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 Commissioner slips up, says missile hit Pentagon

page: 8
50
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
A point not yet raised on this topic,in relation to 'plane' vs. 'missile' at the pentagon.
A Boeing commercial airplane is pulled through the air by the two engines,no?There were no marks on the wall or lawn of the building caused by the engines.The explanation proffered by TPTB was that the wings(and attached engines)folded back and were sucked through the hole by the inertia of the fuselage.Hence,no external debris.The primary force involved with the forward momentum(2 engines) were also the most sturdily constructed and dense part of the plane,with plenty of very high temp. alloys including titanium.How did they get folded back if they were pulling the plane forward?That is COMPLETELY backward!The rest of the plane would have been peeled from the engines,which would have been what went into the target.There should have been two holes,one for each engine,and everything BUT the engines all over the lawn.And TWO not the one engine ought to have been found.The finding of one engine is only explained by a one engine UFO,and that has to be a cruise missile,not a boeing airliner with two.Engines do not disappear,they do not melt or disintegrate,especially one of two.Lonely poet,we have been hashing this out for years here on ATS and primary emotions have been used but not depleted.I was one of the first to raise the claim of inside job,as I was on a talk show right when the first plane hit,on a completely different topic,and called it as it happened,live on the air.Been ranting to all who were in earshot ever since.I only calmed down my rhetoric when I saw how the other side used my passion against me,we're right and yelling only plays into their court where we lose.




posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Rumsfeld also screwed up right after 911 mentioning a missile as well. It's all in the official interview transcript here:

www.defenselink.mil...

Even the best liars can't remember and keep track of everything all the time



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonelypoet
I had friends who died that day, and there is not one government agency powerful enough to shut my mouth, because I will ruin all their days very quickly if they "F" with me!!!!!



You are obviously new here and do not understand how things are discussed on ATS! We, no matter what the subject matter speak to one another with civility and respect!! Feeling passionate about a topic does not excuse over emotional responses such as 'name calling', Telling someone to'SHUT UP',
or making threats to ANYONE!!

You are no different! We all feel passionate about what happened on 9/11.
In order to voice an opinion and be heard, we must demonstrate self control.

Please take a step back, and think before you post!! We are a friendly bunch here and I feel you would bring a lot to ATS if you would just calm down.

I'm not calling you out or attacking you. I apologize if I have offended you in any way. Just trying to give you a heads-up

Pax



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project Delta

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
You don't remember correctly. Actually, you're making it all up. Not only were there no firefighters in WTC 7 the entire afternoon, there was no water pressure and thus no firefighting efforts. But you are right that WTC 7's collapse was highly implausible. It even took NIST 7 years and the creation of a new science principle to explain!

And to think that Larry Silverstein had the authority to "pull" any FDNY firefighters out of any building while at home watching TV is so absurd, it's beyond laughable.

Besides WTC 7, the only thing Silverstein was pulling on 9/11 was his pud while he fantasized about his insurance profits.


Firefighters were indeed near WTC 7 at the time of the collapse. Hence the Evacuation order. And yes they didn't have enough water pressure therefore they had to run supply lines via boat from the river.


"In" and "near" aren't the same, are they?

So yes, you're making it up as you go. There were NO firefighters IN WTC 7, nor were there any firefighting efforts, which would've extinguished the minor WTC 7 fires within minutes.

And thanks for the government 9/11 debunking link, but I can think for myself and plainly understand the difference between a building that's been "pulled" (demolition term) and one that's "collapsed." Besides the free-fall speeds, you don't see demolition squibs coming out of the windows of buildings that have "collapsed!"



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

Originally posted by Trolloks
fine, you saw the planes, but your still avoiding answering the question.

How can 2 planes bring down 3 buildings??


And how can three buildings be gutted and weakened then rigged with hundreds of explosives without anyone noticing?

