Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

page: 98
249
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


*cough*

Ever hear about something called smoke/dust?

The more you know... *rainbow flies overhead*




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


*cough*

Ever hear about something called smoke/dust?

The more you know... *rainbow flies overhead*


what are you talking about?? Did you even read what I wrote?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by 911files
Jerry Henson - page 9

Read Henson's account. The hole was in his office wall. Seeing as how he almost died, I'm not sure why he would lie about it.


There's this thing called "critical thinking"... in one paragraph the author says it's so dark he can't see his hand in front of him, but two paragraphs later he says everything shifted and the door was blocked, so no one could get in anyway... then the next page he says there's a hole in the wall.... it doesn't add up.

* so dark he can't see
* yet he CAN see the door is blocked
* then there just happens to be a hole to the outside air.
* and the BIGGEST issue I have... he interrupts his story to add ONE LINE, totally out of place, some of the guys went out and could see the cockpit - guess this piece of evidence disappeared as well.

When things in a story negate other things in the story you really should question the reality of it.


I don't know all the facts, and I really would love to know what happened on 9/11, but ironically every single alleged piece of information seems to have major flaws like this one: it's too dark to see, but I could see everything had shifted and the door was blocked... c'mon.


Look outside at the exterior. Black, black smoke residue. The man was almost killed by a 757 punching into his office space. Go ahead and take some time to read through the eyewitness accounts archived at the 911Document Archive (maintained by a truther). When you are done with those, I have lots more I collected from the Army Center for Military History. Many of those are mp3's I made from the original cassettes because they were never transcribed. Never just take one account, read those made by the 'rescuers' he is talking about. They were just other survivors for the most part who refused to leave. The one thing you'll hear over and over again is about the jet fuel. The guy who volunteered his dog to search for human remains and then ended up leading the dog teams is a real compelling story. But he was really concerned about his dog's smelling ability being impacted by jet fuel.

You say you are a psychologist, so I should not have to tell you the disorientation that this guy was experiencing. I'm not going to do your homework for you. All of this stuff is out there for anyone who wants to know what happened. You just choose to post deceptive photos with your own brand of commentary.
edit on 21-3-2011 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by 911files
Jerry Henson - page 9

Read Henson's account. The hole was in his office wall. Seeing as how he almost died, I'm not sure why he would lie about it.


There's this thing called "critical thinking"... in one paragraph the author says it's so dark he can't see his hand in front of him, but two paragraphs later he says everything shifted and the door was blocked, so no one could get in anyway... then the next page he says there's a hole in the wall.... it doesn't add up.

* so dark he can't see
* yet he CAN see the door is blocked
* then there just happens to be a hole to the outside air.
* and the BIGGEST issue I have... he interrupts his story to add ONE LINE, totally out of place, some of the guys went out and could see the cockpit - guess this piece of evidence disappeared as well.

When things in a story negate other things in the story you really should question the reality of it.


I don't know all the facts, and I really would love to know what happened on 9/11, but ironically every single alleged piece of information seems to have major flaws like this one: it's too dark to see, but I could see everything had shifted and the door was blocked... c'mon.

ETA:
I'm not doubting this guy was there and experienced the fire, etc. The main thing I'm challenging is that one line, out of the blue, that some guys saw the cockpit, then on with his story. There's no wreckage from the cockpit, it doesn't fit the story or the wreckage retrieved.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)


So, your conclusion is that he lied, right?

Do you have a photo of your birth? If you don't you're not real, you just a bot.

I'm keep track of all of those you're accusing of lying because they disagree with you. I'll tally them all at the end.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


rather than categorically challenging EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY... think about it for a moment... in the middle of a traumatic story of this guys near death, there is one single line that is chronologically out of place that mentions something that there was never any evidence of, the cockpit.

Stop fighting me and look at this logically please. If we disagree AFTER you assess it, fine. But please, for once, just think about what we're reading here.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
911files, I appreciate what you're bringing to the thread; there's a lot of information out there. It seems you've read more than I have concerning witness accounts and I should take a look at more of them.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat
 


rather than categorically challenging EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY... think about it for a moment... in the middle of a traumatic story of this guys near death, there is one single line that is chronologically out of place that mentions something that there was never any evidence of, the cockpit.

