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: 47
215
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 

I believe that all of CIT's videos and interviews are biased and that the perpetrators are either disinformation agents, profiteers, or starved for attention. The overwhelming number of witnesses that saw a plane hit the Pentagon make the latest version of CIT reality, a flyover with simultaneous explosion, on a par with the holographic planes and the death ray from space.

The eyewitness accounts are there for you to read. The plane flew into the Pentagon. It hit lamp posts on the way in, as mentioned by several witnesses in the link I provided. If the plane hit as the witnesses said, there would be no reason to fake the lamp posts being struck, would there? Some may claim that all the witnesses are all lying, that the flight was really NOC, that the lying witnesses missed seeing a plane fly away just as the explosives were triggered that blinded all the witnesses at all the various locations so that they didn't see or hear a large passenger plane sneakily roar away. The CIT theory really needs those holographic planes.




posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Well how about all the people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Do witnesses count for you? www.debunk911myths.org...



Lets just look at one of your witness statements.

Richard Benedetto was in his car on his way to work, stuck in traffic just outside the Pentagon. He was listening -- in horror -- to an account of what had just happened at the World Trade Center in New York. "Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast," Benedetto said. "That plane is going to crash."


OK, what is this supposed to be? "that plane is going t o crash" is not attributed to anyone saying it. It is there, on its own, as a quote with no attribution. This does not say he thought that or said that, it is just inserted in there.

The jet knocked over several light posts before it smashed into the Pentagon.
Again, did he see this happen or are they just stating it is what happened according to them during the time he would have been this witness?

Other observers said it seemed to come in full throttle with no attempt to slow down. "The noise was like an artillery shell, not an explosion like a bomb," Benedetto said.
OK! That makes sense. Basically this says that Benedetto was a witness, here is his witness statement - other people saw......huh? What does anything "other observers" saw have to do with his witness statement?

Then he saw a giant billow of smoke followed by a huge fireball, presumably the exploding fuel from the crashed plane. "You couldn't even see the building because there was so much smoke," said Benedetto. The sight was shocking and chilling, even for a veteran reporter. "You don't hand in your humanity when you get a press pass," he said.


Did I miss the part where it says that he actually witnessed the plane crash into the building?

He saw a plane and thought the same sentence to himself twice. Then he saw smoke and an explosion and presumed what it was from.

Wow, that really nails it down. Have any more pages this good?



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston
 

I believe that all of CIT's videos and interviews are biased and that the perpetrators are either disinformation agents, profiteers, or starved for attention. The overwhelming number of wblah blah blah.



This is your opinion and we are not looking for opinions here are we? I was looking for the truth. Apparently you need to seek out some other type of forum.

The fact of the matter is that you spent pages trying to claim this man saw something over and over without being able to prove it. You were steadfast in your belief that he saw it and went out of your way to reinforce that without backing it up.

Now you are shown that same man ADMITTING HE DID NOT SEE WHAT YOU CLAIMED HE SAW in his own words.

Insulting CIT does not change the simple fact that you were wrong about what actually happened. If you were that sure of yourself and you were that wrong about that one thing, then....



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


But weren't a lot of the witnesses who claimed to have seen a plane fly into the Pentagon, not in a very good position to see such a thing? I believe CIT demonstrates this well, and the fact that they studied the land surrounding the Pentagon and went to great lengths to investigate this.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


When did you answer me lillydale? There are many exclamation points at the ends of your sentences. You should calm yourself.

I see that now you now demand serial numbers of the parts of the plane in question. Of course, they could be faked, so we will need some assurance that they are really the serial numbers. How will we do that?

Now as to the passengers, what might they have? DNA. Of course, that could be faked, so we will need some assurance that the passenger DNA is real. How will we do that?

What did happen to the passengers, anyway? The map of the remains could be faked, too.

It looks as though you will continue to be disappointed, Lilly. No one can absolutely prove anything. CIT can't prove a flyover and Tezza can't even prove Melbourne exists. This is a sad state of affairs, isn't it? Why don't we postulate a few scenarios and see what fits best based on the evidence at hand?

