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: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I got up to the part where they were discussing how ’conspiracy theorists’ could ‘normalize’ themselves by accepting at least some parts of the Official Conspiracy Theory in relation to the Pentagon explosion; the ‘some’ referred to being that a humungous passenger airliner actually did hit the Pentagon, leaving no recognizable trace of itself, but hardly damaging the lawn or building, and I burst out laughing and turned it off.

I have been suspicious of the OCT from day one, and one of the main reasons is the inanity of trying to believe that a hijacked plane would have got anywhere near Washington DC, one half an hour after it had become massively evident that terrorists were using hijacked planes to ‘attack America’.

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 later, when I finally saw images of the Pentagon damage, it fully reinforced my original impression, because it was easy to see I was looking at evidence that a huge plane DIDN’T hit the Pentagon.

The reality is, reasonable people will never be able to ‘normalize’ in the sense these people want, because the basic facts can never be obliterated.




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


"...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."

Well first off Dave, you don't know what I believe. Go back thru all my posts and show me where I said it was a missile. I'll wait...go ahead.
What's the matter? Didn't find it did you? You know why? Because I never said it was a missile. I tend to lean toward the idea that it was a plane. But I'm still going to ask questions until I'm satisfied, one way or the other. The difference between you and me is that I ask questions of my government while you just say "Thank you sir! Can I have another?".

Take a look at this quote from you:
.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.

How do you know how many truthers have listened to it? You say truthers need to use facts and critical thinking yet you turn right around and generalize about the whole truther movement without knowing the facts. Or is that your definition of truther? A truther must believe that a missile hit the pentagon. What do you call those people who believe in CD at the WTC, but believe a plane hit the pentagon? A half-truther? Or a person that believes the OS except that FLT 93 was shot down? Is that person a quarter-truther?

YOU are the one who said all truthers believed in the missile theory. All I, and other posters were saying is that not all truthers subscribe "blindly" to that theory.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


You know network dude, I think we can give it up. Good ol Dave believes that anybody who questions the OS MUST also believe that aliens brought down the WTC using Butterball turkeys while playing Bowling for Dollars. They also have to believe that it was a missile that weaved its way through pentagon defenses consisting of phasers, photon torpedos, and a time warp machine. And that said defenses were ordered to stand down by Dick Cheney's three-legged dog.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
9/11 was a joint operation by Mossad and the U.S. government. It's hard to imagine why whatever hit the Pentagon was intentionally edited out of the surveillance tape, if, in fact, it would have reinforced the official government-sanctioned story by the mainstream media. However, who knows? Stranger things have happened!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
You know Good Ol' Dave, you like to belittle "truthers", yet you yourself are a "truther", for you have just posted some truth in regards to 911.

But, You are also a disinformation agent, for you never refute or answer or try to explain the obvious fact that the United States Government knew 911 was going to happen, and the United States Government allowed 911 to happen.

I agree with you Good Ol' Dave, paid disinformation agent that you are, that planes did indeed hit the pentagon and the twin towers, but I also realize that the most damning evidence of government complicity regarding 911 is like cryptonite to your Superman Ego.

You want Truth Dave, Well You Can't Handle The Truth!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by NWOwned
Yes but what if the evidence, 'the actual evidence in front of us' is Tainted, Planted and/or Missing? What then?


...then you need to show why it's tainted, planted, or missing, rather than just making up excuses that it's tainted, planted, or missing and then run away giggling.

We have hordes of eyewitnesses all saying it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, from motorists, people working in nearby buildings, and even an immigrant frm El Salvador tending the lawn across the street. Please point out how these people are "tainted, planted, or missing".


Then you might get a bunch of people examining Boeing 757 plane parts in a burned out cavity of the Pentagon thinking that indeed, "the evidence shows" a 757 crashed here! When really it only shows there were Boeing parts in the cavity.


Then you'd need to show an alternative reason how the aircraft parts...as well as the remains of the passengers...suddenly showed up in the middle of the Pentagon all in a blink of an eye.


How can we trust that anything we examine or could examine if given the chance hasn't been 'doctored' in some way? 'The evidence shows that it did'... Doctored evidence frequently shows what it intends to and not that it has been doctored.


It seems to me you're not wondering whether it had been doctored or not. You're insisting that it was doctored and you're demanding proof that it wasn't doctored. With a mindset like that, you'll likewise think all the proof that shows it wasn't doctored is doctored too. This isn't research. This is circular logic in that you're repeating the original claim in different terms in order to prove itself. If the 9/11 commission ever attempted to pull a stunt as dishonest as that, you and I both know you'd be all over them like Charlie Sheen on coc aine.

