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.

 

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 104
215
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I am most intrigued by mmiichael's statement above on this page
"Cause was the sprinkler system kicking in pouring water on a combination of burning fuel and melting aluminum. This highly volatile mixture explosively produces: Alumina + Hydrogen + heat."

Was it the burning fuel that was 'melting aluminum'? Apparently this burning fuel was a very wicked variety to melt a 60+ ton aircraft. I guess that would explain how it didn't appear a plane wreckage was there at all, because it melted...it couldn't withstand the vicious heat of the burning kerosene fuel.




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Where have I been concerned about the alleged Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon?

In this thread, many people have stated that the light pole hit the taxi. It has been more than eight years and no one has been able to prove it, jthomas.


So you admit that you are concerned with the fact that AA77 hit the Pentagon and you don't like that fact one bit.

We already knew that, tezz.

Now, why do you continue to refuse to provide any eyewitnesses to any so-called "flyover", tezz?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
I am most intrigued by mmiichael's statement above on this page
"Cause was the sprinkler system kicking in pouring water on a combination of burning fuel and melting aluminum. This highly volatile mixture explosively produces: Alumina + Hydrogen + heat."

Was it the burning fuel that was 'melting aluminum'? Apparently this burning fuel was a very wicked variety to melt a 60+ ton aircraft. I guess that would explain how it didn't appear a plane wreckage was there at all, because it melted...it couldn't withstand the vicious heat of the burning kerosene fuel.


Aircraft fires and collisions are an interesting field with many counter-intuitive aspects.

I read about it years ago. What I recall:

An aircraft is designed to be very light. So it occupies a lot of space but is almost completely hollow. The whole structure including the extremely light wings can be compressed into a much smaller area - as seen in the narrow destruction path inside the Pentagon.

Heated aluminum has very different characteristics from heated steel. Lower melting point, what was thought to be molten steel pools at the WTC was likely aluminum which looks similar in certain high temperature ranges.

There is probably a good professional journal analysis of what happened in those first minutes of the Pentagon crash. As i seem to remember, the plane touched the ground and then went into the enforced wall.

Planes going into solid barriers disintegrate. But the momentum was such that the interior cabin was forced through so that the rear of the plane ended up deepest into the building wreckage.

Many complex rapid chemical reactions all at once - overarching one the mixture of ignited fuel and aluminum with water being violently explosive.

Check online.


M


[edit on 30-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
It's amazing how there was no luggage or anything left. Everything gone.. poof. The debris that was scattered in the lawn seemed really odd...

Was there ever any other time in history where a plane vanished like that?

Doesn't every plane crash have the obvious signs of an actual plane crash?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOAlienLover
It's amazing how there was no luggage or anything left. Everything gone.. poof. The debris that was scattered in the lawn seemed really odd...

Was there ever any other time in history where a plane vanished like that?

Doesn't every plane crash have the obvious signs of an actual plane crash?


There were obvious signs of the crash and the expected items, mostly inside the Pentagon. Truther sites characteristically select pictures that show little often dishonest about when they were taken.

An embarrassing problem little mentioned was that passing by souvenir hunters came onto the Pentagon lawn right after the crash while fire rescue and medical efforts were being organized. They grabbed anything they could carry off before police or military could take control.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
That doesn't really make sense.....


So the plane was so hot it basically disappeared into thin air and whatever pieces were left were picked up by people lurking around.. did they have special gloves? And why would anyone want to take pieces from this crash?


I think there's better security at a dive bar than the Pentagon if this was the case.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You still haven't answered my question tezza. Are you worried about having shattered credibility? Someone is keeping score, somewhere.


At least you finally got the word right but apparently you still do not understand what is significant about credibility. While you are clearly stating that you have NO INTEREST IN FACTS OR EVIDENCE and are off to interview dead people, why is it that anyone should put any stock in anything you say?

You provide no sources or links to real evidence. All you do is troll the board, calling other people liars, all while you have made it clear that you are NOT INTERESTED IN FACTS OR EVIDENCE. You said it, not me.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
So you admit that you are concerned with the fact that AA77 hit the Pentagon and you don't like that fact one bit.

jthomas, you refuse to read. Why?

You know, in other past threads I have stated that I don't care if Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon, flew over it, flew under it, morphed into it, holographed into it... whatever. You know this, jthomas, I have posted it more than once in threads that you have been active.

I want to know why no one in this thread has been able to prove that the light pole hit the taxi? You've failed to prove it and you even admit that there's no official government story that covers the incident.

Now, consider this, jthomas. Your government sold you out and never released a report about the light pole/taxi. Some in this thread have said that it was not a worthy incident to investigate.

Why, then, did the government consider it important to show a picture of Lloyde's damaged taxi in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial?

