It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 Commissioner slips up, says missile hit Pentagon

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:41 PM
...I'm also getting pretty sick and tired of those who are either ignorant of the facts, or purposely using "BS to baffle..."

We know those tremendously,nay, searinglywhite hot WTC1and2 buildings were in fact not hot at all....remember the pics of those sorry people waving for help standing in the holes of the buildings??

they never had any foam Delta....wheres all this heat you rattled on about???

In your first sentence you bemoaned how some people "create lies and conspiracys in order to shelter themselves away from the real world.."

were you perhaps looking in the mirror as you typed that??

Stop lying....stop...

[edit on 10-1-2009 by benoni]

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:50 PM
Mis information at it's finest... If you were them, wouldn't you put a bunch of bull # out there on the web to confuse the truth, which in a lot of cases results in stereo types like "conspiracy nut"

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by stealthAUS

Sorry, I don't buy it.

There term missile was used in that sentence as it is normally understood. Otherwise why would he have used the word airplane for the others. But then I didn't post the entire paragraph and maybe you didn't read the link.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:58 PM
reply to post by cluckerspud

I am not going to include a picture of a missile and a picture of a plane, that would be too juvenile.

Although juvenile, I believe it may be needed soon. They don't seem to get it. It must be something in the training they receive? I didn't start to actually think until I left the military after 26yrs. These guys are still in even the retired ones.

There is enough evidence to tell you exactly what they meant. They are responsible for 9/11...

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:03 AM
"The Paradigm Shift," you are right. I have seen dozens upon dozens of photo's of airplane crashes throughout history, because I have always been fascinated by aircraft disasters all my life. Anyway, in all of those photo's, there is always a "wing," or a "tail section," or the "nose" and where the pilots sit(fuselage), but, in the photo's of the Pentagon, where's the tail section, where's the wings, where's the fuselage, where's the landing gear, where, where are all these things??? "THEY ARE NOT TO BE FOUND," because it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, "not" an airplane. I questioned this on "911" when the tv showed photo's. I thought, "Where are the airplane parts, do they think I am stupid?" I am smarter than the idiots who are trying to cover this up, so, 911 was an inside job, plain and simple, and don't give a "sh*t" if Big Brother likes my findings or not. It is true, for a "missile" hit the Pentagon, "not" an airplane!

Our government covered up the killing of its own president, so what is the problem with believing this?

~ Lonelypoet

reply to post by TheParadigmShift

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:10 AM
Watch Loose Change again,
Watch Zero 9/11,
Watch 9/11 coincidences,
Watch Terrorstorm,

Bush mentions explosives in the WTC, the pentagon was a missile, Flight 93 was shot down...this is all out of the horse's mouth.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:12 AM
sorry but my memory doesnt seem to serve me right now , but was there a black box found in the pentagon strike ? And if I remember correctly there are quite a few cameras that apparently were either out of order or missing from pentagon security . I seen the vid of the pentagon strike , the object in that brief clip was A) too small to be an airliner , B) way to low to the ground to be an airliner and C) showed no wings nor the very obvious tail that these airliners have. And with those three observations and the obvious missing debris , I am inclined to believe that maybe a cruise missle with conventional payload. But no way an airliner.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:32 AM
I admittedly don't know much about the 9/11 conspiracy...but i do have a question. Where there any witnesses that are 'on the record' to actually seeing the plane crash into the pentagon? The reason I ask is that I don't think i've seen anything....but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Edit for typos

[edit on 11-1-2009 by David9176]

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:36 AM
Black Knight, you are exactly right, "NO WAY that it could have been an airliner, because I have watched those film clips over and over and over, and I am sorry, that was "NO AIRLINER!" NO WAY! I was in the miltary for 4 years back in the 80's, was a "trained observer," and there is no way in hell that was an airliner that hit the Pentagon. NO WAY!!!

This is a massive coverup, and they can explain it one million times, and I still won't believe them! That was no airliner!

Sad, that we pay taxes to an "F'ing Government" which would do this sort of thing, just hope that there are special places in Hell for them, Bush too, all the Bushes, and Cheney, and all the others in on it! I hope they all "roast in Hell!"

~ Lonelypoet

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:36 AM
reply to post by ANOK

"Because you take the words 'controlled demolition' too literally? Because 'hundreds' of explosives is an"

Yet, it is O.K. for you 9/11 truther's to take everything ELSE literally! Ex: "Since when is a plane a missile ? The last I heard, a plane is a plane and a missile is a missile!!"

Well which is it? Literal or not? You can't have it both ways!!

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:40 AM
David9176, you also ask a very legitimate question, and that is, "Where are all the friggin' witnesses for the Pentagon crash??? None, None, None, they don't exist, because it was "a missile!"

Sad, but true! Our government did all this!!!!!!

