the actual part number. The part number can be checked in various databases to see if it was currently installed on the aircraft alleged to have crashed.

Simply said, it is a photo of an AA dataplate....nothing more.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   

posted by SPreston
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.


posted by jthomas aka johnwood
We neither have photographs nor serial numbers nor does anyone, including the FBI and the NTSB,

Yes that is correct jthomas. After all these years, you have finally learned something. The FBI and the NTSB and anyone else, do not have serial numbers because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to obtain serial numbers at the Pentagon. Since the Official Conspiracy Theory falsely claims that Flight 77 Tail # N644AA impacted the Pentagon, those serial numbers would necessarily have to be from Tail #N644AA.

That would be IMPOSSIBLE since (1) an aircraft did not impact the Pentagon because the actual aircraft was Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, (2) Tail #N644AA was not even in Virginia because it disappeared up near Ohio, (3) Tail #N644AA if it had been there in Virginia and somehow mysteriously teleported over to the official flight path through the light poles, could NOT POSSIBLY have survived a 535 mph impact with five 247 pound light poles nor could Tail #N644AA have POSSIBLY survived a high G pullup from the 535 mph descent down the hill and subsequent level flight mere inches above the Pentagon lawn. Sorry jthomas but your rediculous logic is simply not possible.

A fairy tale. Magicians' tricks. Illusion and military psyops missions. TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Besides the Defense Department ordered April Gallup to LIE and support the official line of BS and April Gallup refused to LIE. No aircraft and NO JET FUEL at the Pentagon.

Once again, NO serial number of any single alleged aircraft part at the Pentagon, the assumption must be that the aircraft parts were planted.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   

posted by newagent89
I didn't ask you to look at the picture and make claims based upon how you perceive the picture. You want a nice big chunk with a serial number on it? You cannot pick and choose.


Then why did you post this picture then? Why did you single out a picture of something in a book on a paper page, and that is the only known picture of this object in existence? Why did you choose a picture of an object that suddenly appeared six years after the crime of 9-11? What is so special about this picture in a book, that you would choose it for this thread?

Because you think it has a serial number on it? OK what is the serial number? Go ahead, spell it out for us so maybe somebody can track it down. You can't? Why not? If you cannot derive all the letters and numbers, then it is not a serial number is it? If it cannot be traced, then it is useless as a serial number, isn't it?

It could be from an American Airlines 727 which crashed or was scrapped 10 years ago. Or from a 747 or DC 10 sitting in a boneyard somewhere. Or maybe it is from an Aloha Airlines Airbus.

Problem is with you guys, you cannot produce any proof of where any of that scrap planted at the Pentagon came from. You cannot produce any proof that the aircraft could fly simultaneously over the Naval Annex and also along the official flight path. Your parking lot security videos were faked, all the other 85+ videos which might support your fairy tale were permanently confiscated by the FBI, many of your witnesses have been caught lying, you have three different explanations for the cause of the Exit Hole into A&E Drive which most of you cannot even keep up with, and you have no clue how desperate you guys all act.

When Dubya blocked investigations, you guys all acted desperate. When Dubya stuck both feet in his mouth, you guys all acted desperate. When the FAA switched flight paths, you guys all acted desperate. When CIT's Arlington National Cemetery eyewitnesses nailed the coffin lid down on the official flight path, you guys all acted desperate. You guys are pathetic.

Original photo here





[edit on 10/28/08 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by SPreston
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.


posted by jthomas aka johnwood
We neither have photographs nor serial numbers nor does anyone, including the FBI and the NTSB,

Yes that is correct jthomas. After all these years, you have finally learned something.


No I figured out that one never loses money underestimating the intelligence of 9/11 Truthers way back in 2002. It was easy. I have you and CIT as perfect illustrations of the point.


The FBI and the NTSB and anyone else, do not have serial numbers because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to obtain serial numbers at the Pentagon.


Well, as predicted, you stuck your foot in your mouth once again. Let's review:

Since both you and CIT refused to interview any of the 1,000 people who had access to the wreckage, you are in the very unfortunate position of not having any knowledge whatsoever that serial numbers were or were not obtained. You have no knowledge of what the FBI or the NTSB knows. So, once again, SPreston, you do a wonderful job of shooting yourself in the foot.