If the incident is not worthy to investigate, then why is it worthy to show in a courtroom? It doesn't look good when the government willingly contradicts itself, does it?


Originally posted by jthomas
Now, why do you continue to refuse to provide any eyewitnesses to any so-called "flyover", tezz?

jthomas, this is about the seventh time that I have requested you to quote me where I stated that there was a fly over.

Your absolute refusal to read my posts and my answers reflects poorly on you. Your continual fabrication of claims against me is a pointless exercise as you will be exposed every single time you make those false claims.

I expect that I will need to repeat this to you in the future for when you next fabricate quotes against me.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Taxi intact 9:36.


can you prove that?


With a smashed windshield 9:37. Airliner had just passed over knocking down light poles.


can you prove that? eyewitness accounts of lightpoles being taken down? anything?


One pole on the road a few feet away from the taxi. Photographed. Driver supplied corroborating testimony.


You seem to be confused between "on the road" and "through a taxi windshield." You cannot claim a picture of one thing is proof of something actually proven wrong by said picture.


Eyewitness testimony


you have been asked more than once. what eyewitness testimony? where is it? why are you hiding it from us?


abundance of circumstantial evidence


LOL. You do not have any idea what "circumstantial evidence" actually means do you? I have to believe that if you did, you would not want to look so stupid as to put that in your list of "proof."


no conflicting evidence


conflicting with what? don't you need evidence to begin with just to conflict it?


no plausible alternative explanation


there seems to be an overabundance of alternate explanations but you do not read, you just troll and post.


Proof that would stand up in any court of law.


um...really? what country are you in? none of that would stand up in a U.S. court of law, not to mention the HUGE amount of reasonable doubt that offers up.

you are too funny.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tezzajw
 

So, it's just a 'game' to you?? Thank you for clearing that up, it means a lot....
Casual readers, and even those not-so-casual, are sure to take note.....

Yes, weedwhacker, when I threw that line out, deliberately, you were number one on my list to bite. Well done, you never let me down.

There's a lot to be said for playing games. It keeps the mind sharp and it keeps reality in check.

I'm watching a lot of people in this thread fail to play the game called: "Prove the light pole hit the taxi".

You think it would be easy for them, considering that they think they know the rules and have all of the playing pieces.

By the way, your comment had no real relevance to the thread.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tezzajw
 


So, it's just a 'game' to you?? Thank you for clearing that up, it means a lot....and explains loads...


You're new to this game, that much is clear.


Casual readers, and even those not-so-casual, are sure to take note.....


Interesting. Obviously the context proves that "game" is not the literal fun past time activity you are trying to pretend that it is.

Fine, jump all over that even if it does simply show you are either unfamiliar with how the English language works or are purposely being obtuse. I have to ask though, why would you jump on that sentence and yet let someone like Pterry state very clearly that he does NOT want to hear about facts or evidence here, only theories?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I have stated that I don't care if Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon, flew over it, flew under it, morphed into it, holographed into it... whatever. You know this, jthomas, I have posted it more than once.

this is about the seventh time that I have requested you to quote me where I stated that there was a fly over.

Your absolute refusal to read my posts and my answers reflects poorly on you. Your continual fabrication of claims against me is a pointless exercise as you will be exposed every single time you make those false claims.

I expect that I will need to repeat this to you in the future for when you next fabricate quotes against me.



"I expect that I will need to repeat"

Do you do anything else? Terminally repeat yourself, tell people they failed, avoid providing information, act as if you're in control at every opportunity?

Of course you buy into the 'flyover.' You reject the so-called Official Story, offer nothing original, slavishly buy into the Penta Con Artist disinfo.

This thread is no longer information exchange. A troll or two trying to keep the ball in the air desperately hoping for credibility by knocking down other members, their arguments, facts, data, analysis.

This should become a classic text book on how Truthers work. Deny, duck and weave, avoid, try to discredit, offer nothing.

The more intelligent looking in can see what's going on. Most are snickering.





[edit on 30-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I didn't expect that I would need to repeat myself so soon:

Originally posted by mmiichael
Of course you buy into the 'flyover.' You reject the so-called Official Story, offer nothing original, slavishly buy into the Penta Con Artist disinfo.

mmiichael, this is probably the first time that I have requested you to quote me where I stated that there was a fly over. Your failure to do so will be your admission that you fabricated this quote against me.

Your absolute refusal to read my posts and my answers reflects poorly on you. Your continual fabrication of claims against me is a pointless exercise as you will be exposed every single time you make those false claims.

I expect that I will need to repeat this to you in the future for when you next fabricate quotes against me.



