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: 13
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Read the whole transcript. Then read his other reports. Then get back to me.

Ah heck, here's another one of his reports....

www.cnn.com...




MCINTYRE: In fact there were thousands of tiny pieces of the plane, and I personally photographed a piece of the fuselage and what appeared to be part of the cockpit.




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by backinblack
 



Read the whole transcript. Then read his other reports. Then get back to me.
Ah heck, here's another one of his reports....
www.cnn.com...


MCINTYRE: In fact there were thousands of tiny pieces of the plane, and I personally photographed a piece of the fuselage and what appeared to be part of the cockpit.


I still standby that quote of yours clearly shows he didn't think it was a plane..

And from your new link,

McINTYRE: The video isn't clear enough to convince the most ardent conspiracy theorists and there's still some mystery that surrounds the day. For instance, what happened to video from a hotel security camera nearby that sources tell CNN caught at least part of the attack. No one in the government even acknowledges that tape exists. Jamie McIntyre, CNN, the Pentagon.


He sure doesn't sound convinced to me..



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Your report is speaking more of the vertical supports that prevented more of the building from collapsing and does not address some of the weaknesses found in the original construction of the exterior wall.

And no, Im not disagreeing with the report. We were damned lucky that we didn't lose more people at the Pentagon that day.
edit on 8-2-2011 by vipertech0596 because: had to add



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 





It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.


Curious....he's talking about what appears to either be "cockpit windshield or other window from the PLANE" and you think he was saying it wasn't a plane.....

How is the weather in Bizzaroland tonight anyway?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave you've reached a new low....



I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from photographs that I have looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane (that hit the Pentagon). ... take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell because of explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God's sake.


~ Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret)
Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intel and Security Command
Former head of Imagery Interpretation



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by backinblack
 





It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.


Curious....he's talking about what appears to either be "cockpit windshield or other window from the PLANE" and you think he was saying it wasn't a plane.....

How is the weather in Bizzaroland tonight anyway?


lol, like there was no glass in the pentagon??
Sounds like all he saw was some glass if he can't decide between a cockpit window or other window..

Edit: Maybe one of the new Pentagon blast proof windows??
edit on 8-2-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
the ones of the rotor engines look suspicious to me im not saying any more i wil look into it further .
Thanks I wait breath bated



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
 

WTH? What are you talking about Dave? I didn't say anything about WTC7, your thread is about the Pentagon, and I didn't say anything about worshiping Loose Change.
What I said was that you made the comment that all truthers believe that it was a missile, or a drone, something else besides a plane. I said that is not true. Truthers have many different theories but they do have one thing in common and that is the idea that the OS is false and that there needs to be a new investigation.


You keep missing the point. Just WHY are there so many different theories? How is it that person A can watch the WTC collapse and see controlled demolitions, while person B watches the WTC collapse and sees lasers from outer space, while person C watches the WTC collapse and sees nukes in the basement, while person D watches the WTC collapse and sees hologram planes? It's all the exact same building falling.

I'll tell you right away why- Person A went to a web site that promotes controlled demolitions, person B went to a web site that promotes lasers from outer space, person C went to a web site that promotes nukes in the basement, while person D went to a web ite that promotes hologram planes. I can see right away this is happening because noone, and I do mean NOONE, ever remotely started talking about "missiles at the Pentagon" until that French crackpot Thierry Meyssan wrote a book claiming that a missile hit the Pentagon to make a quick buck off of gullible conspiracy theorists. If you subscribe to his missile claim then you necessarily are worshipping him regardless of whether you know you're doing it or not.

Personally, I think it's idiotic to go through all the work to shoot a cruise missile at the Pentagon, manufacture all kinds of fake aircraft wreckage, plant a fake black box and passenger remains, and send armies of disinformation agents all over creation to pretend to be eyewitnesses, all to get you to think it was a passenger jet when we know full well the conspirators were flinging passenger jets into buildings elsewhere. It's like it's an insult to their manhood for the truthers to admit that even a microbe of the 9/11 commission report might actually be correct.

