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 BornPatriot
ok, clearly a boeing did not hit the pentagon.
they admitted they had that side of the pentagon hardend against attack.
has anyone seen the scope of these contracts, which portion was hardend?
are they the same location...?
after 7 years we still have not seen any other footage of the attack...? why..?
Why were Suits picking up debris, they dont even pick up something they dropped, why on 911 were executives picking up debris...?
where where the enlisted servicemembers...?
why was there white chalk on the lawn just weeks prior to 911...?
and I'm sure there are several thousand other questions but these appear like we can answer them...... and if you have questions please post them here....
Originally posted by ipsedixit
I've read the thread you linked to. I don't think there is any doubt that you have proved that the plane flew north of Citgo and therefore could not have caused the damage at the Pentagon.
Before CIT launched it's investigations, there was no evidence that the plane flew north of Citgo. There was just a lack of plane wreckage and a suspicious video and a whole lot of suspicious behavior on the part of the government. Your questions and speculations and hard work led to hard evidence of a false flag operation on 9/11.
If we continue to discuss the possibility of a missile being involved on 9/11 at the Pentagon, we may turn up someone with evidence that a missile was involved.
You can canvas the streets of Washington looking for witnesses to a flyover, but you can't canvas military bases and naval vessels around the US and abroad. If we discuss these possibilities on the internet, military personel with answers may see the discussion and choose their own way to get the information out.
I think all discussion helps. Any screw that can be loosened in the official story should be loosened.
This is a discussion board after all. If you are advocating some other kind of action, throw us a link, although as I recently learned personally, soliciting is against the T&C of use of the site.
In a very new thread someone linked to a video in which a former army officer names a military judge as having authorized 9/11. This sounds off the wall and the video is of low quality as a presentation, however it is the first new thing I've heard on 9/11 in a long time, and it is coming out of the military.
I don't think the discussion in this thread is a threat to anything you are trying to achieve with your evidence.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Yes, in fact we will be laying out a strategy with step by step instructions. Our new website for this will launch next month but we won't be recruiting anyone to join anything. Just providing free evidence and guidance to those who understand the incredible implications of this powder keg we're sitting on here and want to do something about it.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
As far as the missile theory goes, I just can't attach as much importance to it as you do, as an exercise in disinformation. "We did it with a missile, not with preplanted explosives." . . . ???? I don't see what kind of traction that gives them.
There is no question that what CIT has done with the Pentagon story is outstanding. The witnesses are there, particularly Lloyd England. In the right political environment, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
Everyone owes you a vote of thanks for that.