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 Comprehensive Concise Evidence---please contribute

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

All right, just to play devil's advocate, don't you think there's even a shred of possibility that a passenger jet really *did* hit the Pentagon, and all this supposed suspicious activity is nothing but gibberish being invented by people who are just a tad too paranoid?


I don't think a pasenger jet hit the Pentagon.


After all, the Pentagon isn't out in the middle of the desert or at the bottom of the ocean. It's in an industrial park, and hordes of people were around who saw the passenger jet hit the building.


What hordes of people saw is irreconcilable with what a few people saw. These hordes "saw it all". They saw the low flying plane. They saw it fly right at the building. They saw a ball of fire erupt from the building. They saw large billows of black smoke.

What the few people saw was a low flying plane in a certain location.

That's all.

They, for the most part, missed the rest of the show. But the one thing they did see, contradicts the airliner impact story.


Besides, it makes no sense to use something else when the conspirators already perfected commandeering the two or more disposable passenger aircraft under their control.


Those airliners got too much done, particularly in New York. What was "achieved" at the Pentagon is more obscure. But some people are never suspicious of anything.

To achieve what was necessary to achieve from Larry Silverstein's point of view in New York, it would make no sense to use airliners. They are too haphazard.


Think about it- if there really was all some false flag operation, deliberately embellishing the facts of any of the events is only going to give people reason to think everything else you say has no credibility, even if everything else you say is actually true.


I agree, but these "false flaggers", although bad at that job, trusted, correctly, that Americans could be fooled by a performance that was far from letter perfect. In the long run I hope that will prove to have been a miscalculation.


[edit on 6-8-2010 by ipsedixit]




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Craig Ranke has dealt extensively with the cracks in the official narrative of the Pentagon incident but there are a couple of suspicious angles that haven't been dealt with quite so thoroughly.

One is the reason for the carefully set up "path of destruction", beginning with downed lightpoles. These poles were downed to make it seem as if the airliner had come along a certain path, knocking them down as it came. Similarly, the holes in the rings of the Pentagon continue that vector of destruction, reinforcing the notion that the plane followed that vector.

But we know that it did not follow that vector.

Even if it were granted that the airliner overflew the Pentagon, why not create a fake path of destruction that followed the actual path of the overflying aircraft. Then there would be no glaring inconsistencies to catch people's attention.

Why two levels of fakery?

If one believes that the Pentagon damage was actually caused by a missile then it is obvious that the missile would have to be on a different trajectory from the aircraft in order to avoid an awkward "traffic jam". Hence the fake pathway (the missile pathway) along the line of downed light poles. (Supplementary to making it seem as if the overflying plane had flown this vector, the use of a missile may have required the removal of the poles along the missile flight path to avoid a possible collision with a pole and possible premature detonation of the missile warhead.)

If one believes, as Craig Ranke does, that the damage to the building was not caused by a missile, but rather by planted explosives in the building, one is left with a greater puzzle with regard to the fake pathway along the line of downed lightpoles.

Under those circumstances, with no requirement to avoid traffic jams with a missile, why not simply make the path of destruction conform to the actual path of the overflying aircraft or make the overflying aircraft fly along the path of actual destruction.

This is still something of a mystery to me, simply because, despite widespread speculation about the matter, I'm not sure what, exactly, was destroyed at the Pentagon. Financial records? Awkward individuals? It's not clear.

I do believe however that one of the important reasons for the choice of that particular path of destruction has to do with the placement of the diesel generator in front of the impact zone. The fire in that generator was a small fire, contained by the metal generator, that was allowed to burn for a long time, even though it could have been extinguished easily. (This is crystal clear and obvious in the excellent Fox coverage of the fire at that spot.) Why?

Its purpose was to provide large quantities of black smoke to fool people into thinking that a jet fuel fire was burning at the Pentagon.

It's possible that the location of that generator alone, determined where the fake path of destruction, outside the building, would be set up, it being integral to supporting the lie that an airliner hit the building.

If you look at Fox network footage of the Pentagon, they have great footage of all that black smoke coming out of the generator and of grey smoke rising above the building itself, it being damaged by something other than an airliner.

If the diesel generator dictated a certain vector, why not just have the plane fly on that vector? Again, it would remove a glaring inconsistency.

There must have been a competing necessity that forced the overflying aircraft onto another vector, close to the diesel generator, but still not right over it. What could that competing necessity have been?

