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.

 

There Was No Missile At the Pentagon - But the Plane Did Not Hit

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Ligon
 


The physical evidence says a plane hit the Pentagon. Question the flight path if you wish, but the plane knocked over the light poles and hit the Pentagon and thousands of gallons of onboard fuel ignited. There is simply no evidence for anything else.
Witnesses don't have gyro compasses with alidades, local GPS, portable air search radar, or anything else other than estimates and guesswork. They could be wrong. If you like the NoC path, claim a sideslip and yaw to get to the light poles followed by a course correction. There was no outbound flyaway.




posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Please also provide locations and final disposition of all aircraft and passengers on Flight 77

You've got that around the wrong way, pteridine. If you think that Flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, then you've got to come up with the proof.

How about some of those part numbers to confirm it? There's a good researcher. Show us all how easily you can prove it.


Originally posted by pteridine
How did the cab drive to the its staging position while impaled by a light post?

See, now you're thinking. That's what we would all like to know. How did Lloyde manage to drive that taxi with a light post through the windshield?

Remember, pteridine, there's only ONE person in the world who claims that a light pole went through the taxi window and that's Lloyde.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Since you have all the answers, Tezzalini, why don't you explain how the fuel deflagration and explosions were staged. There's a good lad. Extra porridge for you.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Ligon
 

The physical evidence says a plane hit the Pentagon.


you mean like this?




or this missing frame evidence they actually claim proves AA77 or any plane hit the pentagon?

www.youtube.com...

so the physical evidence proves a plane hit the pentagon?

what physical evidence are you referring to? cos this simple analysis destroys your poor excuse for an argument and PROVES OTHERWISE.

www.youtube.com...

if what you claim is true, please show exactly how and where whats presented, is wrong.


Originally posted by pteridine
Question the flight path if you wish, but the plane knocked over the light poles and hit the Pentagon


and what EVIDENCE or PROOF do you have to support that ludicrous assertion?

of course the only possible evidence you have is really based on speculation and blind faith trust the official CONSPIRACY THEORY which anyone with a brain knows has NEVER PROVEN ANYTHING.

what has been PROVEN beyond a doubt though, is the NOC flight path.

the EVIDENCE and FACTS proving NOC far outweighs the evidence for the SOC fairy tale.


Originally posted by pteridine
and thousands of gallons of onboard fuel ignited. There is simply no evidence for anything else.


Then answer these two posts...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

this video speaks for itself and contains IRREFUTABLE evidence and facts that destroys your ill-conceived logic.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 

Your bombastic statements are no substitute for logic and reason. You show a photo of an exit hole and talk about a plane fitting through it. Maybe it was the exit of a heavy part of the plane like an engine or landing gear. It certainly argues against a missile strike. The landing gear and engine found outside of E ring are evidence for a plane. There is no evidence for a missile.
The assertation that the planes knocked over the light poles is supported by the trail of fallen poles leading to the impact point. The way this works, Trix, is that the individual claiming extraordinary circumstance has to prove that it didn't happen the way it appeared to have happened. That means that you have to show that the evidence was planted, that the cab impaled by the light pole was placed there, somehow, and that all those witnesses post event statements are more accurate than the physical evidence. None of the CTer's have managed to do any of that.
The NoC hasn't been proven beyond a doubt. Some witnesses say one thing and some say another. That is not proof of anything other than that they all saw something from different vantage points. Many of those witnesses say that plane hit, but are conveniently ignored when it comes to that and a few confused folks who think that they saw a plane flying away are trotted out and made into paragons of truth.
Explain, if you can, the lack of evidence of any explosives, the lack of evidence of any large fuel tanks internal and external to the building, and the lack of evidence that the aircraft was anywhere else after the event. You can't, of course, and your friends can't either. The more they conjure to make things fit their predetermined conclusion, the more ridiculous the story gets.
It is their ill-conceived non-logic that doesn't even make a start at explaining the events of the day much less destroy any other arguments. When you are older and have a few years of college behind you, you'll realize how you were duped into following the "some group for truth" folks.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

posted by pteridine
How did the cab drive to the its staging position while impaled by a light post?


posted by tezzajw
See, now you're thinking. That's what we would all like to know. How did Lloyde manage to drive that taxi with a light post through the windshield?

Remember, pteridine, there's only ONE person in the world who claims that a light pole went through the taxi window and that's Lloyde.


The plane did not hit; no evidence of an aircraft out on the lawn or at the light poles. The actual aircraft was north of the downed five light poles and Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo gas station and above the light poles and overhead highway sign in its path, and could not possibly have struck these light poles.