This is the whole point of Dr. Legg's podcast to begin with- if you think there's a conspiracy, fine, but stick to the facts and don't be making stuff up.


In terms of your problem with Legge and truthers who don't agree with him on the pentagon. How hard is it to understand that thermite (and the WTC theory) are separate from the pentagon? I mean I'll listen all day to Mike Tyson explain to me how to box, but I won't listen to him tell me how to pick up women.


...and THAT is why you truthers are having so much trouble getting bystanders to take you seriously. Dr. Legg is presenting evidence showing that it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, and not only do you people refuse to believe it, you refuse to even listen to what he has to say. I myself would listen to Mike Tyson explain how to box AND how to pick up women, and I would decide afterwards whether what he said is credible or not.

The difference is that I pretty much know what Mike Tyson is going to say about picking up women while you don't know what Dr. Legg is going to say about flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Please explain to me why I shouldn't presume this is because you really don't care what it was that hit the Pentagon, just as long as it supports some sinister sounding conspiracy or another.
Dave. although I admire your insistence on relying on factual information instead of the next theory, opinion or consideration, you are fast off becoming a KoOk by continuing to try to reason with ko0kERy.

Think about it. It simply is not worth the effort.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I'm sorry but this....



does not equal this....




The damage doesnt even look like a huge commercial plane flew into it... As you can see, the top 2 floors of the Pentagon were still intact when it collapsed, and that further into the building was still standing. Which means the plane would LITERALLY have to be inches above the ground to make that collison which was literally impossible to do with novice training on 2-men personal aircrafts. ALSO, look at the WTC buildings and notice how the damage went through the entire building and burned everything inside, but the pentagon still had property still standing around the collision area...

Listen.....

There is a areason why the Pentagon is refusing to show footage, and there is a reason why they confiscated security footage from surrounding businesses... For whatever reason, they dont want you to know the full story, and that should raise alot of red flags for you.
edit on 9-2-2011 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by DIDtm
 


That would be to the left of impact area. If you look closely, there is a bunch of "stuff" lying all over the ground....those would be pieces of Flight 77.


Are you talking about the stuff all over the ground in this picture?


Or the lack of debris when comparing the same area in this picture?


If you zoom in on the second picture to the same area as the first picture....something looks a little different...
Namely the entire area.
What might have caused this?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by DIDtm
 


That would be to the left of impact area. If you look closely, there is a bunch of "stuff" lying all over the ground....those would be pieces of Flight 77.


Are you talking about the stuff all over the ground in this picture?


Or the lack of debris when comparing the same area in this picture?


If you zoom in on the second picture to the same area as the first picture....something looks a little different...
Namely the entire area.
What might have caused this?


NO ONE could look at that second pic and say "yep, a passenger plane hit there"..
It just wouldn't cross their mind..



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by DIDtm
 


That would be to the left of impact area. If you look closely, there is a bunch of "stuff" lying all over the ground....those would be pieces of Flight 77.


Are you talking about the stuff all over the ground in this picture?


Or the lack of debris when comparing the same area in this picture?


If you zoom in on the second picture to the same area as the first picture....something looks a little different...
Namely the entire area.
What might have caused this?


Now I'm confused. It's late. What is shown in your 1st photo above? Is that a post-impact photo of the alleged impact area? If so, where is the hole? How long after the alleged impact was that photo taken? Where did you get it?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


I think those photos are just showing further down from the collision site... Buy you should notice one thing about that 2nd photo... The utility poles are still standing... Supposedly, the plane flew at an angle and made contact just inches above the ground.. If so, the plane would of knocked over all those poles..
edit on 9-2-2011 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2011 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
reply to post by dubiousone
 


I think those photos are just showing further down from the collision site...


NO, the second pic IS the impact zone..

