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: 18
15
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


"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"-Weedwacker

Ten thousand others??

Yet you don't provide a single one?...odd.There are countless threads that provide evidence to suggest flight 77 did NOT hit the pentagon.I would be interested in seeing your "ten thousand others" instead of the words "ten thousand others".You see,normally people provide the... "others",but you only talk of them.That's not very helpful to your argument now is it?That's like fighting in the UFC with no arms and legs.You can't fight with no arms and legs now can you?You could throw words,but that would probably just make your opponent angry.




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
That is by far your most inane, irrelevant and incoherant post so far. Will be hard to top that one.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


I agree. My charisma was mostly lost when I dropped my addiction of posting in these forums, so now my tact is off and my brain isn't quite communicating with my keyboard the way I'd like. Don't worry though, it should get better as I return to posting every other day and building up detailed lists of sources and physics. I also promise that the moment that I am even slightly convinced that there were bombs in the trade centers, I will let the Truthers know.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Bin Laden = Satan,

I say this because everyone wants someone to point their fingers at. So we make up fictional characters to ease our guilt and fear. Greed is a bottomless pit, we needed a reason to go to Iraq / Afghanistan so we made up a Witch hunt and pumped our citizens full of pride and anger to subdue rational thought.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Logan5782
 


Okay, let me get this straight. You think Osama Bin Laden is made up?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

I'm going to try to be very gentle in my wording, as I really hate posting in the 9/11 forums... How do you know FOR A FACT that the nose exited the building? There are probably a few videos taken from a distance which show the side of the trade center where the plane exited partially. Now, it only APPEARS to be a nose at first glance, without thinking, without using logic, without applying reason, without applying any kind of common sense!


Oh??? really? so out of curiosity, using your logic, how do you know what aircraft that hit the wtc if any, was a plane?


Originally posted by Varemia
Could it be possible that a simpler answer exists? Could it be that debris from the plane (which you say can't have hit and damaged core columns, yet can miraculously make it all the way through the building) exited the building in somewhat of a bunch without any coherent shape, only appearing to be a misshapen plane from a great distance with reduced quality? Noticed how it disappeared fairly quickly? I mean, that couldn't have been because it was not a solid piece. It's not POSSIBLE that the debris spread out, especially with the shock of the explosion from the fuel...

Please, when talking about 9/11, use your brain. Don't let others use it for you.


So for what you say to have occurred, would you agree there would HAVE to be a some sort of an exit HOLE?

edit on 21-2-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: edit



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


I've seen enough video evidence to prove well enough that it was a plane. Also, yes, I do believe there was an exit hole.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
PLANE WITHOUT PASSENGERS: The Faked Hijackings of 9/11

All,

Just to mention that I will be broadcasting a two-hour interview with
Dean Hartwell, author of PLANES WITHOUT PASSENGERS, on "The Real
Deal" tomorrow evening from 5-7 PM/CT over revereradio.net. The show
will also be archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com.... I believe this
is the first time that the scientific evidenced of fakery and research
on the planes and passengers has been presented together. If you have
the chance, listen to the show tomorrow or when it is finally archived.

Jim



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
PLANE WITHOUT PASSENGERS: The Faked Hijackings of 9/11

All,

Just to mention that I will be broadcasting a two-hour interview with
Dean Hartwell, author of PLANES WITHOUT PASSENGERS, on "The Real
Deal" tomorrow evening from 5-7 PM/CT over revereradio.net. The show
will also be archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com.... I believe this
is the first time that the scientific evidenced of fakery and research
on the planes and passengers has been presented together. If you have
the chance, listen to the show tomorrow or when it is finally archived.

Jim


Could you at least hint at what some of this evidence is and why it has taken over 9 years to surface as undeniable proof that there were no passengers on the planes? I mean, at least to me, it would seem only polite to demonstrate some of the empirical evidence rather than just advertise your blog show.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


I've seen enough video evidence to prove well enough that it was a plane. Also, yes, I do believe there was an exit hole.


Using your wording and logic,,,, Could you at least hint at what some of this evidence is and why it has taken over 9 years to surfac?

of course i know its most likely the same debunked evidence as others ignorant of Nrpt, keep asserting.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Which evidence? You kind of asked for a blanket amount of evidence. Jim was practically saying he had absolute proof that there were no passengers, and honestly, I am interested in that evidence if it exists!

