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: 133
215
<< 130  131  132    134  135  136 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Lillydale

I don't know where you get the idea that no-one witnessed the plane impact with the Pentagon. There are accounts all over the internet.


Does it seem possible to you that a mammoth office building surrounded by major highways could be struck by a low flying passenger on a bright sunny morning and no-one saw it ?

You must have been offered lists before which you have presumably hand-waved away. I wont therefore give you another list but a specific front row witness. Sean Boger was the Heliport Air Traffic Controller at the Pentagon on 9/11. He was very nearly killed as his tower was just yards from the impact. This is what he had to say :- " I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building. " Ludicrously, he is put forward as a CIT witness.

Sean would have been in a perfect place to see anyone dumping light poles, pruning trees, dumping plane parts etc as his tower overlooked everything. Haven't heard that he did see anything.



So the internet is full of accounts of people who witnessed the impact and you offer up one? I think you are confused. The internet is full of all kinds of things. Unfortunately, facts is a very small percentage of what the internet is made up of.

See if you can follow along closely. I clearly said people who witnessed the impact. You listed one so far and I am not sure how he would have seen anyone planting parts after diving out of his tower but you can wrestle with the fact that he did not stay there all day yourself. The internet may be flush with the stories of people that claim to have seen something that day but people that actually saw the IMPACT it is not.




posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
To even think that a never seen convoy of trucks carrying tons and tons of simulated plane wreckage, human body parts, etc are busy dumping their loads is not even a joke.



There were tons of plane and body parts recovered? When did this happen?

MM, the only reason you need a translator and two pages to try and spin this tale is because it is mostly made from sugar and water. There were no tons of aircraft parts and there were no tons of passenger body parts found either.

The only reason your argument works is because it is based on the idea that someone brought in a truck to drop off a plane and passenger bodies. No plane was ever found so that eliminates that truck. No passenger bodies were ever found so there goes your other truck. The majority of unidentified 'plane debris' most likely came from whatever the source of the explosion was but unfortunately, it was never identified as aa77 before or after the crash. The body parts were in the form of microscopic samples. How many trucks do you think it takes to ship microscopic particles around? This is also based on your false assumption that these samples were actually found at the Pentagon.

What do you know they found? Painted aluminum. That is it. You cannot show me where they found any parts identifying AA77 and you sure cannot show me where they recovered any part of anyone from that plane that would need any more than a pocket to fit in if it were found there at all.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
There were tons of plane and body parts recovered? When did this happen?



Flight AA77 left Dulles Airport at 8:20 AM. It was tracked on multiple levels in mid-air and seen crashing into the Pentagon at 9:37. Later investigation and cleanup of the wreckage verified it was that plane with the passengers on board.

By mid-morning that day there was no serious question that this is what happened. One would have to nullify literally warehouses of hard evidence and numerous first hand testimonies.

No naysayer has ever even come close to creating any real doubt - except in the minds of some rather naive people.

The notion that someone on an internet forum can just say "where's your proof" - provided with information they find some lame excuse to reject - and that magically gives any credence to the some whacko theories flies over my head.

You supply something tangible to show what is known is wrong, someone might listen to you.

Just saying "where's your proof" means nothing.

Where's your proof it didn't happen as determined by tons of hard evidence gone over by thousands of sane and rational people?




[edit on 19-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


The two main engines weigh 7200 pounds each, as installed. The third engine is smaller. The engines were recovered with significant damage. Other aircraft parts were scattered about outside the Pentagon; one that was photographed was about 6 feet long. The surface was painted with AA colors. If you say no aircraft was involved, then you should be able to explain the recovered engines, landing gear, and larger pieces of airplane painted like an AA passenger jet.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


The two main engines weigh 7200 pounds each, as installed. The third engine is smaller. The engines were recovered with significant damage. Other aircraft parts were scattered about outside the Pentagon; one that was photographed was about 6 feet long. The surface was painted with AA colors. If you say no aircraft was involved, then you should be able to explain the recovered engines, landing gear, and larger pieces of airplane painted like an AA passenger jet.


I have seen one engine and the accompanying documentations showing how it was never identified as coming from AA77. Did you match it to that plane and forget to tell all the people involved? Perhaps you can tell me how you matched either engine to AA77?

Painted Aluminum eh? However could the government have gotten their hands on a 6 foot piece of aluminum and 3 different colors of paint? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, that is a stumper. I guess it had to be AA77 since there was a 6 foot piece of aluminum.


Let me know when you get around to the documentation on those engines.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Alfie1
Lillydale

I don't know where you get the idea that no-one witnessed the plane impact with the Pentagon. There are accounts all over the internet.


