It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 141
<< 138  139  140   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by fleabit
So the witnesses who think they saw the plane flying on a different path... their accounts MATTER. Yet those who say they saw it fly into the building are all liars, misinformed, or stupid. Here we go again....

Dude have you seen the whole? have you heard what the pilots said? have you seen an airplane hit the pentagon? and If not then why not?

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Lillydale

So what you are saying is that it is incorrect that they had no evidence


They include the qualifier "hard" to describe the evidence that they do in fact have against him.

Wanted for what?


You WERE aware that the military was holding these AQ guys (like KSM) and had plans to try them in a military court?

And that the DoD is part of the military?

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

They include the qualifier "hard" to describe the evidence that they do in fact have against him.

Wanted for what?

Um...where do they say that they have ANY OTHER KIND OF EVIDENCE????

Do not try to play word games with me. I am certain I have a better grasp of the language than you will by the time you die. I understand fully what a qualifying phrase or statement is. I know why they are used. I know there is no evidence and you are worrying about semantics to make an argument instead of just showing the facts and shutting me up.

That always happens when the facts are on my side. If you think just lying convinces anyone, sleep well at night.


You WERE aware that the military was holding these AQ guys (like KSM) and had plans to try them in a military court?

And that the DoD is part of the military?

Uh...and? You really are trying to skip around and play games.

What was said?

"The FBI does not worry about overseas terrorists like UBL"

Um, yes they do, he is on their most wanted list.

"They just put him there to shut up all the 9/11 conspiracy nuts."

He was already there. That is what upsets conspiracy nuts. He was and is on their list, just not for 9/11. Pay attention and do a little research. That makes this easier for all involved. Thanks, Joey.

The FBI has a list of most wanteds. They also have specific lists about specific categories. UBL was the example used to claim the FBI does not worry about folks like that. WRONG. The castaway defenses were WRONG. Your latest statement here is a cute bit of fun but WRONG.

You will have to explain the point you are trying to make with who is being held for what.

[edit on 1/14/10 by Lillydale]

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:17 AM
reply to post by burntheships

Totally incredible.

The hole in the pentagon makes no sense whatsoever!

I also see credibility in the Thermite argument for WTC.

This ALL must be looked into further!!!

Much love...

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:19 AM
reply to post by 6EQUJ5

Here to help bury the truth eh? If it wasn't a conspiracy, how do you explain all of the people who knew about it (and planned for it) beforehand?

[edit on 9-4-2010 by kiwasabi]

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 06:03 PM
This is a video of a CNN News Report that was aired immediately following the Pentagon Attack.
I have not seen this entire broadcast before. I was absolutely shocked in that everything that is in this news broadcast backs up the research done in this OP.

If you only watch one video about the Pentagon Attack, let this one be it.

The reporter is heard saying " I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the buliding...very small peices of the plane on the heliport, outside the building. The biggest peice I saw was about 3 feet long it was silver, and had been painted green and red but I could not see any identifiable markings..."

Also, about 2:30 into the video the woman reporter states that there was an eyewitness who saw the American Airlines Jet appeared to land short of the Pentagon!

Then the male reporter responds, and further elaborates about the very small pieces of the airplane, small pieces that you could pick up with your hand. No parts of the tail sections, wing sections, no parts of the fuselage.

edit on 19-9-2010 by burntheships because: clarification

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by burntheships


You really should actually pay attention to the clip...or read the transcript. Yes a witness did say that they thought the jet had hit the ground first before it plowed into the building. The reporter states that he saw nothing that indicated the plane had hit the ground, but that it had impacted the building. That particular reporter, has absolutely NO doubt that it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon that day.

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 07:39 PM
From the damage I knew a plane did not hit but this hit the nail on the head and backed itself well.

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 07:56 PM
reply to post by vipertech0596

Yes, and that makes it one witness's word opposing another.
What would make a news reporter more credible?

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 08:17 PM
reply to post by burntheships

Just pointing out the lack of comprehension on the part of many truthers when it comes to that CNN report.

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 07:35 PM
reply to post by Kryties

I agree, man. It is pretty unbelievable to me that out of all these videos, pictures, articles, etc, that no action has been officially made to try and bring out what really happened on that day. It's not like it's just whackos saying that 9/11 was a cover up, but many well to do people with reputations riding on their views, supporting that claim.

This video made by CIT will probably be used to prosecute the ruthless dirtbags who let this whole thing happen. Kudos to them.

posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:28 PM
My introductory post, and therefore the hardest.
I realize I step up to a debate table where both sides of this crucial issue are likely a bit (or a lot) better researched, better qualified and more articulate than I am to comment or opine on the myriad specific issues about the events leading up to and including the tragedy in September.

So, I come late to this particular party, preferring as I do to sit back, read along, look into a few things myself, mull them over and then post if I have anything to add.
I confess with some shame now that I once believed as many do, what is now dubbed the "OS". Believing as I do in such things as the fact genuine conspiracies occur daily, and appalled as I am at the reaction to and highjacking of the word 'conspiracy' itself to denote some derogatory implication, I've learned to don some armor on hotbed topics like this.