Lots of photos; but not one single photo of the light pole sticking out through the windshield. Why is that? None of those Feds had a camera? Apparently nobody in Virginia; nobody in the entire world saw that light pole through the windshield besides Lloyde England, and Lloyde England has proven himself to be a liar in the last interview.

Lloyde England & His Taxi Cab - The Eye Of The Storm


Google Video Link


Even the Federal agents guarding the light pole, the taxicab, and Lloyde England have refused to come forward and testify to a light pole through the windshield. Perhaps there is a limit to their lying, or perhaps they just do not want to stick their necks in a noose. To date they are unidentified and to come forward would identify them to a future grand jury.



Isn't that an outstanding job at staging the #1 light pole? But they forgot to stick it through the windshield and they forgot to get a photo of it sticking through the windshield. Bad move guys. And that scratch from the heavy base running across the road to the wall does not look good at all. Are you guys pushing up daisies somewhere? Is that why you have not come forward to back up Lloyde?





[edit on 3/13/09 by SPreston]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

posted by pteridine
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 
The landing gear and engine found outside of E ring are evidence for a plane.


What landing gear and engine found outside the E-Ring? Would you mind providing evidence of that? And don't bother showing the photo of the rusty old junk in the room which might not even be located inside the United States. I heard that photo originated over in Europe somewhere. They surely have junk 757s in Europe also.

By the way, a tire and a wheel are not landing gear. There are 9 tires and 9 wheels still missing and three heavy steel landing struts. There are also two wings missing, two engines missing, all of the seats are missing, all of the baggage is missing, and the 44 foot tail stabilizer is also missing.



But congrats, you do have five very suspicious light poles and a few small pieces which suspiciously kept moving around. Oh yeah; I forgot. You have the FDR with the footprints under it found way out by the Exit Hole.
Yep; that's the same FDR which proves that Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon.






[edit on 3/13/09 by SPreston]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Since you have all the answers, Tezzalini,

Personal insult noted. I never claimed to have any answers, pteridine.



why don't you explain how the fuel deflagration and explosions were staged.

I never claimed they were or weren't. I'm not an expert on explosives.

What's the point of your post, other than to throw a personal insult against me, by twisting my username?

Is it that upsetting to you, that you can't manage to show the alleged wreckage belonged to AA77, using serialised part numbers?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
You people are still arguing about this nonsense? I can only say one thing: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Tezza,
Why do you think the diminutive was an insult?
Anyway, the way this works is that if you disagree with the government's story, then you must show evidence disproving it. If you cannot, then, by default, that story becomes the official story. If you have a theory for discussion, please post it.
The theory that a plane did not hit lacks even meager evidence to support it. The theorists have not come up with any explanation or evidence for such an event. All they have are witnesses who simultaneously say NoC and impact when all the physical evidence says impact.
Now it is your turn to start thinking.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Tezza,
Why do you think the diminutive was an insult?

Twisting my username to suit your sentence is an insult, pteridine.



Anyway, the way this works is that if you disagree with the government's story, then you must show evidence disproving it. If you cannot, then, by default, that story becomes the official story. If you have a theory for discussion, please post it.

The logic of what you posted is wrong on so many levels, that it barely deserves a comment.

Please, show me where the alleged wreckage has been forensically identified as belonging to flight AA77.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Please, show me where the alleged wreckage has been forensically identified as belonging to flight AA77.



Please show me where it has been forensically identified as belonging to to anything else.

I would guess that neither request will be met and we will have to live with what we have. It is apparent that the Federal government is not going to release any more information. Bodies were recovered from the aircraft along with personal effects of the passengers. You may believe what you choose. You were not present at the autopsies because the Feds feel that they do not have to satisfy the curiousity of an Australian high school student.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Please show me where it has been forensically identified as belonging to to anything else.

Completely laughable. The alleged wreckage hasn't been proven to belong to AA77 and YOU want ME to identify it to something else?

Please, pteridine, your logical ignorance is obvious.



Bodies were recovered from the aircraft

Your next post will no doubt prove this claim?



You were not present at the autopsies because the Feds feel that they do not have to satisfy the curiousity of an Australian high school student.

Moderators, please note this personal insult that pteridine has made against me.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

The evidence is all in favor of an aircraft striking the Pentagon. The information on recovered passenger bodies and personal effects is on the web but it may not be as forensically explicit as you would like. You'll have to make do.

