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: 23
7
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
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.


And I can give you thousands of eyewitness accounts of UFOs and even abduction from said craft/beings. Does that make it so?


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.


Very astute that you mention that Al Quieda was implicated well before even the pentagon strike. You may just turn out to be a "twoofer" after all.


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.


Little actual value? We went to 2, count them 2 freeking wars over this. Not to mention the rights that I as a citizen of the US have lost. Little actual value. That statement right there has insulted me and my intellegence. Thank you very much.


Some people are beyond convincing (see the rest of this thread) on the topic, and some people require no convincing at all.


Again. An astute observation.


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.


So, we just willy nilly threw out all protocall in investigations because we "knew" it was Al-Quieda from the start? No offense, but IMO that makes it more suspicious to me.


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.


Let me ask. Is it impossible that the parts were planted before hand? Really truelly impossible?


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


I am tryng to see this from an investigator's point of view. I investigate buildings. Do you really think I'd get away with saying "Well, I knew the brick was going to fall on your head, but I just assumed it was a waste of my time to document it."? Do you really think I'd get away with that? Then why have they?




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by newagent89

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


Not when it correlates to 2 eyewitnesses without any back-up proof. So, I think I'm quite within the realm of the original topic thanks very much.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Did these videos include the actual collapse after they said that, because as far as I know there's no information about timing.


But yet, you'll believe a picture of some piece of aluminum that allegedly has some AA marking on it without the same amount of scrutiny? Hmmm.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
And I can give you thousands of eyewitness accounts of UFOs and even abduction from said craft/beings. Does that make it so?

This is a difficult question to respond to! In fact I suspect my response to this will be longer than anything else.

Yes and no is the answer!

Lets first define what a UFO is in this context. It is simply an unidentified flying object, not any sort of 'alien ship' or anything of that nature. In this situation then I would be more than happy to agree that in fact there are many verifiable eyewitness accounts of seeing UFOs. I doubt you can give me around 100 eyewitnesses to a single event whos accounts match within a reasonable standard of error, but like I said this is a hard question to answer!

With regards to abductions, these are generally individual accounts and as such would be unlikely to be corroborated as above, but again it's entirely possible that the person claiming such a thing did experience what they state, but there's no guarantee that it actually happened.

Let me put an alternate proposition to you. Near Death Experiences. There are also thousands of eyewitnesses to these, do they occur? The evidence we have suggests that they are in fact a chemically initiated hallucination, but I know at least two people who've had their lives changed by one. "Real" is a hard thing to test


Incidentally, Multiple Personality Disorder is another good example. It's now believed that this does not in fact exist, and is a result of influences from other sources.


Very astute that you mention that Al Quieda was implicated well before even the pentagon strike. You may just turn out to be a "twoofer" after all.

Indeed they had, although I doubt that makes me any sort of truther (lets be fair, I have rarely if ever used the term 'twoofer', I am quite polite usually!). Al Qaeda were well known terrorists before 9/11, for example the USS Cole bombing a year previous.


Little actual value? We went to 2, count them 2 freeking wars over this. Not to mention the rights that I as a citizen of the US have lost. Little actual value. That statement right there has insulted me and my intellegence. Thank you very much.

Not at all, and your indignation aside, I don't support the Iraq war nor many of the actions of the US government since. However this has nothing to do with the questions you are asking! You should direct your anger at your government and vote for Obama rather than directing it at me.


So, we just willy nilly threw out all protocall in investigations because we "knew" it was Al-Quieda from the start? No offense, but IMO that makes it more suspicious to me.

This is a good question, but one that has not been answered well by either side. was there really a protocol in place for investigating a terrorist bombing using an aircraft? Is there any aircraft incident protocol which requires that photographs of deceased people be released to the public, their coroners reports, or the serial numbers and maintainance logs of the aircraft involved? I have yet to see any such protocol and indeed I suspect none exists. I can think of no incident in modern history where an aircraft's identity has been under as much scrutiny as certain truthers are attempting to focus on AA77.


Let me ask. Is it impossible that the parts were planted before hand? Really truelly impossible?

Another tricky question! Of course taking the scientific view of things, I must inherently say that no, it is not impossible to plant plane parts beforehand. Craig (CIT) has even invented the idea of specially sealed rooms as part of the renovation where this debris was stored and faked column impacts were prepared. However, using this logic it is equally impossible that a (civilian) renovation contractor, or one of the hundreds or thousands of people involved would not have noticed this activity. What matters most is what we have evidence for, and at this point there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any specially sealed rooms, or any planted debris.


