What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 20 times

reply posted on 17-9-2009 @ 10:12 PM by Swampfox46_1999

reply to post by Lillydale

Disinfo hit piece. List after list of people who watched Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, or found what was left of the bodies of the passengers still strapped into what was left of their seats.....and you call it disinfo. Thank you for confirming my first ideas about you.

You want evidence and then you complain when its given to you. Typical.

reply posted on 17-9-2009 @ 11:10 PM by Lillydale

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale

Disinfo hit piece. List after list of people who watched Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, or found what was left of the bodies of the passengers still strapped into what was left of their seats.....and you call it disinfo. Thank you for confirming my first ideas about you.

You want evidence and then you complain when its given to you. Typical.

List after list of people I can have tell me things?

Wow.

If you do not believe the difference between evidence and what someone says, then there is little I can do for you.

You apparently failed to notice that I have made it clear that I believe we were lied to on 9/11 and many times afterward about it.

Now why would you think a list of people who say they can say things is going to convince me of anything.

You OSers can harp on these 1000s of eyewitnesses all you like.

What does the coroners report say?

The FAA?

These are still things that people just say but at least it is better than what you have offered. I would think that the first thing that you would try to do is publish the coroner's report. Instead you give me your black book of disinfo? How about evidence or an explanation as to where the wings went?

Just because you say what you offered should be enough does not make it so. I am glad that you are willing to just believe what people tell you even if it completely contradicts the reality that you can witness.

reply posted on 17-9-2009 @ 11:43 PM by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"You already know that no one needs that video as evidence to demonstrate that AA77 hit the Pentagon."

Obviously, no one needs "that video" or any of the other videos confiscated by the FBI to demonstrate that AA77 hit the Pentagon. I guess withholding evidence is how the Government goes about proving their case. Yep, sure makes a lot of sense.

The "government" has no case it has to "prove." That's where you all fall flat on your faces.

Please explain this with some content.
I am a US veteran of foreign war. 60 THOUSAND of my military Brothers died to provide for you and your children.
Is the government you speak of, the United States Government? The one that works for me MR tax payer and 300 million like me, correct?
JTHOMAS, I am correct? AM I NOT?

reply posted on 17-9-2009 @ 11:47 PM by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by Donny 4 million

You truly did not mean to direct your tirade at me, did you?

Second line.

.I meant no offence.The rest you will have to decipher for yourself.
REINVESTIGATION is my second line

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Donny 4 million]

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 09:02 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"You already know that no one needs that video as evidence to demonstrate that AA77 hit the Pentagon."

Obviously, no one needs "that video" or any of the other videos confiscated by the FBI to demonstrate that AA77 hit the Pentagon. I guess withholding evidence is how the Government goes about proving their case. Yep, sure makes a lot of sense.

The "government" has no case it has to "prove." That's where you all fall flat on your faces.

Please explain this with some content.
I am a US veteran of foreign war. 60 THOUSAND of my military Brothers died to provide for you and your children.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the claim that the "government has to prove its case that AA77 hit the Pentagon," now does it?

Try to stick to the subject matter.

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 09:06 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale

You OSers can harp on these 1000s of eyewitnesses all you like.

You can reject evidence all you want and refuse to support your own claims, as I have repeatedly shown you do.

The fact is that get's you nowhere. Why you don't see that is amazing.

And you can't even tell us what the purpose of the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement is.

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 09:10 AM by Hazelnut

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
And you can't even tell us what the purpose of the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement is.

Uhm. Its self-explanatory.

You typed it, maybe you should try to figure out what the words mean when strung together like that. LOL

9 / 11 truth

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 10:02 AM by Donny 4 million

reply to post by jthomas

JT you said this and I quote

"The "government" has no case it has to "prove." That's where you all fall flat on your faces."

This is my complete reply.

"Please explain this with some content.
I am a US veteran of foreign war. 60 THOUSAND of my military Brothers died to provide for you and your children.
Is the government you speak of, the United States Government? The one that works for me MR tax payer and 300 million like me, correct?
JTHOMAS, I am correct? AM I NOT? "

1--Obviously you are ashamed to say which government you speak off.

2-- I will add that the false flag aircraft you speak of and the ones that hit the twins---
Have caused the deaths of thousands of US military and civilian lives. Maybe a million or more.
That is not counting the thousands in those buildings and the death of the brave clean up crews.

