Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 6
213
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus

Skadi, what about what HASN'T been presented??????????


80+ security tapes have been confiscated. One was taken from a gas station by the FBI a few minutes after the attack.
Why would these tapes NOT be released


What about it?

What is more interesting to me is the lack of private and media camera footage. After all, D.C. is a major tourist and political, diplomatic, and busines destination. But the private CCTV camera videos, who knows why they aren't being released. But to me, that is not an important issue.



Sure... Actual footage of what hit the pentagon is on those CCTV camera yet this is not an important issue for you...




posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Because of the simple fact that the FBI - to this day has not releasd the footage it claims to have - which shows the various feeds from the security cameras - even after EIGHT YEARS - makes me wonder as to what could possibly be on it ..?!

Now, a few things are clear -

a plane (Or SOMETHING) WAS there on 9/11.

It (Or SOMETHING) hit the pentagon

Many people witnessed it.

However -

Damage to the building does NOT correspond to the claim of the plane type

The trajectory the Govt says does NOT fit the actual damage done.

Neither The few plane parts that were gathered NOR the crater fit the type of plane involved.

...

These are the MOST BASIC facts anyone can observe.

So - what is one left to believe happened that day.

Confusion and contradictions reign. But from the attitude of the Pentagon the conclusion one dwars is that something is wrong somewhere.

What is is - may well never be revealed.

In my Personal opinion I believe that the whole 9/11 episode could not have occured without the complicity of at least a few Officials at the Highest Level.

Now whether they (TPTB) organised or planned it or they simply chose to let it happen - is speculative. But it is a given that 9/11 was not an out of the blue terrorist attack.
All the evidence points to

The Govt knew it was going to happen.

They COULD'VE stopped it.

They did NOT..

And lastly - the person claimed responsible by that very government - is STILL at large after Eight Long years of search efforts by the biggest superpower of the world.

Says a lot - doesn't it ?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
No, it is not a sensational claim. 395 had heavy traffic, and the surrounding roads were basically packed with traffic at a standstill.


Actually, it kind of is. Even if the roads were as heavily populated as you say, the whole thing lasted a matter of seconds. "Thousands" would not have seen it.

But why would the roads be so heavily populated anyway? This wasn't 'rush hour'. Most people would have been at work already.

A light pole flies down a road, at about 3 feet in the air - hits a cab - and then that cab slides around across three lanes - yet no other cars on a road with 'heavy traffic' is involved in any sort of collision?

Does that really add up?


Originally posted by 6EQUJ5
Did you read the rest of my post, or am I just another victim of selective quoting? As I pointed out, I believe that the WTC attack was probably, in my opinion, more than enough to gain enough American support for attacking whomever was presented as being responsible.


It's as the other guy said. It isn't about 'American support', there are laws involved. You need an attack on a military installation to get away with what happened later.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Why do people like you take the time to read a thread and then post about how stupid a thread it is? You can just go to another thread at anytime. You can leave ATS. You can walk away from your computer. If it seems so stupid and wasteful to you....then what are you hear reading this and responding to it for?


Because people like you are wasting your time. I am indeed part of the truth movement, but I am not going to fool myself with things that I know nothing about.

The government covered up the Pentagon attack quite well, to the point of the public having no evidence against it. So why keep focusing on it? Why is nobody talking about what factually happened (WTC7)? As far as I am concerned, anyone who is focused on the Pentagon at this point is just playing straight into the US government's hand.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by mappam
 


I reccomend watching the video, it is great! They address some of your questions....and check this out. This will explain some with a picture...

[edit on 30-8-2009 by burntheships]


This isn't cartoon land, a plane wouldn't leave the exact cutout of a plane like a cartoon running through a wall


The strongest part of the plane is the landing gear, and there are tons of photos of plane debris...oh truthers when will you learn.


This should be labeled, "An independent investigation with initial bias toward an 'inside job' with no access to physical evidence"


[edit on 30-8-2009 by yellowcard]


The strongest part of a plane is the engine. And there are no engine parts.
Even purdue university believes, that the plane didn't had an engine. (watch the animation. The engine just disappears when entering the pentagon.): www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 
I took your statement with a grain of salt



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
This story supports my theorie some.The pentagon was hit by a missle not a jet.I beleive a jet would have done more damage than that.It would be easy for the cia to add jet wreckage and bits of bodies soon after the attack to make it look like a plane hit the pentagon.So what happened to a whole plane load of people.Well the cia may have shot it down somewhere else or may have landed the plane and seized all the people alive.Just imagein if someone from that flight turned up today claiming they have been healed captive by the cia for eight years.All this because rouge elements of the cia wanted documents destroyed being helded by the us navy in a office at the pentagon.Is it possible then the us navy like other offices at the pentagon like the us army and us airforce will not shear infomation with the cia.Are there security clearences that are so high not even the cia can asscess.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Well I think the video in this thread lines up nicely with my own research.

The flightpath of flight 77 lines up with the statue of the roman God Mars, "The god of War and agriculture" which is set in the Capital building entrance.