I think the overflying plane flew the vector that it did because there was a necessity for it to leave the area, travelling in the direction of National Airport, and the vector along the downed lightpoles and over the diesel generator would have made a tight turn toward National into an impossibly tight turn, if you had to land at National, or . . . simulate a take-off from National.

The fact that the fake path of destruction points away from National Airport, also might help muddy the waters if significant numbers of people did see the overflight.

(This scenario would also be compatible with Craig's assertion that the damage at the Pentagon was caused by planted explosives and still account for every nuance of the event. I should add that Craig's own explanation for the trajectory of the aircraft is that although different from the "path of destruction" the discrepancy is close enough to fall within an acceptable "margin of error" for controllers of the aircraft. He does not, I believe, think that the aircraft landed at National.)


Another, to me, suspicious circumstance connected with the Pentagon incident is related to Fox coverage of the incident.

Their earliest footage of the incident is time coded to a minute, give or take a few seconds, after the aircraft is supposed to have hit the Pentagon. It can be viewed at archive.org in their archive of network 9/11 coverage.

It is from a tripod mounted or fixed in some way camera controlled by a Fox crew in the area of the Pentagon. It is never explained who these people were or why they were in that panoramic position at that "fortuitous" time. It is inconceivable to me that they did not catch the moment of impact, if one believes that there was an impact, which I do not believe.

Instead, their "coverage" begins abruptly, from a stationary mounted camera (set up in advance, to be at that spot?) a minute after "impact". No explanations whatsoever for that happy coincidence.

Even if this was the Fox camera crew from "winkin', blinkin' and nod", some one of the louts must have seen something and had something to say about it.

Nope. No interview with those guys.

This and the Harley Man interview have me convinced that Fox was in on this crime.


[edit on 6-8-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I don't think a pasenger jet hit the Pentagon.


What you think happened and what actually happened can very well be two different things. Mostly. becuase you weren't there, and you're getting all your information from others to base your opinion on.


What hordes of people saw is irreconcilable with what a few people saw. These hordes "saw it all". They saw the low flying plane. They saw it fly right at the building. They saw a ball of fire erupt from the building. They saw large billows of black smoke.

What the few people saw was a low flying plane in a certain location.

That's all.


So what? If even ONE person specifically saw the passenger plane hit the Pentagon, it's evidence that you are required to overcome with somethign more tangible than unsubstanciated conjecture, but in this case it wasn't just one- it was quite a lot of people becuase the plane flew right over a busy highway in the middle of rush hour traffic.

The additional problem for you is that hordes of people saw the plane approach the Pentagon and not one saw the plane flying way from the Pentagon. I think we can both agree that the plane didn't disappear into an alternative dimension or was disintergrated by UFOs.


They, for the most part, missed the rest of the show. But the one thing they did see, contradicts the airliner impact story.


No, it only contradicts the information being given to you. The question that needs to be answered is how reliable the information is that was given to you. If, for example, someone claimede that no wreckage of the craft was found, this would be a false statement that cannot be relied on.


Those airliners got too much done, particularly in New York. What was "achieved" at the Pentagon is more obscure. But some people are never suspicious of anything.


What do you mean by "too much done"? Up until now, the debate was over whether the plane impacts truly caused the collapse of the WTC. It's only the most hard core of the self-deluded who say no planes impacted the WTC *at all*, mainly, becuase there all of Manhattan was watching what was going on when the second plane hit.


I agree, but these "false flaggers", although bad at that job, trusted, correctly, that Americans could be fooled by a performance that was far from letter perfect. In the long run I hope that will prove to have been a miscalculation.


Then you need to decide what you want to do, and what you need to do. It's one thing to come up with scenarios that fill in the blanks, such as whether there were additional forces that caused the collapse, but it's another thing entirely to force the known facts to be rewritten to suit your own liking, particularly this "no planes" bit.

Yeah, I can say there were additional snipers shooting at JFK in Dallas, but I can't say JFK was really stabbed to death and everyone who said JFK was shot is lying. It attempts to overcome too many of the established facts.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Dave, these posts have nothing to do with the "no planes" theory.

Maybe you are tired now. Very tired. Very sleepy. Your eyelids are getting very heavy. They are getting very . . . very . . . very . . . that's right. Go to sleep now Dave. Go into a deep sleep and forget all about what the Queen of Spades said to you at Langley. You'll feel much better.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Dave, these posts have nothing to do with the "no planes" theory.


Then why are you posting rubbish like:

"I don't think a pasenger jet hit the Pentagon."

I made a valiant attempt to abide by the OP's wishes and refrain from debunking, but it's difficult when people are posting outright foolishness that not even other conspiracy theorists here take seriously. There were many eyewitnesses in the vicinity of the Pentagon and they specifically saw that it was a plane. Don't make things up and then pass it off as "comprehensive, concise evidence".


Maybe you are tired now. Very tired. Very sleepy. Your eyelids are getting very heavy. They are getting very . . . very . . . very . . . that's right. Go to sleep now Dave. Go into a deep sleep and forget all about what the Queen of Spades said to you at Langley. You'll feel much better.


And this barely coherent passage is supposed to convince me of your credibility HOW, exactly?



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 

I think it is up to the supporters and proponents of the OS to prove a (THE PASSENGER JET) plane hit the Pentagon. All of the video was confiscated, WHY good old boys?
The only video I have seen indicates there was NO plane, so I think we must consider the possibility there was no plane. I think the experts are coming around to the missile explanation.
That should be our established position. No Proof No Plane, missile of some sort most likely.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
I think it is up to the supporters and proponents of the OS to prove a (THE PASSENGER JET) plane hit the Pentagon.


All right, fair enough. It's an honest question and it deserves an honest answer:

Eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon

So now that there IS evidence that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, are you willing to abandon the "no planes" bit as a dead end? I would imagine that the first step in your "find the truth" crusade would be to first determine what definitely ISN'T the truth, and now you have a sterling example of that.


All of the video was confiscated, WHY good old boys?


What do you mean, why were they confiscated? I'd have thought it would be obvious- the feds wanted to review footage of the plane impact for their investigation. It's the same reason police grab footage of security camera video when a homicide had been committed nearby- it's to see if the video contained usable information, not becuase the police want to cover the crime up.

I shouldn't have to tell you that if you're always goign to be in this kind of "always presume something sinister is going on" mindset then of course you're going to be seeing secret conspiracies underneath every rock.



The only video I have seen indicates there was NO plane, so I think we must consider the possibility there was no plane. I think the experts are coming around to the missile explanation.


No, actually, even your own fellow conspiracy theorists here I.E. Bonez are denouncing the "no planes" people as dupes spreading misinformation and making the movement look bad as a whole. So the question is, should we listen to them or should we listen to you?



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Sorry, rival, but what you wrote here is much of the same already-explained nonsense that still remains posted on the many 9/11 "conspiracy" websites...because NONE of them ever update, and correct their disinfo:


We have photo evidence
of what appears to be a smaller than required hole in the Pentagon wall...


That is wrong, and is only perpetuated by deceptive websites who specifically exclude photos that destroy their "premise" --- they want to spread the BS.

Same with:


...and no expected accompanying wings marks.


There are plenty of photos that the "conspiracy" sites refuse to post, because those photos DESTROY the clever illusion of "no plane" that they attempt to create.

This next is yet another totally bogus claim, and has been thoroughly addressed, and investigated. It was shown to be false:


Some evidence of engine components that don't match the aircraft type...


No, indeed when looked at properly, and accounting for the fact (and most of these "conspiracy" hoaxists aren't aware) there are differnt manufacturers of engines for different models of airplanes, sometimes.

In the case of the B-757, Boeing offered its customers TWO versions, one with RollsRoyce RB-211-535 engines, and one version with Pratt & Whitney PW2000. (GE also tried to get into the fray, but there was insufficient interest in their design, and they didn't sell enough, and dropped the competition).

BUT, you see, these "conspiracy" sites fail to research sufficiently, and just spread BS and nonsense to willing takers, anyone who will fall for it.

Already mentioned, further up-thread is the inaccurate and misleading claims regarding what little video capture there was of AAL 77....scant little actually exists. ALL that was captured on camera has been shown publically, by now.

"Conspiracy" sites like to drop innuendo otherwise.

Right now I can hop down to the Pentagon (there are visitor parking sites, but easier by bus, or Metro rail) get out, and walk around the parking lots. Anyone can.

Anyone who has the wherewithall to actually come visit and see for themselves will note the ABSENCE of cameras focused in the directions that would have been necessary back in 2001, to capture the image of AAL 77 in flight, for the brief fraction of a second it would have been in camera frame before impact.

Security surveillance is targeted on ENTRANCES, and choke points where PEOPLE and ground vehicles tend to congregrate. Not along the walls, in the middle of the building.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Already mentioned, further up-thread is the inaccurate and misleading claims regarding what little video capture there was of AAL 77....scant little actually exists. ALL that was captured on camera has been shown publically, by now.


Nobody believes this. Authoritative reassurances from you on the subject are not going to convince them.


Anyone who has the wherewithall to actually come visit and see for themselves will note the ABSENCE of cameras focused in the directions that would have been necessary back in 2001, to capture the image of AAL 77 in flight, for the brief fraction of a second it would have been in camera frame before impact.


Anyone looking at photos of the Pentagon from 2001 will note the cameras spaced out along the entire length of the roof surveilling the entire perimeter of the building.


Security surveillance is targeted on ENTRANCES, and choke points where PEOPLE and ground vehicles tend to congregrate. Not along the walls, in the middle of the building.


Stick to your area of expertise, authoritative one. Anyone who knows anything about security, and the Marine Corps knows something about it, will tell you that the entire perimeter of the property you are guarding must be observed.

If they do it at the Citgo station on one side of the street, you can bet they will do it ten times over at the government funded military playpen on the other side of the street. I work in the biz. I know the mentality.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   
As requested I would like to make my humble contribution to the common efforts for accumulating important 9/11 evidence as well. Here you can download a comprehensive archive (zip archive 2.5 Mb size) with all pre-9/11 definitions of 'ground zero' term in all major English dictionaries printed before September 2001. This is one of the most important evidence. Download links (can use either one):

depositfiles.com...

rapidshare.com...

www.3truth911.com...



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
One more contribution - an archive with collection of almost 40 various articles describing symptoms of apparent chronic radiation sickness in ground zero responders could be downloaded from here (zip archive size 13.8 Mb, MD5 checksum: E2950FA875F7F4AD8C896613749EB297 ) :

depositfiles.com...

rapidshare.com...

www.911-truth.net...



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Just another contribution - absolutely unprecedented newly discovered evidence about molten rock at ground zero. Note - here we talk NOT about molten steel, which is no longer "new" by now, but about molten rock! Don't miss the point! This is absolutely unprecedented evidence because molten rock has nothing to do either with "mini-nukes", or with so-called "nano-thermite"! Both - the "mini-nukes" theory and the so-called "nano-thermite" theory - are flushed away in the lavatory by this new unprecedented evidence! File size: 45.8 Mb, MD5 checksum: 140B166CB97DA88219E216C6F5A5C4C8 Download links:

depositfiles.com...

rapidshare.com...

www.911-truth.net...



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
And just one more contribution - a newly discovered important piece of contemporary 9/11 news where it is openly stated that the US AirForce jet SHOT DOWN flight 93. Many 9/11 truthers craved for this missing piece of 9/11 evidence for many years, but couldn't find it. Now it is here. Get it:

www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com...

Enjoy, you, truthers.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Anyone looking at photos of the Pentagon from 2001 will note the cameras spaced out along the entire length of the roof surveilling the entire perimeter of the building.


...and anyone looking at photos of the Pentagon will see that the place isn't out in the middle of some lonely desert. It's in the middle of a industrial park right across the river from Washington DC and it's heavily populated. In fact, here's a photo right here-


The Pentagon

-and we have many, many, MANY eyewitnesses who specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, and NO eyewitnesses who saw any flyover, or a cruise missile, or any of those fairy tales. You can slice and dice these conspiracy stories to make it as sinister sounding as you'd like, but attempting to rewrite the facts to suit your purposes is outright lying.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Sorry, but your "authoritative" claim here? Let's examine it:


Anyone looking at photos of the Pentagon from 2001 will note the cameras spaced out along the entire length of the roof surveilling the entire perimeter of the building.


Right...well, I never ventured down there in 2001, or prior....but just sauntered by this AM, and no....don't see 'em.

Perhaps you can find these "photos" to back this up?

But, let's examine the logic....a bunck of cameras "spaced out along the entire length of the roof" would be aimed in WHICH direction, do you think? Which is most logical?

Straight down? Nope, seems unlikely. Sideways, to see pictures of its neighbors? Equally silly.

