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: 25
215
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek


Exactly! I have yet to hear anything new. Its all been the same old tired crapola that I've debunked along with others, and have seen debunked years ago. And yet, they dredge up the same old garbage word for word and ask the same thing again, demanding we give them an answer, and at the same time they ignore the probably thousands of gigabytes of information that has been put forth to debunk the garbage. Hell, they cant even go back here on ATS to see the explanations.

Denying ignorance? Its like they are promoting it and living it!


That is true. Way back in the early days, 2002 in fact, I debunked one of the first 9/11 Deniers, Gerard Holmgrem, on Indymedia whose paper on the Pentagon, "Physical and mathematical analysis of pentagon crash", was one of the first to expound on all of these 9/11 Denier fantasy claims (along with those of Dick Eastman.) The paper is still on some of the Indymedia sites, like here:

houston.indymedia.org...

I pushed for months to get him to answer questions about his claims and deal with the implications of those claims that would have to be true. He wouldn't, of course, and Holmgren finally ran away.

The same thing happened with a Belgian engineering student, Muhammad Columbo, who wrote a silly paper claiming AA77 was shot down over a remote part of West Virginia that was never witnessed by anyone. The bodies were "secretly" transported to be planted and "found" inside the Pentagon. When I confronted him with all the various implications that would HAVE to be true, he self-destructed and ran away.

NOTHING has changed. Not a single one of these AA77 Deniers can deal with the implications that would have to be true from their own claims. (Craig Ranke is the most hilarious of them all.)

Much less provide a stitch of evidence for their claims.

It is remarkable how people can be so bamboozled by the same nonsense Holmgren was debunked on seven full years ago! All it takes is clear thinking and logical reasoning to see how silly their claims are and how irrational their thinking is. That none of them will sit down and THINK about their fallacious reasoning is amazing.

They end up being victims of their own prejudice and ignorance, determined to "prove" their "beliefs" no matter how kooky and contradictory those beliefs are.




posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
reply to post by jthomas
 


Maybe you could do me a favour. I have trawled through lots of eyewitness testimony that is supposed to corroborate the plane hitting the building. Understandably, seeing a jet coming towards them, they all either covered their heads or ran away.


There were eyewitnesses all over that did not need to duck or otherwise avert their eyes.


I haven't found one person that actually saw the plane hit the building facade. If you could supply one, since you are obviously au fait with the supporting evidence, I would be grateful.


The testimony has been available. I have given you one source already. Here it is again:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


From the testimonies I have read it seems eminently possible that the plane could have flown over the building at not much more than roof height.


Then provide the positive evidence no one has ever done demonstrating a flyover occurred. Explain why their are NO eyewitness reports from any of the hundreds of people ALL around the Pentagon in a perfect position to see ANY flyover.


My own hunch (it is no more) is that it wasn't a missile that hit the building, but some kind of bomb slung underneath the plane that smashed the generator and detonated on contact with the building, sending the bulk of it's energy through the building to punch through the inner ring. Plane wreckage was then brought to the site by first responders or was to hand already.


That is just an appeal to ignorance and a fanciful hunch. Why not just stick to the actual evidence?


I'm sorry you think me ignorant to disbelieve the official version of events, but that is the case.


As long as you fool yourself that there is no evidence, ask the same questions that have been addressed and/or debunked for years, and believe that it's all some "story", you will remain stuck where you are.

You are perfectly capable of educating yourself on the evidence and questioning the validity of claims of 9/11 "Truthers."



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
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.


What would make you think that?

What information have you seen about this?



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
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.


What would make you think that?

What information have you seen about this?


Once you go past the dozens of sensation seeking Conspiracy sites and Youtubes hogging early pages of Google searches, there are dedicated sites and videos with explicit details of 9/11. As well as printed articles and books.

Few things have ever been as thoroughly documented. One can even directly contact writers and researchers, even witnesses, for further elaboration.

