What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 20 times


reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 12:42 PM by GenRadek
reply to post by jprophet420


So how exactly did they manage to fake out the thousands of rescue workers, 1st responders, crash scene investigators, and countless others that were there? Your incredulity is noted. Just goes to show how little you know, and how much you cling to the fantasies of conspiracy which are based solely on gut feelings and assumptions and plenty of innuendo.
hell the truthers cant even stick to their own scripts! Take a look at SPreston! Hes squawking about magic flyovers and nothing hitting the Pentagon, and NOW he's saying it was a Navy plane that hit. now watch him jump back to the flyover claim and no planes hitting. At least the "OS" is pretty stable in comparison to you guys.
I do believe its been posted before, the list of people on site at the Pentagon during and immediately after the crash. Thousands and thousands of people who were there. There are also plenty of pictures of actual 757 parts inside the Pentagon and out. But every time YOU along with the rest of the 9/11 Deniers handwave it all away and dismiss it. I have yet to see any of you present any actual evidence that refutes the evidence of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon. Sorry, plane parts, bodies, DNA, scores of eyewitnesses and 1st responders all trump your "we need video proof" of the crash.

If that is how you want to play it, then lets recall the AA Airbus A-300 jet crash into the NYC neighborhood shortly after 9/11. No video exist of the plane crash. Yet plenty of proof it did. So according to your twisted logic, it never did crash did it? It was also planted and faked because there is no video of the crash. There should be video, right? But there isnt any. So according to you, EVERYTHING needs to be recorded on tape as proof of happening. See? I can play this stupid game too!


reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 01:13 PM by GenRadek
Originally posted by Lillydale

Nice stretch of logic here.

Why do people think the events on 9/11 are not as claimed? Because of a lack of video? Check NYC that day.

When this airbus crashed, did it kill over 3000 people? Did we attack an unarmed country because we claimed they crashed that plane? Did the president base any of the patriot act on this particular plane crash? Was it used to keep us fearful of anyone? Did it take down 1.5 skyscrapers?

You are not even trying here.


Actually I am using your type of logic. Illogical logic.
This Airbus killed well over 230 people. destroyed a few blocks of Queens. However it was confirmed it crashed by score of eyewitness accounts, 1st responders, and crash scene investigators. Bodies were found, DNA was found, aircraft debris was found. BUT NO VIDEO of the event. At the Pentagon we have scores of witnesses to the crash, we have scores of 1st responders who were there with readily available accounts of the events and recovery effort, we have aircraft debris ID'd as from a 757. We have passenger remains and DNA confirmation. We also have a single video of sorts of which show the impact and a little of the aircraft.
So you claim there is no evidence for a plane crashing at the Pentagon, and when there is PLENTY given: eyewitness accounts, DNA, debris, etc etc etc, YOU immediately ignore it and claim its all faked, not real, planted, or since its on a "website" its not real evidence. So by your EXACT logic, the Airbus crash also didnt happen because there was no video, and everything could have been planted, faked, etc and the information is on a website, which you will also dismiss as disinfo.

The brain hurts at your irrational line of thinking. So lets use your logic from the Pentagon and I want you to prove to me the Airbus DID did in fact crash into the Queens neighborhood, without using websites, or anything that was released either by the govt, media, or eyewitness accounts.

I can play this stupid game too.


reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 03:22 PM by Lillydale
Originally posted by GenRadek
Actually I am using your type of logic. Illogical logic.
This Airbus killed well over 230 people. destroyed a few blocks of Queens. However it was confirmed it crashed by score of eyewitness accounts, 1st responders, and crash scene investigators. Bodies were found, DNA was found, aircraft debris was found. BUT NO VIDEO of the event.


Yes, very good. Apparently reading what you reply to would be too much trouble for you.

At the Pentagon we have scores of witnesses to the crash,


Who contradict each other all over the place. We have eyewitnesses to a plane, a missile, two planes, a flyover. So much for eyewitnesses.

we have scores of 1st responders who were there with readily available accounts of the events and recovery effort,


What about the recovery effort? How many passengers did they claim to recover?

we have aircraft debris ID'd as from a 757.


Was it really? Some internet photo analysis is what passes for proof. In the old days, they would have been compelled to id parts by S/N but I guess now they just publish a few photos and wait for someone on ATS to look at them???

We have passenger remains and DNA confirmation.


That is an outright lie and you know that it is.

