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.

 

What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Well, what ever did hit the pentagon we know it was not a plane. Other than that anything else is plausible. You OS believers want us to believe a phantom airplane hit the pentagon.




posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
It was a missile, I think a globalhawk. But there was also explosives in that section of the building.

A full sized Boeing was also at the scene - but had to have overflown the Pentagon, just like the CIT Investigative Team has hypothesized.

And whatever Boeing was there at the scene, overflying the Pentagon wall, at the time of the explosion and/or missile attack, given the trajectory and maneuvering of that plane, it was surely piloted by remote control, and if that's not far out enough for the debunkers to go after, it probably also made use of adaptive camoflage technology, as it passed over that wall, from the ground perspective simply vanishing at that point, as it overflew the wall.

Sadly - this appears to violate occams razor - until one looks for wing and engine damage on the Pentagon wall, in particular, damage from the rear verticle stablizer wing, for which there is not a MARK, same for the wings, and the engines, which to have fit under the blown away ledge, would have HAD to have made a long gouge in the lawn leading up to the wall, but again NOTHING, just pretine Pentalawn grass, right up to the point of impact/explosion.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
OK I guess that seals it. Thanks to this thread here we now know for sure that there were no wings on whatever did hit the pentagon so I guess the OSers have to go back to the drawing board.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Ah here we are on day 4. I am really hoping today is the day. Apparently, this is sooooo easy to prove because it is the obvious truth and all so.....

Where are all the wonderful answers that show me just how stupid a question this is to ask?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 





a place where we could settle this one simple little quandary.
ya , um you're either very nieve or you need to deny ignorance.
because this is not going to happen.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Ah here we are on day 4. I am really hoping today is the day. Apparently, this is sooooo easy to prove because it is the obvious truth and all so.....

Where are all the wonderful answers that show me just how stupid a question this is to ask?


It is certainly the stupidest question you could ask.

It even beats the question, "How do you know the moon exists?", don't you think?




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
Ah here we are on day 4. I am really hoping today is the day. Apparently, this is sooooo easy to prove because it is the obvious truth and all so.....

Where are all the wonderful answers that show me just how stupid a question this is to ask?


It is certainly the stupidest question you could ask.

It even beats the question, "How do you know the moon exists?", don't you think?



Really? You know what. You are right. This must be just about the stupidest question anyone ever asked. You know what would really shut my big stupid face? Throwing the correct answer right in my face. Just post it right here. Just spell it out.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Lillydale
 





a place where we could settle this one simple little quandary.
ya , um you're either very nieve or you need to deny ignorance.
because this is not going to happen.


Hi there, Randy is it? May I call you Randy? I hope so, because I am going to.

Randy, did you mean to actually say something? You seem to have forgotten the informative and interesting part of your post. What does it offer? What does it add?

It insults me, so you got that going for ya


edit to add: and that is why you get a gold star from me, Randy.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Lillydale]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
The relative measurements and scaled to distances depicted by the vanishing point, a 20 per cent vertical perspective correction and 1.5 per cent tilt correction to compensate for the CCTV lens, and the exact place the object had to be, to be captured by the CCTV`s exact focal point, (an aerial view of these measurements can be seen in the picture lower down)...



The alleged flight path....



The flight path that covers the lamp post hits and where the plane would have to be in comparison to the CCTV.........



How many of the planes that are shown in the released frames would fit into the exactly scaled to measure distance....



How many 757`s fit in the same distance.....



Whatever the badly edited craft that was super imposed was, they got their dimensions horribly wrong.....



Well Lilly it is safe to say, what ever hit the Pentagon was not a 757, disproved by maths, also - watch the released video through virtual dub when the object supposed to hit the Pentagon appears it stays static for around 25+ frames then in one frame travels the rest of the distance and hits the target, lmfao, F.B.I. video editing has severely worsened since the Zapruder era
.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


If you look at each still frame behind the box in the foreground in these official trial still frames, your plane is still there in each still and is really composed of the background.

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui OFFICIAL STORY Parking Lot Video Still Frames

Yes it is true, and government loyalist and expert witness jthomas confirms there is no aircraft in the video hitting the Pentagon.


posted by jthomas

Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.


In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.



jthomas Photoshopping Incorporated




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Hmmmmm. I find it very intriguing that there are solid "no's." This is an easy question for anyone clinging to the 'Official Story.' I guess I thought it was but so far not even any of those.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Here is something I don't get. If this is all a huge government conspiracy then why did they use a missile instead of a plane? They used planes for the WTC and a plane supposedly crashed in Shanksville. If they wanted to pull this off without anybody knowing why didn't they just crash a plane into it like the official account? Would it have been that much harder? Did they just get lazy and say "Ahh, # it, just missile the mother#er"?