3--Obviously you have absolutely no regard for millions of taxpayers that are forced to pay for the destruction of foreign countries and to have their wives, mothers, daughters, fathers, sons, cousins, friends and lovers get maimed and die in that process

4--- Yes the government does have to prove it's case and answer to AMERICA!!!

You need more content I got plenty sunshine.

No wonder you can't man -up

Dodge or spin don't win.

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 11:04 PM by W35M4N

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think this demonstrates pretty well that what hit the pentagon was a 757, regardless of who was flying/controlling it.

reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 01:41 AM by Lillydale

Originally posted by W35M4N
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think this demonstrates pretty well that what hit the pentagon was a 757, regardless of who was flying/controlling it.

I really wish we had that thread referenced about 5 more times here to completely solidify the fact that people do not read here, they just post.

Thanks, got it, had it, tossed it out already.

Sorry but unless some new evidence comes out, they finally release some clear real time footage, or someone confess - junk like that thread will only serve to prove that a debris field was set up quickly.

Just think, if they had a few messed up plane parts at the ready to toss all over the place, that would most certainly be found out, right? Unless they tried to do something sneaky like put them out for display and then get rid of them before they are ever properly investigated.

I fail to see how any investigation that is carried out so poorly could still have so many people so convinced.

Ever seen a magic trick?

Look, plane parts!
Look, I told you a plane crashed here!

Viola! you now have a plane used as a missile without a plane ever having to enter the picture. All they needed to do was give you 3 corners and your mind automatically adds a fourth.

reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 05:14 AM by KuNgFuZerG

I'm not a firm believer in the official story and I admit to having seen just about all the documentaries on the subject. Here's one question I've never heard an explanation for...
Could someone plz answer me this; If a missile hit the pentagon and somehow managed to punch a hole through the walls of the 3rd ring, what is exploding at the outer ring? The thing is, I can't understand how a missile would be capable of doing damage to the 3rd ring of the building if it exploded on impact with the outer ring....Plz help me out here. Is there something I'm not getting?

I've seen anti tank weapons and such that in effect are hard metal rods accelerated by missiles. These weapons punch holes through a tank like it was made of paper, also there are bunker buster weapons with the capability to do the same to buildings(though these carry explosives). Anyways, are the 'any one' weapon that can account for this strange(at least to me)damage pattern?
[edit on 19-9-2009 by KuNgFuZerG]

[edit on 19-9-2009 by KuNgFuZerG]

reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 08:30 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by Hazelnut

Originally posted by jthomas

And you can't even tell us what the purpose of the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement is.

Uhm. Its self-explanatory.

To us it's the 9/11 Denial Movement for obvious reasons. But I'm giving you an opportunity to tell us what you thinks it's purpose is.

reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 08:34 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by jthomas

JT you said this and I quote

"The "government" has no case it has to "prove." That's where you all fall flat on your faces."

This is my complete reply.

"Please explain this with some content.
I am a US veteran of foreign war. 60 THOUSAND of my military Brothers died to provide for you and your children.
Is the government you speak of, the United States Government? The one that works for me MR tax payer and 300 million like me, correct?
JTHOMAS, I am correct? AM I NOT? "

Obviously, you are incapable of demonstrating WHY the "government" has to "prove" AA77 hit The Pentagon.

Your evasion is quite clear. You cannot demonstrate your claims again.

reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 08:40 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale

I fail to see how any investigation that is carried out so poorly could still have so many people so convinced.

As usual, you cannot support your claim and refuse to go to the sources of the evidence. And you love insulting hundreds of millions of Americans in the process.

No matter how much you whine, nobody is going to pay attention to you. Unless you get off your butt, you'll be whining decades from now that there is no evidence and that everyone else is too stupid to know it.

You should contemplate why you're still standing in the corner with a dunce's hat on.

reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 10:32 AM by jprophet420

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the claim that the "government has to prove its case that AA77 hit the Pentagon," now does it?

Try to stick to the subject matter.

If there was a court case today, the government would not be able to prove that flight 77 hit the pentagon. You can think what you want and you can post what you want, but everyone reading this knows that I'm right. Weather or not they choose to admit it is up to the individual.

reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 11:23 AM by scott3x

Originally posted by jprophet420

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the claim that the "government has to prove its case that AA77 hit the Pentagon," now does it?

Try to stick to the subject matter.

If there was a court case today, the government would not be able to prove that flight 77 hit the pentagon. You can think what you want and you can post what you want, but everyone reading this knows that I'm right. Weather or not they choose to admit it is up to the individual.