Reference:

"More bizarre symbology from the 9/11 pentagon attack"
www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 31-8-2009 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Somehow I found the article a bit phony. They seemed to be hyping their video, and trying to justify what they said by sheer numbers and the fame of some of the witnesses. That's not really convincing to me. In fact, eyewitnesses aren't convincing, since they are known to be highly unreliable.

Still - I could see a scenario in which a low-flying plane shoots a missile into the building and then continues onward. In the smoke and confusion, it could easily be that people didn't recognize that the plane itself didn't hit the building, but kept on going. They see low-flying aircraft heading for the building; they hear a huge crash and see devastation, fire, smoke, chaos. They could conclude that the plane hit. It wouldn't be too far-fetched, I think...

What I don't get is how you cram a 757 into such a tiny space, barely large enough to take just the fuselage of the plane. What happened to the wings? Come to think of it, what happened to the plane itself? Where are all the pieces, the engines, etc.?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613

Still - I could see a scenario in which a low-flying plane shoots a missile into the building and then continues onward.


You mean like an F-4 Phantom and I would change the "continues onward" part to "follows into".

[edit on 31-8-2009 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
I have always believed (though I distinguish between belief and knowledge) that something other than what we have been told by various examples of officialdom pertaining to 9-11 happened that day.

That said, my line of thought goes something like this:

Which of the following two is easier and/or more effective?

1) Using holographic airplanes in conjunction with controlled demolition at the WTC, involving large numbers of operatives (however compartmentalized and unwitting they may have been) in order to set the explosives under the cover of an elaborately executed ostensible purpose, launching a guided missile at the Pentagon, and creating the appearance that an additional aircraft crashed in another state. Potential risks include technical faults in the holography that might make the plan obvious to witnesses, witness sightings of the missile (sure they could be silenced, but that's more work and more risk as well,) failure of the explosives, and the greater probability of leaks with the increased number of operatives, however compartmentalized or unwitting many of them may be. Benefits of this plan include absolute control of the timing and execution, provided all can be carried off without a hitch.

2) Subtlety and with reasonably plausible justification reducing the nation's air defense posture while seeing to it that elements of or associated with the same forces the country had already covertly funded and armed since the Cold War obtain funds and passports, and then allowing those who already want to attack us to finally achieve their aims in one fell swoop. The risks of this operation are less than those of #1, and even if discovered, could be made to look like - at worst - gross negligence and/or poor decision making, should the need arise. Benefits are that plausible deniability is more easily achieved under this scenario, and that timing isn't as critical a factor because someone else is doing the wet work. All you have to do is let them get away with it for a change.

To me at least, the second scenario just seems more plausible. I'm not saying that's what happened, however. I'm 100% open to other, more exotic possibilities. That technology exists to at least make them feasible under the right conditions is certain in my opinion.

It's just that things like the Gulf of Tonkin incident mean that the second scenario has precedents in history, and that actual operational proposals such as Operation Northwoods (look it up; it was real and the documentary proof can be found in the library of congress among other sources) mean that this kind of thinking and planning has gone on in the past.

Just my two cents, all of which is opinion and/or belief and not fact, because I don't know for certain what happened that day. I hope we all do, someday.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships



Just a quick note to say that it is interesting that there is a lack of private and media camera footage and the reason for that lack of is The Pentagon took all of it away...aka confiscated...

But yet you say "what about it?"

[edit on 30-8-2009 by burntheships]


You either did not understand the statement, or you are really reaching. I am not talking about CCTV/security camera footage, I'm talking about hand held recorders by what should have been private citizens and tourists, or just hobbyists, that should have been in the area, on a normal day. After all, Arlington Cemetary is right there.

The feds would not have been able to confiscate every single person present in such a wide area, because people, unlike CCTV systems, are mobile, and they aren't going to be able to find every single person carrying a video recorder within the area.

The seizure of the CCTV footage from around the area does not surprise me, thats pretty standard, especially considering the sensitivity of the area. Nothing suspect about that. Now that the Mossaoui trial is over, they have released a few more videos too. I'm sure that you can now request the release of the rest, if you wrote a FOIA request.

It is the lack of pedestrian/private persons footage that I find more curious, as their should be some.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clickfoot


Actually, it kind of is. Even if the roads were as heavily populated as you say, the whole thing lasted a matter of seconds. "Thousands" would not have seen it.

But why would the roads be so heavily populated anyway? This wasn't 'rush hour'. Most people would have been at work already.


Yopu obviously have never been to Washington D.C., or any major city with bad traffic. Thick traffic and standstills are not limited to rush hour. During the 90's, Washing D.C. ranked as the city with the worst traffic in America, something I can attest to, because I was stationed just south of the area at Ft. Belvoir, VA, and experienced DC's traffic first hand. The roads were always crammed and slow moving. I doubt much has changed from 1992 in that respect.

The pentagon was especially bad because alot of people work around that area.

And the event lasted long enough that people would have noticed. It's pretty damned hard NOT to notice a big hunker of a plane flying low and barreling towards you. There was enough time people would have seen it. It was several seconds, but people don't need that much time to notice something that out of the ordinary.

