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: 79
215
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Remember, your failure to provide quotes will be your admission that your fantasies are your own.


Sounds familiar. Your lying about something I did not say is is your admission that you can't debate an issue.

I am not surprised you want the Gallop lawsuit to succeed. That lawsuit is one of the most idiotic pieces of garbage to ever come out of this whole Truther fiasco and anyone who supports it clearly shows a severe lack of understanding of facts and logic.

Your support of that lawsuit's claim that no aircraft hit the Pentagon ties you directly to the CIT theory of no aircraft hitting the Pentagon.

I still wonder when you and CIT and PfT will file your affidavit in support of KSM.




posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Sounds familiar. Your lying about something I did not say is is your admission that you can't debate an issue.

Huh? trebor, you're heading off topic again - why?

In your self alleged 25 year career as a 'civil servant' government DoD employee, weren't you ever instructed to reference your claims in the correct thread?

Calling me a liar - again - is not the way to debate on ATS. I've pointed out to you that you could get warned for it.


Originally posted by trebor451
I am not surprised you want the Gallop lawsuit to succeed. That lawsuit is one of the most idiotic pieces of garbage to ever come out of this whole Truther fiasco and anyone who supports it clearly shows a severe lack of understanding of facts and logic.

I want her lawsuit to expose 9/11 in the courts. Good luck to her if she wins it. Lucky Larry managed to win a lawsuit, so why can't April have her slice of the cake as well?


Originally posted by trebor451
Your support of that lawsuit's claim that no aircraft hit the Pentagon ties you directly to the CIT theory of no aircraft hitting the Pentagon.

Your failure to apply and understand logic is telling, trebor. I support April. I don't care so much for what's in her lawsuit. Good luck to her and I hope she wins. I've already stated that parts of her lawsuit are easily dismissed. You even quoted me where I stated that. Did you forget that part?

How can I support a lawsuit when I state that parts of it are easily dismissed, trebor? It may pay you to think through the consequences of what you type, before you type them.


Originally posted by trebor451
I still wonder when you and CIT and PfT will file your affidavit in support of KSM.

Your ridiculous attempts to paint me with a CIT/P4T brush have been exposed.

You have a lot of homework to do trebor. As you sit here and type, your credibility is fading... you're not managing to quote me on all of those things that you claimed about me.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 



Originally posted by rush969
...there´s MOUNTAINS of evidence that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon.


I strongly disagree with that statement and contend that the majority of the evidence is actually in CIT and PFT's favour.



Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by scott3x
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...


That link has nothing to do with any computer graphics simulation. Given that fact, I decided to forgo the other 2 links; there's only so much time I can dedicate to people with a tendency of putting out links without even checking to see if the material is relevant to what they're responding to.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
That link has nothing to do with any computer graphics simulation. Given that fact, I decided to forgo the other 2 links; there's only so much time I can dedicate to people with a tendency of putting out links without even checking to see if the material is relevant to what they're responding to.


Congratulations on your joining the comedy act, Scott.

There's a reason even hardcore Truther sites have distanced themselves from the CIT Flying Circus.

Scrupulous avoidance of all credible first hand accounts is the only thing keeping this nutty flyover fantasy alive.



wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
Witnesses

A message to 9/11 conspiracists from someone who was at the Pentagon on 9/11. Please take it to heart.

It is likely that hundreds of people directly saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Dozens were interviewed by numerous news outlets:

Witness List 1 – List 2 – List 3 – List 4 – List 5 – More

Pentagon witness spreadsheet (Excel file)

Many witnesses were in their cars, in a traffic jam directly in front of the Pentagon. Most of those people drove away and were not interviewed. Below is a summary of the accounts quoted in the lists and spreadsheet summary above. These are mostly accounts that appeared in mainstream media reports. Many more people probably witnessed the attack.

From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

Video: pilot Aziz ElHallan saw flight 77 hit Pentagon, shows aircraft debris that landed near his car.

No plane hit the Pentagon?

Tell that to Mickey Bell, Sean Boger, Omar Campo, Michael DiPaula, Frank Probst, and Jack Singleton, all of whom saw flight 77 approach and came within feet of being struck as it roared across the Pentagon lawn. Probst dove out of the way to avoid being hit by the 757's right engine, which tore through this fence and damaged the construction generator trailer. (see picture)

Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, the 6'2" Vietnam Veteran looked up, directly into the right engine of a 757 commercial airliner cresting the hilltop Navy Annex. It reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine. "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head."

