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: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by lambros56
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I dont go to " conspiracy sites " so i dont know the guy you mention.
On the research i`ve done.....i dont believe the original planes with the original passengers hit the Pentagon.


If you've ever quoted the "Thermitic material found in the WTC dust" then you do know who he is- he's one of the people who co-wrote the report along with David Ray Griffin.

So are you saying Dr. Legge is mistaken in his research or are you saying he's a disinformation agent? If either is the case then doesn't that put the "thermitic material" claim into question?


so should we take this as your admission that thermite or nano thermite was used in the demolition of WTC1,2 and 7?



Look, I can appreciate you diligence on this subject. As quite a few people have pointed out, us "truthers" fall into quite a few different categories. We all have different points of contention. The one thing we all agree on is not everything in the OS makes sense, so we have some questions. I think it's very possible that some of what we were told isn't true. I don't believe it was holograms, mini nukes, DEWs, or Oprah OTR.




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
LOL IM so fing fed up whith all this i mean 911 is prolly one the most important conpirsys as of late and im tierd of the bickering im stepping out for while
brovo disinfo agents! brovo angent provacatours you sucesfluly got me off the freaking hook! bye bye and have fun geting paid to drag people who are trying to sift through this mess in circles hahaha so long 911 fourm

for now
-jplaysguitar



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


i disagree respectfully, if it in fact was a 757 then where is the engine? where is the wing impact marks? why is it that there is only an big hole in the side where the "plane" hit where is all the debris? where is the black box? an most of all why is there only 2.7 seconds of video that do not show a plane but a cyclindrical "missle" like objeect crusing into the side of the pentagon?

good luck with this one!!!! dont believe everything u are told!!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
As others have said, I will need proof. There is no evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon. There are some supposed pictures of plane debris, none of it conclusively showing the pictures were taken at the Pentagon. There were at least 85 working cameras that day pointing at the Pentagon and not one video showing anything hitting the building, only the explosion. The movie National Security Alert Sensitive Information is a great documentary that focuses strictly on the Pentagon attack. I suggest everyone watch that film.


If you are going to brush off all existing photographic evidence with such thoughtless irreverence, then what magical proof could any of the pentagon footage possibly contain that you'd ever accept it without likewise brushing it off?

I am not brushing off 'evidence', I have put more thought and time into 9/11 than most. Most of the parts are so small they can be picked up by hand. The other photos of bigger parts are close ups that could have been taken anywhere, better yet put there. It is weird how a plane supposedly traveling at 590 mph can crash and not damage the lawn and cause outward explosion patterns. It is weird how it supposedly hit light poles traveling at 590 mph, knocking a light pole into a cab traveling at 45 mph and cause not a scratch on the hood, not even damage to the window frame. The same driver who's wife works for the FBI and admits he "is in on it". Nearly all witnesses admit they never actually saw the plane hit, just the explosion. I will accept a plane hit the building when they decide to release the nearly 100 other videos. Why won't they release them? Why the deception? We have clear videos of the WTC getting hit, but not the pentagon. Why are they hiding it? Because they have something to hide, otherwise they would release the tapes. Watch the video I mentioned, it explains that incident in better detail.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by budaruskie
 



Let me get this straight. Believing that the Pentagon, D.C., and America in general would actually use the weapons systems that it spent billions if not trillions on creating is illogical...that's your story?


Its not illogical, per se. It simply avoids logical examination. There's no need to investigate your assumption since in your worldview your assumption is without form or limits. It can adapt to any challenge because it has no foundational limits.

Your uber government can intercept and neutralize any moving object at a whim, and failure to do so is only confirmation that the system was nullified by the "powers that be" for nefarious purposes. And of course, this uber government, once established, can now move about all branches of the conspiracy; performing miracles, perverting witnesses, corrupting officials and manipulating common citizens into acts of murder and treason on a biblical scale.


My "uber gov't" has a proven track record of intercepting planes in the U.S., in fact the only failures I've ever known of occurred on 9/11. Look it up.

BTW you should head on over to dictionary.com and look up the word irony. It best describes your last couple of posts.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
My issue with flight 77 is the following:

1) Lack of video. There was plenty of video confiscated and never released. What could possibly be so secret that they would hide that video?

2) There's virtually no airplane remnants at the site. Other than a stray scrap here and there, there is nothing left.

3) There is no damage where the wings would have hit the building.

4) On the inside of the 3rd ring...in between rings 3 and 4, there is a perfectly round hole that appears to be 8-10 feet in diameter. A commercial airliner is NOT rigid enough to penetrate 3 full layers and leave a nice, perfect hole on the inside of the 3rd ring. It simply would never had made it that far.