Honest and legitimate questions. Anyone want to take a shot at them?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


If its the stupidest question you can ask and you do not answer it I can only infer so many things:

You are unable to.
You are able to but something is preventing you.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   


Missile if anything.... Who knows, without a new investigation with Subpoena power, it's all a crap shot.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
Ah here we are on day 4. I am really hoping today is the day. Apparently, this is sooooo easy to prove because it is the obvious truth and all so.....

Where are all the wonderful answers that show me just how stupid a question this is to ask?


It is certainly the stupidest question you could ask.

It even beats the question, "How do you know the moon exists?", don't you think?



Really? You know what. You are right. This must be just about the stupidest question anyone ever asked. You know what would really shut my big stupid face? Throwing the correct answer right in my face. Just post it right here. Just spell it out.


1. Admit that you refuse to refute the evidence.
2. Demonstrate your claims with evidence.

It really couldn't be simpler.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Well, what ever did hit the pentagon we know it was not a plane.


Then why can't you tell us how you know it?

Man, you're silly.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
I am sure this question seems a bit old. I can also imagine quite a few of the "OS" believers out there are just rolling their eyes..."


Just what is an "OS believer?" I have never seen or met one.


You haven't? Try Cameron Fox, Joey Canoli, JThomas, oh whoops. What do you mean what is an "OS believer?"

I know you are dying for an excuse to say "canard" again but that song is played out.


Sorry, we all accept the evidence that you pretend does not exist.


There are skeptics like me who question the claims of 9/11 "Truthers" like you who make unsupported claims they refuse to back up.

There are also skeptics like me that question the unsupported claims of people like you.


I haven't made any unsupported claims. The evidence for you to refute has been given to you.


Claiming it was hijackers stealing planes and crashing them into stuff to being it all down - that is some claim. You cannot back any of that up so instead you attack truthers and you usually do it in such an ignorant manner.


You're upset because you know you cannot refute the evidence to which I have repeatedly pointed all of you. So you just whine, desperate to shift the burden of proof.


Back it up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You just keep repeating things. Things you have not verified, checked out, looked into, substantiated in any way. Can you prove any of your outragous claims? No, you have had plenty of chances and you continually fail and then try to claim other people need to prove their doubt, not you proving your wild fairy tale. You are not working in the real world and your answers are increasingly useless.


Sorry, your evasions don't work, and they never will. You are the one making unsupported claims. I have repeatedly pointed you to the evidence for you to refute and you avoid doing so like the plague. YOU are the one claiming there were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon then whine that you never claimed any such thing.

You're just showing the true nature of "denial" in all of it irrational forms.

Now, you have two missions.

1. Present the evidence for YOUR claim that there "were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon." Or, retract that claim.

2. REFUTE the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon starting here, the same evidence I have repeatedly given you:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

And further evasions by you will demonstrate conclusively that you have NO interest in the truth whatsoever.

The ball is in your court. The burden of proof remains on YOUR shoulders.

By the way, Lillydale, do you have any clue what the purpose of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by Seventh
 


If you look at each still frame behind the box in the foreground in these official trial still frames, your plane is still there in each still and is really composed of the background.

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui OFFICIAL STORY Parking Lot Video Still Frames

Yes it is true, and government loyalist and expert witness jthomas confirms there is no aircraft in the video hitting the Pentagon.


posted by jthomas

Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.


In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.



jthomas Photoshopping Incorporated





Gosh, are you still upset
that everyone agrees that one cannot identify a Boeing 757 in the security cam video, SPreston?

You already know that no one needs that video as evidence to demonstrate that AA77 hit the Pentagon.




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


If its the stupidest question you can ask and you do not answer it I can only infer so many things:

You are unable to.
You are able to but something is preventing you.


You've been reduced to mumbling.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

posted by Seventh






After cropping the impact Still Frame;



The aircraft shape is still visible (partially obscured by smoke or photoshopping) above the parking lot entry booth after the bright hot explosion short of the Pentagon wall.

The shape is formed by the trees and whatever in the background. The heavy white smoke trail was apparently photoshopped into the videos. The explosion looks too bright and hot for a jet fuel explosion and may be photoshopped in as well. Or perhaps the videos captured the actual explosives used outside the wall. They do seem too vertical for a 530 mph aircraft impact explosion and definitely too hot for jet fuel.

The helipad tower is a phony looking red color on the near side with the explosion on the opposite side. The polyethelene cable spools would be inside the alleged fireball shown in the videos, and were un-melted and un-damaged. Very suspicious.



There seem to be two explosion shapes in the white hot explosion fireball. Photoshopped or two actual explosions captured by the video cameras? Were these Hollywood special effects explosions used for Bush Regime Shock & Awe purposes?





I vote that absolutely nothing hit the Pentagon. Just explosives.

For more information on successful photoshopping, see our resident photoshopping expert and all around parking lot security video debunking guru jthomas.


posted by jthomas

Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.


In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.



jthomas Photoshopping Incorporated





[edit on 9/16/09 by SPreston]



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join