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: 18
215
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
If you were going to have a conspiracy to hit the Pentagon, wouldn't it be easier and more damaging just to fly a plane into the building


I think so, yes. Pilots for 9/11 Truth even brings up precisely this point in its video:
From Pandora's Black Box, Chapter II, Flight of American 77, starting at 34:52:


Again, focusing on a large area
or maybe directly from the top
or maybe the other side
or maybe where Rummy was sitting

Instead, the only recently reinforced portion of the pentagon was reportedly struck.


I contend that your problem here is that you're assuming that what they wanted was to cause maximum damage. Pilots for 9/11 Truth brings up another possibility in the aforementioned video, starting at 5:50:

The Money - The Cover-up...

CBS News, January 29, 2002:

Donald Rumsfeld speaks on September 10, 2001:
"According to some estimates, we cannot track some 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions."

2.3 Trillion, with a T. That's 8000 dollars for every man, woman and child in America. But the next day, the world changed. And in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten..

To understand how the pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of 1 military accountant, who tried to find what happened to a mere 300 million.

Jim Minnery: "We know it's gone, but we don't know what they spent it on."

Jim Minnery, a former marine, turned whistle blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing..

Jim Minnery: "They got to cover it up"


And that might just be an understatement, Jim. The next day, September 11, 2001, the area at the pentagon that was heavily destroyed also housed the civilian accountants, book keepers, and budget analysts that would have investigated the missing funds, including all the computers that had all the information.


[edit on 9-9-2009 by scott3x]




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


The eyes checked comment was because you said you could not see something in the photo that is plain as day.

You ask for evidence, then you are going to have to specify what you will accept as evidence.....I've learned from history that will vary from truther to truther.

Not that it matters, because any evidence presented will come from a government source that you will immeadiately decry as being part of the cover-up.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Sigh, the 2.3 trillion dollars again......

Read the thread entitled "Rumsfeld and the 2.3 Trillion"



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by jthomas
We skeptics are tired of waiting for you 9/11 "Truthers" to get off your butts and do your homework. You'll NEVER convince a soul that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon if you keep refusing to deal with the evidence.


I keep asking for evidence and all I ever get are snide remarks about how I need to do my homework. I did. There is no evidence that AA77 hit the pentagon. NONE.


It's remarkable that after 8 years since 9/11, there are still people who think they can get away with the claim "that there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon."

What we know is that you cannot refute the massive evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon so the easy way out is for you to claim there is no evidence.

So, is it any wonder that none of you 9/11 "Truth" kiddies can answer my simple question of you for the last 3 years?

Gosh.




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
It's remarkable that after 8 years since 9/11, there are still people who think they can get away with the claim "that there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon."

What we know is that you cannot refute the massive evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon so the easy way out is for you to claim there is no evidence.

So, is it any wonder that none of you 9/11 "Truth" kiddies can answer my simple question of you for the last 3 years?

Gosh.



OK, so where is it? Where is all this irrefutable evidence??????????

I see you claiming it is there. I see you claiming I am wrong in saying it is not. So......where is it? Where are the wings? Which parts were ID'd by serial number? Where are the bodies of any passengers?

See, I actually asked my question and you wasted yet another post NOT ANSWERING IT!!! So what was your point? I said not to bother if you had no evidence and yet, you bothered. What is the point of your post? You brought no evidence and then you accuse me of dodging some question that was never asked of me for 3 years????????

If someone else did not answer you, that is too bad on them. I am not them. I am me. You did not post your question, just nonsense about how there is evidence without actually proving it.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You ask for evidence, then you are going to have to specify what you will accept as evidence.....I've learned from history that will vary from truther to truther.


Plane parts positively identified as belonging to flight 77. Passenger bodies. At least one decent explanation as to where the wings went.

These are all acceptable things.


Not that it matters, because any evidence presented will come from a government source that you will immeadiately decry as being part of the cover-up.


Ahhh, the coward's way out as usual. You end by stating it won't matter what you show so why bother. What a great way to get out of trying to even show any evidence.

I hope you all get some sort of satisfaction out of posting over and over and over on these boards to refute "truthers" without ever actually trying to prove anything and then saying it is the "truther's" bad for not proving anything.