I tend to get a lot of crap because I believe that the towers were brought down by the planes. I actually don't have a stance on the hijacking or the government involvement. I don't know enough to draw an informed conclusion on that. For all I know, the planes were flown by mind-controlled agents led by the secret government. I just feel that there's enough proof that the planes hit the buildings and took them down. Otherwise you have to add factors using your imagination, and I prefer to use stuff that I can verify rather than complete and utter speculation.

Edit: as for the hint at the evidence for the plane and exit hole?
I've seen videos and heard testimony from people that were there or saw it second-hand. Also, I have read reports about the debris and other minor damage caused by the parts of the airplane that went completely through the building. I can't link them, but I know they exist somewhere... (this would probably be a great time for me to actually save all the information that I find. Half the time I can't locate the sources that I once read.)
edit on 14-3-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemiareply to www.abovetopsecret.com...]post by truthseekr1111

Which evidence? You kind of asked for a blanket amount of evidence.


and that was MY point... so do many like you without ever going over specifics and examples. And that seems to be one of the biggest problems when skeptics claim the NPT or this and that has been debunked. They refuse to analyze and examine the evidence in totality and cherry-pick only what fits their agenda or limited investigation.


Originally posted by Varemia
Jim was practically saying he had absolute proof that there were no passengers, and honestly, I am interested in that evidence if it exists!
I tend to get a lot of crap because I believe that the towers were brought down by the planes. I actually don't have a stance on the hijacking or the government involvement.


why not?

and you don't think that it might be important to have more than unverifiable photos of the alleged hijackers photos in "an" airport?


Originally posted by Varemia
I don't know enough to draw an informed conclusion on that.


obviously... but there is ample evidence for one to research. Why wouldn't you want to research as much evidence on both sides as possible before entering debate and intelligent discourse or criticizing subjects you've barely done real in-depth research on?


Originally posted by Varemia
For all I know, the planes were flown by mind-controlled agents led by the secret government. I just feel that there's enough proof that the planes hit the buildings and took them down. Otherwise you have to add factors using your imagination, and I prefer to use stuff that I can verify rather than complete and utter speculation.


like speculating "planes hit the buildings and took them down"? If its so simple, what clear obvious evidence supports that for you? And how is the contradictory evidence wrong?


Originally posted by Varemia
Edit: as for the hint at the evidence for the plane and exit hole?
I've seen videos and heard testimony from people that were there or saw it second-hand.


what about the contradictory evidence? how is it wrong? what evidence specifically proves the exit hole was made by a plane and isn't "speculation"?


Originally posted by Varemia
Also, I have read reports about the debris and other minor damage caused by the parts of the airplane that went completely through the building.


how is saying "plane parts went completely through the building" not speculation?

You need to do a far better job proving you don't blindly accept what you've been told to believe by the government and media, cuz so far your comments are hypocritical and employ a double standard. Typical of ignorant and dishonest debaters/skeptics.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


I've seen pictures. It's not all speculation. I've done a lot of research, and it's damning that I can't relocate most of it because they show up in pockets, and every google search comes up with over a hundred 9/11 conspiracy sites arguing over the same stuff or claiming to have the absolute answer based on their own speculation.

I refuse to take a stance if I cannot decide either way. For that reason, I remain neutral about the hijackings and the government's involvement. I have decided, however, that it makes more sense (at least to me!) that the planes brought down the towers. I have gone over it countless times, and every time, it makes sense to me. I agree that demolitions are another possibility, but I feel that I would have to stretch too far into speculation about what would have to happen for them to be there, who did it, and how they completely eluded everyone even to the point of making no sound whatsoever. Yes, it's possible, but I don't see it as likely.

That's not crazy or treasonous, it's just the way my mind functions with regard to logic and the knowledge I have gathered. I absolutely refuse to invest emotion into this debate, even though it was my fellow Americans who died that day. Emotion twists logic and reason. It blinds the most noble eagle, and I refuse to draw the drapes of ignorance over my eyes just to feel good about myself. It's just the way I was born.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 

I've seen pictures. It's not all speculation. I've done a lot of research, and it's damning that I can't relocate most of it because they show up in pockets, and every google search comes up with over a hundred 9/11 conspiracy sites arguing over the same stuff or claiming to have the absolute answer based on their own speculation.

I refuse to take a stance if I cannot decide either way. For that reason, I remain neutral about the hijackings and the government's involvement. I have decided, however, that it makes more sense (at least to me!) that the planes brought down the towers. I have gone over it countless times, and every time, it makes sense to me. I agree that demolitions are another possibility, but I feel that I would have to stretch too far into speculation about what would have to happen for them to be there, who did it, and how they completely eluded everyone even to the point of making no sound whatsoever. Yes, it's possible, but I don't see it as likely.

