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: 78
215
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information


www.thepeoplesvoice.org

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

Related News Links:
www.prlog.org

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


[edit on 30-8-2009 by burntheships]




You know whats really STUPID? The fact that they weren't even 3000 miles near the east coast when that day happened!

And you know something else, I WAS APPROX. 5 miles away and saw the plane crash minutes after it happened! It was a hijacked plane that crashed into the pentagon! I was on 395 just outside of Crystal City on that morning!!!

I'll never forget that... It was unreal. The chaos that followed was definately NOT orchestraced by the military, the mere fact that you could do 120 miles per hour down 66 or 295, and all you saw was state police and fbi, everything heading TO D.C. doing 120 mph...
You could have robbed every bank in the state that day because all hell broke loose...

My only thought was to take the advice of the Radio and Get out of D.C.! which I did... There was an Exodus of people leaving D.C. that morning.

I saw an F-16 flying right to D.C. that was the most incredible day I can remember... It was surreal. i've never seen an F-16 armed and in a flight patrol pattern, let alone an F-16 in the sky before...

They evacuated and closed all the Malls within 30 miles of D.C. that day!

And to the guy who claims someone would have had a camera out and snapped a photo! HAHAhAHA tell me, as we commute to work, how do you photograh a plane heading toward the ground at over 600 mile per hour?!
While in a car travelling at 55+ miles per hour...
D.C. is hustle and bustle.

I don't know about you but I can't take pictures of a bullet...
And the last time I checked my crappy cell phone takes seconds just to warm up and focus on something to actually take a picture of...



[edit on 11/15/2009 by Brainiac]

[edit on 11/15/2009 by Brainiac]




posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:26 PM
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 passengers were vaporized! What do you think, they walked off the plane? The plane blew up into a million pieces and burned...



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

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...



www.freedomfiles.org...


reply to post by Shadowflux
 


Interesting...yes as you say...my observations also from video footage.

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]


The wings are the weakest part of the plane! The Pentagon has a Nuclear reactor underneath it, so the outer walls are made very strong, impenetrable... The wings snapped off of the plane, ore were sheared off before it hit the building...



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Do you get to see how dumb this discussion is getting?
I don´t think the terrorist attack was of a light pole hitting a taxi cab, was it?
Now, we can agree or disagree on whether a light pole hit the cab or not OK?
How we could establish the cab wasn´t hit by a light pole is beyond me. The photos speak for themselves. And there are ZERO wittnesses that say the cab wasn´t hit by the light pole, that this was made up.
Now, it would seem to me that what we are actually discussing here is the conspiracy theory that proposes that the light poles were “staged”. That the plane didn´t hit them. OK?
Is this what interests you?
Or you just want to continue with this “prove to me the light pole hit the cab” discussion?




posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brainiac
The Pentagon has a Nuclear reactor underneath it,

Source?


Originally posted by Brainiac
so the outer walls are made very strong, impenetrable...

I guess you use a different version of impenetrable. Either that, or you neglect to notice the large hole that was made in the side of the Pentagon?


Originally posted by Brainiac
The wings snapped off of the plane, ore were sheared off before it hit the building...

You've given two possible scenarios, both without proof. Which one are you claiming is true? They can't both be true, unless you claim that one wing sheared off and the other one snapped off?



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
Do you get to see how dumb this discussion is getting?

I can see how you would think that, especially when some people continually try to claim that their unproven theory is fact.


Originally posted by rush969
I don´t think the terrorist attack was of a light pole hitting a taxi cab, was it? Now, we can agree or disagree on whether a light pole hit the cab or not OK?

No. The story of the light pole hitting the taxi was part of the media's campaign. It is as crucial as any other aspect that happened that day.


Originally posted by rush969
How we could establish the cab wasn´t hit by a light pole is beyond me.

Then why do some people contiually claim that it happened, when they can't prove it?


Originally posted by rush969
The photos speak for themselves.

Show me a photo of the light pole hitting the taxi. Show me a photo of the light pole in the taxi.


Originally posted by rush969
And there are ZERO wittnesses that say the cab wasn´t hit by the light pole, that this was made up.

Huh? You do realise that you're destroying logic with that quote, right?