I definitely believe there is truth in what you say. However, I think that it is somewhat misleading as well. There is a difference between consciously knowing something and unconsciously knowing it. I think that a large part of the problem is that 9/11 is a very emotional issue. Once, when I expressed embarassment over someone's lack of questioning the official story's version, he stated the following:

do yourself a favor scott, imagine that WTC 1&2 was your mother being accused of murder. you will then understand a few things.

I don't think I'll ever forget that comment. I think it speaks volumes for why many OS supporters are so averse to questioning their beliefs.

reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 12:14 PM by mrwiffler

Threads on this subject need this to be stated on every page:

A large number of people saw the plane slam into the building. End of story.

The perpetrators are playing everyone for fools. They hide the evidence and then foster the idea that it was not a plane. Then they use the no plane idea as a primary tool in discrediting the genuine truth movement. Very clever.

Oh yeah, and apart from those who saw the plane hit the building there are people who had to go in and clean up the dead bodies etc. They tend to get upset when people say they are lying.

Also there was luggage etc. All verifiable stuff. CIT are dangerous disinformation specialists.

reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 12:26 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the claim that the "government has to prove its case that AA77 hit the Pentagon," now does it?

Try to stick to the subject matter.

If there was a court case today, the government would not be able to prove that flight 77 hit the pentagon.

That's a silly statement. There's never been a reason why the "government" would have to go to court to demonstrate that AA77 hit the Pentagon, or anyone else for that matter.

reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 12:27 PM by Lillydale

Originally posted by mrwiffler
Threads on this subject need this to be stated on every page:

A large number of people saw the plane slam into the building. End of story.

Really? What people? How reliable are they? How many witnesses do you think can tell one coherent story? When my car was broken into last year, 4 neighbors saw the man who did it. He was white, hispanic, possibly black, looked asian. He was wearing green, red, brown, gray. He had a hat on to two people and a hood to two others. If 4 people can get what they themselves saw, just imagine a whole lot of people. Then you will get some that saw a plane, two planes, a missile, a plane fly away after firing at the pentagon, etc. See where this is going yet?

The perpetrators are playing everyone for fools. They hide the evidence and then foster the idea that it was not a plane. Then they use the no plane idea as a primary tool in discrediting the genuine truth movement. Very clever.

Yeah, that is exactly what happened right? You know this because....

Oh yeah, and apart from those who saw the plane hit the building there are people who had to go in and clean up the dead bodies etc. They tend to get upset when people say they are lying.

Really? Have you upset them in this way? There sure were people that pulled dead Pentagon employees corpses out. I am just curious why they took pictures and talked about these four horribly burned bodies and yet when it comes to passengers, it is too painful, they get mad, delicate, whatever to explain why no witnesses found passenger bodies, the coroner did not find passenger bodies, and passenger bodies are not in any of the crash scene reports. You believe all of this stuff but you do not know why do you?

Seen the bodies?
Seen what these "people" you speak of saw?
Talked to every single witness and determined which ones were wrong, lying, blind?

I have a feeling you have done nothing but believe exactly what you were told to believe like a good boy.

Also there was luggage etc. All verifiable stuff. CIT are dangerous disinformation specialists.

Luggage is verifiable stuff now? Cool, I have 3 sets of luggage in my basement, I guess that plane crashed in WNY before crashing into the Pentagon? You really do have your little script memorized but if you actually knew it to be true, you could point me to all the places that verify such claims.

Any time now.

reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 12:29 PM by Lillydale

Originally posted by KuNgFuZerG
I'm not a firm believer in the official story and I admit to having seen just about all the documentaries on the subject. Here's one question I've never heard an explanation for...
Could someone plz answer me this; If a missile hit the pentagon and somehow managed to punch a hole through the walls of the 3rd ring, what is exploding at the outer ring? The thing is, I can't understand how a missile would be capable of doing damage to the 3rd ring of the building if it exploded on impact with the outer ring....Plz help me out here. Is there something I'm not getting?

I've seen anti tank weapons and such that in effect are hard metal rods accelerated by missiles. These weapons punch holes through a tank like it was made of paper, also there are bunker buster weapons with the capability to do the same to buildings(though these carry explosives). Anyways, are the 'any one' weapon that can account for this strange(at least to me)damage pattern?
[edit on 19-9-2009 by KuNgFuZerG]

[edit on 19-9-2009 by KuNgFuZerG]

You mean you have a really hard time imagining that they may have used more than one method to make this look like AA77 hit the building? Had to be rods and not explosives, that sort of thing?