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: 22
215
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas


So you didn't bother to read what I wrote.

IF any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon there would not just be one person who claimed to have seen a "flyover." Just what part of that still confuses you? Go back and review my posts for the last year on this subject.

Either produce the evidence of any "flyover" or admit that there was none.

Sheesh...

[edit on 11-9-2009 by jthomas]


Um. I can see the way you're used to talking to people. You've never met me, mate, not even on here, yet you're assuming that I am simply "on the other side". Anyway, You said that CIT had not produced a single eye-witness who had seen the plane fly away. I pointed out that there is one in the video. To which you reply that one witness means nothing and there should be many.

I was replying to your post to me. I have had a long break from this site, and if you think that I am going to read your posts from the last year you are much mistaken. Especially if they are as combative and contradictory as your interaction with me so far.




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla

Originally posted by jthomas


So you didn't bother to read what I wrote.

IF any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon there would not just be one person who claimed to have seen a "flyover." Just what part of that still confuses you? Go back and review my posts for the last year on this subject.

Either produce the evidence of any "flyover" or admit that there was none.

Sheesh...

[edit on 11-9-2009 by jthomas]


Um. I can see the way you're used to talking to people. You've never met me, mate, not even on here, yet you're assuming that I am simply "on the other side". Anyway, You said that CIT had not produced a single eye-witness who had seen the plane fly away.


I can only assume you've done your homework before replying. If you repeat CIT nonsense, you are going to be reminded of it.


I pointed out that there is one in the video.


And his name is??? CIT has produced not a single person who saw any aircraft "fly over and away from the Pentagon" as Ranke claims.


To which you reply that one witness means nothing and there should be many.


I've pointed out the obvious for over a year. Do I need to repeat it once again? Now pay attention:

There were hundreds of people on the freeways, bridges, in the parking lots, and in surrounding buildings immediately around the Pentagon in positions able to see ANY flyover had one occurred, particularly in the manner CIT claims of a fast moving, low flying jet. Many of these people would have had the jet and the explosion behind in directly in their line of sight.

I have already made clear through a standard GIS view shed analysis the geographic area within a two-mile radius of the center of the Pentagon that is within visibility of an aircraft flying 100 feet over ground level at the center of the Pentagon.

Review it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is not one single report from anyone around the Pentagon at the time, nor is there one single media report, of any aircraft flying over and away from the Pentagon. Do you actually want us to accept that NONE of those people would see a flyover had one occurred? If so, explain in detail.

Now, CIT has deliberately hand-picked "eyewitnesses" from the approach side who actually NEVER claimed to see a flyover. CIT's tactic has always been to get people to believe that a jet flew a NOC flight path, therefore it could not have caused the damage to the Pentagon, so "it must have flown over the Pentagon." CIT has never once produced a single piece of positive evidence demonstrating an actual flyover.


I was replying to your post to me. I have had a long break from this site, and if you think that I am going to read your posts from the last year you are much mistaken. Especially if they are as combative and contradictory as your interaction with me so far.


I suggest you do your homework then and don't bring up what has been discussed endlessly, and debunked, for almost 3 years here.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
While I respect the hell out of the guys who made this documentary, really a briefing, I've gotta say that we don't need anymore evidence. What we need is for the American people to get really f-ing pissed off and demand their First Amendment right to Redress of Grievances.

Since roundabout 2004 we've had them snared in their own web of lies; from CIA Operations Officers to Marine Corps SpecOps, from Architects to Intellectuals, Air Force and civilian pilots to firefighters and victims' families, housewives, plumbers and the homeless in Brazil, we all know what has become abundantly clear to even a reasonably responsive chimp: 911 was an inside job.

Charlie Sheen recently came out with an article for infowars.com entitled "20 Minutes with the President", followed by a 6:32 Video with a message straight to Obama. The info is double and triple checked, it is sound, it is scientific, it is part of history. I hope to God this actually happens. Today's Sept. 11, I want this to be the day that we secure our right to a full, in-depth investigation with subpoena power...

Oh wait, we just did!



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Pretending that a lack of video or photographic evidence is meaningless is probably one of the most bizarre psychological phenomenons surrounding 9/11.

The accepted the official story is believed NO OTHER REASON except that the mass media reported it.