If you are done trolling and have a theory of your own, state it so it can be debated.

Why do you continue to claim personal insult? I deduced your student status and youth from your avatar and "Wanting to be abducted!
Ready to psychic probe THEM!"
Surprisingly, the bravado of that statement belies your undue sensitivity. I will try to remember to be gentler with you.



[edit on 3/14/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The evidence is all in favor of an aircraft striking the Pentagon.

Yet, you've provided none. This is a thread about the Pentagon not being hit by a plane. Read the thread's title, in case you've forgotten.



The information on recovered passenger bodies and personal effects is on the web but it may not be as forensically explicit as you would like. You'll have to make do.

Alleged passenger bodies and alleged personal effects do not identify alleged plane wreckage to be that of AA77.



If you are done trolling and have a theory of your own, state it so it can be debated.

I'm waiting for the people who have evidence about Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon to release it. Until then, the title of this thread is the only theory that needs to be discussed. The theory that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon is sorely lacking evidence to prove it.



Why do you continue to claim personal insult? I deduced your student status and youth from your avatar and "Wanting to be abducted!
Ready to psychic probe THEM!"
Surprisingly, the bravado of that statement belies your undue sensitivity. I will try to remember to be gentler with you.

It shows how pathetically inaccurate your deducations are, pteridine, along with your readiness to break the terms and conditions of this website, when you choose to insult fellow members.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
This is a thread about the Pentagon not being hit by a plane. Read the thread's title, in case you've forgotten.

Alleged passenger bodies and alleged personal effects do not identify alleged plane wreckage to be that of AA77.

I'm waiting for the people who have evidence about Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon to release it. Until then, the title of this thread is the only theory that needs to be discussed. The theory that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon is sorely lacking evidence to prove it.

It shows how pathetically inaccurate your deducations are, pteridine, along with your readiness to break the terms and conditions of this website, when you choose to insult fellow members.


All the physical evidence and witness accounts point to the flight 77 impact. US citizens can probably file under FOIA for details but they do not get to watch the autopsies, see the serial numbers, and put their hands in the wounds, much less foreign nationals. I believe that the case is now closed in the opinion of the American public save for a few on the fringe. There is, as yet, no new evidence that would be sufficient to instigate any further activity. You will likely be waiting a long time for any evidence that will satisfy your demands and this will give you ample opportunity to state your opinions and concerns.
While CIT's claims are not strongly supported, they are imaginative and their crew promotes their theories. You, on the other hand, only demand evidence of the plane strike to satisfy you at some high level of detail. When the only evidence available is presented, it is not enough. You have no alternate theory that you state other than "it didn't happen." As your postings say you are "trolling 10/10."
As to my sleuthing skills regarding you and attempting to determine your motivation, if not temporally correct, they are probably correct in spirit. Your emotional outbursts show that I must be close, so perhaps I am not as incompetent and forgetful as you have been insinuating.

[edit on 3/14/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Evidence that Flights AA 11 and AA 77 Did Not Exist on September 11, 2001.

www.serendipity.li...

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

posted by D.Duck

Evidence that Flights AA 11 and AA 77 Did Not Exist on September 11, 2001.

www.serendipity.li...


Flights 11 and 77 did not exist on 9-11? Ain't that a bummer?



More evidence that the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is dead dead dead.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
All the physical evidence and witness accounts point to the flight 77 impact.

Yet, you've provided none.



I believe that the case is now closed

Luckily, other people believe otherwise. They're not resting until the truth is out there.



You, on the other hand, only demand evidence of the plane strike to satisfy you at some high level of detail.

How do you know what I want or demand, pteridine? Stop trying to guess my motives. You've already been proven to be an incompetent judge of my character.



You have no alternate theory that you state other than "it didn't happen." As your postings say you are "trolling 10/10."

I, or anyone else, do not need to post an alternate theory. All that's required is to show how the official story can not support itself. You can't support it, you shy away from showing proof everytime you are asked.



As to my sleuthing skills regarding you and attempting to determine your motivation, if not temporally correct, they are probably correct in spirit.

No, they are far from being correct. They are wrong.



Your emotional outbursts show that I must be close, so perhaps I am not as incompetent and forgetful as you have been insinuating.

I wish there was some emotion in my 'outbursts', pteridine. However, there isn't. Pointing out when you break the terms and conditions of this website is not emotional, it's fact - devoid of emotion. Everything that you insinuate about me is wrong and really, there's no place for it in this thread.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Good luck with the "planes never took off because someone didn't fill out paperwork" argument.




top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join