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: 15
215
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



9:40am September 11th 2001 cnn reports "Reports of Fire at Pentagon"

this was a banner on the screen, after about 2 minutes they get a call from producer Chris Plan (sp). He was at the scene. He didn't see a plane and reported an explosion.

They paused and went to go back to Chris, and a correspondent name Gretchen (didn't catch last name) came on. She was also on the scene, and heard the explosion but didn't see a plane.

They then (10:47) made the first report that it was a plane, citing AP as the source.They went back to Chris, and he spoke to "A senior enlisted man" saw a helicoptor go over the building, and then saw a fireball. He was aware of the AP report, and the witnesses there on the scene told him it was a helicopter.

"Initial reports from witnesses indicate that there was, ah, in fact a helicoptor circling the building contrary to what the AP reported, according to the witnesses that I've spoken to anyway, and that this helicopter disappeared behind the building and then there was an explosion."


So CNN DEFINITELY reported no plane.


Take a look at the big picture now. 3 people from CNN all reported back (the 2 in my example plus yours). The description given did not sound like a there was much evidence that a plane hit. The witness and the 2 reporters were on the scene when it happened, yet none of them saw the plane hit.




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Now, look just above your pink arrow on the lower right hand side of the first picture...see that little metal thingie on his collar??

That would be an Oak Leaf Cluster. You ask, what is the significance of that? Well that cluster identifies the man as a US Navy Lieutenant Commander. So the clothing that you call an orange jumpsuit, is actually a Naval Officer's khaki uniform.

In other words it aint an orange jumpsuit and neither is it an orange jumpsuit on the other body.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Now, go find where Chris was at the time of the explosion.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Those are khaki uniforms, not orange jumpsuits. You are in error.


uh...........care to back that up somehow? Anyhow?

I brought pictures, what do you have?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme
 


Look at the last photo. What color appears on the piece of rubble just to the left of the people?

The orange pants of the leg of the third man pictured.

What are you trying to prove with this statement anyway? Are you trying to claim everything is orange because of the explosion somehow? Then where do you get khaki?

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Lillydale]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Now, look just above your pink arrow on the lower right hand side of the first picture...see that little metal thingie on his collar??

That would be an Oak Leaf Cluster. You ask, what is the significance of that? Well that cluster identifies the man as a US Navy Lieutenant Commander. So the clothing that you call an orange jumpsuit, is actually a Naval Officer's khaki uniform.

In other words it aint an orange jumpsuit and neither is it an orange jumpsuit on the other body.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]


No, I do not see it but thank you both for perfectly backing me up. If you go back to where this started, it was not about orange jumpsuits, it was about the lack of passenger bodies. Khaki uniforms, Orange jumpsuits, invisible cloaks, it does not matter. They are still not the bodies of passengers.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Correct. They are not in orange jumpsuits. They are in khakis, a work uniform for naval officers.
No pictures of the passenger remains have been released, as far as I know, but that does not mean that there were not any passengers, does it?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
No pictures of the passenger remains have been released, as far as I know, but that does not mean that there were not any passengers, does it?


Wrong. 4 photos of burned passenger remains were used as evidence in "United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui"

They were made publicy available as a special exception.

check pictures P200042 - P200045 - P200047 - P200048

on this page


www.vaed.uscourts.gov...



Mike



[edit on 8-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Look at the last photo. What color appears on the piece of rubble just to the left of the people?


Orange.


They are not in orange jumpsuits. They are in khakis, a work uniform for naval officers.


You are only giving your opinion. Unless you have some proof. If you can prove this is some kind of military uniform, I am willing to see what you have.


No pictures of the passenger remains have been released, as far as I know, but that does not mean that there were not any passengers, does it?


Why didn’t they release any pictures of any of the passengers, I find it odd that they didn’t. The FBI had no problem releasing these pictures from the pentagon.

One has to wonder if any of these pictures are from the pentagon in the first place.
It has already been proven repeatedly that the FBI has been lying and covering up evidences for the Bush administration about 911. The FBI has helped in stone walling every investigation concerning 911.

Who knows those pictures could have been taken in Iraq in some building that we blew up. I do not trust our government when it comes to talking about 911 they have lied so much and covered up so much, one would think they where involved and they are trying their best to cover everything up, but they are making a blundering mess of everything, and it sure shows.



[edit on 8-9-2009 by impressme]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Correct. They are not in orange jumpsuits. They are in khakis, a work uniform for naval officers.
No pictures of the passenger remains have been released, as far as I know, but that does not mean that there were not any passengers, does it?


I did ask you to back it up that these are khaki uniforms. Just saying it twice does not make it so. I did not concede to you but merely pointed out the pointlessness of it. Thank you for making my case even better.

This is your way of admitting that you have no idea if there were any passenger bodies is it not? What are you here arguing about if you do not even know? Is this because you good honest government told you so?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by pteridine
No pictures of the passenger remains have been released, as far as I know, but that does not mean that there were not any passengers, does it?


Wrong. 4 photos of burned passenger remains were used as evidence in "United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui"

They were made publicy available as a special exception.

check pictures P200042 - P200045 - P200047 - P200048

on this page


www.vaed.uscourts.gov...



Mike


It says that they are bodies found inside the pentagon after the crash. It says the same of the men in orange jumpsuits. But thanks for pointing to a completely unrecognizably burned body. That proves all kinds of stuff right? I am sure you have the dna test results nearby as well? Where does it say they were passengers? Why did you skip over the ones I already posted?

