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.

 

Modified boeings or holograms?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You obviously just accept stuff from conspiracy sites without doing any checking yourself or you wouldn't be so all over the place.

Rumsfeld was complaining that $2.3 trillion could not be properly accounted for because of the archaic and inefficient DoD systems. He wasn't the first to refer to it; the same figure had been bandied about long before Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush took office. There was no reason for Rumsfeld to be embarrased about it. It hadn't happened on his watch and had accrued over many years.

As regards your assertion that a particular part of the Pentagon was attacked to destroy evidence relating to the $2.3 trillion; again you can't have done any checking.

Most of the Pentagon casualties were in fact in the Navy Command Center but some 34 staff involved in budgets died. But those staff had nothing to with trying to reconcile $2.3 trillion. This is a report from the Inspector General of the DoD dated March 2002. If you scroll down to " Executive Summary " you will see that it states " The Army did not publish stand-alone financial statements for FY 2001 due to the loss of financial management personnel sustained during the Sept 11 attack. Therefore, we did not audit Army financial information for FY 2001 financial statements. However, Army financial statement information was included in the DoD Agency-Wide Financial Statements." :-

www.dodig.mil...

In other words the only financial management loss related to Army financial statements for fiscal year 2001 which, in any event, was included in the Agency-Wide figures.

There is not a shred of evidence that a single person killed at the Pentagon had anything to do with the $2.3 trillion and the process of reconciling that continued after 9/11.




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



$4,876 hammer and $3,276 toilet seats...........DUDE that is more far fetched....


Apparently, you weren't paying attention to the news, when these stories were first coming out. Yes, the *thousands* of dollars was an exaggeration...to make a point. Here, is an article...just one, about hammers:


The case for the $435 hammer - investigation of Pentagon's procurement

Read, and learn.....it is history.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I love the way your Pentagon " missile " witness only talks about a "plane ".

Why do you ignore all the other scores of witnesses to a plane. Many in much more detail, not caught out of the corner of the eye .Identifying that it was an American Airlines plane for example ?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You obviously just accept stuff from conspiracy sites without doing any checking yourself or you wouldn't be so all over the place.

Rumsfeld was complaining that $2.3 trillion could not be properly accounted for because of the archaic and inefficient DoD systems. He wasn't the first to refer to it; the same figure had been bandied about long before Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush took office. There was no reason for Rumsfeld to be embarrased about it. It hadn't happened on his watch and had accrued over many years.

As regards your assertion that a particular part of the Pentagon was attacked to destroy evidence relating to the $2.3 trillion; again you can't have done any checking.

Most of the Pentagon casualties were in fact in the Navy Command Center but some 34 staff involved in budgets died. But those staff had nothing to with trying to reconcile $2.3 trillion. This is a report from the Inspector General of the DoD dated March 2002. If you scroll down to " Executive Summary " you will see that it states " The Army did not publish stand-alone financial statements for FY 2001 due to the loss of financial management personnel sustained during the Sept 11 attack. Therefore, we did not audit Army financial information for FY 2001 financial statements. However, Army financial statement information was included in the DoD Agency-Wide Financial Statements." :-

www.dodig.mil...

In other words the only financial management loss related to Army financial statements for fiscal year 2001 which, in any event, was included in the Agency-Wide figures.

There is not a shred of evidence that a single person killed at the Pentagon had anything to do with the $2.3 trillion and the process of reconciling that continued after 9/11.


So basically the inspector general of the dod cooked the books. You are even admitting that lots of budget staff both from the army and navy died....not that I was not aware already!

Lots of sophistry and an erroneous conclusion.........



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



$4,876 hammer and $3,276 toilet seats...........DUDE that is more far fetched....


Apparently, you weren't paying attention to the news, when these stories were first coming out. Yes, the *thousands* of dollars was an exaggeration...to make a point. Here, is an article...just one, about hammers:


The case for the $435 hammer - investigation of Pentagon's procurement


Oh I read/watch news alright. It just means I have a brain that is capable of distinguishing facts from fiction.