I have a limited but qualifiable background in debate, so I admit I still get annoyed when one side or the other pretends or assumes to know how a formal debate is governed and adjudicated, but in light of the importance of the issue, I can also be forgiving if some of the niceties and finer points of debate etiquette are treated as the game they can become.

I'll take the plunge here, then:
In this debate on so many forums, there are really only two camps---those who believe the official story (or at least enough elements of it to accept the largest conclusions required by it) and those who don't. Unfortunately, like so many controversial topics in the past, when one side has a clear anchor to latch its arguments to, the dissent or contradictions in the opposing camp are always inflated in importance as 'proof' that the official story holds more water. Then the epithets begin, giving more credence to ridicule and soundbyte gotchas than actual substance.
So, call me what you will. Some will say, 'conspiracy nut', 'truther', 'twoofer' (although those who use this particular epithet lose immediate credibility with me, since it's a childishly broad brush to paint a widely varied demographic with), even if I don't subscribe to the camps of many who challenge the official story of this fourfold tragedy.

Lillydale, thank you for enduring abuse long past what I would have in a structured debate. You're very articulate and patient with those who hold unyieldingly to beliefs that at LEAST bear some re-examination, but refuse to do so. Again, thank you.
jthomas---In a formal debate, you'd lose on at least the particular issue of passenger bodies. I don't say they didn't exist, nor do I say that they were not found where the OS claims they were. I only say that in your very long and repetitive evasions, you have failed to meet a prima facie case for your asserted position. Photographs, copies of official documents, both with some evidence of impartial review would be perfect examples of evidence, and I admit I'm completely mystified why, if such exist, you simply don't post them. It would be the thousands word's worth of 'shut up' you seem to desire so strongly, accomplished with a few simple links. Ten thousand words of refusal to do so and shifting the entire debate paradigm 180 degrees to misplace the burden of proof is ipso facto cause for point loss. Doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means you lose that major point in the debate.
Lillydale---Sorry, but at the risk of a self-appointed debate judge (me) appearing to coach a participant, I don't understand why you simply don't 'retract' or amend the statement ascribed to you which he clings to so vehemently, and appropriately re-shift the burden to himself. I can see your efforts at doing so, but he's hung up on getting that absolutely trivial 'retraction'. I'd give him to him, and leave his argument nowhere else to go but to supplying affirmation for his assertions. At this point, continuing to even respond to someone who fails to establish a prima facie case only empowers unsupported assertions by giving them the appearance of being worthy of response.
jthomas---You are repeatedly demonstrating TEXTBOOK examples of requiring negative proof. I'm not asking you, and you're not telling me. I'm telling you. YOU assert the existence of the bodies, even if you only did so tacitly by agreeing with the official case. If you're going to support it, SUPPORT IT. But in a debate, you do that with evidence. End of story. Once you've done -that-, you may of course shift the burden to the negative position to refute your evidence, or offer an alternative explanation for it. That's how it works. That's how it's -always- worked. I suspect you know that, however. So I do wonder what you're playing at.

posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 02:18 PM
Just some chronology of the evolution of my belief that the raw skeleton of the truth is nothing like the official story:

1. I believed it all at first. I kick myself every time I do that, because the truth is rarely the first thing to rear its head. What I saw, almost live, on that morning, stunned me to inarticulation, and compelled me to latch onto an explanation, -any- explanation, for what I was seeing. Two plane loads of human beings, hundreds of them, reduced to gore --- colliding with two -buildings- of human beings, similarly reduced to meaningless meat before my eyes. And while my mental aperture, too narrow by far to accept this instantaneous horror, tried to adjust, the horrors compounded. People burning. People jumping. Accusations flying that even then, told me we were going to embrace the ultimate horror of war eventually because of this. Iconic buildings, rife with subliminal symbolic imperviousness, crumbling in less time than it takes me to blow out all my birthday candles.
And then the rumors, countless. The speculations, more so. Then the Pentagon. Then the lonely crash in Shanksville, which to my shame, at this point offered -relief- from the ongoing pandemonium.
I wasn't even aware that I wasn't being given time to think.

2. My vengeful state. We needed to move fast, find out who did this, and do our utmost to make sure that no two molecules of that entity could ever bond again. Military aggression, trained into me, coupled with the anger of a violated civilian, was easy prey for the drumbeat of a government prepared to stoke the flames in a media blitz to justify what was already contemplated. Long story short, I cheered for Shock and Awe.

3. We hit Iraq, and escalated in Afghanistan. I didn't question this. It didn't puzzle me. I knew my brothers in arms were largely honorable men, and very capable of doing what deserved to be done. And then my catharsis, when I realized what I had become, what I had supported. WMD never mattered to me. Never. 9/11. That's it.
But like a bullet to my brain, I realized I had just become, -we- had just become, precisely what we thought we were fighting. Terrorists, by any definition. We intentionally targeted civilians, swapped out the word 'terror' for 'shock and awe', and at least personally, I okayed it with my conscience, because we were doing it -back-.
Amazing how nations can be reduced to child-like entities.