I am tryng to see this from an investigator's point of view. I investigate buildings. Do you really think I'd get away with saying "Well, I knew the brick was going to fall on your head, but I just assumed it was a waste of my time to document it."? Do you really think I'd get away with that? Then why have they?

I don't think they have! I don't even think your analogy is valid. Let me try and make one that I think is more valid.

Imagine you are called out to investigate a building failure, the building is a moderate (say 8 floor) structure and underwent an impact from say a large truck. This large truck damaged two critical support columns, leading to a collapse of part of the building. As an investigator, you would obviously be able to calculate whether the removal of two support columns would have caused this collapse, and you would be able to inspect the columns themselves.

Imagine then, a few years later, a local journalist interviews a few people who saw the crash, and they all indicate that the truck passed on the opposite side of a line of bollards, making it impossible for it to have hit both of these support columns. They claim that in fact the support columns were taken out by explosives, and then removed from the site before you arrived and the ones you inspected were faked.

Tell me, would you have recorded the serial numbers or stamping details of such columns in order to verify they were actually the columns that were in place when the building was constructed, or do you simply assume that as they match the details, were found embedded in the front of the truck and their removal would cause failure, that they were the correct columns?

Even if you had recorded stamping details or serial numbers, what is stopping this local journalist from claiming you are part of the conspiracy to destroy this building and that you have faked the records indicating the serial numbers match? How could you possibly exonerate yourself? This is analogous to the situation at The Pentagon as I see it.

I have run out of characters in this post, and I am probably going to go get some sleep shortly, but I hope I have answered some of your questions well! I appreciate you asking them in a reasoned and patient manner.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by newagent89
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.

There's a lot of people who enjoy my reactions... hmmm, but I won't go there. I don't want to excite too many of you all at once.

As I have stated to Reheat before, in regards to that picture:
Who took it?
Where was it taken?
What date and time was it taken?
What is it supposed to be?

It looks like an unidentifiable piece of scrap metal to me. I'm not an expert in identifying scrap pieces of metal from unverified pictures, so I can't be of any further use to you, sorry.

One thing it does not show, is bodies strapped to airline seats.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

So far we are up to 23 pages and no proof of bodies strap in their seats.
If there where any truth to any of this, the debunkers would have found it by now.

Tezzajw, you posted a great thread, and you have proven who ever made the statement, their where bodies found in their airplane seats, had lied.





[edit on 10/29/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I can look deeper, but apparently, some have said that it is a piece of the power supply for the emergency lights.

Like I said before, I would like a professional or at least quite experienced opinion on this picture.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

posted by newagent89
I can look deeper, but apparently, some have said that it is a piece of the power supply for the emergency lights.

Like I said before, I would like a professional or at least quite experienced opinion on this picture.

So did you determine the entire 'serial number' of the piece of scrap? No?

Then the piece of scrap is quite useless even to an 'expert' because there would be no possible way to determine what exact aircraft tail# the piece of scrap came off of, without the entire 'serial number'.



Obviously this piece is not from Flight 77 tail #N644AA or the Defense Department would have taken a higher quality photo of it to display in their official propaganda book. Or the piece of scrap would have been presented to the public long before 6 years had gone by, so they could take a decent photo of it.

I wonder why the Defense Department did not place a photo of a Flight 77 passenger strapped in his seat and burned up, in their propaganda book? Then it would be much easier for disinformation specialists to back-up their lies.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   


I wonder why the Defense Department did not place a photo of a Flight 77 passenger strapped in his seat and burned up, in their propaganda book? Then it would be much easier for disinformation specialists to back-up their lies.

You say: "I wonder." You say: "obviously". You say: "would have".

This is conjecture. You are wasting space.

Stop posting on this, SPreston. I hate to repeat myself. So, for the last time, I ask for an expert on analyzing pictures. Not you. You may not set any standards for what is and is not good evidence. The reason that I do not post on what the serial number says is because I am not so rash as to assume I know exactly what every figure on that bar says. Is it an 8 or a B? That is why I asked for a professional: someone who knows how to look at a picture and determine what exactly it is we are looking at.

Again you are begging the question all over the place. Notice how the rest of us are careful and say things like 'alleged' when posting on everything pertaining to this topic. You keep saying things like 'lies' and 'propaganda'. That gets us nowhere.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

posted by newagent89
Stop posting on this, SPreston. I hate to repeat myself. So, for the last time, I ask for an expert on analyzing pictures. Not you. You may not set any standards for what is and is not good evidence. The reason that I do not post on what the serial number says is because I am not so rash as to assume I know exactly what every figure on that bar says. Is it an 8 or a B? That is why I asked for a professional: someone who knows how to look at a picture and determine what exactly it is we are looking at.

