It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Tulkor
reply to post by GoodOlDave
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.
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!