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.

 

9/11 The Pentagon “Where are the FACTS!

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
If there is nothing to hide, then why haven't we seen a video of this plane? I think its obvious that there were more camera's then just at the Pentagon. The very fact that we really haven't seen it makes people suspicious and rightfully so.




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





demanding information that is not publically available.


That's just it. It should *All* be publicly available. Gov has to 'earn' our trust. Especially considering the history of such.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
If there is nothing to hide, then why haven't we seen a video of this plane? I think its obvious that there were more camera's then just at the Pentagon. The very fact that we really haven't seen it makes people suspicious and rightfully so.


First: flight77.info...

Second: all of the other evidence already told us that AA77 hit the Pentagon. No one needs any videos to know AA77 hit the Pentagon.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 



That's just it. It should *All* be publicly available. Gov has to 'earn' our trust. Especially considering the history of such.


What do you mean by "all"? Do you really mean all, or do you actually mean whatever you want whenever you want it?

There are a plethora of good reasons why material in a criminal and national security investigation is not available to the general public, do I need to review all those reasons? There also reasons why investigative reports are not made generally available until trial. A lot of the files contain speculations by the investigating officers that may not be suitable for public consumption because they may not reflect well on otherwise innocent persons.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
reply to post by gallopinghordes
 


I am not trying to attack anyone; I simply would like to see some published official data on the attack. There has been many claims as to an abundance of evidence but, non mind you is ever given.


There have been many threads on AA77 and the Pentagon here. Perhaps you should go to some of them and read the material.

One of the largest ongoing threads that started in 2004 is:

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon
www.abovetopsecret.com...

For information outside ATS try:

Pentagon Attack & Flight 77 Evidence Summary & Links
sites.google.com...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
That's just it. It should *All* be publicly available. Gov has to 'earn' our trust. Especially considering the history of such.


Every eyewitness in the vicinity saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon...and yet you don't believe them. Wreckage from a passenger jet was found all over the lawn of the Pentagon as well as inside the building...and yet you don't believe it. The black box from the craft was recovered whire proved it came from flight 77...and yet you don't believe it. The pilot of the C-130 sent by controllers at Reagan to follow the craft even said it was an AA passenger jet, and you don't believe him.

If you're not going to believe eyewitnessd accounts,, evidence of aircraft wreckage, the black box that all show it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, or even the pilot who was following the craft, then you're certainly not going to believe any video that showed it was flight 77. Besides, the only one who ever said there even was additional video footage is those damned fool conspiracy web sites you get all your information from. The cameras are goign to be focused on high traffic areas like the entrance and parking lot, not an empty wall.

Methinks you have an agenda to get people all paranoid over some secret conspiracy regardless of what the facts actually show.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



Actually, I am still amazed that, as a supposed scientist, you still don't understand this logic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How do you explain your rejection of very foundations of the scientific method?


Scientific method???

You use milseading and false data all the time Jthomas, your credibility is zero with scientific method!



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


Hello, Great thread btw. The reasons why no evidence has been presented for the 757 hitting the Pentagon, is because none exists that can rightfully be truthful and be an explanation!

Other wise we have the mess left that is what we have today, a bunch of crud that was dished out to the World as the OS!

Beaten into our minds with, WE ARE RIGHT, you and your alternative theory are not!

Now have we seen this behavior on ATS regarding the "debunkers"? Why yes just look at the thread here and see how your ATTACKED, consistantly, with not one of the normal debunkers who reside the 911 threads, spreading there crud without paying attention to the threads general idea and premise.

Any I have been laying low to see how others react, and low and behold there are plenty of posts that are just cook book with their posting histories. IE the same bait and switch, ignioring details, completely derailing the thread...

90 percent of the people in these threads are only out to post the same rhetoric, in fact its so much the same I wonder how many of these individuals have multiple accounts!

Remember, most are in here only to post their scripts nothing more.

Sounds like the OS and the Pentagon doesn't it?

I think so!

I haven't seen a shread of evidence yet either, still looking.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by theability]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
No evidence...no wreckage( or enough to fill my car boot..which hardly constitutes a wreckage..) no video...and last but not least...

nearly no investigation(if dubbya and Cheney had their way...), and even then done on a budget with limited resources...

In turn it conveniently took the good 'ole US of A into the so-called War on Terror as part of their plan to control most of the Worlds energy sources....


Unfortunately PHd, the comments you have received so far will continue unabated.....as they cannot answer your Q...they only know the OS and thats all they are interested in...some people have questioning minds...others blindly believe whatever it is they are told...regardless of common sense or logic.

Nice thread too....you know your on a winner when you get the ugly response your thread has got...congrats!!!



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


These are the sorts of lies that abound within the 9/11 deniers' camps....amazing.


No evidence...no wreckage( or enough to fill my car boot..which hardly constitutes a wreckage..) no video...


"No" evidence? Lie.

"No" wreckage (or enough to fill your car boot)? Lie.

"No" video? Lie.

Constant shifting the sands, with the continued utterance of LIES, is the preferred tactic of the 9/11 deniers.

On the otherhand, people actually interested in facts tend to keep them orderly, and try to STOP the lies from creeping in. You might wish to consider that a "scientific method". As opposed to rampant "LYING".

SO:

"evidence" Only one who is persistent in the LIE will not acknowledge what is available for all to see, in many, many venues. A start right here at ATS is a good place...

"wreckage", same as above. Not sure what kind of car someone drives, but a casual examination of various photo evidences of what was still identifiable as the remains of the Boeing 757 will show that to claim it won't fit in your boot is a LIE.

"video"? Yup, there happened to be one camera, not even intent on watching the 'wall' that was hit (WHY, oh WHY would they aim a camera at the wall???). A camera, on a parking lot entry gate, was the only one with its lens aimed anywhere near th eimpact point.

WHY is this so difficult for people to understand??? Well, because it "sounds" good, and at first thought, it fools people, it is a GREAT LIE to use, by the 9/11 deniers...but it only works on the weak-minded people, sorry.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


It amazes me how you keep citing websites, blogs, forum postings, and the like non of which are official reports, non of which are scientific data reports, non of which are even remotely answer the questions that I posed in this thread.

Once again; "WHERE is the EVIDENCE?" conjecture; and the theories of people not attached to the direct investigation simply agreeing with the Government statements (not official report or findings).

Your theory or Hypothesis is proof of nothing. I for one would like solid data presented to the public by an official body that can be held accountable.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Weedy...

Shame on you....

You know as well as i do that the scant evidence proves nothing, and if anything raises more questions that it answers....

2 frames do not maketh a video my little friend.....

As for wreckage....I stand by that and if you dispute it...show me clear plane wreckage soooo big it wouldnt fit in my car boot(or at a pinch a small pick up...)...I challenge you...not piles of rubble mixed with god knows what....pure, unadulterated wreckage....good luck.

Given the above is true(regardless of what you say...) I would say the physical evidence is ridiculously scant...

Why??

No boeing hit it of course.....

NO EVIDENCE OF A PLANE = NO PLANE.

What is it that you are failing to comprehend????

Why do you argue that which is undeniable??

I know why...and so do you bud...because if you keep repeating your mantra, over and over, you will believe it yourself...which helps you sleep better at night, makes you feel patriotic and allows you to repeatedly belittle and mock with personal attacks anyone that disagrees with your view .....

I would have thought that a "pilot" of your "standing" would know better...clearly not .

Look fwd to seeing the piles of plane wreckage weedy....



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 





As for wreckage....I stand by that and if you dispute it...show me clear plane wreckage soooo big it wouldnt fit in my car boot(or at a pinch a small pick up...)...I challenge you...not piles of rubble mixed with god knows what....pure, unadulterated wreckage....good luck.


Moving the goalposts again?

Problem is when a plane (or anything else) hits a building you are going to
get wreckage from the plane and building debris mixed together!

There is not such thing as PURE WRECKAGE!

Here is some Penatagon wreckage

Landing gear assembly



Doubt that will fit in car.....



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



Yeah that is nice. But we are expected to swallow that the Pentagon was only equipped with camera's that are on par with the ones used at Bank Machines and could only catch 'slow moving targets.'

