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: 23
215
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

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



Very poetic. The sun is just starting go down outside my window.

It is the 8th anniversary of 9/11.

Who would have thought I'd be trying to prove to Americans their own country was attacked.

Some people feel empowered by having some secret knowledge.
It says a lot about them.

M




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


So your saying that we do not believe our country was attacked? We know that our country was attacked, it would be foolish to deny it. We simply do not believe the official story for our own personal reasons. And until you can prove otherwise, which I doubt with your arguements, we will continue to ask questions.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Who would have thought I'd be trying to prove to Americans their own country was attacked.


I know we were attacked physically...

You seem to have a difficulty accepting the psychological part of the attack.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Some people feel empowered by having some secret knowledge.
It says a lot about them.


Secret knowledge?

It isn't secret, it's all over the place, it i just a matter of getting past your personal preconceived notions, speculation, assumptions, and fears to accept what the logical conclusion is.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420

So your saying that we do not believe our country was attacked? We know that our country was attacked, it would be foolish to deny it. We simply do not believe the official story for our own personal reasons. And until you can prove otherwise, which I doubt with your arguements, we will continue to ask questions.


The notion of an Official Story is a Truther invention I don’t acknowledge. Thousands of thing happened related to 9/11 in terms of the attacks, domestic and foreign politics, the spin, investigations, public and private. There is no single accepted narrative.

The prime concerns should be the prior knowledge, negligence, culpability of people in the US administration, it's intelligence agencies, corporate and foreign power lobbyists - who actively or passively contributed to the destruction of property and mass murder of American citizens.

So it is embarrassing and disturbing to see the avoidance of these issues and denial that has become so prevalent. Instead of directly addressing the wide scale corruption and abuse of trust, we have an army of people trying to show how buildings destroyed by plane crashes were also bombed, how a jetliner didn't actually hit the Pentagon, and various other foolish distractions from grave matters.

In a way this only gives license to those wishing to harm the US. Their own citizens literally "don't know what hit them."

Mike


[edit on 11-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Desperate?

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


I have to agree.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I'm sorry I don't think I understand what you are trying to say. It seems that you are for an investigation as long as it isn't about the buildings collapsing, the pentagon being hit or the plane in Shanksville; but rather and investigation of "prior knowledge, negligence, culpability of people in the US administration, it's intelligence agencies, corporate and foreign power lobbyists - who actively or passively contributed to the destruction of property and mass murder of American citizens." I don't believe you can investigate one without the other. And by the way everything has an official story, whether its true or not.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


You have now proven that you are only capable of repeating what you are told and what you read. The problem is that you are getting your quotes crossed now. Most people that you would call "truthers" are just people that want to know what really happened. This means people that think someone is lying or something is left undiscovered. That includes corruption, forknowledge, and anything else you like. If you could care less how the buildings really came down...there are other threads. This one is about the Pentagon. Unfortunately, the crash scene and subsequent "evidence" do not really match the story given us by the government officials supposedly in charge of gather all the intelligence from all the different aspects of this incident (see: Official Story.)



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

You have now proven that you are only capable of repeating what you are told and what you read. The problem is that you are getting your quotes crossed now. Most people that you would call "truthers" are just people that want to know what really happened.


I think you are a bit confused and the one who repeats what you are told and what you read.

A jetliner hijacked by Muslim terrorists crashed into the Pentagon. About 200 people died. There has never been any doubt of this.

Many people have looked for alternative explanations of how and why this happened. A movement now more like a cult has developed determined to deny these facts in favour of unsubstantiated theories. The most popular explanation is the US admin planned and was complicit in this horrendous event as well as the ones that happened in New York. A small sub-industry has developed around this with self-proclaimed experts disseminating and selling demonstrably false or distorted information.

The latter, let's call it the Unofficial Story, are your sources, I'm afraid.


Unfortunately, the crash scene and subsequent "evidence" do not really match the story given us by the government officials supposedly in charge of gather all the intelligence from all the different aspects of this incident (see: Official Story.)


The Official Story, implying a falsified version of events, is in your imagination and that of others. Even if it wanted to, the US government, the media, intelligence agencies - cannot hide the hard facts. They were witnessed by too many ordinary citizens and there is photographic documentation as well as eyewitness testimony. The back story of the people who planned and executed these attacks is now well documented.

Despite claims to the contrary, in 8 years nothing has surfaced that significantly alters what was observed and recorded that day.

We know the reason some people exploit this Unofficial Story - greed or attention. Why so many seek out and willingly accept disinformation about these events is another issue.


M



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Lillydale

You have now proven that you are only capable of repeating what you are told and what you read. The problem is that you are getting your quotes crossed now. Most people that you would call "truthers" are just people that want to know what really happened.


I think you are a bit confused and the one who repeats what you are told and what you read.

A jetliner hijacked by Muslim terrorists crashed into the Pentagon. About 200 people died. There has never been any doubt of this.



Are you completely delusional? If there was never any doubt of this, there would be no such thread as this for you to be writing that in.

That is the least logical thing anyone has posted so far.

Listen, your story is getting old. Mostly it sucks so far because of the lack of things like details, proof, evidence, any backup, one picture, anything.

What Jetliner? Which terrorists? How do you know? Why are you sure? How do you explain the anomolies away?

See, you have done none of the above which leaves more than enough room for doubt.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
No one can calculate the trajectories of the light poles.
What pteridine really means by the above comment is that he can't prove that the light pole hit the taxi.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There is nothing I have to prove.

What jthomas really means in the comment above is that there is little he can prove.

Remember, jthomas is the person who fully believes the official government story, yet he refuses to endorse the Pentagon Security Images.

Strange, huh?