Does it seem possible to you that a mammoth office building surrounded by major highways could be struck by a low flying passenger on a bright sunny morning and no-one saw it ?

You must have been offered lists before which you have presumably hand-waved away. I wont therefore give you another list but a specific front row witness. Sean Boger was the Heliport Air Traffic Controller at the Pentagon on 9/11. He was very nearly killed as his tower was just yards from the impact. This is what he had to say :- " I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building. " Ludicrously, he is put forward as a CIT witness.

Sean would have been in a perfect place to see anyone dumping light poles, pruning trees, dumping plane parts etc as his tower overlooked everything. Haven't heard that he did see anything.



So the internet is full of accounts of people who witnessed the impact and you offer up one? I think you are confused. The internet is full of all kinds of things. Unfortunately, facts is a very small percentage of what the internet is made up of.

See if you can follow along closely. I clearly said people who witnessed the impact. You listed one so far and I am not sure how he would have seen anyone planting parts after diving out of his tower but you can wrestle with the fact that he did not stay there all day yourself. The internet may be flush with the stories of people that claim to have seen something that day but people that actually saw the IMPACT it is not.

Lillydale

In your post on the previous page you said " Who witnessed the impact again ? Everytime this claim gets made a list is thrown up of people that it turns out, did NOT witness that impact at all. Who witnessed the impact again ?

Given your treatment of lists I thought I would give you details of Sean Boger who probably had the best ( or worst really ) view of the Pentagon attack and was nearlly killed. The plane hit yards from his position and he said " I just watched it hit the building." It exploded." I could actually hear the metal going through the building. " Hard to imagine an impact statement more specific than that.

What is your reaction to his dramatic account ? Just more whingeing. There are in fact scores more impact witnesses but I am not going to spoon feed you with them one by one.

With regard to Sean's view of the crash site immediately after the impact ; who said he dived out of the tower ? Suggests to me that you don't have a clue as to the physical nature of that tower.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Thank you for making my point for me. When you ask some OSer who witnessed the impact. They are happy to supply a list of people. After just a little scrutiny, the list is obviously full of people that all saw different things but not the IMPACT itself. So I ask you to whittle it down to the actual people and the best you can do is 1.

See how that works? You are upset I do not like the list, even though it is full of people that do not answer the question. Now you are upset that I do not like your ONE whole witness.

Bingo. Can you come up with this 'list' of people who witnessed the IMPACT? That is all I care about. THE IMPACT. I know it sucks that I do not want a list of people who did NOT witness the impact when I ask for this list of people who did. I can be annoying like that by using words to mean what they mean.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
What is your reaction to his dramatic account ? Just more whingeing.


I am not sure what a whingeing is so I do not think so.


There are in fact scores more impact witnesses but I am not going to spoon feed you with them one by one.


I do not want to be spoon fed anything. Beck must have said something about being spoon fed lately as it seems to be the phrase du jor around here. I just wanted names. That is all. I would have been happy to research them myself but all I wanted was some names.

You say you are not going to spoon feed me. How about just back up what you say? I keep hearing about 100s and scores of people that witnessed the impact but so far we have 1. 2 would have really put you out, I am sure. I guess if you cannot back up what you say...maybe saying it is not worth very much.


With regard to Sean's view of the crash site immediately after the impact ; who said he dived out of the tower ? Suggests to me that you don't have a clue as to the physical nature of that tower.
That dive remark was a joke in your honor which makes perfect sense in context but I can see that is asking a lot.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Thank you for making my point for me. When you ask some OSer who witnessed the impact. They are happy to supply a list of people. After just a little scrutiny, the list is obviously full of people that all saw different things but not the IMPACT itself. So I ask you to whittle it down to the actual people and the best you can do is 1.

See how that works? You are upset I do not like the list, even though it is full of people that do not answer the question. Now you are upset that I do not like your ONE whole witness.

Bingo. Can you come up with this 'list' of people who witnessed the IMPACT? That is all I care about. THE IMPACT. I know it sucks that I do not want a list of people who did NOT witness the impact when I ask for this list of people who did. I can be annoying like that by using words to mean what they mean.


Lillydale

I do not know why you think it is up to other posters to serve up witnesses for you. If you are given a clear unequivocal one like Sean Boger you still continue to whine.

I made it clear that I was not going to give them to you one by one.

At the end of the day I really couldn't care less if you want to wallow in conspiracy theories and angst for the rest of your life. I only have to turn off my computer and what is left of the so-called truther movement just vanishes.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Lillydale

I do not know why you think it is up to other posters to serve up witnesses for you.