I am not a truther. I did not claim what happened. I never offered a scenario. I just know things do not add up. I was told certain things happened by the president and the secretary of defense. None of these things have been proven to be true and many of them were proven to be lies.

Based on that, yeah you need to actually prove your case instead of just repeating it.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
Ive noticed that this truth movement has been really speeding up lately.

will it be taken seriously if enough people stand up and ask??


Yeah, but according to the likes of esdad or cameronfox or swampfox it is dying and going the way of the mammoth. No, that is NOT the case no matter how much the skeptics of this event want to believe. It is indeed growing. I live in a VERY conservative, almost right wing extreme neighborhood. Very religious. When I moved here two years ago and I mentioned it to some friends and family about the questions I had for that day they scoffed at me. EVERY SINGLE ONE! Now I would say it's close to about 30% that have looked at the events of that day and have come to the conclusion that at least there are some serious questions that need to be answered and answered properly. Not with the made up stuff that is being thrown at us.

So, to say it is dying is kind of a pathetic cry for help by these guys that WANT it to die. It is a desparate move on their part.

I'll look at this information and see if it indeed seems to be an unbiased enough study for me to chalk it up as to something to share with even more believers of the official 'lie'.

The aunts and uncles that are adament that nothing fishy happened are former military. They have a firm belief that everything this government or the factions within it do for this nation are solely for the benefit of the nation as a whole. They think I'm off my rocker for thinking that there could have possibly been some inside work on that day. Well, they at least listen to my arguments now.


It's growing. Slowly but surely. I would never have given it a snowballs chance in hell in my town to grown even to 5% two years ago.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You ask for evidence, then you are going to have to specify what you will accept as evidence.....I've learned from history that will vary from truther to truther.


Well how about just a picture or a video that looks like a plane crash or a plane...



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by jthomas
It's remarkable that after 8 years since 9/11, there are still people who think they can get away with the claim "that there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon."

What we know is that you cannot refute the massive evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon so the easy way out is for you to claim there is no evidence.

So, is it any wonder that none of you 9/11 "Truth" kiddies can answer my simple question of you for the last 3 years?

Gosh.



OK, so where is it? Where is all this irrefutable evidence??????????


Anytime a 9/11 Denier like you comes around and asks that question, I throw it right back at you to demonstrate that your questions is valid. On 3 years of asking, not one of you can demonstrate the validity of that question.


I see you claiming it is there. I see you claiming I am wrong in saying it is not. So......where is it? Where are the wings? Which parts were ID'd by serial number? Where are the bodies of any passengers?


Why are you asking me when I've told you whom to ask?


See, I actually asked my question and you wasted yet another post NOT ANSWERING IT!!! So what was your point? I said not to bother if you had no evidence and yet, you bothered. What is the point of your post? You brought no evidence and then you accuse me of dodging some question that was never asked of me for 3 years????????


Not only you. All Pentagon NO planers from CIT on down.


If someone else did not answer you, that is too bad on them. I am not them. I am me. You did not post your question, just nonsense about how there is evidence without actually proving it.


There is nothing I have to prove. You have to go to the sources of the evidence for which you are looking if you are so incapable of understanding the preponderance of evidence from multiple sources demonstrating that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Neither I nor anyone else is required to prove anything to you. YOU can do your own homework. YOU have to convince everyone else.

Now, once again, I will pose the same question:

What is the wreckage that over 1,000 people saw, handled, removed, and sorted openly on the Pentagon lawn in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11? I have given you the information of the sources of that information. It has been available to you all for almost 8 full years. I do not have to reprint that list in this thread yet again.

Now, K J, what are those people's statements?

Stop whining and get to work.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

I hope you all get some sort of satisfaction out of posting over and over and over on these boards to refute "truthers" without ever actually trying to prove anything and then saying it is the "truther's" bad for not proving anything.


NO one has to prove anything to you. The burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders.


I am not a truther.


Sorry, you're a 9/11 "Truther."


I did not claim what happened. I never offered a scenario. I just know things do not add up.


Then prove it.


I was told certain things happened by the president and the secretary of defense. None of these things have been proven to be true and many of them were proven to be lies.