No one in this thread has been able to offer a single witness (except Lloyde) to the light pole hitting the taxi. Lloyde has been interviewed by CIT and has had his testimony shredded. He is an unreliable witness.

How could there not be a single witness to a taxi skidding sideways across the lanes, with a 30-something foot pole out the front window?


Originally posted by rush969
Now, it would seem to me that what we are actually discussing here is the conspiracy theory that proposes that the light poles were “staged”.

I don't care about that so much. If that's what happened and someone can prove it, good luck to them. The official government-media story needs to be accountable to itself.

I've asked for proof that the light pole hit the taxi and no one has been able to suppy it. It's a puzzling anomaly that gets glossed over all of the time. Yet, no one can prove it.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
What if they flew flight 93 above the pentagon to create a couple withness... at the same time the low altitude for a couple minutes would have allowed the passengers to make a few cellphone calls... Then shove a missile in the pentagon and you shoot down flight 93... 1 rock 2 hits.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Brainiac
 



The passengers were vaporized! What do you think, they walked off the plane? The plane blew up into a million pieces and burned...


Vaporized!
The plane blew up into a million pieces and burned
But the government claims they have found all 19 hijackers DNA how is this possible if the planes Vaporized ? Do you have an explanation for this because, we all know that the government would not lie to us.



Government caims it has found DNA of alleged 9/11 hijackers


current.com...



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Tezz, you are the “CHAMPION OF SPIN”.
Let´s recap a little here:
What is some of the “evidence” that we have on the events surrounding the Pentagon attack and the light poles? OK?
1.- The eyewitnesses at the Pentagon and vicinity who saw a passenger plane.
2.- Some of them even identified it as an American airlines jet. And some as a B757.
3.- Some witnesses reported seeing the plane hit one or more light poles.
4.- Taxi driver Lloyd´s account is an important piece of evidence also. He has been discredited by CIT´s investigative techniques, but let´s keep an open mind here, shall we?
5.- There are photographs taken only minutes after the attack, were we can see Lloyd´s cab, damaged on it´s windshield, and a portion of a light pole lying on the pavement next to the car.
This is one of them:
www.geoffmetcalf.com...
Would it be safe to assume that this light pole portion was inside Lloyd´s cab as he described?
I think yes. Is that fact very important? NO.
Is this “undeniable proof” that the part of light pole went through the windshield? NO.
Is that fact very important? NO.

To me and many other people however, those photos are proof that the light poles were struck by AA77 on it´s way to crash at the Pentagon.
Is that very important? YES.
The photos of Lloyd´s cab to me, prove that the car was struck by a portion of the light pole that actually went through the windshield.
Of course you can quote me, and say this is only “my opinion”, but those photos speak for themselves.
Of course you can argue that I haven´t proven anything. I know.
But putting together this and the accounts of Lloyd, father McGraw, and the rest of the evidence, there shouldn´t be any doubt that:
1.- AA77 crashed at the Pentagon on 9-11-2001.
2.- On it´s way in, it hit some light poles.
3.- A part of one of those light poles fell on Lloyd´s cab.

You are welcome of course to show us any evidence to the contrary...



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 



Originally posted by rush969
Let´s recap a little here:
What is some of the “evidence” that we have on the events surrounding the Pentagon attack and the light poles? OK?
1.- The eyewitnesses at the Pentagon and vicinity who saw a passenger plane.


CIT, that did the Independent Investigation that this thread is about, certainly believes there were many eyewitnesses at or near the pentagon who saw a plane; the issue is whether the plane crashed into the pentagon or flew over it. The majority of the eyewitnesses place the plane on the North of Citgo flight path, which means that the light poles couldn't have been hit, but more importantly, that it couldn't have hit the pentagon either. The reason for this is that, according to the official story no less, the damage pattern was established as coming from a south of the Citgo direction. In truth, even the official south of Citgo flight path wouldn't work, because the plane simply wouldn't have been able to pull out of the official story dive (just too many Gs for a passenger plane), and the pentalawn would have had gouge marks due to the engines hitting them. An official story computer graphics video conveniently deals with this by removing the engines from the plane, but in the real world, the plane did in fact have engines that would have left gouge marks on the pentalawn.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
1.- The eyewitnesses at the Pentagon and vicinity who saw a passenger plane.
2.- Some of them even identified it as an American airlines jet. And some as a B757.

