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: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Just ignore that OS crap from Thomas. He likes to trade real discussion of facts and evidence for an excuse to tell you that there is no "official story." I guess he was not watching tv for the last 8 years like I was, where I was repeatedly told this same story by government officials. He will try to tell you there is no such thing but the tale that is "The official story" that he believes, apparently has no names he does like so just use OS all you like and let him whine about it and think it is progressing his argument some.




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to Lillydale's post #121
 



Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by scott3x
 


Just ignore that OS crap from Thomas. He likes to trade real discussion of facts and evidence for an excuse to tell you that there is no "official story." I guess he was not watching tv for the last 8 years like I was, where I was repeatedly told this same story by government officials. He will try to tell you there is no such thing but the tale that is "The official story" that he believes, apparently has no names he does like so just use OS all you like and let him whine about it and think it is progressing his argument some.


Lilly, I admire you, as you may know you're one of only 2 people here who I've put on my friends list (SPreston being the other for some very insightful points he's made), but as a general rule, I'm rather averse to dismissing others' views.

I try very hard to understand where others are coming from; part of this is admitting when I don't understand something. I'm not sure why he objects to the idea that he's an OS supporter. Perhaps he dislikes it because he thinks that it'll mean that he can't disagree with others who support the official story? I am fine with being called a 'truther', but that doesn't mean that I agree with what everyone else who calls themselves truthers believes.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


I hear you, I just thought I would save you from this little treat as we have watched him flounder with the same two empty arguments for months. He is far to repetitive and predictable and never offers anything of substance to the discussion. I would want to see for myself too though.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
First, I've already stated that no one can identify a Boeing 757 or any jet just by looking the the security camera video. Second, no one is even claiming that. Third, we have multiple lines of evidence already demonstrating that AA77 hit the Pentagon. That is precisely why no one even needs a video to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon.


So you agree theres no VISUAL EVIDENCE of any BOEING OR PLANE even though the GOVERNMENT and all those pushing the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY STORY claim that footage is PROOF??????

really Jt? Is this what you're saying? So you agree with truthers that the GOVERNMENT PERPS STORY is total BS RIGHT and shows NOTHING THEY CLAIM???

and YES, SOMEONE IS CLAIMING THAT... Why do you LIE and push DISINFO asserting NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT?

and WHAT multiple lines of EVIDENCE do you claim PROVES AA77 hit the pentagon? You mean the evidence that has multiple lines of CONTRADICTORY evidence? Witness testimony alone is NOT enough to PROVE anything since there IS contradictory witness testimony that seems to be far more CREDIBLE and LOGICAL than those who YOU and the PERPS claim "saw AA77".

Just the FACT there's MOUNTAINS of CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE to the OFFICIAL "EVIDENCE", and FACT there is NO VISUAL EVIDENCE where there should be and COULD be, is ALONE, enough of a reason to QUESTION and DOUBT and SUSPECT any EVIDENCE the GOVERNMENT and MEDIA PERPS have peddled.

Those with the BURDEN OF PROOF have NOT "PROVEN" their case no matter how many times you claim they have.

and YES, this BOP is upon those who CREATED THE OFFICIAL and ORIGINAL CONSPIRACY STORY... Its NOT on US to PROVE AA77 hit no matter how many times you repeat that ludicrous mantra.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 

If it had been a large commercial liner the engines would have been
found and they were not.

So that makes the official story a lie.

If it is a lie we need a 3rd party investigation with full access to all
evidence from square one.

Anyone who hinders the investigation is jailed immediately til the
investigation is over, no bail.

This is really a very simple argument and ppl want to complicate.

No engines, no plane.

The engines are ALWAYS found in land based crashes.

Not 99% but 100% of the time.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

It's a mistake in reasoning. Suppose a video surfaced definitely show an American Airlines approaching and hitting the Pentagon. What would that actually change?

Would it change the other evidence that already demonstrates conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon? Of course not.

Would it change your mind? Perhaps. But then you don't believe the massive evidence that already demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon. Would you suddenly now accept all of that evidence only to come to the realization that the evidence was right in front of you all these years?

The fact is that any video that surfaced showing AA77 hitting the Pentagon does not change the existing evidence in any way whatsoever.

The lack of a video demonstrates nothing.


JUST THE FACT the footage released is CLAIMED by the PERPS aka MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT, to be VISUAL PROOF of AA77 WHEN IN FACT IT DOESN'T SHOW ANYTHING they claim is CONCLUSIVE, is alone MORE than enough to SUSPECT and question the OCS.


FACT: contrary to your CLAIM, there is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AA77 hit the pentagon.

Just the FACT that you nor the Perps can explain why the physical DAMAGE there isn't consistent with what should have occurred and been seen, is enough of an argument in favor of the theory that a real plane or AA77 hit the pentagon.

Please show me just one link or logical explanation you've given why the front LAWN looks like an almost perfect model of a GOLF COURSE Tiger Woods could have played on during and after this alleged impact?

Are you actually telling everyone that you believe the damage and LACK OF on the pentagon lawn is CONSISTENT with the STORY of the FLIGHT PATH?