So you were told and believe. But you have to prove it. None of you ever have.


Based on that, yeah you need to actually prove your case instead of just repeating it.


You are the one having to prove your claims that you "just know things do not add up." We skeptics have no reason to accept your claims on faith.

Sorry.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
NO one has to prove anything to you. The burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders.


Doesn't the burden of truth go on whoever is making the most outrageous claim?

Their are no conclusive photos that show a plane at the site...
Their are no conclusive videos of the plane crash...

Both at the pentagon and in shanksville...

It is ridiculous to pretend that their is any conclusive evidence of either of these plane crashes...



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Do you think that a claim that a plane crashed into the Pentagon, as seen by many witnesses, is more outrageous than the farcical CIT scheme which has absolutely no evidence to support it?
As it is, we have an explanation that satisfies the facts. You claim something different. You get to prove it.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


you people cant even do basic research or are too lazy to do so.

here,

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I love these Rube Goldberg style plans truthers like to come up with. its so much fun watching them get so riled up, so complicated, that it hurts the brain how anyone can think that it would go off without a hitch.

I posted this a few months back on a different thread, but i do believe it sums up the illogical thinking of a few "truthers":



by GenRadek 08/01/2009
I can see it at the secret meeting months before 9/11:
Evil Planner #1:
"Ok for the Pentagon, we want to make it look like a plane was hijacked and crashed into it. Any ideas?"

Evil Planner #2
"How about we take the real plane, have it be diverted somewhere in Ohio, then we swap it with a look-alike plane. Then we fly it in such a way that we manage to fly over the Pentagon, while our boys on the ground set off a few thousand pounds of jet fuel and shaped explosives inside the Pentagon. That way it looks like it hit. Our guys are going to have sneak in fuel tanks and bombs, but no one will notice right? Just we have to make sure the plane is high enough to flyover, but so low that everyone will be fooled into thinking its crashing. Oh and we also have to plant a whole bunch of fake lightposts to make it look like they were hit by the plane. They have to positioned AFTER the explosions go off. But don't worry, the news and eyewitnesses will be too busy to notice our guys in suits planting the lightposts. Oh and we'll also smash a cabbie's windshield to make it look like one post hit it too by the plane. But this MUST be done right AFTER the explosion, so we must do it fast. Our flight path on radars will also be secretly manipulated and we will have someone during the action fake all the flightpaths and directions on radar so no one will notice the swap. We then stage people all around the Pentagon to say a plane hit it, while we confiscate any tapes and videos to hide what we did. Dont worry about setting up the lamposts, no one will notice that either. Then we'll have Bubba with the boys run around outside the Pentagon and inside throwing random aircraft parts and debris to make it all look real. Oh yes and dont forget the body parts and DNA samples. We have to make sure they are from the people on the plane."

EP #1
"What about the initial "hijacked" plane?"

EP #2
"Ah, well that one we can either have one of our men on board kill the pilot and have the plane crash into the ocean. Or we can land it at one of our secret airbases and take everyone off and kill them all in a hanger and secretly dispose of the bodies, OR we give them all new identities and have them all swear to never ever ever ever speak of what they did."

EP #1
"Excellent. Now you are sure that we can pull this off so no professional investigators can uncover the charade? Are you sure we can fool thousands of people that a plane crashed there? Are you absolutely sure we can do this without a hitch? "

EP #2
"Absolutely, I mean what can go wrong? I doubt some college boys are going to come and "investigate" it all from their mom's basement, and uncover it all. Its foolproof!"

Evil Planner #3
"Hey, how about we just take the hijacked plane and crash it into the Pentagon just like that? That way we dont have to worry about staging all the explosives, fake eyewitnesses, debris, bombs, and we dont have to worry about anyone noticing the flyover, or the other plane crashing into the ocean. I mean whats the point of crashing it in the ocean? Crash it into the Pentagon. Its safer and it will look most real. That way a plane did hit it, and people will actually see the plane hit it. We have just covered our butts and our story of hijacked airplanes being used as weapons will be safe and sealed. Only we will know and we will avoid all these extra unnecessary actions that put us at risk of being caught ."