Irrelevant. None of them saw the light pole hit the taxi.



Originally posted by rush969
3.- Some witnesses reported seeing the plane hit one or more light poles.

None said that they saw the light pole hit the taxi. Perhaps you might like to post in the other current thread about who really saw light poles being hit. It might help you reliase that not all media quotes can be trusted.



Originally posted by rush969
4.- Taxi driver Lloyd´s account is an important piece of evidence also. He has been discredited by CIT´s investigative techniques, but let´s keep an open mind here, shall we?

You have admitted that he's been discredited by CIT. His testimony is worthless as an honest recollection of events.



Originally posted by rush969
5.- There are photographs taken only minutes after the attack, were we can see Lloyd´s cab, damaged on it´s windshield, and a portion of a light pole lying on the pavement next to the car.
Is this “undeniable proof” that the part of light pole went through the windshield? NO.

Those photographs do not show the light pole hitting the taxi. Those photographs do not show the light pole in the taxi. How was the light pole removed from the taxi all within a couple of minutes? Oh, that's right... Lloyde had a silent stranger help him... right...



Originally posted by rush969
To me and many other people however, those photos are proof that the light poles were struck by AA77 on it´s way to crash at the Pentagon.
Is that very important? YES.

I'm glad you think that light poles laying on the ground were struck by the plane. Your next step, to expect others to believe you would be to prove it happened. Especially the light pole that you claimed hit the taxi.



Originally posted by rush969
The photos of Lloyd´s cab to me, prove that the car was struck by a portion of the light pole that actually went through the windshield.
Of course you can quote me, and say this is only “my opinion”, but those photos speak for themselves.

If that's your opinion, then fine. I've got no problem with people having unproven opinions, not being stated as fact.

The photos do speak for themselves. They show a damaged taxi, with a pristine bonnet, and a light pole laying on the road next to it.



Originally posted by rush969
Of course you can argue that I haven´t proven anything. I know.
But putting together this and the accounts of Lloyd, father McGraw,

Please, rush969... before you go on about McGraw and make the same error that pteridine and mmiichael did - watch his interview with CIT.



Originally posted by rush969
there shouldn´t be any doubt that:
1.- AA77 crashed at the Pentagon on 9-11-2001.
2.- On it´s way in, it hit some light poles.
3.- A part of one of those light poles fell on Lloyd´s cab.

Nice story, now all you have to do is prove it, instead of waving your hands while you proclaim it.



Originally posted by rush969
You are welcome of course to show us any evidence to the contrary...

There is no burden of proof on me to offer a theory. I wasn't in charge of the investigation. I don't have all of the facts. I'm waiting for someone to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


OK. Let´s see. The OP is the alarming information the investigation yielded.
So I guess, we have found it.
It is that no one can prove irrefutably that a part of a light pole struck Lloyd´s cab!!!
Would that be the alarming information?
Cause I haven´t seen anything in all the pages we have been writting that could be it.

You say you were not in charge of the investigation.
Well, neither was I.

I have shown you the pictures, and the statements from eyewitnesses.
You choose not to believe in the pictures, and not to believe in the eyewitnesses.
There is your problem.
Unless of course they are CIT´s eyewitnesses and conjectures.
Then THAT´S CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, to you.
Please watch these presentation and pay attention at the photo of Lloyd´s cab: 00:46 sec.
www.youtube.com...



[edit on 17-11-2009 by rush969]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
CIT, that did the Independent Investigation that this thread is about, certainly believes there were many eyewitnesses at or near the pentagon who saw a plane; the issue is whether the plane crashed into the pentagon or flew over it.


Well, there´s MOUNTAINS of evidence that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon.
That you have chosen not to believe it. It´s your problem.




An official story computer graphics video conveniently deals with this by removing the engines from the plane, but in the real world, the plane did in fact have engines that would have left gouge marks on the pentalawn.


Please check this three pieces:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

They should shed some light on those issues.


Edited for spelling.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by rush969]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
I have shown you the pictures, and the statements from eyewitnesses.

