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.

 

It is scientifically impossible that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11

page: 17
15
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


There was never even a full 911 investigation. Osama was a CIA asset who went by the name of Tim Osman when he was state-side. Did you know that one? Did you know he was meeting with CIA agents a week before the attacks occurred and then all of a sudden "disappeared" and they "couldn't find him?" Google it my friend.

If just ONE piece of information can debunk the twin towers (which there is PLENTY of evidence to show it was a thermite reaction), then one must assume the crash at the pentagon, and in pennsylvania were also the doing of the government.

Please refer to this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Just one question. Why is it so hard to believe our government would do this? You do realize they benefited from this, right? No one else benefited other than TPTB. The owner of the towers took out an insurance policy a few days before the attack that specifically covered terrorist attacks. If you're too blind to put these pieces together I feel sorry for you. I just hope it doesn't take another government planned attack like this to wake you people up.

Here is a video of building 7 which fell in its footprint for no reason at all.
www.youtube.com...

Isn't it obvious to you people? But I suppose living in a delusional world is sometimes easier than accepting the horrible truth that's right in front of you. 911 allowed Bush to invade Afghanistan/Iraq (which had nothing to do with 911 at all), and to pass laws to spy on America which otherwise would not have been justified. Now anyone can say "Oh yeah...terrorists" and the laws are justified. You just don't get it do you?

You people want "proof." Well we're never gonna get a government document that says HEY, WE DID 911!!!! We're only left with the footage, and common sense (some of us). It's up to us to put the pieces together and see what really happened. As of 2006, a survey conducted showed 86% of Americans think the "official story" is garbage. 90% of Germany thinks it was an inside job. You are in the minority.

I will end this right here and right now if you can show me PROOF. FOOTAGE, of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Surely a plane that size, although traveling at an excess of 500 mph, would be completely visible hitting the building? Oh what's that? You can't? Oh okay.
edit on 24-1-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I am using my brain. If anything you're the one not using yours by saying "Oh, the government says it was a terrorist attack, MUST BE, cause they never lie to anyone!"

www.mypeepz.us...

Proof is in the pudding my friend. Watch when you have some time.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by Varemia
 


I am using my brain. If anything you're the one not using yours by saying "Oh, the government says it was a terrorist attack, MUST BE, cause they never lie to anyone!"

www.mypeepz.us...

Proof is in the pudding my friend. Watch when you have some time.


This is why I can't stand posting in 9/11 threads. Just because I feel that the story the government supports is actually what happened, I'm a government loving fanboy. Screw this thread and all you supposed truthers.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Good for you, friend, I didn't ask you to agree with me or post in this thread. I just want the people who trust the government so much to have an open mind and look at the evidence from a different angle.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Yeah, its called confusion. And it ran rampant on Sept 11, 2001.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


LOL, Tim Osman again. You must be fairly new to ATS. The um, "Tim Osman" lie has been discussed at length and debunked long ago.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Back to the "videos were faked" again? Okay, then you need to answer this question. HOW did the images of the second jet get on all those cameras that didnt belong to the media?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Clearly you didn't watch the videos. Your questions will be addressed there.

By the way.

whatreallyhappened.com...

[SNIP]


edit on 24-1-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)

edit on Mon Jan 24 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Kinda defeats the whole purpose of national security if they're not going to do their jobs. lol.

And claiming to have "debunked" Tim Osman doesn't take away from the fact that Al Qaeda was funded by the CIA. Fact.

www.rense.com...
edit on 24-1-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


A fine illustration of PT Barnum's supposed quote, a sucker is born every minute. The one, and so far only, source of the Tim Osman lie is a gent named Ted Gunderson and a criminal named Michael Riscutto. Mr Gunderson, is a former FBI agent turned occult story huckster and Mr Riscutto (which I am horribly misspelling), well, lets just say he clams to be a part of pretty much everything that has gone on since the Kennedy Assasination........That supposed document you linked.....lol

But thats okay, run away if you cannot handle the truth.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


And you might want to do just a wee bit more actual research. There were TWO groups fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. One, were the Afghanis, trained and funded by the United States....among others. The other group were foreign Muslims, trained and funded by Osama and other muslims...THIS is the group that became Al Qaeda.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Interestingly enough, there is a current thread about a man named.....