Can't you see the plane??



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
reply to post by dubiousone
 


I think those photos are just showing further down from the collision site...


NO, the second pic IS the impact zone..

Can't you see the plane??


You're right.. You can see the portion of the building that collapsed... Its a joke that some people actually believe in the original story... No matter how rediculous and physically impossible it sounds, people are just hardwired to believe it.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   
the "os" just doesn't add up. they found the wrong engine at the pentagon. the engine recovered was not from a 757. but the bottom line is that what is on the video footage of the incident doesn't reflect a plane crash, the five frames they give you doesn't show any plane. why confiscate video unless the video contradicts the official story? and i see no one has mentioned the removal of key evidence under a tarp by pentagon employees. What was the tarp for? What was the big square thing under it? Better get rid of it lest it to be determined its not a plane! Who am I even talking to? People dumb enough to believe what their government tells them i guess. And no I don't believe in every little conspiracy theory, but conspiracy seems to be what we have here.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by nrd101
the "os" just doesn't add up. they found the wrong engine at the pentagon. the engine recovered was not from a 757. but the bottom line is that what is on the video footage of the incident doesn't reflect a plane crash, the five frames they give you doesn't show any plane. why confiscate video unless the video contradicts the official story? and i see no one has mentioned the removal of key evidence under a tarp by pentagon employees. What was the tarp for? What was the big square thing under it? Better get rid of it lest it to be determined its not a plane! Who am I even talking to? People dumb enough to believe what their government tells them i guess. And no I don't believe in every little conspiracy theory, but conspiracy seems to be what we have here.


Aeronautical engineers have concluded that engine parts found at the Pentagon were indeed compatible with Rolls Royce RB 211 engines as fitted to AA 77 :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Who are your " they " who you say concluded otherwise and what are their qualifications ?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, how you feeling? You winning the good fight? We will fall in line one of these days dave, but for now.. re investigate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by nrd101
the "os" just doesn't add up. they found the wrong engine at the pentagon. the engine recovered was not from a 757. but the bottom line is that what is on the video footage of the incident doesn't reflect a plane crash, the five frames they give you doesn't show any plane. why confiscate video unless the video contradicts the official story? and i see no one has mentioned the removal of key evidence under a tarp by pentagon employees. What was the tarp for? What was the big square thing under it? Better get rid of it lest it to be determined its not a plane! Who am I even talking to? People dumb enough to believe what their government tells them i guess. And no I don't believe in every little conspiracy theory, but conspiracy seems to be what we have here.


Aeronautical engineers have concluded that engine parts found at the Pentagon were indeed compatible with Rolls Royce RB 211 engines as fitted to AA 77 :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Who are your " they " who you say concluded otherwise and what are their qualifications ?


But John W. Brown, a spokesman for Rolls-Royce (Indianapolis) contacted by journalist Christopher Bollyn, said, when asked if one of the engine parts was from a Rolls Royce manufactured engine, perhaps the AE3007H used in the Global Hawk:

“It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.”

See the thorough debunking of "CatHerder"'s post in the original ATS thread on whether a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
at:
www.kasjo.net...

I would prefer to trust what Rolls Royce said about its own engines rather than what a few engineers, biased by their commitment to the official story of 9/11, would conclude!



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


That old attempted misdirection about John Brown is also dealt with in the Aerospace article I previously linked to :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Just have to scroll down a bit but you will see that John Brown was a spokesman, not an engineer, for Allison Engines at Indianapolis where they make the AE 3007 H engine. It just so happens that Allison Engines became a subsidiary of Rolls Royce in 1995. Rolls Royce RB 211 engines were manufactured at Derby, England so there is absolutely no reason why a spokesman for Allison Engines in Idianapolis would be familiar with them.

This is what gets me about " trutherism ", there seems to be far more effort going into diversion and deception than ever goes into actually establishing the real truth.



new topics




 
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join