You have shown me pictures that do not prove the light pole hit the taxi. None of the witness statements you have shown me mention that the witness saw the light pole hitting the taxi.


Originally posted by rush969
You choose not to believe in the pictures, and not to believe in the eyewitnesses.

It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of you not being able to substatniate your claim that the light pole hit the taxi.


Originally posted by rush969
Unless of course they are CIT´s eyewitnesses and conjectures.
Then THAT´S CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, to you.

Please quote me where I have stated this. Your failure to do so will be your admission that you are fabricating a claim against me that I have not made.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Please quote me where I have stated this. Your failure to do so will be your admission that you are fabricating a claim against me that I have not made.


Quote you? Why would he have to quote you?

He nor anyone else doesn't needs to "quote" you on what you "believe", does he tezzajw. It doesn't matter what you say, because it doesn't matter what you say - isn't that right, tezzajw.

You have publicly stated in the past your support - in a giddy manner, it would appear - for the April Gallop lawsuit. To wit:


Let's go, April, let's go! See how far she gets, people? Let's wish her well!


and


Take the time and read all of the numbered points in the lawsuit. It's great. It's almost a beginner's guide to 9/11 conspiracy theories rolled into one. While some of the points probably can be dismissed, there are others that are tough to refute.


Your support of April Gallop and her lawsuit will lead the "casual readers" that you enjoy enjoining to believe that you are indeed in support of the claims of the lawsuit, claims that would include and support the theory put forth by the CIT crowd that no aircraft hit the Pentagon. Indeed, that is the very crux of the lawsuit:


+ To cause and arrange for high explosive charges to be detonated inside the Pentagon, and/or a missile of some sort to be fired at the building, at or about the time the wayward airliner supposedly arrived there, to give the false impression that hijackers had crashed the plane into the building, as had apparently happened in New York;


bold and italics mine

By supporting that belief by supporting the April Gallop lawsuit, you would by default believe the eyewitnesses and conjectures set forth by CIT.

Further, by supporting the April Gallop lawsuit - in a giddy manner, it would appear - and by association in support of such believe the eyewitnesses and conjectures set forth by CIT.

Further, by supporting April Gallop and CIT, you would also therefore believe that the lawsuit and CIT have presented CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE to you.

So you do believe CITs "witnesses" and you do believe no aircraft hit the Pentagon and you do believe the SAM missiles were stood down and you do believe Rumsfeld stole 2.3 trillion dollars and you do believe there were "85 different tapes" that "are being withheld by the U.S. Justice Department — which are known or reliably assumed to have been operating at various nearby locations".

Feel free to have at it, "casual readers". A precedence has been set - you don't need to "quote" anyone, especially tezzajw - all one has to do is make something up and connect the dots.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:07 PM
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?


Don't remember where I read it - - don't remember the details - - but read a plane landed - people were taken off and transferred to another plane.

If you search - you can probably find it.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
OK so why isnt this evidence being used in the up and coming cases against the "alledged" terrorist..or even against our own government itself..oh wait i know all of the facts we know about 9/11 and how we know it was our own government are just for blogs.



when will we stand up



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Quote you? Why would he have to quote you?

Because he made a claim that he can't support. Like you have in many threads, trebor.



Originally posted by trebor451
You have publicly stated in the past your support - in a giddy manner, it would appear - for the April Gallop lawsuit. To wit:

Huh? Which thread are we in, trebor?

In your self alleged 25 year career as a 'civil servant' government DoD employee, did it ever occur to you that staying on topic was relevant?

Yes, I hope April wins her lawsuit.



Originally posted by trebor451
Your support of April Gallop and her lawsuit will lead the "casual readers" that you enjoy enjoining to believe that you are indeed in support of the claims of the lawsuit, claims that would include and support the theory put forth by the CIT crowd that no aircraft hit the Pentagon. Indeed, that is the very crux of the lawsuit:

Huh? Where did I state that, trebor?

Again, your failure to quote me supporting the theory will be your admission that you're fabricating claims against me.

I don't care if April's lawsuit is right or wrong. I hope she wins it, just to stick it up the arse of the government. No where did I state that I believe everything she said, or the claims made in her suit. You're really reaching for something that's not there and your failure to quote me will prove it.