Stop fighting me and look at this logically please. If we disagree AFTER you assess it, fine. But please, for once, just think about what we're reading here.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)


Don't you dare counsel me. I have looked at the evidence, virtually all of it, for several years now. What was the man's condition when he tried to put together traumatic memories? Did he write that or did someone take notes for him?

Speaking of "critical thinking", try it sometime. I don't see any evidence of that from you yet. Are you concealing it on purpose or does it just accidentally come through clearly on every single post made?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
911files, I appreciate what you're bringing to the thread; there's a lot of information out there. It seems you've read more than I have concerning witness accounts and I should take a look at more of them.


It just doesn't just seem that he's read, documented, analyzed data from A to Z and is more familiar with ALL witnesses than most anyone else, he actually is.

You should take a look at a lot of things before you start silly asinine threads using deceptive photos with misleading labels and then devote hours defending it.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Phenomenologically, as in breaking down the most minute essence of what's being said, the single line, that's out of place, out of context, out of order chronologically, points out to me that it may have been added later. I'm talking about the one line about some guys went out and saw the cockpit... then he returns to his story.

Phenomenological investigation is part of being a Psychologist - I am trained to watch for things like this, and I say it's out of place. If you're going to challenge that the one line is normal and of no concern, please read the guy's statement and provide a reason. I believe that line is a significant piece of his statement and should be addressed before taking the statement as fact.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Here's some more witness statements you can probably find fault with...

www.911myths.com...

Since most truthers like utube videos here's one you can watch...

www.youtube.com...

There's more......



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
In this guys statement he says:



at that time, as I learned later, was 9:38, which was the attack on the Pentagon. I heard a very large crump-thump noise. It was just a single noise. It wasn't a sliding-type impact or a succession of events or anything. It was just one loud, sharp report and at the same time,the lights went out.


So here we have a guy hat was on the scene... A large crump-thump noise, a single noise, not a sliding-type impact.

That description is NOT the sound an airplane crashing through 6 walls would make.

reheat, when you deny my statement, please give a rational response to WHY an airplane crashing through multiple walls would make only one large thump, and not six...



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
In this guys statement he says:



at that time, as I learned later, was 9:38, which was the attack on the Pentagon. I heard a very large crump-thump noise. It was just a single noise. It wasn't a sliding-type impact or a succession of events or anything. It was just one loud, sharp report and at the same time,the lights went out.


So here we have a guy hat was on the scene... A large crump-thump noise, a single noise, not a sliding-type impact.

That description is NOT the sound an airplane crashing through 6 walls would make.

reheat, when you deny my statement, please give a rational response to WHY an airplane crashing through multiple walls would make only one large thump, and not six...


One more who's lying. Go ahead and I'll look at your analysis of all of them tomorrow. Don't leave any out and you'll have more to analyze tomorrow.....



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


it's from the same guy!! Henson's interview we've been talking about...

all that and you didn't even bother to read it!!!
wow....

to stay on topic, here's the two things in question:
* one line in the middle of his statement that doesn't add up, it's not in chronological order and it dicusses some other people seeing a part of the cockpit (which was never part of the evidence), even though the entire rest of the interview is from first-person perspective.
* and, he heard "a very large crump-thump noise. It was just a single noise. It wasn't a sliding-type impact or a succession of events" ... NOT what one would hear if an airplane crashed through one wall, blew up, then proceeded to crash through 5 more walls. That would be a series of crashes and thuds and crunches or whatever, but NOT just one single noise.
[nice try how you wouldn't answer, but are waiting for me to give an answer so you can challenge me
]



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


So, rather than discuss the damage and the evidence and since you can't change the subject to planes, you go for the "emotional" move. Nice touch. Way to avoid talking about evidence...give me another bullsh!t story by some expert, or another "eyewitness"; maybe this guy's a friend of FDNY343.