Based on the information you have at this point, what do you think the most likely scenario is?



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Lets look at another from americanhistory.si.edu...

"Statement from Penny Elgas
Personal Experience At The Pentagon on September 11, 2001"
By Penny Elgas

I had an early appointment on September 11th, so I drove to work later than usual. I work at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation near the White House. I headed north on 1-395 to DC from my home in Springfield, Virginia and I entered the highway a little after 9am so that I could take the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) express lane. As usual, traffic was very heavy and after I exited I-95, I found myself stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon. For most of my drive I had been totally focused on my radio and was extremely aware of the events that were unfolding in New York. Even though the radio reporters were cautious, I was already convinced from the first strike that it was not just an unfortunate pilot error. However, I felt that New York was under attack and I couldn't have imagined what would unfold in front of me.

Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was “Oh My God, this must be World War III!”

In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers.

In my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual senses. The day had started out beautiful and sunny and I had driven to work with my car's sunroof open. I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open because the traffic wasn't moving anyway. At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds.

The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





I see that now you now demand serial numbers of the parts of the plane in question.


Sorry to bud in here, but the alarm bells should have went off when the Official Investigation into this never matched the serial numbers from the beginning. That was a strange thing to do, especially in light of how redundant the gov is at times, doing things that seem pointless if only for record keeping purposes.

It is this that has lead to the suspicion not the other way around.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by talisman]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


When did you answer me lillydale? There are many exclamation points at the ends of your sentences. You should calm yourself.

I see that now you now demand serial numbers of the parts of the plane in question. Of course, they could be faked, so we will need some assurance that they are really the serial numbers. How will we do that?


They could have tried following SOP and checking them to begin with. They did not. Do not try and claim that this one time that SOP was not followed, it needn't be anyway. That is specious logic at best. I have answered you 3 times now. You calm yourself and try reading the things you reply to. I am fairly certain there is not one other person that has posted on this thread that questions I was looking for serial number confirmation.


Now as to the passengers, what might they have? DNA. Of course, that could be faked, so we will need some assurance that the passenger DNA is real. How will we do that?

LOL. I will not accept DNA. You have set up a straw man here. If you cannot take me down within the parameters of what I actually stated then you lose. They can claim DNA all they want and I know it is faked. They cannot tell me that they found DNA in a fire that burned for 2 days. I did not ask for DNA. You are an idiot.


What did happen to the passengers, anyway? The map of the remains could be faked, too.


It was.


It looks as though you will continue to be disappointed, Lilly. No one can absolutely prove anything. CIT can't prove a flyover and Tezza can't even prove Melbourne exists. This is a sad state of affairs, isn't it? Why don't we postulate a few scenarios and see what fits best based on the evidence at hand?

Based on the information you have at this point, what do you think the most likely scenario is?


Pteridine, try reading my actual posts before responding. You have witnesses claiming to see passenger bodies but a coroner who never did. That to me does not add up. You can assume all the crap you like and then tear it down all day long. When you want to discuss my actual argument, let me know.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by pteridine
 


But weren't a lot of the witnesses who claimed to have seen a plane fly into the Pentagon, not in a very good position to see such a thing? I believe CIT demonstrates this well, and the fact that they studied the land surrounding the Pentagon and went to great lengths to investigate this.


This is why when you read his list of witnesses, you soon learn that very few of them even actually claim to have witnessed a plane crash and even fewer of them could have possibly.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Lets look at another from americanhistory.si.edu...


Let's not and examine your logic. I tear one eyewitness account apart to show that both the eyewitness account and webpage are hardly credible.

Your next move is to then offer other evidence and try that?