That's not crazy or treasonous, it's just the way my mind functions with regard to logic and the knowledge I have gathered. I absolutely refuse to invest emotion into this debate, even though it was my fellow Americans who died that day. Emotion twists logic and reason. It blinds the most noble eagle, and I refuse to draw the drapes of ignorance over my eyes just to feel good about myself. It's just the way I was born.


there's EVIDENCE that the "PICTURES" may not be as they appear. There's evidence that puts the pictures and stories into question and much of the evidence is based on irrefutable fact.

You say you refuse to allow or invest emotion into the debate....GOOD! Because ones feelings and OPINIONS are irrelevant when determining or seeking TRUTH. It should be about the facts and evidence and applying common sense after ones done a full investigation into all sides of the argument etc.

So the point is that you're judging many aspects of 9/11 with a double standard and not using the same standard that you expect from the opposing side. Too many make generalizations and refuse debate specifics or in context which is impossible to have any honest or intelligent discourse on such a complex conspiracy like 9/11.
Doing "alot" of research is an ambiguous statement and if true, wouldn't be near enough required to have a true grasp of the dynamics comprising 9/11. You have a right to your opinions etc, but truth can't be measured by ones opinion especially when that opinion isn't supported by FACTS and evidence for an argument. If an argument or the evidence is wrong, then one must show exactly how its wrong... but most refuse, don't or can't and instead make typical blanketed assertions its nonsense, crazy or debunked. IT GETS OLD. So if you're not going to take a STANCE, then why are you here? Or how can you criticize something if you refuse to take a stance and show evidence for your arguments for or against?






edit on 19-3-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
hey weedwacker,

You were asked a question, a very good question. Can you answer it?

What are your major proof points that lead you to believe a 757 crashed into the pentagon?

Do not try to sidestep by talking about the WTC planes, or anything else. What makes you believe the official story regarding the pentagon plane?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bitbytebit
 


Well, if I were asked this question...

1. The remains of the Rolls Royce RB-211 engines (the type KNOWN to be on Flight 77)
2. The remains of the APU door, again, matching that of a 757 that ended up on the Pentagon lawn.
3. The witnesses.
4. The personal effects and remains of people known (and verified by the American Airlines gate agents who boarded them) to have boarded Flight 77 being found at the Pentagon.


There are others....but those four will suffice for now.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I think one of the best reasons to be skeptical of a huge airplane flying that low over the highway into the pentagon and not leaving debris IS that they only released what, 3 frames of the apparent plane? Why isn't there any other footage? I don't want to hear "it's too graphic and horrific" since they replayed the planes flying into the towers nonstop and still do on documentaries ON 9/11 for that matter...



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by bitbytebit
 


Well, if I were asked this question...

Ok these arn't very compelling but ..


1. The remains of the Rolls Royce RB-211 engines (the type KNOWN to be on Flight 77)
2. The remains of the APU door, again, matching that of a 757 that ended up on the Pentagon lawn.

Fair enough, engines and a door would be fairly hard to plant


3. The witnesses.

You can't dismiss one set of witnesses while claiming to believe another set, so we'll strike witnesses from both sides of the argument. Witnesses are unreliable in this case


4. The personal effects and remains of people known (and verified by the American Airlines gate agents who boarded them) to have boarded Flight 77 being found at the Pentagon.

eh .. fairly easy to plant and also again relying on unreliable witnesses


There are others....but those four will suffice for now.


Well all your really left with is the engines and door evidence after that, .. really? thats all it took for you to believe the official story?

So why were so many videos confiscated never to be seen again?

Anyway thanks for answering, really though you should examine why you are so hostile to the other side of the argument.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bitbytebit
 


Well, I would take the word of a Reserve Naval Aviator who flew 757s and watched Flight 77 slam into the Pentagon over pretty much any other witness.

As for my "hostility" to the other side of the argument.....to date, there is absolutely NO evidence to show it was anything other than Flight 77 that slammed into the Pentagon. None. Zilch. Nada.

And yet, people STILL come on here and rehash tired, old, false arguments about Flight 77.

---There was no wreckage on the lawn...when there are plenty of pics of wreckage on the lawn.
---There was no damage to the lawn....which only indicates that the plane hit the building.
---The words of CNN's Jamie McIntyre...which are NEVER printed in their entirity by those on the "other" side.
---Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot...when even one of his flight instructors said he had the necessary skill to pilot Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

Many, many other reasons that I could list.....



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I just want to see a conclusive video instead of the 3 frames they released



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join