5) The area where "flight 77 hit" was recently renovated and "fortified" to prevent against such attacks. It seems to me, if you are going to "fortify" a building as critical as the Pentagon, at the very least, it would hardened enough to prevent a commercial airliner from fully penetrating 3 rings!

6) The official flight data released doesn't hold water. At the speed, altitude and rate of descent indicated within that flight data, it would have the aircraft passing over the light poles at an altitude of 300-400 ft....much higher than the light poles.

7) The "Muslim Extremest" that piloted that plane was one of the worst, if not the worst pilot of the bunch. He couldn't even handle a Cessna. To "hand fly" an airliner, and make the smooth, descending turns he made, and hit his target dead on, without ever scraping the ground, would be a one-in-a-million shot. Get yourself a copy of MS Flight Simulator and try it. Try flying the exact same flight path, and hitting the side of the Pentagon dead on, without bouncing off the ground. Oh, and you only get one shot.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



My "uber gov't" has a proven track record of intercepting planes in the U.S., in fact the only failures I've ever known of occurred on 9/11. Look it up.

BTW you should head on over to dictionary.com and look up the word irony. It best describes your last couple of posts.


Well, that and those thousands of planes filled with coc aine, grass and God only know what else that have been penetrating our airspace for decades even with your hyper-vigilant defense system intact and ready to pounce at a moments notice.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by budaruskie
 



My "uber gov't" has a proven track record of intercepting planes in the U.S., in fact the only failures I've ever known of occurred on 9/11. Look it up.

BTW you should head on over to dictionary.com and look up the word irony. It best describes your last couple of posts.


Well, that and those thousands of planes filled with coc aine, grass and God only know what else that have been penetrating our airspace for decades even with your hyper-vigilant defense system intact and ready to pounce at a moments notice.


Corruption does run deep...many of those planes you speak of were C-130's that flew to Mena, Arkansas. But that's a different thread on a different topic. Regardless, get in a plane (doesn't have to be passenger jet) and fly towards D.C., let all of us know what happens. Are you going to actually back up your arguments or address mine? You seem content to keep placing softballs on a tee for me to crush out of the park...pretty weak.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
 

so should we take this as your admission that thermite or nano thermite was used in the demolition of WTC1,2 and 7?


Nowhere in the thermite report does it say this is how the WTC buildings were destroyed. Please, point that section out to me, because the version of the report I read simply went into great detail describing only the material itself.

Now how about answering my question- do you or do you not accept Dr. Legge's findings?


Look, I can appreciate you diligence on this subject. As quite a few people have pointed out, us "truthers" fall into quite a few different categories. We all have different points of contention. The one thing we all agree on is not everything in the OS makes sense, so we have some questions. I think it's very possible that some of what we were told isn't true. I don't believe it was holograms, mini nukes, DEWs, or Oprah OTR.


That's not the point of Dr. Legge's podcast. His point is that just because you have issues with some parts of the 9/11 commission report it doesn't give you license to dismiss the entire report in knee jerk reflex, especially when it requires you to make up all sorts of paranoid crap to fill in the blanks of your own alternative version.

Why can't there be a conspiracy IN ADDITION TO flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? They cancel each other out only in your own mind.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



Corruption does run deep...

So they're all "in on it" - knew you would go to that well pretty soon.

many of those planes you speak of were C-130's that flew to Mena, Arkansas.

Uh, what do you many? According to you either they all were or else they were intercepted - remember, before 9/11 your imaginary hyper government intercepted each and every plane!

But that's a different thread on a different topic. Regardless, get in a plane (doesn't have to be passenger jet) and fly towards D.C., let all of us know what happens.

Just did three weeks ago, landed changed planes and kept going, no big deal. In fact the plane flew almost over the Pentagon, no SAMs, no scrambled F-16, no anti-aircraft fire. In fact, didn't a small plane land or crash on the White House lawn in the mid 1990's? Where was your uber government? Did they just start up in 2000 or something?

Are you going to actually back up your arguments or address mine? You seem content to keep placing softballs on a tee for me to crush out of the park...pretty weak.

I am waiting for an actual argument, not just a constant repetition of denial.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Is there a transcript?

I'm not listening to 80 minutes of audio, I don't have the time.
I can read WAY faster, then people can blow wind.

Really though, all I need to know....do they talk about "wing in ground effect" or "WIG"?

If so what minute/second(s) in the interview?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
He's bought and paid for my the government. NO F**KING WAY DID AN 737 HIT THE PENTAGON. LOOK AT THE PICTURES FOR YOURSELF DIPSH*TS! WHERE'D THE MASSIVE ENGINES GO? THERE ARE NO HOLES OR EVEN DAMAGE FROM THEM, YET THEY *POOF* DISAPPEARED? F**K OFF!