Do you think you can just keep offering things you call "evidence" and just hope eventually you will get one that is not BS and it will stick? I just proved to you that eyewitness accounts and webpages full of them are hardly a reliable source of evidence. Showing me another one does what to change that again? You are disappointing me. Good job in moving the goal posts though.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


A little thing about serial numbers:

It seems odd, to me, that this issue keeps arising, since in the destruction seen of the airplane components satisfactory S/Ns on those components THAT HAVE THEM in the first place is going to be difficult, at best.

Given that, of the many various parts of substntial size likely to have some survival in the crash, the landing gear came to my mind. SO, I searched for AD (Airworthiness Directive) info on landing gear, and found this one pertinent to the B757-200 and -300, issued in June 2001:

(It is quite long, so it is edited)


Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39 [66 FR 21855 5/2/2001]

Docket No. 99-NM-124-AD; Amendment 39-12206; AD 2001-09-01

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200 and -300 Series Airplanes
PDF Copy (If Available):

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes, that requires repetitive clearing of the drain passage at the aft end of the main landing gear (MLG) truck beam to ensure moisture and contaminants within the truck beam can properly drain; and, for certain airplanes, an internal inspection of the truck beam to detect discrepancies, and follow-on actions. This amendment is prompted by reports of fracture of MLG truck beams. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent stress corrosion cracking, leading to fracture of a MLG truck beam during ground operations, which could result in either reduced controllability of the airplane or a fire.

DATES: Effective June 6, 2001.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of June 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.


There is more contact info and supplemental info...no need to repeat it here. Typical of these ADs, lots of too much information...


Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.

*skip*

Change Certain Wording in Paragraphs (a) and (b)
Two commenters ask that the wording in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the proposed rule, which specifies ". . .since the date of manufacture of the MLG. . .," be changed to read ". . .since the date of delivery of the airplane or since date of installation for new replacement truck beams installed after airplane delivery. . . ." The commenters state that exposure to a typical service environment does not occur until after the airplane is delivered. This is because the airplane is maintained in a controlled environment and the landing gear is not exposed to the harsh conditions of in-service landing gear, so no degradation of protective finishes would be expected prior to delivery.

One commenter notes that the landing gear manufacturing date will normally precede airplane delivery by several months (and could be much longer for replacement truck beams), and the manufacturer does not typically provide the landing gear date of manufacture to the operators. If the date of manufacture is used as the basis for determining the inspection threshold, the manufacturer will be required to research and compile the data for distribution to operators. Operators could be required to comply months earlier than intended, as the service bulletins referenced in the proposed rule specify airplane age, which is normally based on delivery date. Specifying the airplane delivery date, or date of installation of new replacement truck beams as the basis for determining the compliance threshold will simplify determination of the threshold for each affected airplane. The operators will already have delivery or installation dates in their records, and will not have to rely on the manufacturer to provide additional information.

We concur with the commenters' requests. We agree that exposure to a typical service environment does not occur until after the airplane is delivered to the original operator, because the airplane is maintained in a controlled environment and the landing gear is not exposed to the harsh conditions of in-service landing gear, as the commenter states. Additionally, specifying a compliance time of within a certain number of years since the date of airplane delivery or since the date of installation of new replacement truck beams will allow operators easy access to the data necessary for determining when the clearing procedure should be done. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the final rule have been changed accordingly.


Note the absence of specifics as to S/Ns. Of course, from the point of manufacture the S/N of a landing gear component will be in the MANUFACTURER'S records...whether Boeing or the contracter who built the component. It can be a LONG paper trail.....AND. if the Operator (user) has not replaced a component, or R&R'd it for overhaul/replacement, then any specific S/N may not be in the Operator's records.

Some more points for confusion:


....We concur. The term "MLG" has been changed throughout the final rule to the term, "MLG truck beam." Specifying the component instead of the entire MLG assembly allows additional time for compliance when the existing MLG truck beam is replaced with a new or overhauled truck beam, apart from the MLG assembly.

2. Replace the phrase "Overhaul of the MLG truck beam prior to the effective date of this AD. . . , " as specified in Note 3 of the proposed rule, with "Overhaul of the MLG truck beam prior to the compliance time of this AD. . . ." This is to allow credit to be taken for MLG assemblies overhauled and installed within the AD compliance time.