[edit on 8-9-2009 by Lillydale]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
One has to wonder if any of these pictures are from the pentagon in the first place.


Sure, they're fake. Even though hundreds of people saw those dead bodies. Firemen and medical staff were witnesses. Families helped identify remains. Labs tested DNA. And all those passengers were never seen nor heard from again.

They're all just part of the Grand Conspiracy.

You can only take the word of websites selling videos and T-shirts, Youtube, a bunch of hungry professionals trying to make a buck on the Truther circuit.

Those people would never say anything that wasn't the God's Truth.

Mike


[edit on 8-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Wrong. 4 photos of burned passenger remains were used as evidence in "United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui"
check pictures P200042 - P200045 - P200047 - P200048

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Complete bunk and pure disinformation.

There is not one shred of evidence that those pictures were of passengers.

The captions for those pictures did not state that they were pictures of passenger bodies.

That's a really really lame attempt to try and deceive readers of this thread, mmiichael. Try again.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Complete bunk and pure disinformation.

There is not one shred of evidence that those pictures were of passengers.

The captions for those pictures did not state that they were pictures of passenger bodies.

That's a really really lame attempt to try and deceive readers of this thread, mmiichael. Try again.


These were used as evidence in a court of law. Didn't you read the clearly marked heading at the top of the page? Didn't you read how firefighters, medical staff, many others witnessed the scene, family members were shown pictures, labs verified DNA? Passengers where never seen again.

But someone anonymous guy on a conspiracy forum knows better.

I don't have to deceive certain readers on this thread. They do a good job of doing it to themselves.

Constantly amazed.

M



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
These were used as evidence in a court of law. Didn't you read the clearly marked heading at the top of the page?

Show me exactly where those pictures were described as being of passenger bodies.

You are blatantly spreading disinformation with your false claim.

Poor form, mmiichael. Very poor form.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by mmiichael
These were used as evidence in a court of law. Didn't you read the clearly marked heading at the top of the page?

Show me exactly where those pictures were described as being of passenger bodies.

You are blatantly spreading disinformation with your false claim.

Poor form, mmiichael. Very poor form.


Show me exactly what evidence you have that a court of law, photographers, firemen, medical personnel, family of the deceased, are all lying. Show me exactly what happened to those passengers.

Otherwise I will say you are blatantly spreading disinformation with your false claim.

Grow up.

M



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Show me exactly what evidence you have that a court of law, photographers, firemen, medical personnel, family of the deceased, are all lying.

Your extremely poor, blatant attempt to spread disinformation is noted.

You have not shown where it was stated that those pictures were of passenger bodies.

I don't expect you to retract your false claim. Over the years, I've seen very few official government story believers willingly admit to spreading disinfo.

Neutral readers to the thread will note that mmiichael has not attempted to prove his claim. Poor form, mmiichael. Very poor form.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Otherwise I will say you are blatantly spreading disinformation with your false claim.

Clearly, you are not capable of logically participating in this thread. In case you aren't aware - I never made a claim about the pictures. I asked you to support your claim that they were of passenger bodies.

Try again, mmiichael. You're only fooling yourself, everyone else can see through your disinfo.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

You have not shown where it was stated that those pictures were of passenger bodies.

I don't expect you to retract your false claim. Over the years, I've seen very few official government story believers willingly admit to spreading disinfo.

Neutral readers to the thread will note that mmiichael has not attempted to prove his claim. Poor form, mmiichael. Very poor form.

Clearly, you are not capable of logically participating in this thread. In case you aren't aware - I never made a claim about the pictures. I asked you to support your claim that they were of passenger bodies.

Try again, mmiichael. You're only fooling yourself, everyone else can see through your disinfo.



I reply to this kind of stuff because it's so ludicrous.

The court case Trial Exhibits labels these photographs as “body found inside the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into the building.” A few hundred people, government employees and independent, saw the burned mangled human bodies and parts among the shattered airplane wreckage. They were photographed as forensic evidence. Some were used for identification purposes with family members.

Now why on God's Earth would they substitute different photographs of different burned mangled human bodies and parts when they had the actual ones that were taken?

Hundreds of ordinary people in adjacent public areas saw an airliner smash into the Pentagon. Hundreds were involved in attending to the wounded, putting out fires, searching for bodies, removing body parts, documenting, cleaning up.

There is not even a scintilla of possibility this did not happen as recorded.

What is your implication? There was a reason to use substitute photographs of dead bodies? Why? No plane? No passengers? You know something different from what was seen and recounted by people who were there? They are lying?

This would be a very serious matter in that case. You’d be accusing people of premeditated mass murder and conspiracy. Do you have documented evidence? Are you concealing information related to a serious crime?

Please tell us everything you know and your sources.


M

[edit on 8-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I didn't say he was on the scene at the time of impact, I was refering to the senior enlisted official as the 3rd person. He was on the scene afterwards and didn't see much evidence of a plane, as I said.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The court case Trial Exhibits labels these photographs as “body found inside the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into the building.”

mmiichael, it's clear that you're going to persist with your claim. Why?

You have not shown that the bodies in the pictures were bodies of passengers, like you claimed.

You are so logically deficient, that you can't see the error in your argument. You supply the above quote, which mentions nothing about those bodies being passengers.

No one disputes that bodies were found in the Pentagon. There were Pentagon workers killed inside the Pentagon.

However, you claimed that those pictures show bodies of passengers and it is this claim that you have miserably failed to substantiate.

Poor form, mmiichael. Very poor form.




top topics



 
215
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join