Mark Willams: "When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

'It was the worst thing you can imagine,' said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. 'I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.' "

"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
– Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept.

Reporter Mike Walter responds to conspiracists: Yes, I saw an American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon.

14 Pentagon eyewitness accounts on video

C-130 pilot Steve O'Brien saw both the flight 77 attack and the aftermath of flight 93

More first-person accounts:
Survivors 1 – Survivors 2 – Survivors 3 – Survivors 4



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

All you need to do now, mmiichael, is to supply some independent, verifiable interviews with these people and show us.

By the way, you neglect to mention the names of these alleged people - why?

We can all expect, in your next post, that you'll be supplying the information that you've claimed above.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I agree with tezza michael- let's see those names.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by mmiichael

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

All you need to do now, mmiichael, is to supply some independent, verifiable interviews with these people and show us.

By the way, you neglect to mention the names of these alleged people - why?

We can all expect, in your next post, that you'll be supplying the information that you've claimed above.


Sorry to butt in but I can give you a couple of names. Lloyde England who had a pole spear his cab and Wanda Ramey, a Pentagon police officer, who saw the plane clip a light pole. They have both been interviewed by CIT , although the latter was just on the phone.

Perhaps, in return, you would give us a couple of independent verifiable interviews with witnesses who saw the plane approach the Pentagon and then fly over it.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
I agree with tezza michael- let's see those names.


You're pointed to a site that provides links to lists of names.

So naturally the response is "let's see those names"

Inability to read, laziness, or sheer stupidity?

A good indicator of the intellectual capacity of Truth Serum drinkers.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Sorry to butt in but I can give you a couple of names. Lloyde England who had a pole spear his cab

Completely unproven. You need to watch the CIT interview with Lloyde. Lloyde contradicts himself multiple times and even tried to argue against where his taxi was allegedly located.


Originally posted by Alfie1
and Wanda Ramey, a Pentagon police officer, who saw the plane clip a light pole. They have both been interviewed by CIT , although the latter was just on the phone.

Wanda stated that she can't clearly remember the incident when CIT interviewed her.

Your two star witnesses fizzle to nothing.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Alfie1
Sorry to butt in but I can give you a couple of names. Lloyde England who had a pole spear his cab

Completely unproven. You need to watch the CIT interview with Lloyde. Lloyde contradicts himself multiple times and even tried to argue against where his taxi was allegedly located.


Originally posted by Alfie1
and Wanda Ramey, a Pentagon police officer, who saw the plane clip a light pole. They have both been interviewed by CIT , although the latter was just on the phone.

Wanda stated that she can't clearly remember the incident when CIT interviewed her.

Your two star witnesses fizzle to nothing.


tezzajw

Yes, Lloyde England was confused about where he was on 9/11 when interviewed by CIT years later. So what, it had been a long time and he is a septuagenarian. There is no actual doubt about where he was because of photographic evidence.

Another CIT witness, Sgt Lagasse, couldn't remember where he was at the Citgo gas station but that's ok because what he had to say was more acceptable to CIT, apart from the plane whacking into the Pentagon of course.

Wanda Ramey made a statement on 9/22/01, i.e. 11 days after the attack, in which she said " I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post and it made the plane slant. " She is telephoned years later, out of the blue, by CIT and she still says " I think I recall seeing it hit the light pole." She doesn't say " I can't remember ."

Now, how about your flyover witnesses ? which I noticed you didn't address.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Yes, Lloyde England was confused about where he was on 9/11 when interviewed by CIT years later. So what,

He was confused about more than just his placement on the road. Lloyde has discredited himself.


Originally posted by Alfie1
Another CIT witness, Sgt Lagasse, couldn't remember where he was at the Citgo gas station but that's ok because what he had to say was more acceptable to CIT, apart from the plane whacking into the Pentagon of course.

Lagasse stated that he never saw the plane hit any light poles and he certainly never stated that he saw the light pole hit the taxi. What's your point?