We partially concur with the commenter. We do not concur that the phrase "Overhaul of the MLG truck beam prior to the effective date of this AD," as specified in Note 3 of the final rule, be replaced with "Overhaul of the MLG truck beam prior to the compliance time of this AD." Note 3 gives operators credit for overhaul of the MLG truck beam prior to the effective date of the AD, in accordance with the original service bulletin. However, we do concur that the commenter be given credit for MLG assemblies overhauled and installed within the AD compliance time. However, the FAA notes that operators are always given credit for work accomplished previously if the work is performed in accordance with the existing AD by means of the phrase in the compliance section of the AD that states, "Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously."

Another commenter asks that Note 3 of the proposed rule be removed or clarified to state that previously overhauled truck beams comply with the rule based on prior accomplishment of the applicable service bulletins. The commenter states that Note 3 could be interpreted as being applicable to all truck beams that were overhauled per Boeing Model 757 Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) 32-11-56, which is specified in the service bulletins referenced in the proposed rule.


SO, what this was about is the "comments" and the FAA's response in amending the proposed AD prior to finalizing it, which is the version excerpted here. It describes the "thinking" behind the changes, I guess it also makes the FAA look more "user friendly" (?)

My point here was to show the possible near implausible of matching ALL airplane crash pieces with respective serial numbers. Even IF the part survives intact enough to read a number....

In any accident investigation, as the debris is collected, it is logical that even in absence of some specific S/Ns for EVERY part that would normally display an S/N, the preponderence of OTHER evidence pointing towards a oarticular airframe is used to ascertain WHAT crashed.

This includes the Flight Recorders....and DNA match with known crew and passengers.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Let's not and examine your logic. I tear one eyewitness account apart to show that both the eyewitness account and webpage are hardly credible.

Your next move is to then offer other evidence and try that?

Do you think you can just keep offering things you call "evidence" and just hope eventually you will get one that is not BS and it will stick? I just proved to you that eyewitness accounts and webpages full of them are hardly a reliable source of evidence. Showing me another one does what to change that again? You are disappointing me. Good job in moving the goal posts though.



I see that when you are confronted with a witness seeing the event from start to finish and describing it in detail, you wish to discuss logic, a nice goal post move on your part. You then say that eyewitness accounts are hardly a reliable source of evidence [goodbye, CIT] and need real physical evidence.
What are you lacking? There was a hole in the Pentagon, carefully photographed. There was a large, hydrocarbon fueled fire, carefully photographed. There were airplane parts, carefully photographed. There were incinerated human bodies, carefully photographed. Which of these are unacceptable as evidence?



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


You don't think the Gov will pay people to lie? This investigation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Pentagon was not hit by the airliner. Arguing that fact is like saying Hinkley did not shoot Ronald Regan.

Deny Ignorance, The FEDs just got busted. Prepare for war!!



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Lillydale

Let's not and examine your logic. I tear one eyewitness account apart to show that both the eyewitness account and webpage are hardly credible.

Your next move is to then offer other evidence and try that?

Do you think you can just keep offering things you call "evidence" and just hope eventually you will get one that is not BS and it will stick? I just proved to you that eyewitness accounts and webpages full of them are hardly a reliable source of evidence. Showing me another one does what to change that again? You are disappointing me. Good job in moving the goal posts though.



I see that when you are confronted with a witness seeing the event from start to finish and describing it in detail, you wish to discuss logic, a nice goal post move on your part.


Nope. I discussed your witness. I also have made it clear from the start that eyewitness accounts do not really do much for me here because many of them conflict with each other and some have already been proven to be outright lies. I have made that clear all along. This is pretty much why I never list eyewitness accounts as one of things I would accept as proof. You know that because you asked what I would accept as proof. I never once said I would take an eyewitness account.

You seem to be mistaken about why I would prove to you that these are worthless. No goal post moving, just showing you that your new example is as useless as the one you gave me before that.