Since the Official Conspiracy Theory falsely claims that Flight 77 Tail # N644AA impacted the Pentagon, those serial numbers would necessarily have to be from Tail #N644AA.


As we all know - and you deny - there is no "official" conspiracy theory. There is only the massive independent evidence which you are unable to refute. You are in the unenviable position of claiming that all that very inconvenient evidence you hate and detest so much leaves you in the stupid position of claiming the only valid evidence would be a video.

So, thanks for showing how you debunk yourself. I can't tell you what fun it is having 9/11 Truthers illustrate my case for me.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by newagent89
I didn't ask you to look at the picture and make claims based upon how you perceive the picture. You want a nice big chunk with a serial number on it? You cannot pick and choose.


Then why did you post this picture then? Why did you single out a picture of something in a book on a paper page, and that is the only known picture of this object in existence? Why did you choose a picture of an object that suddenly appeared six years after the crime of 9-11? What is so special about this picture in a book, that you would choose it for this thread?


Obviously so you could debunk yourself again, SPreston, by claiming that real evidence doesn't count. Remember, you are on record of denying all evidence inconvenient to you.

You fell right into that trap, my newbie friend!



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by habu71

Although I hesitate to join what has become a hateful thread, a simple comment on how a phot like that would be used by a normal aircraft accident investigation.


It's not a hateful thread at all. It's fun showing how 9/11 Truthers haven't a clue what they are talking about and watching them fervently contradict themselves.

Since 9/11 Truthers imploded the 9/11 Truth Movement (no pun intended) there's not much time left before they disappear into the trashbin of history.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Problem is with you guys, you cannot produce any proof of where any of that scrap planted at the Pentagon came from. You cannot produce any proof that the aircraft could fly simultaneously over the Naval Annex and also along the official flight path. Your parking lot security videos were faked

Bolding mine.

Can you show any evidence for your second claim without resorting to circular logic? Can you then give any evidence for where this aircraft debris actually came from?

You accuse "debunkers" of something you are clearly often guilty of yourself, but you seem unable to comprehend that there is often a paucity of information on both sides.

This thread has gone over the same ground again and again, but what has clearly been established is that there is quite a lot of evidence indicating that a 757 hit The Pentagon. There is also evidence indicating that it was AA77.

Given that the standard 'tactic' you and others have adopted is to claim that this evidence is not strong enough, I wonder if you can provide any evidence of equal strength to oppose these claims. I have yet to see any.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Will you please stop this round about ride and answer the question?


Seems the only ones going on a ride in this thread are the OS supporters. Go figure.


Again. Documented proof of passengers still strapped to plane seats please.


If two witnesses is all it takes for some to believe and defend, where are all you when two witnesses say they heard a count down for WTC 7?

[edit on 10/28/2008 by Griff]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
*SNIP* Mod edit: Insult removed. The next one will be removal of the entire post along with a point penalty.

Courtesy Is Mandatory: Read this link



[edit on 10/28/2008 by Hal9000]


No offense mods. But, it's about freekin time.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
If two witnesses is all it takes for some to believe and defend, where are all you when two witnesses say they heard a count down for WTC 7?


Without meaning to be too snarky, you are aware that Kevin McPadden changed his story from "heard a pulsed radio communication which was like a countdown" to "heard a countdown" right? Not only that but apparently the person listening to this countdown was with the Red Cross.

There is quite a large difference between the two, and I am not aware of a second person indicating a countdown occured for WTC7?

edit: spelling mistakes

[edit on 28-10-2008 by exponent]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by newagent89
Just because you do not see burning does not mean it was not burned.

Just because its origins are unclear does not mean that it should be dismissed.

Just because you think that the grass does not line up with your idea of pentagon grass does not mean it is not the pentagon lawn.

Just because you fail to identify scrap does not mean that it cannot and has not been positively identified.


Gee, I guess an actual investigation, chain of custody, and documentation would have cleared that up. Strike 999 for the USG in this respect.



[edit on 10/28/2008 by Griff]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Gee, I guess an actual investigation, chain of custody, and documentation would have cleared that up. Strike 999 for the USG in this respect.