The slightest investigation reveals contradictions, anomalies, and massive "coincidences".
+
There should be plenty of photos of the shanksville crash that show a plane ...none have been produced...
+
There should be plenty of photos of the pentagon crash that show a plane...none have been produced...
+
There should be plenty of videos of the amazing flight path of the plane that hit the pentagon...none have been produced...
+
This lack of any substantial physical evidence combined with the fact that many eyewitness testimonies contradict the official story
=
THE OFFICIAL STORY IS A STORY THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY PSYCHICAL EVIDENCE OR LOGICAL REASONING

Their is just as much evidence for the official story as their is for the alternative theories (conspiracy theories)

This isn't really debatable....the evidence does not exist...



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
Pretending that a lack of video or photographic evidence is meaningless is probably one of the most bizarre psychological phenomenons surrounding 9/11.


Until you can explain why we need either, you're just blowing 9/11 Denial smoke.


The accepted the official story is believed NO OTHER REASON except that the mass media reported it.


There is no "official story" to "believe" and the evidence doesn't come from the media. No wonder you won't interview these actual human beings:


Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



There should be plenty of photos of the shanksville crash that show a plane ...none have been produced...


Appeal to incredulity. There is no rational reason there "should be photos" showing a plane. The jet was destroyed as expected.


There should be plenty of photos of the pentagon crash that show a plane...none have been produced...


Another appeal to incredulity. There is no rational reason there "should be photos" showing a plane. The jet was destroyed as expected.


There should be plenty of videos of the amazing flight path of the plane that hit the pentagon...none have been produced...


Yet another appeal to incredulity. There is no rational reason there "should be videos" as if cameras should have been focused on the crash spot 24/7. Where do you get such silly ideas, Jezus?


This lack of any substantial physical evidence combined with the fact that many eyewitness testimonies contradict the official story


You haven't refuted the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Nobody has any reason to accept your claims.


This isn't really debatable....the evidence does not exist...


I bet you are chicken to go to the Pentagon and hold up a sign saying that. But maybe that's the only way you will ever see how wrong you are.

You understand that no one has any reason to accept your fallacious claims, don't you?




[edit on 11-9-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



Support your claim.


You don’t, why should they?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


So let me get this straight, there shouldn't be any videos(photos) of a plane flying through and striking the pentagon, other than the frames we've seen? So there would be no security cameras on the pentagon facing outward? My former high school, in a farm town with less then 400 people in it, has a dozen security cameras on it facing outward to give a full view of the perimeter, but of course the pentagon wouldn't have that would they?

Maybe someone should come back to the rational world.

[edit on 9/11/2009 by TheAntiHero420]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Normally I would just stop...but this is really interesting...

Pretending that a lack of video or photographic evidence is meaningless is probably one of the most bizarre psychological phenomenons surrounding 9/11.


Originally posted by jthomas
Another appeal to incredulity. There is no rational reason there "should be photos" showing a plane. The jet was destroyed as expected.


Why would you expect the crash not to look like other plane crashes?


Originally posted by jthomas
Yet another appeal to incredulity. There is no rational reason there "should be videos" as if cameras should have been focused on the crash spot 24/7.


If the plane actually followed the path needed to hit the pentagon there would be plenty of videos to show the plane....

Why would you expect not to see the videos?


Originally posted by jthomas
You haven't refuted the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Nobody has any reason to accept your claims.
...
You understand that no one has any reason to accept your fallacious claims, don't you?


What evidence?

No photos of a plane, you admitted that...
No videos of a plane, you admitted that...

Contradicting eyewitnesses....

I'm not making any claims, but their isn't any evidence to refute...



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas
 


So let me get this straight, there shouldn't be any videos(photos) of a plane flying through and striking the pentagon, other than the frames we've seen? So there would be no security cameras on the pentagon facing outward? My former high school, in a farm town with less then 400 people in it, has a dozen security cameras on it facing outward to give a full view of the perimeter, but of course the pentagon wouldn't have that would they?

Maybe someone should come back to the rational world.



You are asking far too much of jthomas.

Rational is too frightening.




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
So let me get this straight, there shouldn't be any videos(photos) of a plane flying through and striking the pentagon, other than the frames we've seen? So there would be no security cameras on the pentagon facing outward? My former high school, in a farm town with less then 400 people in it, has a dozen security cameras on it facing outward to give a full view of the perimeter, but of course the pentagon wouldn't have that would they?