Originally posted by mmiichael
This thread is no longer information exchange. A few troll or two trying to keep the ball in the air desperately hoping for credibility by knocking down other members, their arguments, facts, data, analysis.

Some members have tried to exchange information. Other members have made claims that a light pole hit the taxi. They have stated this for a fact and they want other people to believe that this should be taken for granted.

When asked to prove their claim, they have failed to do so and dragged out the thread for some unknown reason.

The more replies this thread receives, the more attention those members give to the investigation in the OP.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
So you admit that you are concerned with the fact that AA77 hit the Pentagon and you don't like that fact one bit.

jthomas, you refuse to read. Why?

You know, in other past threads I have stated that I don't care if Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon, flew over it, flew under it, morphed into it, holographed into it... whatever. You know this, jthomas, I have posted it more than once in threads that you have been active.


Don't be silly. Of course you care.


I want to know why no one in this thread has been able to prove that the light pole hit the taxi? You've failed to prove it and you even admit that there's no official government story that covers the incident.


Why in creation would you claim there needs to be a "government story" about anything, much less a light pole that was knocked down by AA77 before it hit the Pentagon?


Now, consider this, jthomas. Your government sold you out and never released a report about the light pole/taxi.


What does the "government" have to do with anything? You really have an unhealthy obsession with the "government." There are all manner of reports about AA77 hitting the Pentagon that had nothing to do with the government.

You need to get a grip, tezz.


Some in this thread have said that it was not a worthy incident to investigate. Why, then, did the government consider it important to show a picture of Lloyde's damaged taxi in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial?


Prove they considered it "important." Evidence is evidence. No one contests that AA77 hit the light poles before it hit the Pentagon. Not even YOU contest that. Why leave evidence out in any trial?


If the incident is not worthy to investigate, then why is it worthy to show in a courtroom?


In the real world, tezz, a fact is a fact. There's no point in hiding facts, is there? Of course not! AA77 hit the light poles before it hit the Pentagon as you already agree.


It doesn't look good when the government willingly contradicts itself, does it?


What an odd and irrational statement, tezz. You need a spot of tea and a lie down, my friend.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Why in creation would you claim there needs to be a "government story" about anything, much less a light pole that was knocked down by AA77 before it hit the Pentagon?

You can't find official government documents about the light pole hitting the taxi, jthomas.

Yet, you're happy for the government to use a picture of Lloyde's damaged taxi in the trial.

Why does the government treat the light pole/taxi incident in such a contradictory manner, jthomas?



Originally posted by jthomas
Prove they considered it "important." Evidence is evidence.

Are you being serious? The government used a photo of Lloyde's damaged taxi in the trial. Why would they do this if it was not important to their case? Do they just show photos in court for the hell of it, jthomas?

The government appeared to imply that the taxi was damaged by the light pole. But why would it do that when no one has produced official government reports about the taxi?



Originally posted by jthomas
In the real world, tezz, a fact is a fact.

Show me the facts that prove the light pole hit the taxi, jthomas. In the real world, you would prove this claim. Lucky, when you post here, you appear to excuse yourself from the real world.



Originally posted by jthomas
Of course not! AA77 hit the light poles before it hit the Pentagon as you already agree.

You'll need to quote me where I have agreed to this, jthomas.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Earth to tezz:

I know its hard for you, but please answer my questions and address my post. You sound far too much like you are controlled by Ranke and Balsamo and don't know how to address anything outside of your programming.

I can assure you we have no desire to converse with robots.

Take a deep breath..... focus...



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I know its hard for you, but please answer my questions and address my post.

Start reading, jthomas. It's been done.

Why have you failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, jthomas?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Why in creation would you claim there needs to be a "government story" about anything, much less a light pole that was knocked down by AA77 before it hit the Pentagon?



It did not take you long to forget that you have gone over this over and over and over and each time, I have asked you...

if there is NO government story, then what do you call the story told to us by the President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense?

You prove that the "OS" has no water in that instead of trying to prove it or disprove anything else, you just keep insisting that the government had nothing to do with investigation or taking witness accounts.

You are either very forgetful or a complete joke. You know as well as everyone else here that the government has EVERYTHING to do with this.

The GOVERNMENT is who 'explained' just what happened on 9/11 at a government building.

Who is it you think was investigating the crash scene and put together the AA77 narrative if not the government? Think you can answer me this time, or can I count this as the 5th time you failed to explain your idiotic statement?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Well ....moving along... Where were the bodies?




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Who is it you think was investigating the crash scene and put together the AA77 narrative if not the government? Think you can answer me this time, or can I count this as the 5th time you failed to explain your idiotic statement?


You really are a masochist, Lillydale. I thought you learned your lesson after I thoroughly debunked you the first time.



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join