You gave me a page full of "eyewitness" accounts. I told you it was garbage and why it was garbage. You then offer up some specific eyewitness.

Let me get this straight. I told you that your list of witnesses was worthless. You argue back by simply pushing one forward? It is worthless if you quote it, offer a link to it, it is in one of these worthless pages you OSers tout, and it is worthless if you paint it over a Picasso.


You then say that eyewitness accounts are hardly a reliable source of evidence [goodbye, CIT] and need real physical evidence.


Not now. You have a very hard time reading. I am sorry for you. English is causing you some trouble. Perhaps you should learn the language better or get a translator so that I can continue on without wasting all this time knocking down your straw men. Yes goodbye CIT. I never endorsed CIT and have always made it clear that eyewitnesses that saw a flyover are just as reliable as the ones who claim they saw it crash. Pay attention. Keep up!


What are you lacking?
Patients and proof, you?

There was a hole in the Pentagon, carefully photographed. There was a large, hydrocarbon fueled fire, carefully photographed. There were airplane parts, carefully photographed. There were incinerated human bodies, carefully photographed. Which of these are unacceptable as evidence?


Hole in the Pentagon is evidence of what? Where are the wing marks or the plane parts that made that hole? Sorry, holes prove material is missing, not plane crashes.

Large fires are only caused by plane crashes?

How many of those "airplane parts" were identified as belonging to the plane that was AA77?

The incinerated bodies were the bodies of Pentagon employees.

You just proved something blew a hole in the building causing a large explosion and burning a few people in the building to death and then a few random plane parts managed to show up but were never identified as is SOP.

What are you lacking?

Hole - not proof of a plane
Fire - not proof of a plane
Burned people from the building that just blew up into a fire and hole - not proof of a plane
plane parts not ID'd following SOP - not proof of AA77.

Wow, your proof is amazing. Is all your proof this good?

You have a priest that must have seen something because to you that just makes sense - even though we have footage of him claiming he did NOT see what you say he did. You ask what I want as proof after I told you and even though I do NOT say eyewitness accounts, you offer them twice and then try to pretend I moved the goal posts when I shoot them both down as anyone paying attention knew I would since I did not list them as acceptable. Now you have this amazing logic that a hole, fire, and burned people = plane crash. Your therapist must have an amazing summer home.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You had to do research to find out that not all plane parts from a crash would actually be able to be ID'd by serial number? Even I understand that.

What is standard operating procedure when it comes to plane crash investigation?

I guess what you are saying is that since it is usually a tough job to do 100%, they just decided not to bother anymore and that is just fine with you. Half an investigation is cool as long as it tells you some foreign turban jockey is to blame right? Why should they even try to do the things they are supposed to and always do normally? Rumsfeld told us who it was and what happened right? He said a missile hit the.....oh whoops.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I think that by now a few things are pretty obvious after reading how some “truthers” argue.
1.- All witness testimony is questionable. No witness testimony will be accepted and the more detailed a testimony is, the more questionable it becomes.
(However, a testimony by someone who says anything remotely approximate to what they are looking for, is a “smoking gun”.)
2.- Serial numbers would be useless if they ever were presented. Obviously “truthers” and CIT would say they are made up just to fit in the OS. Yet they cling on to this argument because it makes the Gov. look suspicious. It was made official from the very start that THE IDENTITIES OF THE HIJACKED FLIGHTS WERE NEVER IN DOUBT. (No need for serial numbers.)
3.- How DNA was obtained and whose it was? useless also. It would just be made up to fit the OS.
4.- Videos showing an AA B757 crashing at the Pentagon from different angles? What use could they be to these guys? If they can believe that hundreds of videos from the WTC were “doctored”, that NO AIRLINERS HIT the WTC towers, that people were fooled with holograms. What use could that video have? They will use the same arguments “ad nauseam”. It´s CGI, to make the missile look like a B757, it´s a fake, the plane image has been over imposed on that of the missile, etc, etc...
There´s no argument, no piece of evidence, no testimony good enough.
And maybe this is because deep inside, they cannot accept the truth. They rather buy into a conspiracy of the inside job because that means that the U.S. Gov. still would be almighty, sort of undefeated, (the only ones capable of carrying out such a “red flag op.”) instead of having been a victim of it´s own arrogance and negligence, and having been attacked in such a horrible way by such a simple group of determined suicidal terrorists, who took advantage of the loop wholes, vulnerabilities and liberties offered to them so naively.
As I said, to me it is obvious by now there will be no end to this discussion, no matter how much evidence is offered or how many commissions or investigations are carried out.
But the sad truth is there for all of us to see, over and over again and accept it and deal with it, and most importantly to find the way to stop terrorists from achieving their goals.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