We also have a single video of sorts of which show the impact and a little of the aircraft.


You really see an aircraft in those frames? Why don't you post one and draw an outline around the aircraft for me.

Like I said, no bodies, conflicting eyewitnesses, part of the death of over 3000 people and a pretext for war.

If you do not see the HUGE differences between your example and 9/11 then you are beyond my help.

Then you go and repeat that exact same premise you just offered as if repetition makes it any more valid. There is no comparison between the two and you know there were no passenger bodies found at the Pentagon. I have no idea whether or not the coroner claimed to see any in this other accident but I know it was not the basis for an unnecessary war so I could not really get all that concerned at this point.

You are just plain lying to try and make your point and that is sad.

I can play this stupid game too.


Expecting me to challenge that statement? You are winning so far.


reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 06:29 PM by KuNgFuZerG
Originally posted 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?


reply to post by Lillydale


I'm not saying anything. I'm trying to find out what exactly hit the Pentagon. If it was a missile I would like to know what kind of missile is suspected to have been able to do this damage alone(concidering what i mentioned in the other post), and if a missile can't account for it I wonder why I hear so little of additional explosives in the building, because that then seems essential to the theory. Is this something my fellow conspiracy analysts have failed to ask themselves?

As for the rods, that is just me trowing stuff out there.


reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 09:53 AM by SPreston
posted by GenRadek

We also have a single video of sorts of which show the impact and a little of the aircraft.

posted by Lillydale

You really see an aircraft in those frames? Why don't you post one and draw an outline around the aircraft for me.



Would one of you aircraft experts or government loyalists please show us the aircraft in these frames? For the life of me I cannot see an aircraft or flying object of any kind. I see trees, buildings, and perhaps a raised freeway. I see what looks to be a very clear heavy white smoke trail; much more defined than the remainder of the still frame. Photoshopped in?

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui Prosecution Trial Exhibits







We don't need your input jthomas. We already know that you agree with us that the Pentagon parking lot security videos do not show Flight 77 or any flying object impacting the Pentagon. Thank you for your support.

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.



I might add that the photoshopped aircraft in jthomas's plane and impact stills would be visible to the camera for about 1/3 second at the official 780 fps aircraft speed and for about 1/2 second at the much slower approximate 450 fps Over the Naval Annex decoy aircraft speed.

jthomas Photoshopping Incorporated - Images in jthomas avatar read plane and impact



[edit on 9/20/09 by SPreston]


reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 10:11 AM by jprophet420
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by jprophet420


So how exactly did they manage to fake out the thousands of rescue workers, 1st responders, crash scene investigators, and countless others that were there? Your incredulity is noted. Just goes to show how little you know, and how much you cling to the fantasies of conspiracy which are based solely on gut feelings and assumptions and plenty of innuendo.
hell the truthers cant even stick to their own scripts! Take a look at SPreston! Hes squawking about magic flyovers and nothing hitting the Pentagon, and NOW he's saying it was a Navy plane that hit. now watch him jump back to the flyover claim and no planes hitting. At least the "OS" is pretty stable in comparison to you guys.
I do believe its been posted before, the list of people on site at the Pentagon during and immediately after the crash. Thousands and thousands of people who were there. There are also plenty of pictures of actual 757 parts inside the Pentagon and out. But every time YOU along with the rest of the 9/11 Deniers handwave it all away and dismiss it. I have yet to see any of you present any actual evidence that refutes the evidence of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon. Sorry, plane parts, bodies, DNA, scores of eyewitnesses and 1st responders all trump your "we need video proof" of the crash.

If that is how you want to play it, then lets recall the AA Airbus A-300 jet crash into the NYC neighborhood shortly after 9/11. No video exist of the plane crash. Yet plenty of proof it did. So according to your twisted logic, it never did crash did it? It was also planted and faked because there is no video of the crash. There should be video, right? But there isnt any. So according to you, EVERYTHING needs to be recorded on tape as proof of happening. See? I can play this stupid game too!


I've asked you to provide links to this before and you have went the way of jthomas and either were unable or refused. Here you go eunning your mouth again with no evidence.

Definitions of incredulity on the Web:

* doubt about the truth of something
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Post credible evidence or get the **** out of here. You have no business in here.

Post a link to thousands of witnesses. You can't do it. you cant do anything but talk **** and not back it up.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 9 days ago with 13 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 16 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags