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.

 

The Pentagon was hit on 9/11 it wasn't staged.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Look, you want to know what hit the Pentigon? It was a comercial airline jet, how do I know.. I live here, I was at Arlington Cemetary. Enough with the conspiracy stories. It was not staged, it was not a small plane, I have friends who lost family members and who nearly lost them and they saw it hit too.

Wraith




posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71


This is great. You are so diluted to believe that a jet did not the Pentagon.


First of all Esdad, I never said that a jet didn't hit the Pentagon. Where did you get that assumption? I can't prove that one didn't. I don't know. It's all speculation IMO.

COOLHAND, fine. You say you're right. I disagree. I'll stick to what I know. You stick to what you know.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by wraith30
Look, you want to know what hit the Pentigon? It was a comercial airline jet, how do I know.. I live here, I was at Arlington Cemetary. Enough with the conspiracy stories. It was not staged, it was not a small plane, I have friends who lost family members and who nearly lost them and they saw it hit too.

Wraith


You must work for the GOP. How much are they paying you to make these outlandish claims (this is sarcasim for those who are a little slow)



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
COOLHAND, fine. You say you're right. I disagree. I'll stick to what I know. You stick to what you know.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]


Help me out here. What do you know that makes me wrong and you right?
What evidence do you posess (besides your "friend) that you can show us that makes you right and the rest of us wrong.

I am being serious here.

I don't see how you can turn down facts, you do realize that by doing so you are in fact embracing ignorance.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by mrmulder
COOLHAND, fine. You say you're right. I disagree. I'll stick to what I know. You stick to what you know.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]


Help me out here. What do you know that makes me wrong and you right?
What evidence do you posess (besides your "friend) that you can show us that makes you right and the rest of us wrong.

I am being serious here.
I don't see how you can turn down facts, you do realize that by doing so you are in fact embracing ignorance.


Well, in that case, I guess we all have our opinions on this board. Don't we? I've read the FAA website and I must see it differently than you do. I'm sorry you feel this way.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake


You must work for the GOP. How much are they paying you to make these outlandish claims (this is sarcasim for those who are a little slow)


For aobut 1/8th of a second I was going to demand you take back teh horrific insult of associating me with the GOP... OI just writing that makes me feel dirty....



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
Well, in that case, I guess we all have our opinions on this board. Don't we? I've read the FAA website and I must see it differently than you do. I'm sorry you feel this way.


Then how about clueing us in on what you see differently than the rest of us? The rules do not seem open to interpretation. Perhaps you should go through them all and then tell us how you feel we are reading them incorrectly?



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   


1. Regardless if it was staged or not, The U.S. allowed the attacks to happen. We stood down and did nothing.

2. That video is still in contrversoy by not only the critics but others as well.


These statements YOU made seem to suggest you do not beleive a jet crashed into the Pentagon, and since your name is Mulder I would feel you would be on the conspiracy side of the fence, am I right?

We did not stand down and do nothing. Again, There was no way to know exactly how many planes therewere and I am sure there were so many conflicting reports that it must have been an incredible decision to say that we are going to put our planes in the air to shoot planes out of the sky if we are threatened. Do you think you could live with the thought of killing a plane full of school kids because they were hijacked.

I do however beleive that we did shoot down the flight over PA.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71



1. Regardless if it was staged or not, The U.S. allowed the attacks to happen. We stood down and did nothing.

2. That video is still in contrversoy by not only the critics but others as well.


These statements YOU made seem to suggest you do not beleive a jet crashed into the Pentagon, and since your name is Mulder I would feel you would be on the conspiracy side of the fence, am I right?

We did not stand down and do nothing. Again, There was no way to know exactly how many planes therewere and I am sure there were so many conflicting reports that it must have been an incredible decision to say that we are going to put our planes in the air to shoot planes out of the sky if we are threatened. Do you think you could live with the thought of killing a plane full of school kids because they were hijacked.

I do however beleive that we did shoot down the flight over PA.


*sigh* Once again. No, that doesn't mean I believe that an aircraft didn't hit the Pentagon. All I'm saying is that the Pentagon video doesn't show conclusive proof that one did. It's hard to see from that evidence. Now maybe witnesses did see a 757. I wasn't there. However, I haven't seen any other video of a 757 approaching. So I'm still skeptical but that doesn't mean that I'm right. I could be wrong.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Take a side, this is not the place to play devils advocate.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 11:05 PM
link   
[quote
And to the blinkly head Mergo-muffin-man, This has nothing to do with Political agenda and Bush bashing so lighten up. Take a minute to come up with a valid arguement or comment, rather than spew rhetoric with no means.