OUT and away from the building? Or, down at an angle? Sure....as I mentioned, IF the entry/egress points are within view.

The wing hit by AAL 77 wasn't used in that way. Back then, it had the Helipad, so that was likely on camera, could research that. Access to the helicopters that landed wopuld have been from inside the building, and after entry to the building from other locations.

There wasn't a lot of area, there...still isn't, scrunched up against the roadways to the west. There WAS (probably still is) an access road, and guard gate, and we've SEEN the footage from that vantage.

Point is....unlike your assertion of the "Marines" 'guarding' it...it isn't a military base, per se....and doesn'thave military personnel for security protection.

There are the "Pentagon Police" --- at least, that's what it says on the sides of their cars and SUVs. They are actually called, nowadays (since 2002) the PFPA. Civilian forces, under the jurisdiction of the DoD.


Not sure where this idea of "ALL" those "perimeter" cameras comes from? Made up? (My guess it, it was made up/asserted by one or more of the many "conspiracy" sites, and just gets repeated by people who fall for their BS?)

Anyway, hope your research brtings good results....



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by winston_jones
reply to post by rival
 


4. The freefall, or near freefall, speed of the collapse of the three buildings.
5. Thermite found in the dust.
6. At the Pentagon, no plane on the lawn but no hole in the facade that it could have passed through.



From what I could see of the aftermath it looked like a missile impact. This was my impression of it.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
In this short video, you can hear (and see some of) the individual explosions bringing down one of the WTC towers.




I you watch and lessen you can see and hear explosions that are perfectly timed to bring the building down like a dimension teem would. This could not have been caused by a plane no matter how big.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I over herd a conversion with some coworkers and was wondering if it is accurate. It is my understanding that there were only three plains. Of those three one was brought down by the passengers. Two of those plains were crashed into the twin towers. Seance it took two plains to crash the twin towers and one was brought down by the passengers where did the other plain come from. If only three plains took off how did the forth plain impact the Pentagon. When looking at the footage pitchers and video you cannot see the plain or where the wings impacted the building. But it does look like a missile impact. Could it be that the government blew up part of the Pentagon to make it look like an impact. Another weird part is that that wing of the Pentagon was under going renovation at that point in time yet in morning no construction workers were present when it happened. NO ONE DIED AT THE PENTAGON... Really how is that it sounds like the OKC booming witch destroyed more than a quarter of the building. In that booming no federal employee died or were even injured because the federal offices were empty ON A WORK DAY.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyway, hope your research brtings good results....


I guess I owe my success to you. I wouldn't really call it research though. Just a couple of words into ATS's own search feature.

There is a great thread on the Pentagon cameras here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(I just want to take a moment to address 9/11 newbies. Don't let "authoritative" debunkers like Weedy fool you with their dogmatic defenses of the "official story" of 9/11. ATS is a great website that contains a lot of material riddling that story with holes.)

Here are photos of surveillance cameras on the side of the Pentagon. (Not as many as my memory told me, but enough.) One on each corner and one in the middle of the side of the building where the "incident" took place. The middle one is almost directly over the area where the damage occurred.

There is also a good camera view from the Naval Annex. But there are many more in the neighborhood that would be relevant to the 9/11 incident.







According to Craig Ranke, the FBI admitted to confiscating 85 videos! He actually thinks they have more. Check out the thread linked above. It is only three pages long and a very good read on the subject of cameras.


[edit on 9-8-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Here are photos of surveillance cameras on the side of the Pentagon. (Not as many as my memory told me, but enough.) One on each corner and one in the middle of the side of the building where the "incident" took place. The middle one is almost directly over the area where the damage occurred.

There is also a good camera view from the Naval Annex. But there are many more in the neighborhood that would be relevant to the 9/11 incident.


...and while you're at it, perhaps you can document exactly how many Cigarette butts were on the highway in a ten mile radius, or how many soda machines in the Pentagon sold Sprite, for it is as equally detailed and yet completely usless in proving any conspiracy involving cruise missiles, predator drones, or whatever. It is innuendo dropping to infer impropriety, and innuendo dropping is the standard method the conspiracy theorist con artists use to prove things they know are utterly unprovable.

I invite you to prove me wrong- just how do these cameras supposedly override the multitudes of eyewitness accounts that show it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon? If their accounts are insufficient to convince you to drop these conspiracy stories, then why should any camera footage be enough to convince you?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join