....Ted Gunderson...... Mr Gunderson, is a former FBI agent turned occult story huckster ...


Gunderson's latest foray into La La Land is in the arena of the HOAX and near-religion of "chem"-trails. Odd (not really) that the thing called "9/11 truth" has similar aspects to religions, too.....

He has been caught repeating false assertions, regarding what he "claimed" are his own eyewitness accounts of seeing supposed "chem"-planes...at two locations that busts his lies wide open!!

Two possiblities: He is in the early stages of senile dementia, perhaps borderline Alzheimer's --- OR;

He is just, as you said, a huckster. Selling his (very weak) "reputation" to the highest bidder.....



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Like I said, link me to some evidence of your claims otherwise it's all bunk.

Can't handle the truth? Lol please, I would love to think it was a random act of terrorism rather than our government.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 





The American funding, which went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen groups, not the Arab volunteers [bin Ladin's groups], was supplemented by Saudi government money and huge funds raised from mosques, non-governmental charitable institutions and private donors throughout the Islamic world. Most of the major Gulf-based charities operating today were founded at this time to raise money or channel government funds to the Afghans, civilians and fighters. In fact, as little as 25 per cent of the monet for the Afghan jihad was actually supplied directly by states


Al Qaeda: The true story of radical Islam by Jason Burke




Steve Coll: I did not discover any evidence of direct contact between CIA officers and bin Laden during the 1980s, when they were working more or less in common cause against the Soviets. CIA officials, including Tenet, have denied under oath that such contact took place. The CIA was certainly aware of bin Laden's activities, beginning in the mid- to late-1980s, and they generally looked favorably on what he was doing at that time. But bin Laden's direct contacts were with Saudi intelligence and to some extent Pakistani intelligence, not with the Americans


Author Steve Coll, during an interview following the publishing of his book, Ghost Wars




A source familiar with bin Ladin's organisation explains that bin Ladin "never had any relations with America or American officials... He was saying very early in the 1980's that the next battle is going to be with America... No aid or training or other support have ever been given to bin Ladin from Americans." A senior offical unequivocally says that "bin Ladin never met with the CIA."


Holy War, Inc by Peter Bergen




bin Ladin: "Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help...


1996 interview of Osama Bin Laden, conducted by Robert Fisk.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I stand corrected. Star for you.

However I still feel there's too much out of place in the events that day.
"Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one"

I'm out of here though because this really hasn't gone anywhere since it started. We will never know the ACTUAL truth until the government releases documents, and I don't see that happening any time soon. Peace



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
So Weedwacker..what was it that did it for you?

I mean..what was the hard core evidence that really made you believe flight 77 hit the pentagon?

You know how truthers have the hole was too small..or 13 witnesses placed the plane away from the light poles..or lack of the plane..or Lloyd England's confession..or the hole size..or people said it was a small plane..or the witnesses lies..or the 80 or so tapes they won't release..or how Hani Hanjour was able to pull out of a turning decent to level out within inches above the ground like it shows in the 911 Case Study Pentagon Flight 77.

Of course the video don't show the whole flight path only from the light poles to the pentagon.But watch 2:07 in and see how low to the ground the plane is..and this is what the government is claiming.
www.youtube.com...

I'm not going to post all the reasons why people think flight 77 did NOT hit the pentagon because I already have,if you want to see them then go back a few pages.

So Weedwacker..where is all the evidence that makes you believe the government's story?I just want to see it so then maybe I can see what you see and understand where you are coming from..Peace.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 


Your thread title doesn't provide an entirely accurate assessment; "It is scientifically impossible that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11"

I'm certainly not dissing your efforts, I appreciate your efforts.

As the way I see it, the os and nist failed to provide specific evidence which would prove beyond a shadow of doubt that what they sold to the public, is in fact fraudulent claims...Video evidence confiscated and kept away from prying eyes...I will not buy any witness testimony that can be bought, nor intimidated...

If their claims were proven beyond a shadow of doubt, we wouldn't be here discussing/questioning the official fairy tale at all.