You really need to educate yourself. You want to count eyewitness accounts, fine. Was it a flyover, missile, two planes, fighter plane...which eyewitness accounts do you accept and which do you toss out and why?

Who said that serial numbers would have been useless if they were actually supplied? I have seen a few OSers propose this but I do not see any "truther" actually saying that. If you have to make things up to win your argument....

No one said that if there was DNA it would be made up. They said they had DNA. I say it most certainly is made up. There is no maybe or might about that. You simple have no understanding DNA and its collection. I am sorry that your ignorance is keeping you down on this one.

Your 4th point is especially hilarious.

There are cameras that caught it from different angles and we are not allowed to see them. That is the issue. No one here is saying that they would be worthless except for you. The no-planers you speak of that claim the NYC footage is doctored represents a minor fringe that is not taken seriously by anyone on either side of this debate. You just put that up there to knock it down.

I see you feel smart and informed in the way you write. Perhaps educating yourself on these things and actually sticking to what people are actually discussing will enlighten you. This is not a "no-plane" thread so that argument has NO place here.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


Did you even read the whole thread? Why don't you go back to page one before you get to page 47.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



He said a missile hit the.....oh whoops.


Unfortunately, I lost a nice post I had composed (darn!)

How about doing your own research, I did it and was going to post, into the context and circumstances of this comment attributed to Rumsfeld?

(Hint: A columnist from the esteemed Parade *cough* "magazine" conducted the interview).

Rumsfeld:
"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."


Now...he was a boob, and misspoke often. Yet, given that in his postion he likely had LOTS of classified information in his head, but never blurted any of that out, WHY would this be any different?

Again:

..."using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

WHY describe the AA jet, 'filled with our citizens', then say "missile"? Read the full context of the interview, and what questions were asked prior to this exchange.

Remember, too...this is in print. Tone of voice and inflection is lost when you can't HEAR it, again in context.

(Like I said...he was a boob...just recall the "Known unknowns" gaffe when he was struggling to articulate about Iraq insurgency...)

Did his addled mind simply visualize the Boeing "like a missile"...in that it was controlled and 'guided' by the suicidal terrorists?

It is archived by a CT website, so they interpret it the way you do...but at least it is in its entirety here.

(It was on the DoD website, and was archived in case it got taken down...)
____________________________________________________________

Even the CT site truncated a paragraph, the first quote above. Fromm the DoD transcript, THIS sentence should have preceeded it:

"They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work."

Oh...and his description of "plastic knives" showed another cognitive disconnect. Guess he was imagining the eating utensils you get in Coach Class??

(Of course, back then First Class had stainless steel cutlery....and they had otehr weapons...)

[edit on 27 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile...

I'm guessing you know this already, but the word 'and' implies in addition to, weedwhacker. He might have been a boob and misspoke often, but even a boob knows 'AND' isn't the same word as 'like' or 'as'.
I swear these guys could come out tommorow and take full responsibility for the attacks, and people would be arguing about what they meant by responsibility. Selective semantics aside, the man said 'and the missile', call me crazy, but that implies a missile, seperated from an 'american airlines flight' by the contraction 'and'.




top topics



 
215
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join