This gets back to the original statement. If you want to make the accusation that it's been staged then you need to do more than simply claim it's been staged. You need to show that it was in fact staged, and up until now, you people have done nothing but manufacture more unsubstanciated accusations to back up your prior accusations.


The guy I'd like to talk to first would be the assistant or page or whatever, you know the guy described in the Mineta testimony who Mineta said would periodically come in and say to Cheney like: "The object is 200 miles out, it's 100 miles out, it's 50 miles out... Does the order still stand?"


This is just drivel coming from those damned fool conspiracy web sites. The full testimony from Mineta to the 9/11 commission...which is still sitting on Youtube the last I checked...showed that he subsequently learned it was a shootdown order they were discussing. Thsi is Mineta's own testimony and it cannot be refuted. Those damned fool web sites don't want you to know that so they always snip that part off.


Dave, while I have my doubts about the official OS, I do have a much greater faith in your ironclad grip on it (that's a good thing) and about it and I don't think you yourself are trying to "snow" me on it but I think you go a little too far on some points.

I really do see a problem, a difficulty, with the *possibility* that some of the 'evidence' may be false and like I said 'doctored'. I'm not saying it is doctored (in the way you suggest I do or demanding proof that it is not but because of my questions and doubts I am actively looking for proof yes. I am suspicious and do wonder just how much evidence could quell that.), hell if I had concrete evidence that it was yes I'd be saying it. Yes I'd be all over that like Sheen on coc aine and hookers! (luv that line btw) But I'm for now really looking and really really concerned about the situation that IF the OS is false then there must be false evidence being seen and presented right now as true, and that even you are potentially repeating to us because of your obvious support of it. (The OS etc.)

It's a problem knowing whether or not what is presented is true, well I got a problem with it, you, not so much.

(I will concede that my lack of faith in the OS does seem to imply on some level that I think aspects of it must therefore be 'doctored' but I wouldn't exactly call that insisting, as in I have the 'evidence' for it in my possession. So far I do not. It simply follows that if you think there might be something up, if you have a suspicion, you are and will be thinking in doctoring terms. But there's nothing wrong with that kind of scrutiny.)

All I am saying is we are and have been told things that make up the Official Narrative, isn't there a teensy little *potential* problem that some of that may be false and deliberate lying and like how would we know the difference?

It could be like there was an incident at the hen house and we see the fox about it and he says it was the coyote, I dunno. The answers and evidence we been getting we *might* be getting from people who *may* have had a hand in the doing of it.

I don't really go to any damn fool conspiracy websites, I don't even go (from my perspective) to any damn fool official story websites either. What I find off putting from you is being lumped in with "you people" and you implying that I can't think or say any damn fool things all by myself and need like to have gone to a separate source to get them to help me with that. Give me some credit man.

I like your no nonsense approach. Maybe if I don't know something you could correct me and I can ask you too, and pose the odd scenario to get your take on it in the interest of finding out what really happened.

Like with the Mineta thing being a shoot down order, can you tell me where the plane coming in and getting closer, was getting '200, 100, 50 miles out' etc. to? What plane was it and what was it reported as to being 50 miles from?

And, that hole in the C Ring, does that hole look anything to you like a missile hole?

Also, I just post here casually and don't think I am any kind of reseacher, but if get more serious about finding some evidence or witnesses (like you foreign gardener) about some thing like a bomb in the Pentagon going off prior to the strike, like reports of bombs going off prior to the WTC plane hits, would you look at that 'evidence' objectively too?

Peace



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

I'll go on this:
1) As bad as plane accidents get, none have discentegraded. Now you got 4 in one day. hmmmmm
2) No building has ever fallen in on its own footprint from something hitting it from the side OR FIRE. Sorry but it should have fell in the street, on other buildings (sorry the debris pattern that day did not show it on other buildings) in a wide array. Didn't happen. That goes completely against physics. Because of this alone, the families should have been allowed to sue the WTC owners because if the OS is the only correct story, then the owners of this fallable complex should have been sue as well as put up on OSHA charges. To this day, they are protected by the government (US) and not allowed to be sued. Sorry but has the government stepped in when the subways crash and shoddy oversight is to blame?
Don't know either way, but hey people choose to believe whom they wish. In the end, someone is lying and unfortunately, Americans paid the ultimate price for that lie. Just look around. In the end, once again, it was not The People that were protected, but The Corporation. Please keep that in mind.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You are using the point made by Dr Legge about him thinking that a plane hit the Pentagon to try and discredit his work into the presence of Thermitic material at Ground Zero. Double Jeopardy argument for simpletons.