The number of people wanting facts, not media fiction are climbing. People are wising-up...Never forget...



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
what a heck of a question



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon"

Jim Fetzer


Since Thiery Meyssan first posted his web-site study, "Hunt the Boeing!", the absence of evidence that a 757 crashed there has become a source of almost endless speculation. Even Jamie McIntyre, the CNN correspondent, reported that, based upon his own personal inspection, there were no indications that a large plane had crashed anywhere near the Pentagon! If you listen very carefully, you will see that, during the first part of the interview, he talks about small pieces from a plane. But starting around 2:44, he denies that there is any evidence that a large plane hit the building. That--like his odd description of a piece that was silver with red and green markings--would seem to be consistent with a small plane having hit the Pentagon.

A paper of mine by the same title recently appeared on rense.com, but it included several introductory paragraphs about those who appear intent upon misleading or confounding the 9/11 movement about what happened there. So I deleted those paragraphs, where anyone who wants to read them, too, can find them there. Meyssan's two books, PENTAGATE (2003) and 9/11: THE BIG LIE (2003), were among my earliest encounters with serious research on 9/11, which left the indelible impression upon me that serious research could expose falsehoods and reveal truths about the events of 9/11, for which I shall always be indebted to him. I therefore dedicate this bog to Thierry Meyssan for his courage and integrity in speaking the truth when others remained silent.

Jamie McIntyre Live Feed from Sept 11 2001

Questions about what happened at the Pentagon, of course, fall into the area of uncertainty as a complex and complicated issue many in the community dislike. There is a body of evidence, much of which is photographic, however, to which scientific reasoning can be applied to resolve that uncertainty. As I have elsewhere explained, the basic measure of the strength with which evidence e supports hypothesis h is provided by the likelihood, L, of h, if e were true. That, in turn, is equal to the probability, P, of e if h were true, where L(h/e) = P(e/h). Approximately speaking, this involves treating the evidence as an "effect" of the "cause" described by various hypotheses, where an hypothesis hi with higher likelihood on evidence e is better supported and is therefore "preferable" to an hypothesis hj with lower likelihood.

As a simple example, we find likelihoods employed in everyday life and in criminal investigations. The discovery of a body with bruising around the neck but no bullet holes or knife wounds makes it more likely that the deceased was killed by strangulation than by shooting or stabbing. After all, the probability of no bullet holes (knife wounds, and so on) if the victim was shot (stabbed, and so forth) is zero, while the probability of bruising about the neck as the result of strangulation is very high. Since the evidence (no bullet holes or knife wounds but bruising around the neck) is more probable if the death was caused by strangulation than by shooting or stabbing, that hypothesis has a higher likelihood and is therefore better supported by the evidence.

When the evidence has "settled down" and tends to point in the same direction, then that hypothesis is also acceptable in the tentative and fallible fashion of science. The introduction of new alternatives and the acquisition of new evidence, including the discovery that evidence that has been taken to be authentic in the past has been fabricated, can lead to the rejection of hypotheses previously accepted and the acceptance of hypotheses previously rejected-or to the suspension of belief in cases previously thought to be resolved. There appear to be more than a half-dozen arguments against the official account that a 757 hit the Pentagon, which appears to be a fantasy. To begin with, consider the alleged "hit point" at the Pentagon on the ground floor:


For more, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...
edit on 28/1/11 by masqua because: Added 'ex' tags



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 



Absolute nonsense and rubbish:


There appear to be more than a half-dozen arguments against the official account that a 757 hit the Pentagon...


And, you opened with the idiocy written by that French "author"?

There are NOT "more than a half-dozen"...(how many IS that, anyway?? Seven? Eleven?? No, eleven woud be more like "almost" a dozen, wouldn't it??)


NO, I smell something here, and it isn't any "government cover-up" either.....if you, (welcome, BTW, 'new member') are indeed "Jim Fetzer" then the ATS Staff will be happy, I'm sure, to oblige, as you seek verification.

Meanwhile...no, an alleged "more than half-dozen arguments"?? Against, oh I don't know....almost as many as... ten thousand others??? Which one do you think is more likely??



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join