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The astounding claim is there weren't passengers, crew, and hijacker bodies and parts in the wreckage, though many did see burned bodies still strapped into seats. That was faked using other dead bodies? The labs falsified their analysis?

Casual readers to this thread, please be wary of mmiichael's deceptive claims.

Earlier in this thread, mmiichael posted pictures that he claimed were bodies of passengers. When he was challenged to prove this, he failed. He could not substantiate his claim.

Now, mmiichael is trying to convince you that 'many' people saw burned passenger bodies strapped to their seats.

Again, I shall issue the same challenge to mmiichael to prove this claim.

In this older thread, the official government story believers had the chance to prove that passenger bodies were found strapped to seats. None of them were able to do so.

Obviously, mmiichael is poorly researched and lacking in critical thinking skills to understand that when he makes a claim, he needs to support it with evidence.

Casual readers, be wary of the claims that mmiichael is making and ask him to prove them or to retract them.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Obviously, mmiichael is poorly researched and lacking in critical thinking skills to understand that when he makes a claim, he needs to support it with evidence.

Casual readers, be wary of the claims that mmiichael is making and ask him to prove them or to retract them.



You're saying I'm lying when I simply restate what people right inside the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001 said they saw.

Implicitly you're claiming the passengers and crew who took off from the airport on Flight 77 were taken somewhere and murdered. You don't state how, when, by whom.

If you can't support your extremely serious accusations with anything beyond wild conjectures lacking a shred of evidence, I'd strongly recommend you just say nothing.

M



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Are you completely delusional? If there was never any doubt of this, there would be no such thread as this for you to be writing that in.

That is the least logical thing anyone has posted so far.


Personally, I think that the size of the hole in the facade of the Pentagon, visible before the collapse, and the amount of intact windows where the vertical stabiliser would have hit, along with the complete lack of any sign of where the engines (the most solid parts of the plane) impacted raises huge doubts about the official explanation in most rational people I've met.

On the twin towers the holes created are clearly visible, and I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the difference between the solidity/impact resistance of the Pentagon's outer wall is that[/] much greater than the skin of the towers, as compared to the weight, momentum and solidity of the titanium engines, is great enough to explain this.

The fuselage, a hollow tube of alluminium, punched right through to the inner ring yet the engines both vapourised on contact with the outer wall????? Without spewing ANY turbine blades, pipework or other parts anywhere on the lawn???????????

No doubt at all in my mind that there is no way a 757 hit that building.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally 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?


Should? Explain.


So there would be no security cameras on the pentagon facing outward?


Why should there be? Give us a good reason. What was the purpose of the parking lot security camera? To focus on the Pentagon or the parking lot entrance gate?

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?


There may be lots of cameras, but that is not the claim being made, is it? The claim being made specifically is that "There should be plenty of videos of the amazing flight path of the plane that hit the pentagon...none have been produced..." Got that?


Maybe someone should come back to the rational world.


Feel free to come back any time.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
You're saying I'm lying when I simply restate what people right inside the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001 said they saw.

You have not been able to prove that any passenger bodies were found strapped to seats, mmiichael.

Any other story you create is your attempt to wave your hands and deny your failure to prove the claim.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Implicitly you're claiming the passengers and crew who took off from the airport on Flight 77 were taken somewhere and murdered. You don't state how, when, by whom.

Complete utter garbage.

You clearly don't know how to read the typed word. Please quote me where I stated the above. As usual, this will be another of your claims that you will not be able to substantiate.

Here's a logical thought for you to ponder: I never made a claim. You did.

Your extremely poor attempt to push your claims, without proof has been noted. Try again.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
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?


What do other plane crashes look like? ALL the same? Demonstrate.


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?


Demonstrate WHY and HOW there should be videos. Support your claim factually.


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...


None needed. You already know that.


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


None needed. You already know that.

I repeat: We do NOT need photos or videos whether they exist or not to KNOW that AA77 hit the Pentagon. We have ALL of the other evidence you deliberately pretend does not exist. There are dozens of lines of evidence that converge on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.


Contradicting eyewitnesses....


Strawman. The majority of the eyewitness testimony is from disconnected people in different locations describing the same event at the same time and is consistent with ALL of the other evidence.


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


That is the silliest statement you've made yet. You have just listed a host of your claims - including pretending no evidence exists.

You need serious lessons in logic and critical thinking, Jezus.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
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.


No, it hasn't. CIT has REFUSED to present any statements from any of those hundreds of people since I asked them 2 years ago.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
There is nothing I have to prove.

What jthomas really means in the comment above is that there is little he can prove.

Remember, jthomas is the person who fully believes the official government story, yet he refuses to endorse the Pentagon Security Images.

Strange, huh?


It's not strange that you have to keep fibbing to support your house of cards.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Are you completely delusional? If there was never any doubt of this, there would be no such thread as this for you to be writing that in.

That is the least logical thing anyone has posted so far.


Personally, I think that the size of the hole in the facade of the Pentagon, visible before the collapse, and the amount of intact windows where the vertical stabiliser would have hit, along with the complete lack of any sign of where the engines (the most solid parts of the plane) impacted raises huge doubts about the official explanation in most rational people I've met.

On the twin towers the holes created are clearly visible, and I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the difference between the solidity/impact resistance of the Pentagon's outer wall is that[/] much greater than the skin of the towers, as compared to the weight, momentum and solidity of the titanium engines, is great enough to explain this.

The fuselage, a hollow tube of alluminium, punched right through to the inner ring yet the engines both vapourised on contact with the outer wall????? Without spewing ANY turbine blades, pipework or other parts anywhere on the lawn???????????

No doubt at all in my mind that there is no way a 757 hit that building.



So I was right and saw right through you.







 
215
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join