Sorry, but certain things are just not believable. Showing us some parts that could have been photographed anywhere at any time makes little sense to me.

What people want to see is the film of what hit the Pentagon.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Hey Thedman...

Sorry,a photo of a pile of scrap metal, taken down a back alley does not constitute evidence.....
Surely your not so gullible ??

Moving goalposts did you say???




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


Hi MolecularPHD,

I think you have made a great point by demonstrating how we have not been shown sufficient evidence from official sources proving that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

But let's look at this from a different perspective. Is there enough reason for us to suspect that what we have been told by the officials is a lie? I think that is clear to most here and elsewhere who have looked at the events of the Pentagon on 9/11 with the slightest bit of skepticism.

Things like the anomalous damage, suspicious lack of debris, lack of official evidence supporting their story (e.g. video), and many other things give us a very strong prima facie case for deception.

Given this fact, I personally feel that it is not logical for truth seekers to demand evidence controlled by the officials as a means to prove what happened. Why? Because the clear prima facie case for deception leaves them as the only possible suspect. This being the case anything provided by them should not be trusted or automatically accepted as valid evidence in support of their story. That would include any official data, reports, images, or video.

So what do we do in order to find out the truth? The only answer is that we seek out independent verifiable evidence to determine what happened that day. Luckily we have citizen investigators who have done just this and they have in fact obtained enough independent evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not hit the light poles or the building.

I highly recommend you set aside 81 minutes and watch the video below.




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I know many of you that are posting here mean well and are honestly trying to add to the discussion.

I would really like to stick to the original concept of the post in general; "EVIDENCE", and the chain of evidence record to show, who, where, and what they collected.

An analysis report by the laboratory that performed the forensic; and scientific data collection, along with the lab consultant and examiner report that follows; which would show , who, where, and what they were testing and analyzing.

Non of the above would be a breach of National Security in any way shape or form; they are simply reports that state all of the people involved in the collection and analysis of the physical evidence; and their credentials to show they had the proper training and know how to do so.

It's that simple; and I for one would like to see this demanded by the American people; whatever these reports show good or bad does not change the fact they need to be made public for review.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

P.S. I had a conversation yesterday with a friend of mine in the justice department; I made a suggestion to him to allow for the release of this evidence; he thought what I purposed was interesting; below is my proposal to congress.

I purpose that we grant amnesty to anyone involved that is directly Employed by our Government either foreign or domestic; and hold them harmless both criminally and civilly; and if any evidence were found that shows that anyone working within our government had direct knowledge of or was directly involved in the events of 9/11 would have complete and total immunity.

This would accomplish few things:

#1: Free up all evidence collected for release to the public

#2: Would End the Argument that the evidence is a matter of National Security

#3: It would show who, when, and how they had knowledge so the public could make a proper decision to vote for them the next election season (if anyone within the Government had prior knowledge).

and last but, not least; it would put an end to any and all so Called "Conspiracy Theories" imagined or otherwise once and for all.




[edit on 15-5-2010 by MolecularPhD]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


With all due respect the title of the thread is "9/11 The Pentagon “Where are the FACTS!".

You make a plea that you "don’t want to hear a bunch of hearsay" and that you are looking for "cut and dry scientific evidence.

That's exactly what I just provided and it just so happens to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not hit the light poles or the Pentagon.

Firsthand eyewitness evidence from expert percipient witnesses who were filmed on location. Eyewitness evidence is admissible in every court in the land, and the scientific method used to validate this type of evidence is independent corroboration.

If you watch the interviews you will see how this scientific method was rigorously implemented on an astronomically high level so as to become proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But the best part about this scientific evidence is that it is both independent and verifiable! We don't have to rely on any reports or data that has been sequestered, controlled, and provided for by the suspect! It is pure verifiable evidence straight from the source. It's exactly the type of evidence that a true skeptic would require.

I highly recommend you view this important evidence if you are interested in what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


That Engine Part you showed earlier(Pentagon Pic). Did anyone ever suggest what it might belong to if not the original engine?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join