Government ineptitude is the number one excuse for state capitalist tyranny. As though its not obvious what followed after 9-11? Do the math and see who is lying. I doubt your capable though wheedwhacker.

Read, and learn.....it is history.





edit on 5/22/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: fixed tag



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I love the way your Pentagon " missile " witness only talks about a "plane ".

Why do you ignore all the other scores of witnesses to a plane. Many in much more detail, not caught out of the corner of the eye .Identifying that it was an American Airlines plane for example ?




Wow another coincidence?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I didn't say " budget staff " from the Navy died at the Pentagon. I referred to casualties in the Navy Command Centre. So, if you were aware, that is something else you got wrong.

Anyway, your answer is that the Inspector General of the DoD and his staff "cooked the books " and produced
a fictitious report. You obviously have evidence to share with us to back that up ?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker,

there is a piece from United Airlines flight 175, that clearly matches the section where the "N"-number was painted on....it matches the airplane that was known to be operating that flight.




Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Link please!















posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Thanks for the pictures. I don't see *N6* on the wreckage, I see *W* and something else next to it. Trying looking closely! And is that the only airplane evidence at wtc? Suspiciously low amount...........



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I love the way your Pentagon " missile " witness only talks about a "plane ".

Why do you ignore all the other scores of witnesses to a plane. Many in much more detail, not caught out of the corner of the eye .Identifying that it was an American Airlines plane for example ?




Wow another coincidence?



I am afraid people using a simile doesn't do it for me.

What have you got to say about the scores of witnesses to a plane at the Pentagon ?

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I didn't say " budget staff " from the Navy died at the Pentagon. I referred to casualties in the Navy Command Centre. So, if you were aware, that is something else you got wrong.

Anyway, your answer is that the Inspector General of the DoD and his staff "cooked the books " and produced
a fictitious report. You obviously have evidence to share with us to back that up ?


The conspiracy is the evidence. What more do you need?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
where did the passengers and crew go then ?

you don't have a conspiracy until you find a single shred of credible physical evidence that those people were somehow abducted and disposed of rather than being on those planes that day

sorry, but you don't



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I am afraid people using a simile doesn't do it for me.

What have you got to say about the scores of witnesses to a plane at the Pentagon ?

911research.wtc7.net...


What have you got to say about the pentagon relleasing a crappy 5 frames per second video clip of the missle/plane that impacted the hardened concrete wall and made a 20 foot hole?

What do you have to say about the fbi confiscating all the cctv footage from around the area that had potential footage?

I will answer your question when you answer my questions first!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I didn't say " budget staff " from the Navy died at the Pentagon. I referred to casualties in the Navy Command Centre. So, if you were aware, that is something else you got wrong.

Anyway, your answer is that the Inspector General of the DoD and his staff "cooked the books " and produced
a fictitious report. You obviously have evidence to share with us to back that up ?


The conspiracy is the evidence. What more do you need?


Oh I see, silly me. There I was thinking you need facts and evidence to establish a conspiracy but I now see I have got it totally topsy turvy.

All I need to do is think up my conspiracy and if anything turns up that doesn't support it then it is a lie or a fake and futher evidence of the conspiracy. Brilliant, I can't go wrong.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
where did the passengers and crew go then ?

you don't have a conspiracy until you find a single shred of credible physical evidence that those people were somehow abducted and disposed of rather than being on those planes that day

sorry, but you don't


Are you talking to me? What passengers and crew? Perhaps you missed the part I said *most likely no faa scheduled flights took off that day with the purpose of hitting anything, that the whole plot was a government perpetrated hoax and that they framed alqueda*

In this case you would not need to abduct passengers and afaik there is no record of those flights actually taken off from those airports. Look at my third video on the first page!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Have covered this, in great detail. The lies don't work, anymore.


Perhaps the many lies that a few of you OS supporters make claims to. the fact is Truthers don’t need to lie because they do not support OS lies.
As far as your “nonsense” about no remote airplanes could have been used, I would suggest you do some real research on the topic instead of insulting everyone with your opinions.