Originally posted by Alfie1
Wanda Ramey made a statement on 9/22/01, i.e. 11 days after the attack, in which she said " I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post and it made the plane slant. " She is telephoned years later, out of the blue, by CIT and she still says " I think I recall seeing it hit the light pole." She doesn't say " I can't remember ."

Why do you think that Wanda Ramey was contacted by CIT? Printed words and quotes from witnesses may not be entirely accurate. Look at how pteridine and mmiichael stuffed up with McGraw. They took a printed quote from McGraw and tried to use that as being definitive. When they finally realised that McGraw contradicted the printed quote in a video interview, it showed their lack of research and unwillingness to verfy McGraw's printed statement.

When CIT followed up with Ramey, she contradicted her earlier testimony. If she can't recall the event accurately, then her entire recollection is dubious. By all means, if you want to believe someone who's unsure of what they saw, more power to you.


Originally posted by Alfie1
Now, how about your flyover witnesses ? which I noticed you didn't address.

Alfie, it appears that you may be new to ATS. As such, I'll give you the same spiel that lots of others before you have received. Those who have made the same mistake that you're making now.

I've got about 4300 posts on ATS. Some of them I regret and wish I could take back, others just plain silly... some are worth reading though. It's a mixed bag of crap, truth and blowing off steam in those 4300 posts. Your homework task is to read all of my posts and quote me where I stated that I believe there was a flyover.

Your failure to do this will be your admission that, as a new member, you mistakenly assumed something about me.

Be very careful which words you're trying to shove into someone else's mouth, especially when you have not done your research to try and understand what that person has previously stated or what they believe.

You might note that I've set trebor, the self alleged 25 year career 'civil servant' government DoD employee, his own homework assignment to prove his false claims against me. Don't end up like trebor, constantly claiming that people have stated things, when you fall short, not being able to quote them on what you claim they stated.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

There are enough people who saw the plane strike the Pentagon so that the light pole collisions, or lack of same, aren't worth worryng about.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Kind of obvious to anyone who would bother to wade through this tedious repetitive thread. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

They adhere to a number of unsuppoted beliefs:

No plane hit the Pentagon. No light poles were knocked down. Black is White. Day is Night. 2+2=5.

Increasingly 9/11 threads have degenerated into love-ins for the Truth Movement fundamentalists who still can't come to terms with the fact that the US was attacked with 4 hijacked planes.

Warehouses full of evidence, first hand witness testimonies, endless videos and photos, confessions from perpetrators are totally ignored. Favoured are amateur 'investigations' by video salesmen and analysis by failed academics seeking to cash in on the fringe sub-culture still buying into this hokum after 8 years.

The debate will remain on conspiracy sites as long as there are people who choose to revel in self-imposed ignorance.

M



[edit on 19-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Kind of obvious to anyone who would bother to wade through this tedious repetitive thread. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
They adhere to a number of unsuppoted beliefs:
...light poles were knocked down.

You don't have to be that critical of people who believe that light poles were knocked down, mmiichael. There are terms and conditions to follow and calling other members 'lunatics' isn't exactly engaging in polite discussion.

After all, they're believing a media story, with no supporting official government story documentation that it ever happened.

Some of them even think that a light pole hit the taxi, which is the height of ultimate religious-like belief - placing faith in the word of Lloyde.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
You don't have to be that critical of people who believe that light poles were knocked down, mmiichael. There are terms and conditions to follow and calling other members 'lunatics' isn't exactly engaging in polite discussion.

After all, they're believing a media story, with no supporting official government story documentation that it ever happened.

Some of them even think that a light pole hit the taxi, which is the height of ultimate religious-like belief - placing faith in the word of Lloyde.



One of the commonest phrases in the English language.


www.repiev.ru...

"The Lunatics Have Taken Over the Asylum"

David Ogilvy made the above acerbic remark about advertising back in the 1960s.


There is zero evidence or testimony of anything other than the low flying Flight 77 knocking down those light poles. No remotely possible alternative explanation has ever been presented.

Anyone reading this thread will inevitably form an opinion of people who are incapable of dealing with reality.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
There is zero evidence or testimony of ... Flight 77 ... knocking down those light poles. No ... explanation has ever been presented.