Do you agree with witnesses who claim the WINGS FOLDED BACK AND DISINTEGRATED? Are these the types of brilliant un-tainted objective WITNESSES you're talking about?

Anyone want to bet we'll never see a real answer to these questions from JTHOMAS? Just evasions and circular arguments circumventing basic common sense questions that have never been answered or logically explained.

Go ahead JT...we're all waiting for you to once again demonstrate how you're either trolling to derail serious intelligent discourse, in total denial or a shill defending the Perps who murdered thousands on 9/11.



[edit on 21-9-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by scott3x
 


He is far to repetitive and predictable and never offers anything of substance to the discussion. I would want to see for myself too though.


An entire staff was hired to debunk these arguments online.

There is pretty good odds this is just staff members of that team
hired to debunk this stuff online.

The story was mentioned here on ATS, pretty easy to find.

Also again, no engines, no plane.

The one little engine they did find was not the same size or configuration
as what was mounted on Flight 77.

End of story.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by scott3x
 


He is far to repetitive and predictable and never offers anything of substance to the discussion. I would want to see for myself too though.




The story was mentioned here on ATS, pretty easy to find.

Also again, no engines, no plane.

The one little engine they did find was not the same size or configuration
as what was mounted on Flight 77.

End of story.




WOW... I couldn't have said it better exMis!! This explanation of who JTHOMAS really is, should be repeated by those in the KNOW about this issue here.

Let me meditate on what you said one more time

An entire STAFF was hired to debunk these arguments online.

Indeed its more than obvious JThomas is connected to and nothing more than an extension of the PERPETRATORS sent in to various forums to perpetuate confusion and derail intelligent discourse on those seeking truth and asking the most basic common sense questions due to the obvious tampering and damage control cover up that continues to grow as more and more are waking up to the TRUTH 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB.

No REAL PLANE hit the Pentagon if any at all.

Anyone with a brain of an ant doing a full investigation and real research can see the EVIDENCE shows this and outweighs the evidence the OCS claims proves AA77 hit the pentagon.

EOS



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


I knew that navy office was the main target in the pentagon.That drawing conferms it.Can you tell me if that was a naval commnications section or a different naval section.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by GORGANTHIUM]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Something major is gonna happen between October 11 to the 25 .



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
I am trying to get 20 posts at the moment .. When I do I'll be making a thread of extreme interest .



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I see you blowing a lot of smoke, but I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation as to why we have no other footage of the Pentagon.

It's as simple as this: If the video CLEARLY shows AA77 flying into the Pentagon then I will admit I was wrong. BUT - if it does not, I will take great joy in rubbing it in your face.

Two options ONLY can come from seeing more video footage: We either see the Official Story play out, or we see a more sinister cover-up happening.

Any of your other excuses and bollocks about the video evidence is just that: excuses and bollocks.


It's a mistake in reasoning. Suppose a video surfaced definitely show an American Airlines approaching and hitting the Pentagon. What would that actually change?


Suppose the video's showed that AA77 DID NOT hit the Pentagon? Everything would change.


Would it change the other evidence that already demonstrates conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon? Of course not.


Yes, it would if the video evidence does not show a plane hitting the Pentagon.


Would it change your mind? Perhaps.


If I saw that a plane hit the Pentagon I will admit my mistake, but if I do not then the world is all the better for knowing.


But then you don't believe the massive evidence that already demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon. Would you suddenly now accept all of that evidence only to come to the realization that the evidence was right in front of you all these years?


I don't believe it because there IS no massive evidence confirming a plane hit the Pentagon. You know what would convince me that a plane did, in fact, hit it? VIDEO EVIDENCE.


The fact is that any video that surfaced showing AA77 hitting the Pentagon does not change the existing evidence in any way whatsoever.


It would if that video evidence showed that a plane, in fact, did NOT hit the Pentagon.

Seriously mate, is that the style of your arguments? You make little to no sense and bias your argument to support your story without any regard for alternative opinion or evidence (or lack thereof). Your whole story is a House of Cards.

The very fact you have gone to such lengths to dissuade me from pushing the subject further, and used such ridiculous arguments to do so, has only strengthened my opinion that you are trying to hide something, or cover it up.

If video evidence from the Pentagon could conclusively prove that AA77 hit it, wouldn't that be the crowning achievement to your efforts? The absolute proof that nobody could deny (unless they try saying it's CGI)? You are doing the opposite, you are trying to dissuade people from looking into the video evidence topic further - and it's because of this that I shall continue pushing the point about video evidence.

[edit on 21/9/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.


So are additional explosives an essetial part of the missile hypothesis?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by jthomas
 


LOL. This coming from someone who claims that AA77 crashed into the pentagon as evidenced by..............

Oh right, for some reason you do not need to back up your claims?

Let me try again, I will go slowly.

Before 9/11, there were no dead airline passengers at the pentagon.

Since 9/11, nothing has shown me that has changed.

You claim that it has. You claim a passenger airliner crashed there with people aboard.

My claim is backed up by the simple reality of that how things were.

Are you trying to claim that there always has been dead airline passengers within the walls of the pentagon and I am proposing something changed? You cannot be that simple, I feel quite certain.