EP #1
"Are you kidding me? Thats too simple. Heck we cant make it that simple, cause someone will find out. No, I'll go with the first option. agreed? This will the best plan, most secret, and not a soul will notice our master grand deception! Muahahahahah! Lets get started."



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
NO one has to prove anything to you. The burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders.


Doesn't the burden of truth go on whoever is making the most outrageous claim?

Their are no conclusive photos that show a plane at the site...
Their are no conclusive videos of the plane crash...

Both at the pentagon and in shanksville...

It is ridiculous to pretend that their is any conclusive evidence of either of these plane crashes...


Do you actually believe what you just wrote? Are you that brainwashed by your fellow 9/11 Deniers?

Only 9/11 Deniers think one needs pictures and videos to prove events happened.



It's your way of saying "no other evidence matters so I'm not going to pay attention to it."

Amazing....



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



You refuse to answer my questions about your claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. Now let's try again.


Go back and reread the post I ask you first. Stop playing I ask you the first question game!


Now let's try again. THIS time I expect you to answer my question and stop your evasions, ok?


Then answer my question?


What proof to you have that a plane hit the pentagon? We don’t want to hear you say Oh I told you all years ago! I am asking you now, what proof do YOU have that an airplane hit the pentagon?

Just answer the question.


Answer the Question please? If you don’t then, you are not in here to talk about TRUTH are you?


Now stop whining and present us the statements of these people once and for all or retract your claim:


I have not made any claim YOU NEED TO STOP LYING!

Are you on drugs? Jthomas show where I have made any claim?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


The eyes checked comment was because you said you could not see something in the photo that is plain as day.


Huh? Anyway, you could have pointed them out or directed me where to look but you chose to be rude instead. How did that work out for you?


You ask for evidence, then you are going to have to specify what you will accept as evidence.....I've learned from history that will vary from truther to truther.


I am not a "truther" first of all. I cannot be lumped into anyone group because then you will decide that anything I say supports a flyover, mini-nukes, holograms, and so on. BUZZZZZZZZZ WRONG ANSWER.

I would have thought what would count as evidence would be pretty simple for you to figure out. I guess I have given you too much credit. Evidence would include plane parts or passenger bodies. The thing that would really make my day would be the wings.


Not that it matters, because any evidence presented will come from a government source that you will immeadiately decry as being part of the cover-up.



So you get out of even trying to provide evidence by predicting your own defeat at the hands of my refusal to accept anything from the government? Well, if I were you and I were to waste all my time posting up and down these threads to try and make some kind of point, I would bring my evidence with me. Perhaps that is just me though.

Try me. Give me any evidence you have. If you happen to come up with something I have never seen before, maybe you will have what I have been looking for. I have an open mind. I just do not have an empty mind.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Anytime a 9/11 Denier like you comes around and asks that question, I throw it right back at you to demonstrate that your questions is valid. On 3 years of asking, not one of you can demonstrate the validity of that question.


LOL, oh Thomas, you are a hoot! What are you asking K to prove? A negative? You do understand the invalidity of that premise right? You appear at least bright enough to understand that you cannot prove a negative.

You also are presuming that people like us are offering a premise to prove. That is wrong and intellectually dishonest. I cannot help but believe in my heart that you actually know that.

You have offered the premise. You say that a plane flew into that building. Can you explain why anyone should just accept that unless they prove it did not happen? Seriously, I have an invisible dragon in my garage. According to your logic, that is true unless you can prove it is not. It does not work that way.

You claim that a plane flew into the pentagon. Do not say you do not need to prove it. We know you can't anyway. The question is, why can't you prove your premise?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Jezus
 


Do you think that a claim that a plane crashed into the Pentagon, as seen by many witnesses, is more outrageous than the farcical CIT scheme which has absolutely no evidence to support it?
As it is, we have an explanation that satisfies the facts. You claim something different. You get to prove it.


Where are the wings?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


you people cant even do basic research or are too lazy to do so.

here,

www.abovetopsecret.com...


This link is getting old. This is the third time I have had to see it in one of these threads. Are you getting a commission? Where are the bodies of passengers? What plane did those few scattered scraps come from? How do you know?



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join