I agree that there's been no proof to support that the alleged Flight AA77 hit any light poles.

Even more puzzling is the claim that one of those light poles hit the taxi. It's also unproven and driven by the faith based claim that Lloyde speaks the truth.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by mmiichael
There is zero evidence or testimony of ... Flight 77 ... knocking down those light poles. No ... explanation has ever been presented.

I agree that there's been no proof to support that the alleged Flight AA77 hit any light poles.

Even more puzzling is the claim that one of those light poles hit the taxi. It's also unproven and driven by the faith based claim that Lloyde speaks the truth.


Meanwhile.... AA77 still hit the Pentagon, Franco is still dead, and none of you no-planers has yet fessed up that you have no eyewitnesses to any "jet flying over and away from the Pentagon."

Maybe we need to offer you "Truthers" free beer to admit you have no evidence to support your claims, is that it?




posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
AA77 still hit the Pentagon...


Saying something over and over again doesn't make it so. You have made an assertion above, which implies that you have proof for your assertion. Show it or admit that you made a mistake in the above assertion.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by mmiichael
There is zero evidence or testimony of ... Flight 77 ... knocking down those light poles. No ... explanation has ever been presented.

I agree that there's been no proof to support that the alleged Flight AA77 hit any light poles.

Even more puzzling is the claim that one of those light poles hit the taxi. It's also unproven and driven by the faith based claim that Lloyde speaks the truth.

No evidence?, only the lampposts knocked down by Flight 77 and witnesses. The FDR with a true track of 61.5 degrees lines up the downed lampposts with the Pentagon impact. Hard evidence from the FDR has never been refuted with facts and evidence.

The FDR information can be obtained independently from the NTSB and decoded by anyone who is inclined. The decoded files from pilots for truth are missing 5 seconds of data, and the NTSB file is missing 4 seconds due to the last frame missing some words, an incomplete frame. Files can be found at 911 truth movement sites, which is ironic since the data refutes the crazy ideas 911 truth has made up about Flight 77.

Anyone can find the final true track heading from the FDR and use google earth to see the lamppost damage lines up with the impact at the Pentagon at 61.5 degrees. How is this evidence eliminated?

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


16 witnesses to the lampposts being hit by 77 is bad news for the fly over delusion. So far all the witnesses presented by independent researchers agree Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. When will a witness from any source say Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon? After 77 impacted the Pentagon, the fuel on board was dispersed and formed a jet fuel fire ball exactly the size you get from the fuel on board Flight 77; more evidence Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.

The RADAR data shows Flight 77 terminated at the Pentagon. DNA shows the Passengers of Flight 77 were killed at the Pentagon. Not one single piece of evidence has been provided to refute the impact, the DNA, the RADAR, and the FDR for over 8 years. This will be the same when 40 years rolls around, not a single person will produce real evidence to refute Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon, they will only have hearsay and false information.

The fact is all the witnesses saw Flight 77 on the path that hit the lampposts and in the last few seconds was a true track of 61.5 degrees. You can see them pointing in videos to the path 77 was on and having them draw a path they can’t draw because they were not above the flight path to see the flight path is ridiculous. The fact is the witnesses point to the south because they are north of the flight path, just as witnesses to the south will point north. Ask the witnesses what hit the lampposts and the Pentagon; Flight 77.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by jthomas
AA77 still hit the Pentagon...


Saying something over and over again doesn't make it so.


Absolutely correct. Only evidence does.


You have made an assertion above, which implies that you have proof for your assertion.


Correct. We knew AA77 hit the Pentagon within 1/2 hour from it doing so.


Show it or admit that you made a mistake in the above assertion.


All of the evidence from multiple, independent sources and thousands of eyewitnesses confirms that AA77 hit the Pentagon. A handful of people have claimed it didn't but have failed in the 8 years since 9/11 to provide any evidence to refute that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Nor have they ever provided a single piece of evidence to support their claim that AA77 "flew over and away from the Pentagon."

As is so obviously known to we rational people, nothing has changed and no reason has ever been given to doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

If you would like to be the very first person to demonstrate that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon or that you have evidence that it "flew over and away from the Pentagon," please don't hold back. You'd be the first to do so and would be a national hero. Why hold back?

Until then.... any questions?




top topics



 
215
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join