Read my signature. I figure it applies to about 90% of ATS.
edit on 22-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Don't leave any out and you'll have more to analyze tomorrow.....


you sure about that? everything you guys bring to the table as "proof" of the OS backfires on you


eg. guy on the scene hears a single noise and NOT anything like loud engines, successive crunches and crashing through walls... one noise.

btw, thanks for this 911files. Always good to hear from people on the scene of a crime.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


You saw the pictures, guys in suits had to pick up the evidence before the fires were put out. Can't have a bunch of aircraft parts cluttering up the lawn.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat


One more who's lying. Go ahead and I'll look at your analysis of all of them tomorrow. Don't leave any out and you'll have more to analyze tomorrow.....


HAHA...listen to this guy, you can tell he's a shill because he thinks he's in charge.

Just as the government doesn't need any forensic evidence, neither does Reheat. Anything to avoid explaining how the evidence reinforces his position.. There are eyewitnesses I tell you! People don't lie!



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 





There is a hole. On the inside near the hole is where most of the passenger remains were found. Outside the hole the nose wheel was found. The hole was not necessarily perfectly circular originally, since it was enlarged as part of the rescue efforts.


BS. Prove it...prove any of what you wrote there.

If there was any evidence at all like that, we'd have seen it repeatedly. Weren't there no bodies found from the jet? Didn't they need to resort to DNA to ID the "passengers"?

The idea that the alleged jet would break through the front fascia and concrete columns, and then get shredded by a "forest of columns", and then deposit most of the bodies around the "punchout hole" is right up there with the other fairy tales sold to us about 911. Show me some jetsam that punched the hole and some of the "bodies".

I have been tossed BS reports, and wrenching emotional personal stories, and all sorts of distractions to avoid the discussion of the physical evidence, and never do any of you OSers have an answer for the evidence. Only more distractions.

In light of Operation Code Angel and Operation Brownstone, with an operation this size, a plethora of "eyewitness" accounts would have already been written up.
letsrollforums.com...

You don't think that if they were going to pull a scam like trying to convince folks there was a plane, that the eyewitness accounts wouldn't be sure to mention "jet fuel" often? You guys must be shills because no one seriously investigating this stuff would fall for such a transparent ruse.

Do you ever post the accounts from the military folks that couldn't find any sign of jet wreckage, or are those accounts not harrowing enough for you to share?

The claims that aircraft caused the damage to the reinforced concrete walls cannot be explained by rational discussion, OR THE EVIDENCE so they are brushed away with heart breaking stories of the dead.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by Thermo Klein

Here's some more witness statements you can probably find fault with...

www.911myths.com...


Let's try this one... (whole quote below)
"...the two spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached."

where is it now? just one of the thousands of pieces of alleged evidence that dissolved at some point after impact?
Why was this evidence discarded? wrong serial number, from the wrong type of plane?
or maybe this quote was a lie for some reason? to give credence to the idea black boxes last through anything... except on 9/11.

Something is fishy: either the quote is a lie, or evidence is missing.

whole quote


Carlton Burkhammer

Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and another firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They'd been told the plane's "black boxes" would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open. They cordoned off the area and called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board who confirmed the find: the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77. "We wanted to find live victims," says Burkhammer. But this was a consolation prize. "Finding the black box gave us a little boost," he says.
Newsweek Web Exclusive, September 28, 2001



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by 911files
 





There is a hole. On the inside near the hole is where most of the passenger remains were found. Outside the hole the nose wheel was found. The hole was not necessarily perfectly circular originally, since it was enlarged as part of the rescue efforts.


BS. Prove it...prove any of what you wrote there.


I already did. You either believe the folks who were there or you create a fantasy in your mind.


Do you ever post the accounts from the military folks that couldn't find any sign of jet wreckage, or are those accounts not harrowing enough for you to share?


No because they don't exist for anyone in a position to actually see them.



The claims that aircraft caused the damage to the reinforced concrete walls cannot be explained by rational discussion, OR THE EVIDENCE so they are brushed away with heart breaking stories of the dead.


Already has been explained to rational people. I don't worry much about irrational people who have not taken the time to actually study the issue.






top topics



 
249
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join