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

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
If y'all don't beleive in any of this stuff than why are you on this board posting? To prove everyone else that they're wrong no matter what they say.
[edit on 9-8-2004 by mrmulder]


Why do you ask a question and then answer it yourself? You aren't looking for an answer or information when you do that, you are making a statement...pontificating. You wouldn't be asking the question if I agreed with the wild stuff you post, I guarantee it. Suffice to say that I deny ignorance, and there has been a lot of it on the board lately. Believing in every conspiracy theory that comes down the pipe and creating others for political purposes is not denying ignorance...it is embracing it...

I do not, nor have I ever claimed to know everything about 9/11. However, if you look at the subjects I have posted on, they are subjects that I know well due to experience and education. You just happen to be on the wrong end of some of them, and refuse to believe what is there in front of you in black and white. I can’t make you believe something, nor do I wish to. If you wish to deny something, that is your prerogative. But when you post incorrect information, either by partial posting of facts or simply posting erroneous information that is easily proven to be so, I will present the correct information for the less learned to gain knowledge of. If that angers you, tough nuggets. Learn to live with disappointment.




posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Wow. This is the first time i've read these boards in a long time and i'm truly amazed at the characters now seeming to camp here all day to debunk any post as quickly as possible.

Some of the responses are truly laughable.

Affirmative Distraction posted "You have to remember that a terrorist, especially one on a suicide mission, doesn't give a HOOT about a trail of evidence. As a matter of fact, think about the embarrassment caused when we learned that these murdering bastards used our own wide open school system against us! They WANT the publicity; and as a matter of fact DEPEND upon it to get their point across. Terrorism doesn't work if you don't hear about it...."


Wow, that is some of the most retarded logic I ever heard. According to the US Government the 9/11 attacks were planned for months. I think terrorists do their best to cover their trails when planning for months. Surely you see the logic in that.

"They want the publicity"

Even greater logic you show here..., so the thing they want the most, we give them for months on end in abundance by looping all the 9/11 footage on every news channel?


Posted by COOL HAND - "Do you truly believe that if the pilots could have made it in time they would have sat by and did nothing while awaiting orders?

Part of the reason that people are selected to be trained as pilots is that they demonstrate the ability to make decisions on their own, without awaiting approval. Otherwise we would have robots doing that job already. "

Wow arsehole, you show even better logic than the other 'poster'. The only person who can possibly under any circumstances give permission to shoot down a civilian aircraft is the Commander-In-Chief. You really think they leave choices like that in the hands of pilots?


Basically, go back to bed and dream some more bull**** to post.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by Phi2]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   
On a further note, I can't believe there is still even the slightest speculation about government complicity in the 9/11 stuff. The guy in charge of the WTC plaza admitted 'they' demolished building 7. That ladies and gentlemen should leave no doubt in your mind you are being lied to about something.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Why do you ask a question and then answer it yourself? You aren't looking for an answer or information when you do that, you are making a statement...pontificating. You wouldn't be asking the question if I agreed with the wild stuff you post, I guarantee it. Suffice to say that I deny ignorance, and there has been a lot of it on the board lately. Believing in every conspiracy theory that comes down the pipe and creating others for political purposes is not denying ignorance...it is embracing it...

I do not, nor have I ever claimed to know everything about 9/11. However, if you look at the subjects I have posted on, they are subjects that I know well due to experience and education. You just happen to be on the wrong end of some of them, and refuse to believe what is there in front of you in black and white. I can’t make you believe something, nor do I wish to. If you wish to deny something, that is your prerogative. But when you post incorrect information, either by partial posting of facts or simply posting erroneous information that is easily proven to be so, I will present the correct information for the less learned to gain knowledge of. If that angers you, tough nuggets. Learn to live with disappointment.




Well, my apologies but this "To prove everyone else that they're wrong no matter what they say?" was supposed to be in the form of a question. I have corrected it.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by The Merovingian

Go back to your pasture in graze in the lush fields of naivety, foolishness and ignorance.
Why are you even on ATS? I will do you all a favour and will start up a new discussion board. We will call it 'ATS 2' which conveniently stands for 'All Totally Stupid'
Move over bud this is where you get off.



And what are you here for, to prove that the sparkly effect in your avatar is your brain short-circuiting?


Good one!


If all you are here to do is trash people without adding anything to the thread, therefore proving your own ignorance, then get off the carousel yourself, little boy....


Another good one!


Go play Pokemon on the Playstation with sauron...


Not very original, yet a good one nonetheless!





You seem to be able to dish it out to the likes of mrmulder and ECK but when it comes back at you, this is somehow not fair and all we are doing is trashing people without contributing to the thread. Seems to me that there is a fair bit of thrashing content within the posts of one Affirmative Reaction.

We can bitch and argue with one another to no end but that won't solve anything.

Bottom line is that there are those who believe the official story regarding 9-11 and there are those who do not. I for one do not buy it whatsoever and do believe that those who are truly in control orchestrated the events so that they could force their agenda on the US and the world. It is happening right before our eyes and they are getting away with it.