So yes. It is not a stretch to say thousands of people would have witnessed it. Not only the roads, but the surrounding buildings and areas were full of people, people on all sides who had a clear view of what was going on. And don't forget about the thousands working in the Pentagon themselves.


A light pole flies down a road, at about 3 feet in the air - hits a cab - and then that cab slides around across three lanes - yet no other cars on a road with 'heavy traffic' is involved in any sort of collision?

Does that really add up?


It amuses me to know end that people focus on a very mentally unstable cabdriver who seems to be a fan of David Icke while ignoring everyone and everything else. Lloyd England's testimony, everytime I see it, makes me think that the local loony bin lost track of one of their patients.

It adds up even less to believe that in broad daylight, in front of thousands of people, that the feds manage to pull chunks of airplanes and broken light pulls out of thin air and fling them about. With no one noticing.

Riiight. Where did they hide this stuff. Their pockets?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
[I'm talking about hand held recorders by what should have been private citizens and tourists, or just hobbyists, that should have been in the area, on a normal day. After all, Arlington Cemetary is right there.

Completely unfounded and baseless speculation.

Please, enlighten us to how many people were videotaping the incident at the time? Supply data and facts, rather than your 'should have been' opinion.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I'd take this with a very large grain of salt. Eye witness testimony has been proven over and over again to be notoriously unreliable.


The Unreliability theory would suggest that none of them would have the same story. But there are consistencies between all of them that make this proposal of "false memory" pointless.

How are they ALL pointing out the same inconsistencies with the official story?

Imagine this scenario...
You have a murder to investigate, and you have ten witnesses. Three of them tell you completely different stories, they get the minings wrong, the culprit, and even where the person was when they were killed.
Then, you have seven people all telling the same story, have the timing right, the locations of the victim and the culprit.

Who are you going to believe?

If witness evidence is so "notoriously unreliable" (something that I have only ever seen mentioned in the 9/11 investigation BTW) why is every legal trial system on Earth based on it?

Wait...
The Government says that witness testimony is now conveniently unreliable. That demands a review of all legal practice and investigation into every crime where witness testimony has supported a conviction. Or is it only when we're talking about 9/11 that witness testimony is so conveniently unreliable?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mappam
What happened to the plane?

Eye-witnesses say that a plane DID fly over them heading toward the pentagon.

The plane didn't hit the building.

Where is the plane? What about the passengers?

I have read all kinds of 'findings' and evidence of - no plane parts, hole not large enough for a plane etc... But I can't find any theories on what happened to the plane?

Thought or links?


The one theory I have seen is based on the Operation Northwoods plan.

For the life of me I don't know why people are not investigating the manifests of the planes. Who was on those planes?
What is their background?
Where are the relatives and what do they now say?

I've seen a lot of talk about the victims in the buildings, but only one or two mentions of a passenger here or there.

How many of those on board the planes can be proven to have existed?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mappam
What happened to the plane?

Eye-witnesses say that a plane DID fly over them heading toward the pentagon.

The plane didn't hit the building.

Where is the plane? What about the passengers?

I have read all kinds of 'findings' and evidence of - no plane parts, hole not large enough for a plane etc... But I can't find any theories on what happened to the plane?

Thought or links?


Great point Mappam



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

The facts establish it is physically impossible for a plane to have made that last pull up during fllight to fly low into the building at the alleged point of impact, which is cohesive with page 28 of the ASCE Report.


the aircraft's reported 42º approach angle is not possible for a B-757


www.kolumbus.fi...





[edit on 30-8-2009 by burntheships]



A few months back, might it have been said that it was impossible to land an Airbus A320 safely on the Hudson river?

Not taking sides here, just debating




[edit on 31-8-2009 by McGinty]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Why do people like you take the time to read a thread and then post about how stupid a thread it is? You can just go to another thread at anytime. You can leave ATS. You can walk away from your computer. If it seems so stupid and wasteful to you....then what are you hear reading this and responding to it for?


The guy is posting an opinion. He said nothing about stupid.
I generally accept what you post. You should be a little careful of creating an infighting of sorts. He seems to be interested in the real facts and is just suggesting an option.
Lets not let the lack of official concern for Americans divide us further.
just sayin



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by mappam
What happened to the plane?

Eye-witnesses say that a plane DID fly over them heading toward the pentagon.

The plane didn't hit the building.

Where is the plane? What about the passengers?

I have read all kinds of 'findings' and evidence of - no plane parts, hole not large enough for a plane etc... But I can't find any theories on what happened to the plane?

Thought or links?


The one theory I have seen is based on the Operation Northwoods plan.

For the life of me I don't know why people are not investigating the manifests of the planes. Who was on those planes?
What is their background?
Where are the relatives and what do they now say?

I've seen a lot of talk about the victims in the buildings, but only one or two mentions of a passenger here or there.

How many of those on board the planes can be proven to have existed?



Check out this ATS thread by SPreston. It is an eye opener.

"So Where Were The Families And Friends Of The Alleged Passengers And Crew Of The 9-11 Aircraft?"





new topics

top topics



 
213
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join