Because they are the ones claiming these witnesses exist. If you are going to make a claim, you need to have the proof of it. Why is that asking so much? Why has asking people to just back up this information caused so much of a stir? Look how much energy and time you have spent arguing about it when you could have just come up with it. You can no longer argue that I am too lazy and just want you to do it and you refuse. We are both still here. I am still asking you to back up your claim. You are still trying to argue a good reason why you will not.

If you are given a clear unequivocal one like Sean Boger you still continue to whine.


Because the claims are specifically that scores or hundreds of people witnessed the impact. This is the part I do not believe. I do not buy for one second that that many people witnessed the impact. I cannot find that many people that claim to have witnessed it. You did, so where are they?


I made it clear that I was not going to give them to you one by one.


I never asked you to.


At the end of the day I really couldn't care less if you want to wallow in conspiracy theories and angst for the rest of your life. I only have to turn off my computer and what is left of the so-called truther movement just vanishes.
Then why did you bother to come to this thread and make a claim that scores of people witnessed the impact? If you really did not care, you would not be here making claims as such.

At the end of the day, you spent all this time arguing with me so that you can escape from presenting evidence of your outlandish claim. Thank you. We can call it a lie until proven then.

[edit on 12/19/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Because they are the ones claiming these witnesses exist. If you are going to make a claim, you need to have the proof of it. Why is that asking so much? Why has asking people to just back up this information caused so much of a stir?


There is enough documentation, evidence and testimony on the Pentagon attack to keep someone reading for days. This stuff has been linked to a dozen times here. You're terrified to look at any of it because it will immediately show how ridiculous notions like 'no plane crash' really are.

You claim you want to know what happened at the Pentagon. We try to help you with readily verifiable hard evidence. In the process none of us are obligated to disprove every possible dumb idea circulating on the Internet. If you want to accept totally unsupported whacko theories like the "flyover" you're welcome to it.

Around here you'll find a few other not too bright and out of touch with reality people. You can all exchange speculations like secret ninja agents knocking down light poles.

Interfacing with this collective simple-mindedness is amusing up to a point. Then it gets tiresome.

It's tiresome now.




[edit on 19-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I've been busy as of late and have not been able to post as frequently as i would like . . .

However i find it interesting, that even in my absence, none of you have answered the question still.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I do not know why you think it is up to other posters to serve up witnesses for you. If you are given a clear unequivocal one like Sean Boger you still continue to whine.

Before Boger stated that he saw the plane impact the Pentagon, he stated that he saw it fly North of Citgo.

If Boger is unequivocal, as you claim, then do you believe that the plane flew North of Citgo or do you prefer to cherry pick what Boger stated?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Alfie1
I do not know why you think it is up to other posters to serve up witnesses for you. If you are given a clear unequivocal one like Sean Boger you still continue to whine.

Before Boger stated that he saw the plane impact the Pentagon, he stated that he saw it fly North of Citgo.

If Boger is unequivocal, as you claim, then do you believe that the plane flew North of Citgo or do you prefer to cherry pick what Boger stated?


tezzajw

This just shows up the basic absurdity of CIT's flyover theory, which no-one saw.

In 2001 Sean Boger said this :- " I just looked up and I saw the big nose and wings of the aircraft coming right at us. " Whatever his perception years later of exactly where it came from how that can that be held to negate his statement made close to the time ? " I just watched it hit the building. It exploded." " I could actually hear the metal going through the building. " The plane hit yards from his position and nearly killed him. Is it remotely credible that he could make a mistake about that ?

Interestingly, on CIT's own site from June last year a poster is saying that he telephoned Sean Boger and apparently Sean said he had no idea CIT were bandying his name about.

Another so-called CIT witness is Sgt Lagasse. This is what he said in 2003, years before CIT got to him. " Rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day ." " It was close enough that I could see the windows had the shades pulled down. "

So, again, CIT put forward the absurd idea that people are more likely to remember accurately the flightpath of the plane, years after the event, than the fact of it smashing into the Pentagon and, in Sean's case nearlly killing him.

Yes, there is certainly a lot of cherrypicking about.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

There is enough documentation, evidence and testimony on the Pentagon attack to keep someone reading for days. This stuff has been linked to a dozen times here. You're terrified to look at any of it because it will immediately show how ridiculous notions like 'no plane crash' really are.


No. See, I have asked over and over again for the list that people like you insist exists of SCORES OF PEOPLE that witnessed the impact. That list has never once been posted here. No link to that list has ever been provided.


You claim you want to know what happened at the Pentagon. We try to help you with readily verifiable hard evidence. In the process none of us are obligated to disprove every possible dumb idea circulating on the Internet. If you want to accept totally unsupported whacko theories like the "flyover" you're welcome to it.