This has everything to do with a hidden political agenda. I'm just sorry you and everybody else (except Mr. Mulder) are seemingly too god damn naive to see it.

You all go ahead living your pathetic lives in your cozy big brother state, while the rest of us laugh and point fingers.

You should really try to look at it from our side as it just doesn't make any logical sense that a 757 crashed into the pentagon, without a trace. There are too many unanswered questions, too many inconsistencies, too much BS. And no, I don't give a #e about anybody who 'claims' to have been a witness to seeing a 'plane' crashing into it.

People are frantic, mass panic, the news stories play on people's vulnerabilities....it was a bird, no it was a plane...no it was superman. Yeah, that's right, it was superman!


If you want to have a reasonable debate as to whether or not the pentagon was hit by a plane vs something else disguised as a plane, then bring it on.


[edit on 6-8-2004 by The Merovingian]



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
[edit on 6-8-2004 by dcgolf]

The original post in this space was not by me.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by dcgolf]



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 11:31 PM
link   
dcgolf

No I wasn't there but I have vested enough of my time and energy over the past few years into researching any and everything that has to do with the circus of events that was 9/11, and I have come to see it for what it was - a complete lie, cleverly fabricated and excercised almost to perfection. No disrespect for those who unnecessarily died at the hands of the emotionless government nazis but that is how I see it.

Seeing that it was all one big lie that is propelling the world, and mainly the US, into a fascist dictatorship, this has spawned my interest.

Having someone say that they 'saw' a plane doesn't do it for me. There must be significantly more substantiating evidence to sway my opinion, and with all of the other lies, deceit and trickery that the Bush government is up to, why would I think anything else?

They are playing on peoples sensitivities and creating easily maintainable illusions to fool the masses into accepting their globalist agenda.

Present evidence that cannot be countered and maybe I will change my opinion.....but it is not likely.
Plain and simple.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
Why did the Pentagon seize the video taps from the surrounding area stores, gas stations and videos from the pentagon cameras and keep them from public view?
And say it was for security reasons after all they showed the twin Towers.


Originally posted by COOL HAND
Because there were no classified materials in the Twin Towers.


(Hope the editing out part of the quotes not pertinant to my question is cool, guess I'll find out now)

Um, what is classified of the front of the Pentagon?
It is open area.
Surely the jet(?) itself is not classified, as if so, the jets of the twins would be classified as well.

Simply questioning.

Thanx

Misfit



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   
[edit on 7-8-2004 by dcgolf]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   
You know, you think about it, an airliner is built out of aluminum and designed to be as light as possible, it is really going to do that much damage to a stone facade? That really doesn't make sense to me. What is the type of plane reported to have hit the pentagon? What is it's weight? What is the surface material of the pentagon? What is the internal structure of it?

Anyone know a quick reference site?
.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 01:59 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 02:32 AM
link   
The Merovingian, for some reason I get 'invalid URL' for everyone of those links. Which is odd because i was just at the serendipity web site i think.

Maybe i will try them again later.
Thx for the pointers anyway.
.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 03:55 AM
link   
on the subject of "verifed" info on US military aircraft intercepting civilian aircraft please check out some of the following links, they might suprise you.

www.afa.org...

www.faa.gov...

and the horse's mouth (or rear) NORAD
www.norad.mil...

for those that might be interested you can get even more from this link
www.google.com...

some of the other links there make for intersting reading.
LATERNESS



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
I never excepted defeat. I'm just tired of arguing. So you say I've shown no proof. Okay. So what? You have yet to show me any proof either that you're right. Where's your proof? Oh wait you don't have any either. Darn. I guess we're even. Let me give me you a litttle word advice. There's an old saying. "Talk is cheap." Since I've provided a link and you haven't, that make my talk not as cheap as yours.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by mrmulder]


Sorry, it seemed like you were "ACCEPTING" defeat when you said you were quitting.

Proof. No, your "proof" spoke for itself, as it didn't even MENTION your claim, let alone support it. As for proof on MY side of the debate, I have not CLAIMED anything, except that your ascertation that all civil aircraft that wander off course are automatically intercepted as a matter of procedure. As NO SUCH PROCEDURE EXISTS, there can BE no proof. It's called "proving a negative", and it cannot be done. It would be like saying, "prove that donkeys don't fly".

You should take your own advice, because that's all you have done...talk. But I'll give you a little advice, since you presume to do so for me. My father had a saying that you may want to think about...

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people THINK you have no idea what you are talking about, than to open it and remove all doubt".

I am just repeating an old adage that has been around for years. Take it for what you may.........




[edit on 7-8-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join