It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Swing Dangler
ROFLMAO@ your post. Seriously? Farmer did a great job with the FOIA request. Kudos to him. But leg work behind a private investigation? You've ignored the entire body of CIT's work with your statement.
Thanks for the comedy.
Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
Since when do Jets at or near ground level leave contrails? That trail of smoke is the "Smoking Gun" that the Pentagon was hit by a missile..... After a bomb went off in the building.
This assertion is the account of April Gallop, an officer who survived the blast with her baby in tow after returning to her Accounting Office position from Maternity leave.
She escaped through the 16ft in diameter hole the missile left, making her way down through the lower floors filled with debris. No Airplane, no luggage, no passengers.
BTW, what happened to the 2.3 Trillion the Pentagon (Rumsfeld in a very peculiar Monday morning Press Conference in 9/10/01) couldn't account for the day before the " attacks".
In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.
Pentagon's finances in disarray
By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.
The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.
Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant's attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don't produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what's coming in and what's going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said.
Gee, wasn't that as convenient as all the SEC records destroyed on Corporate Fraud, WorldCom and ENRON in WTC building #7... I guess Hans Gruber was working on "Die Hard" overtime! "What's to search for"?
Mr Thomas, you are either one naive denialist or working from your post in Langley.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox
Please provide me the witness interviews he has conducted that refute the north side evidence.
In fact please provide ANY witness interviews that he has conducted at all.
Hint: Shinki Paik is not a witness.
Farmer has not provided a single shred of independent verifiable evidence.
He is nothing but a conduit for government data.
I wrote a letter to Bush asking him if 9/11 was an inside job.
He wrote back saying no.
Originally posted by rush969
OK. Let´s ask a few simple questions that make this conspiracy illogical.
1.- If we are going to say that AA77 crashed against the Pentagon killing the crew, passengers, and more than a hundred people in the building, but we are actually going to have a “flyover”, what must we do?
a.- We have to arrange the evidence.
b.- We must dispose of the bodies of those on the plane. (Crew and passengers. Hijackers not needed.)
c.- We have to take care of the FDR. (Flight data recorder.)
1.- If there is a “flyover” by the supposedly hijacked airliner, we will make sure we have lots of witnesses that will say, the plane crashed into the building, right? OK.
2.- If we are going to say that people in that plane died there, we have to kill those people somewhere, they have to be kidnapped and executed, right? Not easy but let´s say it can be done.
3.- If we are going to have the FDR appear in the "wreckage", we must decide one of two options:
3a.- The FDR is “unreadable” or destroyed. In this case, we are much better off, because there will be NO DATA to check. (Ideal solution.)
3b.- The FDR is OK. In this case, we must make sure, the data matches the official version of events. So the data will show the plane going in exactly where it is supposed to, at the exact speed it is supposed to, at the precise altitude it is supposed to. We would not under any circumstance allow data that provides proof of the flyover to reach the public. RIGHT???
[edit on 26-1-2009 by rush969]
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon Uh......did you even actually look at the link? youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ
Your linked video may not have the sound of a huge explosion but the one I linked to most assuredly does. That and the background racket of city noises should make it HARDER to discern the plane if it were flying anywhere near the speed your linked version is.
Uh.....considering that the plane wasn't visible in my linked video, I'm at a loss to figure out where that comment came from. Certainly the sound levels are consistent with the Naudet Brothers footage (unless you're suggesting that that footage was faked or somesuch). And that is indicative of a plane going considerably faster than the one you linked.
Uh huh! A magic trick that fools people who didn't even see the magic plane fly over the Pentagon after the "huge fireball and smoke screen" it would've flown through? Interesting.
No. I'm suggesting the speed of the plane was not what was reported in the 9/11 Commission Report based upon the eyewitness testimonies. I can't determine what the speeds were in the fly by videos. Hence the request.
Are you actually suggesting that the plane that hit the Pentagon was going closer to the speed of your link?
Sir, welcome to the fly over club. The altimeter from the FDR has the plane flying too high to hit the light poles and the Pentagon. That's the point! And when asked to clarify or provide explanation, the NTSB passed the buck to the FBI. And no answers have been provided to this day.
Because we know that selected non-expert eyewitnesses are to be believed more readily than expert witnesses, the FDR and radar tracking?
See my earlier post on perceptual/situational blindness and how it costs lives.
So....what? This is relevant because why?
Not at all. This is exactly why verifiable independent corroboration of eyewitness accounts on the record has to take place. In a court of law, how would anonymous accounts be viewed? Inadmissible? There are numerous accounts already of alleged impact witnesses who have since clarified that they didn't see impact
How do you forget the people who actually saw the plane crash into the building? Kind of inconvenient to your story, aren't they? You're saying all these people from every vantage point saw and heard an explosion and all their brains registered was that and not the airplane flying away that some would have undoubtedly seen? How do you address those whose view of actual explosion would've been blocked by the Pentagon yet don't report seeing a plane flying away. Unless the registration # was NCC-1701, there's just a teeny, tiny problem with that.
6. Why would a NCOIC recovery team member near the alleged impact hole write a letter in support of the Citizens Investigation Team?
You say. Colour me skeptical. I don't say.
Originally posted by CameronFox
It was assumed that the plane was damaged by one of the light poles.
Originally posted by GenRadek
So I suppose the fact that the engines were found inside the Pentagon means nothing to you?
Or the fact that the wing imprints were found on the side of Pentagon?
posted by fleabit
I think it's terribly ironic and sort of sad that truthers put this much stock and research and effort into ONE single witness. Yet, they can dismiss dozens of others witnesses out of hand who said they saw the jet strike the Pentagon.
Why don't you put as much effort into proving all those who said they saw the jet hit wrong instead? Oh wait.. I guess you guys did that. They interviewed less than half, and decided that was enough I guess.