Yes I'm mad....because everyone who believes that a plane hit the pentagon is an idiot with their blinders on.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
I am not brushing off 'evidence', I have put more thought and time into 9/11 than most. Most of the parts are so small they can be picked up by hand. The other photos of bigger parts are close ups that could have been taken anywhere, better yet put there. It is weird how a plane supposedly traveling at 590 mph can crash and not damage the lawn and cause outward explosion patterns.


So how many crash sites have you analyzed that you'd know how a plane should or should not behave when it hits a building? Or are you simply making assumptions up based on, well, nothing whatsoever?


It is weird how it supposedly hit light poles traveling at 590 mph, knocking a light pole into a cab traveling at 45 mph and cause not a scratch on the hood, not even damage to the window frame. The same driver who's wife works for the FBI and admits he "is in on it".


He admitted no such thing.


Nearly all witnesses admit they never actually saw the plane hit, just the explosion.


Baloney. I just finished posting a large list of eyewitneses and many of the specifically saw the plane flying right into the Pentagon. It's the whole reason why I mentioned witnesses like landscaper Omar Campo, an immigrant from El Salvador who was tending the lawn right across the street.

""It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."

Not to mention architect Terrance Keane, who was packing to move and saw the plane hit the Pentagon out his window:

"I saw this very, very large passenger jet," said the architect, who had been packing for a move. "It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere. . . . It was very sort of surreal.""

It's the whole reason why I post such material- so that you know what is actual evidence and what is simply paranoid drivel. How can you say you "put more time into 9/11 than most" when you didn't even know that much?


I will accept a plane hit the building when they decide to release the nearly 100 other videos. Why won't they release them? Why the deception?


Nowhere has it evern been shown that there is any further usable video to even release. How do you know...other than what you read on some damned fool conspiracy web site...whether these cameras were actually in a position to catch any of the plane that came in? Seriously, what good will it do you to see video of a bunch of people standing around in a parking lot looking at something off camera?

Please keep in mind I'm not here to insult you or to make fun of you. I'm here to illustrate that all these factoids your quoting aren't coming from you, but from whatever damned fool conspircy web site you're going to for all your information and they're simply pulling your leg. Did you ever even hear of the eyewitness accounts of either Omar Campo or Terrance Keane before now?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xterrain
He's bought and paid for my the government. NO F**KING WAY DID AN 737 HIT THE PENTAGON. LOOK AT THE PICTURES FOR YOURSELF DIPSH*TS! WHERE'D THE MASSIVE ENGINES GO? THERE ARE NO HOLES OR EVEN DAMAGE FROM THEM, YET THEY *POOF* DISAPPEARED? F**K OFF!

Yes I'm mad....because everyone who believes that a plane hit the pentagon is an idiot with their blinders on.


Obviously you were there that day, no rational person would be so resolved without being a personal witness to the event (or lack thereof).

If I were to venture some guess relative to your interrogatories I would think the engines probably landed up inside the building, and I would refer you to the massive collapse of roof and wall sections which, of course, suggest something punched a massive hole in the side of the building and removed the support systems of the aforementioned wall and roof areas. Oh, and all the human remains, the plane wreckage on the lawn, the eyewitnesses to the impact and the data recording devices.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I am afraid I must agree with Good Ol' Dave on this one, facts are facts and proposing extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence. The simplest explanation is usually the truth.

But, what I have said from day one is that the government knew 911 was going to happen and they let it happen.

And lately, I am getting evidence that they were directly involved in the training and execution of the whole event.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xterrain
He's bought and paid for my the government. NO F**KING WAY DID AN 737 HIT THE PENTAGON. LOOK AT THE PICTURES FOR YOURSELF DIPSH*TS! WHERE'D THE MASSIVE ENGINES GO? THERE ARE NO HOLES OR EVEN DAMAGE FROM THEM, YET THEY *POOF* DISAPPEARED? F**K OFF!

Yes I'm mad....because everyone who believes that a plane hit the pentagon is an idiot with their blinders on.


DING DING DING there it is!!!!

Finally! Someone is accusing Dr. Legge of being "bought and paid for by the government". I knew sooner or later some truther zealot or another would accuse him of being some secret gov't disinformation agent just like they do everyone and everything else that refutes what they want to believe. This, despite the fact that Dr Legge is the same guy who wrote the report stating there was thermitic material found in the WTC dust.

Please, explain to me how you're going to convince any independent investigation that there's a conspiracy afoot when you're behaving like quasi-religious fanatics who want them to be true?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by network dude
 

so should we take this as your admission that thermite or nano thermite was used in the demolition of WTC1,2 and 7?


Nowhere in the thermite report does it say this is how the WTC buildings were destroyed. Please, point that section out to me, because the version of the report I read simply went into great detail describing only the material itself.