The earliest unmanned aerial vehicle was A. M. Low's "Aerial Target" of 1916.[4] Nikola Tesla described a fleet of unmanned aerial combat vehicles in 1915.[5] A number of remote-controlled airplane advances followed, including the Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane, during and after World War I, including the first scale RPV (Remote Piloted Vehicle), developed by the film star and model airplane enthusiast Reginald Denny in 1935.[4] More were made in the technology rush during the Second World War; these were used both to train antiaircraft gunners and to fly attack missions. Jet engines were applied after WW2, in such types as the Teledyne Ryan Firebee I of 1951, while companies like Beechcraft also got in the game with their Model 1001 for the United States Navy in 1955.[4] Nevertheless, they were little more than remote-controlled airplanes until the Vietnam Era.
The birth of US UAVs (called RPVs at the time) began in 1959 when USAF officers, concerned about losing US pilots over hostile territory, began planning for the use of unmanned flights.[6] This plan became intensified when Francis Gary Powers and his "secret" U-2 were shot down over the USSR in 1960. Within days, the highly classified UAV program was launched under the code name of "Red Wagon." [7] The August 2 and August 4, 1964, clash in the Tonkin Gulf between naval units of the U.S. and North Vietnamese Navy initiated America's highly classified UAVs into their first combat missions of the Vietnam War.[8] When the "Red Chinese"[9] showed photographs of downed US UAVs via Wide World Photos,[10] the official U.S. response was, "no comment."

en.wikipedia.org...


In any case.....the outstanding evidence is irrefutable, from the radar tracking to the debris in New York City....there is no doubt (except in the most fringe of silly conspiracist websites) that these were the same airplanes that departed from Boston as regularly scheduled passenger flights, and were hijacked.


Any website that does not support the OS fairytales of 911 is (a fringe of silly conspiracist websites) right?
No proof of any of these planes departing anywhere; no eyewitness saw any of these planes taxi to runway, much less take off. No real evidence that these planes were really highjack, all hearsay from our government. Where do you get your information from, the gov websites?
edit on 20-5-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)


I can`t see why they couldn`t have used remote controlled planes.
They were used in the second world war.
John Kennedys brother was killed in one.

b-29s-over-korea.com...

I`m sure the technology was well advanced by 2001.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 


NO...it is still a matter of retro-fitting, and the time and personnel it would take....PLUS the contractors to design, build and test the equipment, the installations, the interface...in order to be as sophisticated as would be needed, for this fantasy in 2001, as was seen.

The article, I had seen....this was a total failure, if you care to research more into it.

Also, it was very very rudimentary.

Still and all......the facts remain, there were NO *substitutions* of airplanes, the debris and personal effects and DNA all jive, the video evidence and photographs jive, the radar tracking data jives.

And, NO AIRFRAMES ARE MISSING! Except for those four, that are the ones already known about, and accounted for.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


so the families left behind had funerals for imaginary people ? How does that work, they faked their entire lives up until that point, school records, photos, medical records, birth announcements, death annonucements, all made up ?

that's a pretty big hole in your theory I would say

it took me all of 2 minutes to find a partial victims list for flight 175 external link. I have a suggestion for you. I bet it's pretty easy to locate these families, I'm sure it is well know in thier local communities who they are. Why don't you contact one of them and share with them your theory that their family members didn't die, and it was all a plot to frame AQ ?

you know what, they've been through enough, maybe you should send them a condolences letter instead
edit on 22-5-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I see *W* and something else next to it.


So you think we were attacked by a plane from either Samoa, East Timor or Belarus.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   


This debris came from the upper left hand corner of one of the two cargo doors located on the lower starboard side of the aircraft. (outlined in photo below) The left arrow points to the corner of the cargo opening. The right arrow points access handle opening.



This is N612UA in its original factory finish. Later on it was repainted to the grey orange red blue colour scheme.
So just like a car that has been repainted, if you look under the door seals you can see the original colour. (as shown by the arrows in the first photo)





edit on 22-5-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join