Maybe someone should come back to the rational world.


Did you high school ever get hit by a fuel laden Boeing 757 at 450 mph?

When you violently damage or destroy an electronic recording system how much data do you think you will recover?

M



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


No, ironically my high school was not the pentagon, a gas station, a hotel, or one of the various other buildings in the area of the pentagon. And what evidence do you have that the complete security system was destroyed in the attack leaving no visible evidence to be reviewed?

[edit on 9/11/2009 by TheAntiHero420]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



There were hundreds of people on the freeways, bridges, in the parking lots, and in surrounding buildings immediately around the Pentagon in positions able to see ANY flyover had one occurred, particularly in the manner CIT claims of a fast moving, low flying jet. Many of these people would have had the jet and the explosion behind in directly in their line of sight.


As you say all the time, this information has been DEBUNKED years ago.
You have no proof!


I have already made clear through a standard GIS view shed analysis the geographic area within a two-mile radius of the center of the Pentagon that is within visibility of an aircraft flying 100 feet over ground level at the center of the Pentagon.

Review it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is not one single report from anyone around the Pentagon at the time, nor is there one single media report, of any aircraft flying over and away from the Pentagon. Do you actually want us to accept that NONE of those people would see a flyover had one occurred? If so, explain in detail.


As you say all the time, this information has been DEBUNKED years ago.
You have no proof!



Now, CIT has deliberately hand-picked "eyewitnesses"


No, it has been the OS believers who’ve deliberately hand-picked "eyewitnesses" while ignoring the facts, the OS supporters disregarded creditable eyewitness because it proves their OS is a lie, that is a fact.



Pentagon, so "it must have flown over the Pentagon."


Must have?



I was replying to your post to me. I have had a long break from this site, and if you think that I am going to read your posts from the last year you are much mistaken.


Funny that coming from you, you tell everyone else to go back and read your post where you claimed you debunk everything, like it is old news. FYI, this is a well-known disinformationist tactic, so the disinformationist does not have to prove anything much less respond to the question.



Especially if they are as combative and contradictory as your interaction with me so far.


Wow! Like your not. What a lame excuse to get out of doing what the poster ask you.



I suggest you do your homework then and don't bring up what has been discussed endlessly, and debunked, for almost 3 years here.


Same old disinformationist tactics:

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

benfrank.net...

When are you going to stop spreading disinformation Jthomas?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

posted by jthomas
Yet another appeal to incredulity. There is no rational reason there "should be videos" as if cameras should have been focused on the crash spot 24/7.


posted by Jezus

If the plane actually followed the path needed to hit the pentagon there would be plenty of videos to show the plane....

Why would you expect not to see the videos?



And lest we forget, jthomas is the world's foremost authority on the parking lot security videos and photoshopping.


posted by jthomas

Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.


In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.



jthomas Photoshopping Incorporated




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by mmiichael
 


No, ironically my high school was not the pentagon, a gas station, a hotel, or one of the various other buildings in the area of the pentagon. And what evidence do you have that the complete security system was destroyed in the attack leaving no visible evidence to be reviewed?


As there was a destroyed Boeing 757 and dead bodies right inside the Pentagon, 125 of it's employees were killed, a thousand people saw it happen - the Pentagon does not feel compelled to prove that something happened that there is no question about.

And seeing as how the WTC was attacked twice in a decade, do you honestly think the Pentagon wants to provide photographic details of it's security strengths, weaknesses and areas of vulnerability to potential enemies because Truthers aren't satisfied with the pictures made available?

And there is no question whatever they released wouldn't be satisfactory.

I'm sure the DNA results of the dead passengers will be questioned soon. And, of course, someone will claim they've found disparities. CIT should get on that one. Release a new video. Nobody in their right mind swallows this flyover story any more.


M


[edit on 11-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
a thousad people saw it happen - the Pentagon does not feel compelled to prove that something happened that there is no question about.


No question?

Their are a lot of questions.

and eyewitnesses that contradict the official story.


Originally posted by burntheships

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information


www.thepeoplesvoice.org

Researchers present new eyewitness testimony which they say proves the government's story to be a "monstrous lie".
A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, "conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:
www.prlog.org

81 minute Free Video Presentation: Scroll to bottom of page for link
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...