Try again, trebor. You've failed, once more.



Originally posted by trebor451
By supporting that belief by supporting the April Gallop lawsuit, you would by default believe the eyewitnesses and conjectures set forth by CIT.

Wrong on so many levels that it's laughable, trebor. I support April in winning money from the government. Rightly, or wrongly. Her lawsuit may expose some lies along the way - hers and the governments. It's one of the few 9/11 cases to potentially make the courts.

April is fighting against a broken, corrupt system. Good on her for doing so.

Now trebor, this is the part where I remind you again that you have failed to quote me. Funny that, isn't it... how you consistently fail to quote me.



Originally posted by trebor451
Further, by supporting the April Gallop lawsuit - in a giddy manner, it would appear - and by association in support of such believe the eyewitnesses and conjectures set forth by CIT.

It might appear that way to an uninformed mind. That's why I have to point out to you not to make unhealthy assumptions about what you think is true. When quite blatantly it is false.

Still having trouble quoting me, trebor? Why is that?



Originally posted by trebor451
Further, by supporting April Gallop and CIT, you would also therefore believe that the lawsuit and CIT have presented CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE to you.

Still having trouble quoting me, trebor? Your tangential conclusions are a little off the mark today. Try again. Good luck to April, I hope she wins.



Originally posted by trebor451
So you do believe CITs "witnesses" and you do believe no aircraft hit the Pentagon and you do believe the SAM missiles were stood down and you do believe Rumsfeld stole 2.3 trillion dollars and you do believe there were "85 different tapes" that "are being withheld by the U.S. Justice Department — which are known or reliably assumed to have been operating at various nearby locations".

Casual readers, witness the complete, ultimate, utter failure of trebor's join-the-dots logic.

He can not quote me on any of the above, so he journies his way there by trying to use an old April quote... ridiculous.

This is the best piece of logic that a self alleged 25 year career government DoD 'civil employee' can come up with to try and make his point.

Note that trebor's continued failure to quote me will be his final admission that all of his conjecture is in his mind. He wants to brand me as a CIT clone. He's tried in a few other threads and he has failed.


Originally posted by trebor451
Feel free to have at it, "casual readers". A precedence has been set - you don't need to "quote" anyone, especially tezzajw - all one has to do is make something up and connect the dots.

Casual readers, feel free to chuckle at the dots that trebor thinks he's joined together.

Yes, I support April's lawsuit. I hope she wins. Any exposure of 9/11 in the courts is a good thing. When you're fighting for truth in a broken system, don't expect the system to play fair. Whatever tactics that April uses is up to her. Good on her.

Does it mean that I believe everything that her lawsuit claims? Nope.

At this point I'd like to thank trebor for his example of how to destroy logic and how not to try and insert claims into another person's mouth. As you can see in this thread, trebor has nothing. His failure to quote me, other than using a couple of 'April' quotes is well and truly noted.

Thanks, trebor. Just when I thought you took a holiday, you're back as good as ever, destroying logic once more! Please respond. I look forward to it. Remember, your failure to provide quotes will be your admission that your fantasies are your own.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Good Point, I Think He also Forgot About The Jet Fuel, which there is clearly no evidence of it nor a soil contamination.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


trebor, the self alleged 25 year career 'civil servant' veteran employee of the government DoD has a lot of homework to save his credibility.

He must now quote me on all the following statements that he made. Remember that trebor is claiming that I believe all of these, so let's see how hard he's prepared to work to try and prove them:

Originally posted by trebor
that no aircraft hit the Pentagon...

you do believe the SAM missiles were stood down...

you do believe Rumsfeld stole 2.3 trillion dollars...

you do believe there were "85 different tapes" that "are being withheld by the U.S. Justice Department...

that the lawsuit and CIT have presented CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE to you...


I've got more than 4200+ posts, so you have a long long reading list to save your credibility, trebor. Start now and let us all know how you're going. Progress updates will be welcome, but not essential.

You need to find quotes for all the above where I conclusively state that I believe them.

Have fun trying. At any point where you wish to retract your claims, due to your failure, that's ok. I can accept your apology for making these false claims against me.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by tezzajw]



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join