4. The Bush administration itself started fueling my doubts, eroding my certainty. This has been covered in this forum ad infinitum. Liars. Just goddamned liars. The real kicks in the teeth, over time:
-Bush saying he didn't think about UBL much any more. I literally stood up out of my chair and shouted at the TV.
-Late realization that Rumsfeld, the day -before- 9/11, announced at least 2.3 trillion dollars in 'unaccounted for' Pentagon waste.
-Dick Cheney. Isn't it interesting that I can just say his name, and know reasonable people will understand all which that implies.
-The Acts. One after another, the oath-of-office-violating acts, ramrodded on us by a blind Congress and ambitiously greedy and power-seeking men. It was happening, and the worst horror in my opinion, it was happening HERE, very similarly to how it has happened historically in other nations frightened into committing acts of unspeakable evil. Good people slowly introduced to accepting less, behaving worse, and fighting harder, to remove vestiges of conscientious thoughtfulness.

5. Fahrenheit 9/11. An eye opener about the wizards behind the curtain. I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan, honestly, but when someone presents researchable facts, and leaves them there to be scrutinized, they earn my attention.

6. The NIST report(s). I'm only an armchair scientist, my college days a third of a century behind me, but I was suddenly the old lady at Wendy's asking, "Where's the beef??"
It's all condiments and bun, but....well, it's not how I would build a sandwich.

7. Loose Change. For the record, I disagree with a lot of the conclusions drawn by the first and subsequent editions, but here at least, if nothing else, was an invitation to voice my growing doubts in an environment of increasingly less hostility to QUESTIONS. That's the thing...questions. I scoff at the notion that I'm a nutter because I have them. I scoff at the PEOPLE who suggest I shouldn't ask, ask again, and insist on satisfying answers. I'm still waiting on answers to some crucial ones.

8. Five years of looking into various claims, investigations, slowly released information, and the nature of the debate itself. In my opinion, those who suggest that 'all has been debunked' have no place at the table. Their work was done long ago, if that's the genuine case. To a thoughtful person, very little of the substantive questions have been given their day in court. Isn't that what we all wanted? Justice? A day in court? SOME CRIMINALS brought to the beacon of American justice?
Massasoui? Maybe. Again, where's the Bin Laden 'beef'?

I'll keep asking. This seems like one place where that will be tolerated without the typical YouTard punditry and general sloth of public discourse.
Thanks for listening.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:41 PM
This post will serve as reference to actual news articles that are still available on line.

Federal agency planned plane-crashing-into-building drill ... last Sept. 11

United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001

NORAD Maintains Northern Vigilance Sept. 9, 2001

The scene at NORAD on Sept. 11 ; Playing Russian war games ... and then someone shouted to look at the monitor

Global Guardian

Vigilant Garudian

9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

Exercise Jump-Starts
Response to Attacks

Amalgam Warrior

Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building

Man Behind the Mayor


Complete 911 Timeline
Military Exercises Up to 9/11


September 18, 2001

NORAD'S Response Times, Sept. 11, 2001

The FBI releases 19 photographs of individuals believed to be the hijackers
of the four airliners that crashed on September 11, 01

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui
Criminal No. 01-455-A

This New York Times page is an index to many stories on Atta, the other hijackers and 9/11 in general

The Global Security page makes it easy to view the movements, activities and associations of each of the hijackers. Primarily based on the 9/11 Commission Report
edit on 16-2-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:58 PM
I agree with the scientific evidence but let us examine something else when you walk into a bank or are at a casino your being watched every single second and those tapes are kept. so the most secure military building in the world and no vidoe to speak of exept the 5 seconds wich shows absolutly nothing! look on outisde of Pentagon there are a lot of camera's im sure there are more not seen you cant even get close to the building without being vidoe taped, ID'd, questioned but no video IM JUST SAYING!

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by MedicJeff

The Pentagon, is nowhere NEAR the most secure military building in the US. Not sure where that delusion came from.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by vipertech0596

Not to mention, the only camera that would have caught AA77, would have had to been pointing at the sky. At which point, the truthers would point out what a waste of taxpayers money such a camera was, and how it was obviously a plant..

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:47 AM
This entire thread is full of the same old crap that has been spouted for 10 years.

If anybody had any real proof they would have taken it to the media. The claim that the media wouldn't publish it is also crap. At that point they would have posted the names of the people and stations/papers that refused to publish it.

But no it's all Youtube evidence and website dvds.

!0 years of the same old same old.

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 06:25 PM
Star for you sir! I didnt notice this buried amongst the all the other threads, there is way to many holes in the OS and it's getting harder for them to convince people that this has anything to do with 'musilim hijackers'.

new topics

top topics

<< 138  139  140   >>

log in