You posted the paper picture expecting to get away with it unchallenged. Why is there no actual photo? Why did it suddenly appear in 2006? Where is this mystery object? Where is this 8 or B you see? I see M - two characters which do not look like a number or letter - 5 - 5(or S) - 3 - 7(or 9) - 1 - can't tell what that is - 4 - and a smudge. Do you think the smudge is a 8 or B?


It is a piece of garbage stuck in with more garbage in a Defense Department propaganda book. And you and Diane Putne think this unidentified piece of scrap proves Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
This piece of metal has nothing to do with the topic, which is Bodies strapped to seats on AA77, Pentagon? So please stay on topic instead of discussing each other.

Courtesy Is Mandatory



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink

Tezzajw, you posted a great thread, and you have proven who ever made the statement, their where bodies found in their airplane seats, had lied.


There were actually two statements by first responders. Tezz has not proved that ANYONE has "lied."

In 23 pages, there has been nothing to confirm either side of the argument.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
In 23 pages, there has been nothing to confirm either side of the argument.

Correction, ThroatYogurt.

In 23 pages, no one has been able to support the claim that there were bodies found strapped to airline seats. There is no requirement to prove that bodies were not found strapped to airline seats. That is not the claim being made.

Some believers in the official story made the claim about bodies being strapped to airline seats, but they can not support it. Please, don't put your own incorrect 'spin' on this fact.

Remember, by page 8 of this thread, you and two others admitted that you could not prove there were bodies found strapped to airline seats. The remaining 15 pages has been filler material that's scored me more points.

Thanks for posting.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Was Cashlinks post accurate??? That's who I responding to when he called the two eyewitnesses liars.

You did not prove ANYONE was lying.

Two eyewitness stated they saw bodies in airplane seats. There has yet to be anyone to confirm or refute their statements.

The spinning isn't on my side sir... you are leading this dance.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
You did not prove ANYONE was lying.

I don't have to prove that witnesses were lying, ThroatYogurt. YOU have to prove that they were telling the truth.

So, where is the documented proof that clearly shows there were bodies strapped to airline seats?

Again, by page 8, you admitted that you could not prove this.

Game over, thanks for playing.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't have to prove that witnesses were lying, ThroatYogurt. YOU have to prove that they were telling the truth.

The burden of proof is on neither of you. I made the original claim that two witnesses saw bodies strapped into seats. This was later backed up by the actual two witness statements.

Nobody lied.


So, where is the documented proof that clearly shows there were bodies strapped to airline seats?

Again, by page 8, you admitted that you could not prove this.

Unfortunately by your standard of evidence, nothing about 911 can be proven, so we are back to square one.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You seem to be right on this. All this thread has become is a nonconstructive debate. The matter we initially set out on has been cleared up to the best of the poster's abilities. Until more research is done or something new comes out, I suggest that this forum be left alone for a while. All it is doing is becoming another 9/11 debate thread that is way off topic. Sorry tezza but no more points on this thread for u from me. I've degenerated into arguing with 'you know who'.

I will admit though, this thread has an interesting topic. But for a while there will be no answers.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
The burden of proof is on neither of you. I made the original claim that two witnesses saw bodies strapped into seats. This was later backed up by the actual two witness statements.

exponent, that is not proof of anything. It is a witness statement.

You chastised SPreston on the 'Evidence of Explosions' thread when he posted a claim made by another person.

Originally posted by exponent
Can you not defend your own posts? I was under the impression that there was evidence available. If you understand it, surely you can present it.

You have posted that people saw bodies strapped to airline seats. I challenged you to support that, with proof, in this thread and you've failed to do so. You can't defend your own post about bodies being found strapped to airline seats.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


*sighs*

Spin it all you want Tezz... I don't get dizzy. There was a plane the was witnessed hitting the Pentagon on 911. While searching for survivors, not one but two first responders from different companies spoke of passengers still strapped in airplane seats.

This does not prove:

A. Beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is fact.

or

B. That they were both making it up.

This thread has accomplished nothing but given you a few points, as you mentioned previously.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by newagent89
Sorry tezza but no more points on this thread for u from me. I've degenerated into arguing with 'you know who'.

I can't understand why this thread has progressed from page 8 onwards The point was made way back then.

I'm not the one keeping the thread alive. Every time I check, it gets bounced back up top again by another 'believer' without offering any proof that there were bodies found strapped to airline seats.

It's really highlighted their methodology and how hypocritical they can be.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join