[edit on 30-8-2009 by burntheships]



Originally posted by mmiichael
And there is no question whatever they released wouldn't be satisfactory.


If the official story was true their would be plenty of videos of the flight path before it even got close to the pentagon...



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by mmiichael
 


No, ironically my high school was not the pentagon, a gas station, a hotel, or one of the various other buildings in the area of the pentagon. And what evidence do you have that the complete security system was destroyed in the attack leaving no visible evidence to be reviewed?



Don't mind mmiichael. He is just 'pimping' for the 9-11 perps.

The security video footages from the Pentagon rooftop cameras and other cameras not so 'visible' were stored on hard drives down in the basement security room which was not damaged in any way.

The video footage would have been already captured and stored regardless what happened to any 'damaged' cameras.



And there were cameras on the Naval Annex facing the Pentagon, which not only should have shown an alleged 757 flying up to the Pentagon, but would also have shown the actual aircraft flying away from the Naval Annex after it flew over the NA roof.

I wonder why those videos were not released?


[edit on 9/11/09 by SPreston]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Its been 8 years.

For the BS story of magic fly-overs, its been 6 years.
Six long years, and not a shred of actual evidence of any fly-overs. I'm really beginning to think this is nothing but disinformation, and lies. CIT is the biggest disinfo agent, and the fact that they suckered so many gullible folks with such nonsense is stunning. They same old garbage being repeated ad nasuem. CIT has nothing. NOTHING. When you twist, coach, edit, the accounts, and its so easy to catch with today's internet, CIT has been lying from DAY ONE. Each of thei accounts used were edited, visibly in order to support the LIE that the Pentagon had a magic fly-over. And the twists continue. Constant. CIT has been caught red-handed twisting accounts, so obvious, and yet people STILL flock to them and regurgitate the same lies and the same twisted accounts. It sickening.

Someone here dredged up the false claim that the FBI has 85 videos hidden that all "show" what "really hit" the Pentagon. This thing is hilareous as it just goes to show how some people dont even bother doing research AT ALL. I recall how Alex Jones brought up this lie a year or two back. He used a website as his source that the FBI has 85 videos hidden. Unfortunately for Alex, i guess his reading comprehension skills are not in order, or he never bothers checking his sources, because in his very source it tells us exactly what was on those 85 "mystery" videos:

flight77.info...

The videos taken from the Pentagon area after the 9/11 attacks were mentioned in the Maguire declaration, where FBI Special Agent, Jacqueline Maguire responded (see below) to a request from Scott Bingham.
In Summary:

* She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
* Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
* Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
* The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
* No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.


So, another false claim re-buried where it should be. In the trash. Its amazing how some real research can chase away the false claims.

And CIT, SPreston, when oh when will you present to us actual eyewitnesses of a fly-over? I've been waiting patiently all this time. and please dont take me for a sucker by posting an eyewitness account that was so twisted around, it makes little sense. I can see right through that garbage. I want solid proof of an eyewitness that visually saw a 757 flying up and over the Pentagon. I dont want eyewitness accounts of the C-130 that came along later being twisted into a "fly-over" story. i dont want twisted accounts of eyewitnesses that were mistaken on the approach path towards the Pentagon. I dont want to hear about magic decoy planes that virtually make NO sense to someone who actually has well developed critical thinking skills and reading comprehension skills. I want a real eyewitness that stood on the other side of the impacted Pentagon that VISUALLY SAW the 757 flying low and slow up and over the Pentagon just ahead of a massive fireball. Thats it. If you can provide ONE, maybe you might be able to gain some traction in your claims.

And then I want to hear how they managed to plant evidence immediately after the impact in front of thousands of eyewitnesses, and how NO ONE saw them doing that.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
He is just 'pimping' for the 9-11 perps.


From a guy desperate to prove that his own country wasn't attacked by foreign nationals.

He might actually be called on to fight them.

Better to delude yourself sitting behind a computer 'proving' your Evil governmemt blew itself up. Or was it those Evil Zionists?

What Arabs attacking us? Impossible?

Funny or tragic all this?


M



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I find it tragic that people can't open there minds to the endless possibilties of what happend. And that list of 85 videos is useless to anyone, read what they are.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
From a guy desperate to prove that his own country wasn't attacked by foreign nationals.


Desperate?

You seem to be looking for a candle to see the sun...



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join