Mike


[edit on 12-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
there are dedicated sites and videos with explicit details of 9/11. As well as printed articles and books.


Plenty making alternative claims that support the official story but no hard evidence.

No videos or photos.
No list of "consistent" eyewitness accounts.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
ok i wanna see the exact "official story" i only see people trying to convince me that im wrong. i never see people trying to convince me to believe them.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by mmiichael
there are dedicated sites and videos with explicit details of 9/11. As well as printed articles and books.


Plenty making alternative claims that support the official story but no hard evidence.

No videos or photos.
No list of "consistent" eyewitness accounts.



Loads of videos and photos. I've seen one by a guy narrating what he saw as he drove by on his way to work.

Dismissal of a so-called Official Story is the default measure of those in total Denial of facts.


M



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Watch it, the dissinfo tag team is here, and they don’t like you questioning their OS lies.



[edit on 12-9-2009 by impressme]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   


Loads of videos and photos. I've seen one by a guy narrating what he saw as he drove by on his way to work.

Dismissal of a so-called Official Story is the default measure of those in total Denial of facts.


M

Total dismissal of a so-called unofficial story is the default measure of those in total denial of facts. Think about it...

[edit on 9/12/2009 by TheAntiHero420]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Yes there should be, do you think the pentagon wants people just to walk right up to the building. Heres what I want you to do, go to the pentagon and look at the roof and tell me what you see. Warning you may be shocked.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

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.



Facts? What facts? I am very sorry that you do not seem to know what you are talking about and yet cannot help but talk about it. Perhaps you define the word "fact" differently than most people in the English speaking world.

Can you tell me what is different between your "facts" and say Webster's? None of what you are talking about fit the definition in my dictionary so I know you mean something else. Maybe we can help you find a better word.

Hmmm, and you still need a new word for 'Official' for this thread too right?



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
S and F - thank you for bringing this video to our attention.

If people keep ignoring all of these abnormalities of 9/11 - they are perfect sheeple for the PTB.

The fact is - there are more problems with the govt's 9/11 stories than there are things that make sense.

Anyone should be able to see that.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

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


Right back atcha, princess.

Does it seem more outrageous that the plane was taken somewhere else and done away with? Sure. That is crazy. The problem is....
Could the men they claimed were piloting, maneuver that plane to follow that path and crash where it supposedly did? No. That is crazy.

Hey they needed to hit the building and they needed the stolen plane story. I am more than willing to believe that a plane was crashed into the pentagon. I just need a little proof is all. Since I know - for a fact - that our government is willing to lie to us for its own gain, I can not take anything I hear from it without evidence.

Before Thomas gets his panties in a bunch over me stating the government told me - remember I am and always have been talking about the story told to the American people by the POTUS, VPOTUS, and SOD. They are government officials who reported a very specific narrative to which people like mmmmmichelle and tommy subscribe to. That is the official story.

So...all I am saying is that I am not sure what happened there on that day but to tell me that some guys with a little training flew a 757 in that path in order to make that collision is a rather outrageous claim as well and I am going to need some proof.

Any of you OS believers have it?



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Very nice, I couldn't have said it better myself or probably half as well. It is in my own opinion that the "debunkers" seem to think that we take all theories as being correct in the fact that they disagree with the official story, I however do not agree with most theories and the official story. I simply believe that we do not know the whole or true story and want an investigation to take place, it is the matter in which the investigation is done that truely matters to me.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Demonstrate WHY and HOW there should be videos. Support your claim factually.


There are pictures of the cameras all over the pentagon wall in every 9/11 thread. Have you not yet seen them? You do know that footage was confiscated by the government right? If they confiscated footage, I am pretty sure it is safe to assume that there was um, well footage to confiscate.

There were traffic cameras that point that way, a hotel security camera, gas station, etc.
All of these were confiscated because they caught what happened.