You really are having a hard time following along. If you cannot keep up, you should really just keep quiet. When did I endorse the flyover? Please quote me supporting that theory ONCE.

I never asked anyone to debunk every claim on the internet. I asked you OSers to back up the crap you spew. If you want to say all kinds of people witnessed the impact, then why does it upset an entire team of you when I simply ask who these witnesses were?


Around here you'll find a few other not too bright and out of touch with reality people. You can all exchange speculations like secret ninja agents knocking down light poles.


Um...ok. Frankly, I am sick of talking to these people that are not all that bright. There is a small group of people that keep pushing this lie that tons of people saw the impact. I have asked who these people are but this same group has spent two days attacking my request instead of just supplying it. Now one idiot has even gone so far as to waste an entire post saying things that are absurd, ignorant, and off base - such as telling me to enjoy my flyover theory. Can you believe how "not too bright" some people can people. They have to attack me with other people's theories because I asked them to provide proof of their claim. I know, idiot people.


Interfacing with this collective simple-mindedness is amusing up to a point. Then it gets tiresome.

It's tiresome now.


I promise I will not miss you. I will not miss you saying lies you cannot back up. I will not miss you spending time berating me for asking for proof of your claims. I will not miss you getting so confused that you take the time to get all over me about things I have never said. Go get some rest. It sounds like you really really need it.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
This just shows up the basic absurdity of CIT's flyover theory, which no-one saw.

Whatever. I never mentioned a fly over, Alfie1. Nice way to try and avoid answering my question.

I mentioned where Boger stated to CIT, in his telephone interview, that he saw the plane approach North of Citgo.



Originally posted by Alfie1
Yes, there is certainly a lot of cherrypicking about.

How do you explain Boger describing a North of Citgo approach, Alfie1?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by post by mmiichael
You probably delude yourself into thinking you've impressed anybody
Fallacy (99)

Appealing to motive (12)

It’s not about impressing anyone; it’s about denying ignorance and seeking the truth.



Debate has come and gone. You scored zero.

What’s your deal Michael? You made this very rude post and then “disappeared” for a few days. I thought you threw in the proverbial towel . . .

Are you back for more?

The “debate has come and gone”???

The dialogue that we exchanged in the past could hardly be classified as a debate.

Is the prospect of an actual debate appealing to you?

Would you battle me in a Member Debate concerning the topic of this thread?

[edit on 12/20/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Alfie1
This just shows up the basic absurdity of CIT's flyover theory, which no-one saw.

Whatever. I never mentioned a fly over, Alfie1. Nice way to try and avoid answering my question.

I mentioned where Boger stated to CIT, in his telephone interview, that he saw the plane approach North of Citgo.



Originally posted by Alfie1
Yes, there is certainly a lot of cherrypicking about.

How do you explain Boger describing a North of Citgo approach, Alfie1?


tezzajw

I think that when Sean Boger was caught on the phone by CIT, years after the event he simply made a mistake. In 2001 he described his first view of the plane :- "I just looked up and saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us. " He must have instantly been put in fear of his life and the plane's orientation in relation to a gas station would have been the last thing on his mind.

His description of the impact, yards from him, is very explicit, right down to the detail " I could actually hear the metal going through the building."We know from the physical damage that for the plane to hit that place at that angle it was SOC.

If I have to choose whether a man is mistaken over which side of a gas station the plane threatening to kill him was coming from, when asked years later, or whether he is mistaken about a large jet crashing yards away I don't find it hard to go with the plane impact.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

If I have to choose whether a man is mistaken over which side of a gas station the plane threatening to kill him was coming from, when asked years later, or whether he is mistaken about a large jet crashing yards away I don't find it hard to go with the plane impact.


You just very clearly stated that if you have to chose between two statements from the same witness, you will happily go with the one that fits the story you wish to believe.
Same witness, one half you like, one half you do not like. The half you like must be proof it happened and the other half is a mistake.

That is quite an admission about yourself.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Alfie1

If I have to choose whether a man is mistaken over which side of a gas station the plane threatening to kill him was coming from, when asked years later, or whether he is mistaken about a large jet crashing yards away I don't find it hard to go with the plane impact.


You just very clearly stated that if you have to chose between two statements from the same witness, you will happily go with the one that fits the story you wish to believe.
Same witness, one half you like, one half you do not like. The half you like must be proof it happened and the other half is a mistake.

That is quite an admission about yourself.


Lillydale

Why don't you tell CIT that ?



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 130  131  132    134  135  136 >>

log in

join