Here's whats involved in a controlled demolition:

Vegas Demolition

Miami Hotel
I believe that explosives can be set off by wireless remote control. Everyone knows that government tech is decades ahead of what the public knows about. Who is to say the Government doesn't have explosives that can be installed in seconds, and a switch to activate the device? Weren't there power downs of unprecedented proportions just a few weeks prior to 9/11? Bomb sniffing dogs removed also?

Who knows, maybe the building could have been planted with explosives in a matter of a few hours, using a type of explosive we haven't a clue about.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
...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]


I'm tired of people who are only looking into the situation only halfy. If you have done research the main goal at the Towers that day was not to fight the fire first, it was to Evacuate the building as best they could and then begin Fire Suppression. In majority of the videos of the Twin Towers on fire you can see major fire (which creates major heat) on the corner of the Towers. This intensive heat thus caused the steel to bend once this occured the structure was weakened.

As for Foam Operations. It is basic Firefighting against jet fuel situations, learn more before you go bashing.

en.wikipedia.org...

I agree the entire day is "strange" especially the Pentagon and the crashing of Flight 93. As many people have said it doesn't look good on the Governments behalf by taking away evidence of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Project Delta]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
: )

having looked at that video, scrolled slowly, frame by frame and kept an open mind i can categorically state that there is no aeroplane in that explosion. perhaps we have been fed some pro-conspiracy counter-propaganda; the film does jump like it's been edited together but from the evidence supplied, and as this thread relates specifically to the footage we've all looked at. there is no plane on that clip.

also, as an aside, i have noticed people counter claiming that the PA plane that was allegedly shot down disintegrated over a considerable area, which is probably entirely correct for that scenario. however, what caused the massive hole in the ground? from the evidence i've seen there is clearly not enough plane debris around the site of that crater in the ground.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Project Delta
 

NO! The thick black smokey,orange,quickly spent from all visible evidence fireball was NOT hot enough to do sufficient thermal expansion and/or weakening of the massive steel columns which were designed to withstand just such scenario to cause any collapse,especially completely symmetrically at free fall speed.Think blue,barely visible in daylight flame,no smoke.And,by the way a blue flame doesn't naturally sustain that temp in the center of an (obviously)oxygen starved fire.Try again.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

Originally posted by Trolloks
fine, you saw the planes, but your still avoiding answering the question.

How can 2 planes bring down 3 buildings??


And how can three buildings be gutted and weakened then rigged with hundreds of explosives without anyone noticing?

Here's whats involved in a controlled demolition:

