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'S OFFICIAL: Even conspiracy web sites acknowledge it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon

page: 11
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by aethron
 





To imagine that a hijacked airliner could leisurely fly into Washington, after flying off-course over a large part of the USA, and smash into the military HQ of the most powerful nation on Earth, when the Nation was fully aware it was under attack by hijacked planes is, frankly, beyond belief. If it really-truly was a ‘terrorist attack‘, Washington defense would have been buzzing like a hive of bees.


And yet another post completely ignorant of the fact that the Pentagon is right next to a large airport.




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Well let's see, the OP's name suggests he is one of the "good ol boy" variety, and even his avatar reeks of the usual debunker attitude. Reminds me alot of a recent History channel show, where some guy from MUFON went to south america to investigate a large scale UFO sighting, and by the end of the show I was convinced that MUFON simply sent this guy there to debunk the report completely. He and his crew were crude, overly aggressive in trying to be "right" about their opinions, and went out of their way to be disrespectful to the natives, in an attempt to discredit them by way of intentionally making them look like ignorant people. :/ It was a sad show, to see such an exaggerated attempt to belittle people.

The connection to this topic? Why do people feel the need to go far far out of their way to try and be "right" in their opinion, particularly regarding debunking conspiracy theories? It looks very suspicious, when someone goes so far out of their way to discredit and suppress anyone whose opinion falls out of line with the norm.

I dare say it looks downright obvious, that a suppressive (yes, that's a cliche Scientologist nutcase popular phrase, which i am not) individual has an overwhelming interest to debunk suspicious people. Too much effort, for little or no gain.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



You cannot convince me that it doesn't have footage, no way!


Of course they would have security cameras..
Everyone says why would they have cameras where all there is is grass but they forget about the HELIPAD..

Ya know, where many VIP's would probably land and need security...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


And a camera focused on the helipad....wouldnt have captured Flight 77.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by backinblack
 


And a camera focused on the helipad....wouldnt have captured Flight 77.


Sorry but I'd expect cameras would also be watching the surrounding area, ya know, looking for any bad guys..

Maybe they even had one watching the approach from the air..
Would make sense at a helipad to see who or what was coming in to land...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Greetings
After having read the majority of posts on this subject, my feeling is simply this...with all the film that was confiscated within minutes and hours of this event...government would have shown the plane hitting the building.
They never have, so, either they WANT us to be doubtful,or it just didn't happen ! What remember most from that day is the first few minutes of coverage showed a round opening less than 20 feet across...then a portion of the building came down above the hole...
As thick as those walls are, an aluminum aircraft couldn't penetrate three of them...splatter maybe, but not disappear!
Can you fly a jetliner at 500 mph, six feet off the ground? Wouldn't air mass force it up?

From what we know thusfar...I can not believe what I've been led to believe by MSM, govt response .
Blessings



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Okay, I have read the PDF by Frank Legge. There is science there but it is not convincing as scientific research which it apparently is presented as. With apologies to anyone who may have already posted this already here is why.

I am used to scientific papers arguing the hypothesis which it does, by presenting evidence that discounts the most obvious counter arguments, which this paper does not do. The most convincing argument I have read as to what struck the Pentagon is that it was a guided missile. Now they can apparently resemble a good sized plane with many features of a plane. All depends on what kind of missile and I am no expert there.

The biggest problem with the Legge paper is it simply does not deal with the counter arguments convincingly at all. It has pages devoted to arguing why the official evidence is good to go. There are pretty damn good photos added in for good measure. But apart from the bodies these are not of anything not able to be found already on the Internet. They are though much better quality than I have previously seen.

Let's talk about the photos of burnt bodies. These say very little in the way of countering the missile argument. They could just as easily be any of the many dead Pentagon workers who were sitting at their desks on the day of the tragedy. Why show pictures of bodies without explaining how they add serious supporting evidence to the argument? I would argue because they are there to outrage and incite. Emotions definitely can drive good objective analysis, but they do not provide supporting evidence, not when it comes to the kind of science this paper purports to be presenting.

Back to the missile. This popular "alternative theory" is top of the counter argument list on page 3. The next mention it gets is on page 7, just a few lines devoted to Hoffman's argument. Each point is not actually argued in Legge's paper so much as 'theorised on', and very poorly. The style is to present strawman arguments, (i.e. the plane had explosives in it, which deals with the explosives argument) then dispose of them as if disposing of a real counterargument and not one simply set up by Legge himself.

Note, in Legge's version the plane had explosives not the missile! The conflation of plane missile and explosives is disingenuous at best, inept actually. Yeah sure, the plane may have been filled with explosives as Legge proposes the argument goes (his own I think). But the explosives argument is usually one and the same with the missile argument, given the only video apparently available shows the explosion, a bright light of a quality in keeping with military hi tech explosives and not aircraft fuel.

I can go on here, but will leave it to others. My verdict is Legge's work is an official opinion piece. It certainly is not scientific, (although yes it does have scientific stuff in it). It would definitely stand up to peer review and that is the real test here. Legge is either a charlatan or a shill. Take your pick.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


What were your friends names???