~ Lonelypoet

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:43 AM
Paxnatus, watch the video which shows the supposed plane that hits the Pentagon, and look at all the videos of the aftermath of the Pentagon, and tell me if you see a tail-section, a wing, a fuselage, an engine, you see "NOTHING!"


~ Lonelypoet

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:45 AM
reply to post by Lonelypoet

None, None, None, they don't exist,

Seriously? Zero? That's tough to's not like the Pentagon is in on the dark side of the moon. You would think someone would have seen something with their own eyes. What about a photograph? Anything?

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:49 AM

Originally posted by stealthAUS
definition of missile:
source oxford online dictonary:


• noun

1 an object which is forcibly propelled at a target.

2 a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote control, carrying conventional or nuclear explosive.

"an object which is forcibly propelled at a target."
proof that an aeroplane can be used as a missile. some earlier missiles before the design of the crusiform shape liked very much like UAV's with a charge on them.
also in saying that anything from throwing a rock to a dart is classified as a missile.

I've never heard anyone accidentally call a missile "a plane" and likewise I've definitely never heard anyone accidentally called a plane "a missile". I doubt 9/11 is any exception... if our Secretary of State said it was a missile then he said that on purpose to mean missile. My personal belief is that it was said on purpose to throw off conspiracy theorists to think there was no plane that hit the Pentagon when in fact there was a plane that hit the pentagon. The only way I can imagine that he would accidentally refer to it as a missile is if it were laden with a whole lot of explosives... in that case a slip-up would be understandable.

I challenge anyone who believes otherwise to point to a single instance in the entire history of news in any location, country, or language, to find a statement where a passenger plane is called a missile, or a missile is called a passenger plane. If a dictionary says that a passenger jet is a missile then the dictionary needs to be written better because people simply do not call planes "missiles".

[edit on 11-1-2009 by truthquest]

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by ANOK

What if they used just ONE device? Have you ever thought of that possibility? You do know of that possibility right?

Further to the one bomb in each tower theory, I assume you remember the attack in 1993?

A 680kg car bomb was used, it opened a 30-m (98 ft) wide hole through four sublevels of concrete.

This didn't bring down the WTC did it?

So somehow a bomb LARGER than 680kgs got smuggled into each tower ready to detonate after they fly a plane into them? Not only do they need to get the bombs into the towers they have to get them up to the floors that are near the planes impacts. Because this is where the buildings start to fall isn't it?
How did they know which tower to detonate first? How did they know that the planes were going to hit where they wanted them to?

Why even bother with the planes? Why not just set off an even bigger car bomb? wouldn't it look less suspicious?

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:00 AM
reply to post by Chadwickus

You're probably better off taking the 'explosions in the towers talk' to a more appropriate thread. It's kind of deviating from the slip-ups that were mentioned in the original post.

Read it again, Bush said there were explosives in the towers. It might have been the truest words that he ever spoke in eight years. Who knows, huh?

[edit on 11-1-2009 by tezzajw]

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:01 AM
No one said a "bomb" larger than 680KG's was smuggled in.... did...

you seem to be arguing/ debating yourself!!

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Lonelypoet
Paxnatus, watch the video which shows the supposed plane that hits the Pentagon, and look at all the videos of the aftermath of the Pentagon, and tell me if you see a tail-section, a wing, a fuselage, an engine, you see "NOTHING!"


~ Lonelypoet

I don't have to. I know what I believe!! I believe many Americans and foreigners died that day! I believe that all the speculating in the world won't
bring those people back!

Here's what I know!! It is disgraceful and distasteful to drag the actions of that day through the dirt over and over again with absolutely ZERO PROOF whatsoever! Unless you were there, you cannot say for sure!

Have some respect for the victims families. These were not crash test dummies on these planes and in these buildings. These were mother's, father's, son's, daughter's, sister's, brother's, aunts, uncles and friends!!
These were real people with real lives!! So stop grasping at straws here!!

You people don't want the truth. You want to believe it is true! You want this
to be the biggest conspiracy of all time! Quite sad really!

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:07 AM
TruthQuest, I don't care what he(Rumsfeld) called it, where are the "scores of witnesses" who should have seen this "huge plane?" Where are they? A missile proves a conspiracy, because they said a plane hit the Pentagon, but the video "they released" was a "missile." DUH!!!! Watch the video the "government" released! A "missile" hit the Pentagon!!!! Do you believe everything they say? Hello? Are you believing what the "conspirators" are telling you, the very people who are behind the conspiracy???? I am aghast at your ignorance!!!!!!!!!!

~ Lonelypoet

reply to post by truthquest

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:10 AM
You don't have to? You know what you believe???? OMG!!!! You are sooooo blind!!!!!! Many Americans died that day because "our government" planned one of the biggest "cover-ups" in the history of the world!!!!!!!

~ Lonelypoet

reply to post by paxnatus

new topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in