Now how about answering my question- do you or do you not accept Dr. Legge's findings?


not very good with logic huh? Well let me break it down for you. You argued that if someone disagreed with Dr. Legge's point of believing that an airplane hit the pentagon, then they must automatically disagree with the thremite report co-authored by him. Call me crazy, but wouldn't that work the other way too? I am not stupid enough to actually believe that, but being that irony is one of my favorite things, along with tulips, I do like to point it out. As far as his findings, he has an opinion much like many others do.


Look, I can appreciate you diligence on this subject. As quite a few people have pointed out, us "truthers" fall into quite a few different categories. We all have different points of contention. The one thing we all agree on is not everything in the OS makes sense, so we have some questions. I think it's very possible that some of what we were told isn't true. I don't believe it was holograms, mini nukes, DEWs, or Oprah OTR.



That's not the point of Dr. Legge's podcast. His point is that just because you have issues with some parts of the 9/11 commission report it doesn't give you license to dismiss the entire report in knee jerk reflex, especially when it requires you to make up all sorts of paranoid crap to fill in the blanks of your own alternative version.

Why can't there be a conspiracy IN ADDITION TO flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? They cancel each other out only in your own mind.


My statement had nothing to do with his podcast, it had to do with your wording in the OP. Anyone who doesn't sit down and shut up when Dave is talking about what really happened must be a truther and therefore fits in the same box as the no-planers and mini-nukers. This "paranoid crap" I speak of is silly things like being amazed at how building 7 fell, and being very confused at how some of the wreckage of flight 93 was miles away in a lake, but it crashed vertically into a hole that swallowed up 98% of the plane. Or how that hole was made in the outer wall of the 3rd ring. Or why on earth there is still footage of the flight 77 crash that has not been released. I am not claiming George Bush did it, or even that any of that didn't happen, I just have questions about it. Only a complete dumbass would sit back and never question anything just because he was told it was truth. I have questions, and you and your posse have yet to give me any answers that I can buy with 100% confidence. It's not your fault, but it is the way it is.



edit on 8-2-2011 by network dude because: fixed quote

edit on 8-2-2011 by network dude because: speller



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   


where is the wing impact marks?


A very good question Covert PTB, which Legge and Stutt answer with Figure 5 in their .pdf. This is a photo of the outer wall with a " near horizontal impact mark", consisting of a line of bare wall where the paint has come off ! So the wing hit here and did no more damage than chip the paint !?

Figure 2 shows a camera pole with damage, again nothing more than chipped paint. Figure 7 shows a taxi damaged by a "felled and severed light pole" - the pole seems to have come out of it worse than the taxi, somehow, it doesn't show the base of the pole ( which would eliminate the possibility of it being one of the mysteriously unbolted ones), and there are 3 more light poles still standing behind it. Regardless of their strange light pole map they don't specifically identify this pole either.

Warren Stutt is conspicuous by his absence from the forum where he usually posts, where he and Legge have been robustly debunked.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by budaruskie
 



Corruption does run deep...

So they're all "in on it" - knew you would go to that well pretty soon.

many of those planes you speak of were C-130's that flew to Mena, Arkansas.

Uh, what do you many? According to you either they all were or else they were intercepted - remember, before 9/11 your imaginary hyper government intercepted each and every plane!

But that's a different thread on a different topic. Regardless, get in a plane (doesn't have to be passenger jet) and fly towards D.C., let all of us know what happens.

Just did three weeks ago, landed changed planes and kept going, no big deal. In fact the plane flew almost over the Pentagon, no SAMs, no scrambled F-16, no anti-aircraft fire. In fact, didn't a small plane land or crash on the White House lawn in the mid 1990's? Where was your uber government? Did they just start up in 2000 or something?

Are you going to actually back up your arguments or address mine? You seem content to keep placing softballs on a tee for me to crush out of the park...pretty weak.

I am waiting for an actual argument, not just a constant repetition of denial.

There is no way that any grown adult human being could have such terrible reading comprehension skills, so you must purposefully be misunderstanding what I say. You do it in virtually every post, when I know for a fact, that my posts are very easy to understand. I'm not going to continue to explain myself over and over again when I know this is just a game. You have no argument except that the benevolent gov't has no military defense, I must believe that planes can be seen by people but not by cameras, physical evidence need not be consistent with common sense or any historical precedent, all rules of criminal investigation can be disregarded as long as its the gov't doing it, only the eyewitnesses you like have credibility, on and on.

FACE IT, YOU HAVE NO REAL PROOF OF YOUR CASE!! That is what makes my case!! What you do have is a lot of questions to answer as to why the little bit of evidence that is available DOES NOT INDICATE A 757 HIT THE PENTAGON. You say it does, but if it did, people wouldn't question it like they do. Certainly, there'd be some crackpots out there, but by in large people would accept it. Hell, I'd accept it if you could just show me the video!



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join