I agree - please try and spare us the hearsay. If you do not have definitive concrete evidence to bring to the table, just get out of the way already. If you're going to state that you lost 14 people, at the very least, please provide details, photographic evidence and proof that you had a relationship with them. That's not much of a tall order to ask for, if you really were friends.

Thanks for the kind words benoni; good job on busting Mister 14 there.



Sphynx... So when am I going to get paid? If I am a govt. agent, I would like to get paid..


Since I'm not your boss, I don't give a spit who your employer is, nor when they pay you.



I saw the plane hit the pentagon... So did my 2 passengers, and hundreds of others traveling north that day..


Can I secure witness statements from you and hundreds of others? Of course, it will require divulging personal information.

In addition, I will ignore the fact you misspelled my name



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Black, I am sure you will agree.... Pure arrogance might have been a reason for no cameras..



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Too easy, Jamie Mcintyre.

Now please go away before you start quoting a damned fool conspiracy site that says he meant something else.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by leftydave
 



....coverage showed a round opening less than 20 feet across...then a portion of the building came down above the hole...


Wrong, on the size.

Right, that the upper floors DID collapse down...BECAUSE of the size of the damage below!!!

You said you reviewed the thread...may wish to go back through again?



As thick as those walls are, an aluminum aircraft couldn't penetrate three of them...splatter maybe, but not disappear!


Columns, that under the forces of ....well, check the physics. The CENTRAL mass of the airplane breached, and significantly destroyed key structural columns and supports. Review the thread, the data are there.



Can you fly a jetliner at 500 mph, six feet off the ground?


Specious, and fallacious argument.

The actual TIME at that height above the ground was only a matter of fractions of seconds. It was a constantly changing vertical path....and a shallowing descent path, near the final moments.


Wouldn't air mass force it up?


NO!

Not at all. Pure bunk, you might have read somewhere....written from an ignorant viewpoint.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 



Too easy, Jamie Mcintyre


NOT dodging it that easily!!!!

Many of us are VERY familiar with the TRUE and CONTEXTUAL quotes and personal recollections of Jamie McIntyre.

Why don't YOU provide YOUR "evidence"?? Don't run away, bring it!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


He says there is NO EVIDENCE OF A JET WHATSOEVER...

Since he was TOLD a plane crashed there he then surmises the scattered tiny bits of debris may be "whats left over".

End of story, the fact is he saw NOTHING of a plane, i repeat NOTHING...even after walking right up to the building, i feel sorry for him, alot of pressure he faced after that.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Tallone
 


I can only say....you seem to have put much thought into that post....BUT...

It completely ignores, yet again, the VAST mountains of evidence that support the Boeing 757.

The Flight Recorder (which, BTW, is at the heart of Mr. Legge's collaboration with Mr. Stutt).

And, of course.....all the rest, as already cited, in this thread. Eyewitnesses (ONE ATS member even contributed....with their PERSONAL eyewitness account!).

FAA radar.

FAA ATC.

Victim (crew and passenger, onboard the airplane) DNA.

Personal effects (of crew and/or passengers) recovered on scene.....

....etc.....


DENYING this evidence? What is it called?? I call it a "delusion". Is there a better term, to apply?



edit on 8 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Wrong, on the size.
Right, that the upper floors DID collapse down...BECAUSE of the size of the damage below!!!
You said you reviewed the thread...may wish to go back through again?


Weed, I have seen NO pics prior to the collapse that show a hole any bigger tha 20' at best..
If you have a pic, not a diagram, I'd like to see it...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by backinblack
 


Black, I am sure you will agree.... Pure arrogance might have been a reason for no cameras..


I'd say it would be more like pure stupidity and hard to imagine even from them..



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Show us a picture of this hole so we can measure it, and find out its within a foot of everyones guess


The floors collapsed because of damage beneath it ?? Really, if the plane hit there , there wouldn't BE any floors to collapse.

The central mass breached itself, and the walls, nice physics you got there.

Funny how your 2 Pentagon vids show SOMETHING coming in at LEVEL to the ground,, no change in vertical at all !!

As dereks would say , Just another truster Lie !



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


Sorry...I admit, I am setting a trap.....but, for posterity:


He says there is NO EVIDENCE OF A JET WHATSOEVER...


I repeat....(AND< I know this VERY well, be forewarned...)...

SHOW the forum this "evidence", directly from the CNN Reporter Jamie McIntyre. Transcripts, and/or video.

MAKE SURE THAT what you "interpreted" hasn't been put through a "conspiracy theorist's" filter, when spewing it as you did, in you post.

Let the readers listen, view, and decide the context and relevance of Mr. Jamie McIntyre's actual comments, and stated impressions....as he was ON SCENE that morning, at the Pentagon.

Let's not cloud the issue with the false "interpretations" of his comments, as you have presented, in your posts.....



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Stupid...yes!.. Caused by arrogance.. yep!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 



edit on 8-2-2011 by GrinchNoMore because: doubled



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join