Try to look at this from the other perspective Griff. There are over 100 eyewitness accounts indicating the plane impacted the building, 20+ of which identified the plane as an American Airlines jet. There was extensive impact damage to The Pentagon as well as large amounts of debris and fire.

Not only this, but earlier that day, two airliners had impacted WTC1 and 2 and a single group had been implicated in all of this.

I appreciate that it's possible to look back with hindsight and say "ah, this was not conclusively proven", but that is of little actual value. Some people are beyond convincing (see the rest of this thread) on the topic, and some people require no convincing at all.

I don't entirely disagree with you in that some documentation from maintenance records would be useful, but I think it's highly unlikely that anyone seriously questioned the type or identity of the plane in this manner until these conspiracies became popular. Indeed many of the early claims we now know to be false (hole was too small, 6 reinforced concrete walls etc) but these requirements remain.

Regardless of these questions, unless you are one of the aforementioned people who are beyond convincing, there can be no doubt that there is far more physical, eyewitness, circumstantial and documentary evidence to suggest AA77 impacted The Pentagon. I made a list earlier on in the thread and in fact SPreston made the perfect case against this theory by listing all the requirements for planted or faked data, far more than his theory has in support.

Please try and see things from the investigator's point of view, it might help you to understand why this evidence isn't available.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
What are you talking about!? Just because you and I do not understand the picture does not mean it is of no meaning or value. That is why I asked for a professional. Not you.

Also, stay on topic, we are discussing this picture, not your opinion of the 911 phenomena as a whole. Though I know you like to talk about it.



...And all pictures of the pentagon could be completely fabricated. This is based on conjecture like your posts. I never said this was from 77. I just thought it looked like a serial number so I asked a professional or someone with experience to analyze it.

Just because the picture is only seen in a book does not make it false. That makes no sense.

You keep begging the question using the 'fact' that wreckage was planted on pentagon lawn as grounding for your argument. If you tell me to prove that it was not, and if I can't, therefore you can say that your case must be true, that is called an argument from ignorance.

I asked for someone with a background in analyzing photos because I was curious about what it meant. It looks like it could be a serial number and so I wanted someone who knew what they were talking about to analyze it.
I knew you would post anyway.

Your posts are what defy logic, not holes in the story. Those can be analyzed and further understood. Your analysis, I care not about.

What I want to see is tezzas response to the picture. While I do not always agree with his methods, I would enjoy his reaction.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Without meaning to be too snarky,


Right back atcha.


you are aware that Kevin McPadden changed his story from "heard a pulsed radio communication which was like a countdown" to "heard a countdown" right?


Has anyone reinterviewed the two firemen who claim to have seen the bodies? Would be interesting if what they say is exactly the same thing they said before.



Not only that but apparently the person listening to this countdown was with the Red Cross.


What does the red cross have to do with anything? If anything, what we have learned from 9/11 is that independent government agencies work independently from each other. Correct? This is not a slight on you but I would expect you not to understand since you are not from the US. Nor do you live in DC and know a plethora of people who work for the fed government.


There is quite a large difference between the two, and I am not aware of a second person indicating a countdown occured for WTC7?


I ment the firemen on video (more than two) who state to "get back, the building's about to blow" plus McPadden.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Hey this is fascinating and I am not being sarcastic but isn't the WTC countdown off topic from this thread about flight 77?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Has anyone reinterviewed the two firemen who claim to have seen the bodies? Would be interesting if what they say is exactly the same thing they said before.

I don't believe they have, but there is a world of difference between 'heard what sounded like a countdown' and 'heard a countdown'.


What does the red cross have to do with anything?

It's a further expansion of the conspiracy. We're supposed to believe that a radio broadcast was being picked up by people working for the Red Cross indicating that WTC7 was intentionally demolished and nobody has said anything? It strains credulity even if we ignore Mr McPadden's changing story.


I ment the firemen on video (more than two) who state to "get back, the building's about to blow" plus McPadden.

Firefighters were evacuated from the area around WTC7 up to 3 hours before it actually collapsed. I've also heard it argued that "blow up" is actually used in firefighter circles to indicate a fire increasing in intensity, but it wouldn't make a huge amount of sense in this situation so I think they likely meant it was about to collapse. Did these videos include the actual collapse after they said that, because as far as I know there's no information about timing.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join