EPIC FAIL. BUSTED.

The Revenant.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I really didnt doubt that the plane hit the building. I saw photos of bodies and plane parts. I didnt have any trouble believing a plane was what hit the building.

I always wondered why those photos never got more play. I think because a) they really were pretty gruesome, and I suppose people wanted to be sensitive to the families, and b) people really do want to protect their own beliefs/claims. I think it is really hard for people who invested a lot into denying it was an airplane to admit they were wrong.

911research.wtc7.net...



edit on 8-2-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: to add the link to the photos and To retract the statement about the body being strapped to the seat. I just looked at the bodies again, and they were in a seated position, but not still in their seats.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by covertPTB
 


Check this

Plenty of pictures of jet engine parts recovered from inside Pentagon

[url=http://]http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml[/url

You are aware that when a large jet aircraft crashes into building most of the debris will wind up INSIDE the
building (if large enough with sufficent structural integrity)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I really didnt doubt that the plane hit the building. I saw photos of bodies and plane parts. I didnt have any trouble believing a plane was what hit the building.

I always wondered why those photos never got more play. I think because a) they really were pretty gruesome, and I suppose people wanted to be sensitive to the families, and b) people really do want to protect their own beliefs/claims. I think it is really hard for people who invested a lot into denying it was an airplane to admit they were wrong.

911research.wtc7.net...


How do such pictures prove anything?

It always amazes me how pictures and videos are recognized as absolutely worthless on the UFO forum yet they are somehow unquestionable 'proof' when it comes to things like the 9/11 OS. Photos and videos can be faked, evidence can be tampered with and planted. It's not at all the proof its claimed to be. Im not saying this IS the case BTW, I'm saying it COULD be. We don't know, and that's the point. There is certainly grounds for suspicion.

If the stakes are high enough - and they were - then I wouldn't rule any action, no matter how disgusting, beyond elements within the US Gov.



edit on 8-2-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: to add the link to the photos and To retract the statement about the body being strapped to the seat. I just looked at the bodies again, and they were in a seated position, but not still in their seats.

edit on 8-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by General.Lee
 


Typical ignorant truther nonsense,,,,,

Plenty of aircraft debris at Pentagon

You are aware that a large jet aircraft hitting a building most of the debris winds up INSIDE THE BUILDING!

Aircraft debris at Pentagon

Landing gear

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Jet engines

www.aerospaceweb.org...


Penetrate 3 rings????

Maybe not aware that on the 2 lowest levels of the Pentagon there are no interior walls between the exterior E
ring and the C ring wall

Once through the exterior wall is nothing between it (except occasional columns) and the C ring


The Pentagon crash punctured walls both in the building's outer facade and in walls facing an interior courtyard. The most prominent interior puncture is in the inward-facing wall of the C-ring, and is referred to as the C-ring punch-out hole.

The C-ring punch-out hole is frequently cited as evidence that a dense "warhead", from a missile or cruise missile, was used in the attack. According to the argument, the object that produced the hole had to travel through five masonry walls: The facade and inward-facing wall of the E-ring, two walls of the D-ring, and two walls of the C-ring. That would seem to be too much material for any component from a passenger jet to penetrate.

This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Pentagon's design. In fact, the light wells between the C- and D-ring and D- and E-ring are only three stories deep. The first and second stories span the distance between the Pentagon's facade and the punctured C-ring wall, which faces a ground-level courtyard. There are no masonry walls in this space, only load-bearing columns. Thus it would be possible for an aircraft part that breached the facade to travel through this area on the ground floor, miss the columns, and puncture the C-ring wall without having encountering anything more than unsubstantial gypsum walls and furniture in-between.


As for being "reinforced" - new blast resistant windows and a Kevlar anti fragmentation liner inserted in the wall
was designed against truck bomb exploding outside. Not resistant against jet airliner crashing building.....



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I respect your opinion and appreciate the response, but you are very wrong about some things. The cab driver, Lloyd England, admits in the video National Security Alert Sensitive Information that he was in on it. That is a fact, so obviously you did not watch the video I am talking about or you would know that. I don't get my information from "garbage conspiracy sites", but from the professionals that are coming out and blowing the whistle, such as Jon Cole and many others from ae911truth.org as well as many, many other people who are credible.
You also failed to explain how a plane traveling at 590 mph can hit a light pole, strike the cab and embed itself through the windshield and not even scratch the hood.