You made the claim, you back it up. Do you feel like you are getting anywhere yet? You can roll around on the floor with me all you like while everyone else makes progress without your insipid babbling.


Sorry, Lillydale, you made the direct claim that "there were no bodies at the crash scene."

That is a direct, positive statement meaning you have positive evidence and knowledge that NO bodies were found at the Pentagon at the "crash scene."

You have since confirmed you possess such knowledge and "already posted it."

I am asking you for the umpteenth time to show us HOW you know NO passenger bodies were at the crash scene and WHAT you know. I am asking you to point me to your post that shows us how, why, and what you know. Provide the evidence.

Instead, you resort to evasions, whining, and insults.

Either provide the evidence you claim you have or retract your completely unsupported claim.

Which will it be, Lillydale?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I don't suppose it is too much to ask that you reply to my post heh? Unless, of course, you find my logic infallible and therefore cannot find an argument against my post - in which case I shall accept your modest apologies for being so ignorantly steadfast in your position.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   

posted by GORGANTHIUM
reply to post by SPreston
 


I knew that navy office was the main target in the pentagon.That drawing conferms it.Can you tell me if that was a naval commnications section or a different naval section.




Larger image
Alleged DNA locations
Plan of the building - 1st floor
2nd floor damage
Affected areas on 2nd floor

Column damage 1st floor


Actually it was the Navy Command Center which had already been tasked with investigating the attack on the World Trade Center and tracking communications and radar activity, when it was destroyed by explosions.

Also destroyed was the ONI (Office of Naval Intellgence) and DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) which were often at odds with the CIA and exposing their illegal activities.

Also destroyed were the investigators and accountants and records of the auditing group tasked with investigating the missing $2.3 Trillion announced by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on 9-10-2001. They had been quickly moved into the un-completed dusty Wedge 1 reconstruction area weeks before its planned destruction.

Amazing isn't it that these alleged hijackers hating us for our freedom would be so willing to help out the Department of Defense?

Columns bending outward show explosives from inside

Chunks of concrete were blown away from the building onto the lawn and roads
Larger view
Another view


[edit on 9/21/09 by SPreston]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by jthomas
 


I don't suppose it is too much to ask that you reply to my post heh? Unless, of course, you find my logic infallible and therefore cannot find an argument against my post - in which case I shall accept your modest apologies for being so ignorantly steadfast in your position.


In addition to the no engines and thus no plane issue there is the
issue that over 50% of the 9-11 commission members are on record
as saying it is a cover up.

That doesn't bode well for the puppet masters.

NORAD's story still considered a lie at criminal level to this day.

Also look into FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, her story alone proves
there was multiple HUGE cover ups.

Sibel Edmonds and the many cover ups

In 2004, New York firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi went public to say they had found the black boxes at the World Trade Center, but were told to keep their mouths shut by FBI agents. Nicholas DeMasi said that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate the devices, a story backed up by rescue volunteer Mike Bellone.

As the Philadelphia Daily News reported at the time, “Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero.”

And then there is Cheney in his own words...

What is the meaning behind the following quote attributed to Dick Cheney which came to light during the 9/11 Commission hearings? The passage is taken from testimony given by then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

As the plane was not shot down, in addition to the fact that armed fighter jets were nowhere near the plane and the Pentagon defensive system was not activated, are we to take it that the orders were to let the plane find its target?

Any one of these merit a new investigation.

Instead we get lies as usual.

Good Luck to you all !



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Lillydale

So here is my question...What hit the pentagon.


Rest at ease.

It was a a Boeing 757 aircraft, known as American Airlines Flight 77.

Glad to be of assistance.


As I have said elsewhere in this thread, every ground based crash
of an airliner in any country on earth they find the engines.

In this crash the engines are missing.

The engines are made of material that could not be burned up.

The engines are designed to catch fire in mid flight and not be
consumed by the fire.

One smaller engine was found, but the 2 engines that were expected
to be there were simply not there.

Thus no engines, no plane.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”


Absolutely. I completely agree. This statement above says volumes about the true intent and the true perpetrators of 9/11.

But, of course, Im sure we'll have people like jthomas coming in saying that Cheney was talking about his pet pigeons, or that the question "Do the orders still stand" wasn't referring to the other plane statements and that it was meant to tell the young soldier that he was to continue standing instead of being allowed to sit to relieve pressure on his feet...

Basically anything ridiculous that serves to deflect conversation away from the actual statement and it's contents.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhynouk
Its one of those questions we'll never know the answer too unless a better video of the incident gets released.


As I have said before, we don't need to rely on the videos they
suspiciously refuse to release.

We can rely on what is missing from the wreckage that ALWAYS
is present in ground based crashes.

That is the TWO massive engines that were attached to the plane.

A smaller engine that is not part of the part list for the plane was
offered as engine evidence to dullards who do not know better.

But the TWO massive engines have never been found as they never
will be found.

This simple evidence proves there is a cover up.

6 of the 10 ppl doing the commission report say there was a cover up.

That alone should scream cover up.

So yet again, no engines means no plane.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join