Vegas Demolition

Miami Hotel


Are you for real??? Dress down into a uniform and a clipboard, haul around apparent cleaning supplies or HVAC/ LVAC sytems and components, etc. and see how many uppity middle- high end, and high class, people. who'll make more in one year than you'll likely make in 5, 10, 20, or more years of your life. really take notice of you and the services you're seemingly doing to make their office, bathroom, childcare, dining services and the like better for them. And security, a joke. They recieve a list of authorized contractors and individuals who are allowed to come and go freely after initial presentation of their right to access and, generally, after an initial daily half- a$$ed search of their tools and equipment. What about renovations, internal and external. What about brick, stone, concrete or other building materials? Which staff member verified they weren't constructed, either away or on-site, as an explosive material placed in key locations and wired through the immense jungle of wires and circuits? I could think of ways to do it all day. The planes are not solid constructions, but rather, riveted sheets of light durable metal alloys, not heavy crash through concrete and steel at high speed candidates. How many Japanese pilots exploded on the decks of carriers and ships, blowing holes in the structures maybe, but not the entire vessel, just enough to sink it. Now, apply that to the immensely thick and vast concrete and steel of the Towers. Enough to blow a hole in it, maybe, not enough to damage the overall structure. Certainly not the other 3 walls and center structural supports, much less the ones on higher or lower floors. And no water to sink it. The fire would have burned the inside, yes. Uncontrolled, burned the inside from top to bottom, yes. Burn the concrete and steel in the process, no. Charred, maybe. But it takes over several thousands of degrees of heat to burn metal. The metal structure is is sealed away within thick slabs of concrete several feet thick. Even assuming it was hot enough to warp and damage the structural metal in a way so as to cause the collapse of the upper floors- which were not damaged enough by a hole in the side to fall under their own weight- how on Earth did the fire A) Get hot enough to weaken and destroy the Concrete and B) still have enough intensity to destroy the steel? Even the plane fuel won't burn hot enough. The only thing that would is the insulation of the plane, which generally requires the likes of say a magnesium strip to light- and that requires a blowtorch to light it. Even if the insulation did ignite, it would have burned through the plane and combustables in the building, but, not the concrete, and therefore not through to the steel. Want proof? Look at the metal fires trainer (of which I am certified) at NTC Great Lakes. It is done by burning walls of airplane insulation and using AFFF to put it out. It is secured against a concrete wall with a steel structure interior which is way less thick than the WTC's. Throw some plane fuel on an abandoned concrete and steel building, line the walls with aircraft insulation of the same make and model of those planes sometime, ignite it and see what happens. I fail to see how the walls and papers and combustables within the building had enough to do anything but class A, B, or C fires. A class D fire did not occur in the way sold on TV. I'd dare experts and professionals all throughout the fields involved to recreate it on some old abandoned high-rise without an embedded controlled explosion.
What's more the NAVY should have been there, but, were off on a routine exercise, which was not routine as it had never been done before.
What's more, a 9/11 or 9/12 article in the NY Times (or was it one of the other major papers- I read so many, I forget) ran an article about how Saddam Husseins' potential rival to the Throne, oops, I mean, Presidency of Iraq was on the very floor, that day, with his entorauge, negotiating something or other at the WTC, which was hit by one of those planes (the 1st I believe it was). Almost seems as though he were the target all along and the rest a production to other ends.
Further, The Pentagon plane had to pull off a high speed turn to hit the wall it did rather than the wall that was presented to it along it's flight path. Ironic that the wing hit was conveniently under reoganization and was unoccupied, while the obvious and more attainable to a supposedly novice pilot was chock full of goodies.
And, as for the Pennsylvania flight, interesting that the passenger got off a cell phone call on the plane, while in flight, below cruising altitude, despite FAA regulations to the contrary. Why is that? Wasn't the regulation because it interfere's with communication or navigation systems, or something like that?? Maybe, the call downed the flight. But, a bullet? They were to low in the atmosphere for depressurization weren't they. And couldn't a well trained commercial pilot compensate for that and stabilize the plane if just high enough to be a concern.
Whole lotta unlikely's and maybe's in the whole thing to me.
And wasn't it always the Iranians hijacking planes. Al Quaeda up till' then pretty much stuck to coo's didn't they. I guess Osama tried the WTC before, but, like the Traitorous Prescott Bush and Heinz family (of whom John Kerry married into), among other top Corporate families who were found by Congress during the Snedley testimonies to attempt a military overthrow of FDR using 500,000 veterans, but, were not charged and were given a media blackout of their activities in exchange for repealing opposition to the New Deal, Osama was let go.
9/11 isn't the conspiracy. It's the symptom.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]

[edit on 11-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Nice now were back on track

It almost seems like their making a dystopia type of environment but why would they want us to be so worst off when we're more likely to let them rule because we're better off.

hmm seems almost like children of men (the book and movie combined)

For fear of going off topic i'll stop here unless a mod lets me.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
There is a photo of a taxi that was hit by a light pole. This light pole was hit by the pentagon missle,plane traveling at 500 mph and fell on the windshield of the taxi. If this is true then that means the taxi driver did not hear or see a commerical airliner traveling inches above the ground at 500 mph anywhere near his cab because there are no skid marks on the highway behind the taxi cab where he would have tried to stop. Also there is a cop pulling into the pentagons driveway about 4 seconds before the missle/plane hits the pentagon and he does not hear or see a commercial airliner traveling just inches above the ground at 500 mph 4 seconds behind him.
Please reinvestigate 9/11