How did that happen? Those eyewitness quotes all said they saw a plane, which I am not disputing, but none of them you listed said they saw it actually make impact. Many saw the plane flying low, but nobody actually saw the impact, only the fire and explosion.
I am not making "baseless" assumptions. Have you ever looked at what a plane looks like when it crashes into a building? Because it should look something like this:





Also, when you look at the impact locations on the WTC towers, you can see the outline of the plane and the angle at which it hit. You cannot see the same thing at the Pentagon. Here is what the Pentagon looked like before the roof even collapsed:


Here is what a real plane crash debris field looks like:








Notice how big some of the parts are? The Pentagon does not share those similarities.
That is just a few examples. You say you don't mean to insult me, but when you say our information is "paranoid driven" and we get our information from "damned fool conspiracy sites", it is insulting. We just want the truth and a REAL investigation. We spent nearly $80 million trying to figure out if Bill Clinton fooled around with Ms. Lewinsky and spent not even $15 million on the biggest attack on America. Now that, is insulting. Here is that interview with Lloyd England's adimission that you say doesn't exist:

www.youtube.com...

These things cannot be ignored or passed off as conspiracy garbage.
edit on 8-2-2011 by Merlin Lawndart because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2011 by Merlin Lawndart because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Duh?

Of course it was a plane.

My question is...how did the Pentagon...one of the most secure and protected buildings in the nation if not the world (known buildings that is) allow for a plane to hit it?

You would think they had some sort of anti-air defense up and running by then.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
This is disinformation, used to try and create chaos and to slow down progress of putting togther the truth. A missile hit the pentagon and it is proven, another cruise missile was the pennsylvania crater. The planes did not crash there!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I'm good with planes, I always have been...

WTC 1 - plane / controlled demo
WTC 2 - plane / controlled demo
Pentagon - missile
Shanksville - your guess is as good as mine
WTC 7 - Controlled demolition

NORAD - stand down

GWB - reading a book about a goat

"This is an awful lot of real world (snip) to be going on during an exercise"

"Sir the plane is 10 miles out. Does the order still stand"

Oh, you've heard this all before...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tulkor
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Duh?

Of course it was a plane.

My question is...how did the Pentagon...one of the most secure and protected buildings in the nation if not the world (known buildings that is) allow for a plane to hit it?

You would think they had some sort of anti-air defense up and running by then.


Perhaps you are not aware how close planes routinely pass the Pentagon to and fro Reagan National Airport :-

www.zimbio.com...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomeCheesyUsername
This is disinformation, used to try and create chaos and to slow down progress of putting togther the truth. A missile hit the pentagon and it is proven, another cruise missile was the pennsylvania crater. The planes did not crash there!


What is your proof of a missile at the Pentagon ? Please name one witness to a missile and/or point out one bolt or anything else from a missile recovered from there . Thanks.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
The air defenses in that area alone would of took out any "plane" that would of been flying that low and close to the pentagon. There clearly was no evidence of the engines doing any damage to the building. It WAS a missle fired by the idiots that concocted this whole deal to murder our own people in cold blood. . This guys a real peice of work. I am no "scienentist" but i am not an idiot either. Go home Dr.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
everyone from Canada knows it's Bull# that a so called "757" flew into the pentagon. Eye witness's said it wasn't a plane, till FBI came and they changed there stories, C'mon, how can you miss a 757 fly over your head? they aren't remote control planes? I do believe it could be a plane, IMO I think it was a UAV plane, cause for 1, a planes "nose" couldn't do that much damage and go threw all that cement wall. The front of the plane is so sensitive, it's just preposterous, It wasn't a 757. Plus the hole is to small, in the building for a 757, or unless the plane had no wings? oh wait I got the perfect theory for it, It was FIRE WORKS!! that blew that hole, since they seem to kill every thing else..

p.s where the hell was the US air force? after a first plane crash's into a building, fighter jets should be in the sky before it even happened, and shot it down? but nope, after 3 buildings got hit, still no fighter jets to protect America,
Obviously it was rigged and meant to happen, guess all the air force had the day off, and nobody's radar or radios/satellites/communication wasn't working, or was turned "off" that day.
edit on 8-2-2011 by Mystery613 because: added last part



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join