The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon to confiscate film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack. 1
The FBI visited the Citgo gas station southwest of the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate film that may have captured the attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack. 2

source


At least two plaintiffs have attempted to obtain videos seized by the FBI, using the Freedom of Information Act


So what did they take and why are they holding on to it if it proves the Official Story?

p.s. tommy, you gave me a new love for the moniker, "Officia Story." Thank you.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
The same thing happened with a Belgian engineering student, Muhammad Columbo, who wrote a silly paper claiming AA77 was shot down over a remote part of West Virginia that was never witnessed by anyone. The bodies were "secretly" transported to be planted and "found" inside the Pentagon. When I confronted him with all the various implications that would HAVE to be true, he self-destructed and ran away.


Yeah, I hear ya, brother. I was on this internet forum and some poster kept trying to tell me the official 9/11 story is true but not an official story. I still do not know what point he thinks he is making there because he ignores me every time that I point out the story was told to us by government officials, but anyway. This friggin guy is telling this story about middle eastern hijackers and several times I confronted him and asked him to back his story up and every time he either self destructed and ran away, or just ran away. Some people sure is stubborn aint they?



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

Originally posted by Lillydale
Right back atcha, princess.

Does it seem more outrageous that the plane was taken somewhere else and done away with? Sure. That is crazy. The problem is....
Could the men they claimed were piloting, maneuver that plane to follow that path and crash where it supposedly did? No. That is crazy.

Hey they needed to hit the building and they needed the stolen plane story. I am more than willing to believe that a plane was crashed into the pentagon. I just need a little proof is all. Since I know - for a fact - that our government is willing to lie to us for its own gain, I can not take anything I hear from it without evidence.

Before Thomas gets his panties in a bunch over me stating the government told me - remember I am and always have been talking about the story told to the American people by the POTUS, VPOTUS, and SOD. They are government officials who reported a very specific narrative to which people like mmmmmichelle and tommy subscribe to. That is the official story.

So...all I am saying is that I am not sure what happened there on that day but to tell me that some guys with a little training flew a 757 in that path in order to make that collision is a rather outrageous claim as well and I am going to need some proof.


Like the Gay references. A personl interest?

Documented thoroughly, some or all the hijackers took supplementary training on flight simulators in Pakistan in addition to receiving American pilot's licenses. Despite a handful of disclaimers, people who have flown airliners solidly agree the most difficult part of flying is the takeoff and landing. Once in mid-air it is mostly a matter of steering. The plane was maneuvered to hit it’s target in a way that required no unusual expertise.

During WWII hundreds of Japanese teenage boys were only ground trained on primitive manual flight simulators and managed to go up in Kamikaze aircraft and consistently hit much smaller moving ship targets in the Ocean. Worldwide millions of people fly airplanes. It's not Rocket Science.

No plausible scenario with any credible substantiation has been put forward other than what you and others like to call the Official Story.

Provide a different interpretation of these events, solid evidence, and you will have a receptive audience.

Crabbing about the lack of proof is a function of your unwillingness to seek it out and examine it. Labeling what you chose not to believe as part of the so-called Official Story does not change the facts as they stand.

Get it sweetheart?


M



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Umm, no....businesses dont place cameras on their property and then point them at something else, neither do transportation departments. The hotel camera, the gas station camera the VDOT cameras, etc..were pointed at their properties...not the building across the way.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

Umm... yes, if CCTV cameras happen to capture a background event that the government wants to cover-up, the tapes will be immediately confiscated within minutes -- just like they were on 9/11.

Tell us again why no photos of the missile, err, I mean Flight 77 have been released?

Swampfox, you crack me up -- spending your life trying to convince anyone who'll listen that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

The evidence is now overwhelming while you've become stale and predictable...



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I see the past president of my fan club is still here.

Shall we update you on a couple things? The gas station video was released long ago and it showed....the gas pumps and the gas station, and didnt give a view of the Pentagon. Neither did the Doubletree hotel video.



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join