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
And about old men and mendacity;liars do slip up and especially old ones.Much easier to tell the truth,as you can forget which story to tell to whom.As alzheimers/senility encroaches,we can expect more of those.Or deaths.Ever hear of the babblings of old folk/ patients giving up state secrets?If the masses truly are asses,it won't even matter.Unless a trained killer decides to do something about the shame that has been brought to his/her beloved country by this event.That is another reason why this forum is so great,ATS therapy,but one must always try to be positive.Rant,but not threaten.We love our country,that is why this exercise matters,even now,so long after the fact.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Whoops, did I say missile? I meant plane. Also I did not have sexual relations with that woman.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Or maybe it's not a slip up.
Years from now they can say "we always said it was a missile" and show proof on video of them saying "missile" and not "airplane".



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
Whoops, did I say missile? I meant plane. Also I did not have sexual relations with that woman.


Don't worry, I'm sure like Rumsfeld and that 9/11 Commissioner, you were just using "missile" as a metaphor.


And comparatively speaking, those sexual relations with that woman doesn't seem like such a big deal anymore.

I've got a new presidential motto: "Make Cigar Love, Not War."



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Quick question: If it was a missile that hit the pentagon and not a plane, what are the theories as to what happened to the fourth plane?

We have 4 airliners lost with all hands: 2 in the towers, 1 in a field, and according to the government, one in the pentagon. If it was really a missile that hit the pentagon, then where is the fourth plane and all the people who were supposed to be on it?

Surely they could just fly it out to the middle of the ocean and shoot it down, but to do so would invite the possibility of discovery of the debris.

So where is the fourth plane and the hundreds of people that were on it?



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ldunquist
 

Maybe there are clues from the 1960s Operation Northwoods documents?


An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MiG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization] radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the U.S. what has happened to the aircraft instead of the U.S. trying to "sell" the incident.



Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Well, certainly its within the government's power to do that, but in that scenario, they are letting the passengers go. Where is the value in that? Isn't the first thing they would do would be to call someone to pick them up at the airbase? Wouldn't someone question what the hell they were doing there instead of being on the plane that was just shot down over Cuba?

So then the logical answer is they would never leave the base they were flown to. OK, fair enough I suppose, but what about all the air traffic controllers and radar operators between here and there? Are they in on it too?



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
There are two things that can be done, well three...one:force the truth, two: create a thousand threads and a million t-shirts that say 9-11 was an inside job, or three: forget it. Do I think it's important? More important than blood in an animal or a spirit in a human body. Point is this: the current measures are not effective. Those who do not know, are covering their eyes while they say that they don't see anything deceptive, or they are just too terrified to see the true nature of this world. Neither one does anything to create change.

Does the Senate or Congress, or the President for that matter have any power in this matter? Not at all. Even those few who are a part of the "in crowd" are nothing but puppets. It has nothing to do with state, or country. This is a people that see only the planet as their playground. The problem with that to them is our solution... what they are attempting to do will be poured out on them a thousand fold. They have neglected to see that not only is this planet a living being, but Creation itself is the very mind of God! Not a god in any book written by those who were the first deceived, but the True ONE! No name, no measure, no Earthen history. It IS Creation itself. The Mind of God. Therefore I ask this: if Creation is the Mind of God, how mighty be it's Spirit? This Goddess Earth, which most do not even respect enough to capitalize is an atom on the greatness of the One. What are they really trying to gain? They are promised greatness from the same weakness that sadly attempts to overtake part of the Whole. They are trying to fulfill their own prophesy, while the tide rages on!



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
As far as people using the word missile to describe the planed used in the attacks, I don't know where you come up with the theory that no one would use that terminology, since the day that it happened and the week following, on the news, I heard that phrase used repeatedly to describe the planes and how they were used.

And as far as the plane goes, people saw it. Are you suggesting that the dozens of eye-witnesses are so stupid, that they cannot tell the difference between a jumbo jet and a missile? And where in the world did the plane go if a missile was used?



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join