9-11 = war on terror = invade Afghanistan (oil and opium) = blame Saddam = invade Iraq (oil) = massive defense spending (Carlyle Group and other companies) = another country near you = another 'terrorist' attack = the draft = Patriot Act II = total one world government control = game over.

Don't you ask yourself the logical questions regarding the whole set of events that transpired that day? Keeping it limited to the Pentagon:

With regards to Flight 77, how does a 250 ton, 124 foot wide plane disappear into the side of the Pentagon? I have seen a Pentagon released video of a white object at near ground level and then an explosion on the sidewall of the building and that is it. No f'ing way that was a 757. It is far too small to be the plane that they claim. If I am incorrect, why don't they release video footage to settle the score once and for all? They have other videos so why don't they release them? What are they attempting to hide from us?

Did you not see the lawn outside the building after it was hit? Not a scratch, every blade of grass in its original state. Why did they decide to cover it all up under a foot of gravel just minutes / hours after the impact? What were they trying to hide here?

How does a Boeing 757 disintegrate upon impact, leaving no trace of the fuselage (except planted non-matching pieces) no engines, no landing gear, luggage, or the bodies of those passengers who were allegedly on this 'aircraft'? How could the plane disintigrate into dust along with all of its contents and yet they supposedly find DNA from these mystery passengers inside the pentagon? Oh I see, they claim to have found DNA from Joe Passenger so the plane must have crashed there....right!

Why were there no high level personnel who would usually be working that day in that section of the pentagon, in their office chairs? What was Rumsfeld up to?

How does a 757 approaching from a +/-30 degree angle to the perpendicular manage to punch a 10 foot hole throug the inner third ring of the pentagon? What made this hole and where is it?

Why was FEMA rushed in and why did they take over from the proper authorities conducting the usual investigation that would take place after an air disaster?

Why is it that no remains were ever returned to any of the families that lost family or friends on this 'aircraft'?

Why did none of the five surface-to-air missile batteries stationed around the pentagon lock in and take this 'plane'out before it hit the pentagon? Perhaps that was not the plan. After all if all four aircraft had been destroyed before hitting their targets then there really wouldn't be any reason to go into Afghanistan and then Iraq now would there? No reason to ratchet up defense spending, no reason to pass the Patriot Act??

Why were the hijackers (claimed by the FBI) not on any of the passenger lists released by American or United Airlines?

How is it that the CIA, FBI, NSA, the US government or any of the other multi-billion dollar budgeted organizations was unable to prevent 9-11 with all of their resources, intelligence, etc. and yet only hours after the attacks we were told the names of these 'alleged' hijackers, their nationality, their shoe size, and on and on? Does this not seem a bit fishy?

Where are the black boxes and why haven't they been analyzed and released to the public?

Let's see the phone company records showing the supposed cell phone calls made from the plane from Senator Olson's wife? Why in his later testimony did Senator Olson contradict himself on several occassions as to what happened and when with regards to his wife's alleged phone call?

Ask yourself, 'Who gains from 911 and the subsequent War on Terrorism'?

Is it you, is it me, is it your dog? NO, the people that gain are the military industrialists and the globalistic war mongering bastards that have hidden agendas within their policies and everything to gain by initiating a state of perpetual war. Tie that nicely in with a big brother police state and you have the best of both worlds.

Why was the largest and most destructive attack in US history seemingly ignored and not fully investigated in the days and weeks afterwards? Why is it that almost three years have passed and only now are we getting this smoke and mirrors report from the 911 commission?

Who was appointed by Bush to participate in this commission and what ties do they have to stock ownership in varying defense companies, oil companies, etc.? Did they stand to lose should they find the entire 9-11 events a direct responsibility of the failures on behalf of the organizations noted above? What would this do to their stock portfolio had the verdict been different?
Don't you find this concerning and somewhat suspicious?

Why were the bin ladens rounded up in the days afterward and given a protected escort out of the country? What does the Bush crime family have up their sleeve and what are they so afraid of? How can the American public accept this?

Why were there two flight paths provided to the public for Flight 77, which are different from one another? Why is there testimony on behalf of an air traffic controller that states contact was lost with Flight 77 more than 40 minutes before impact? Why were no jets scrambled? Why after 40 minutes since the plane went off course, and after the first tower was hit, did they still do nothing?

Why did they not scramble planes to intercept from Andrews Airforce Base? A few minutes flying time at mach 1+ and bob's your uncle?

The radar images referred to earlier only noted something in the air, it did not show a picture of a 757 aircraft only that something 'unidentified' was travelling through the airspace.

The entire fiasco, while cleverly implemented, contains far too many holes to be taken seriously. It is Operation Northwoods all over again!

You see, I have a fair bit to contribute and I have never even played Pokemon on Playstation



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Joker read Thread above


'Yea' everthing Joker said, LOL


Joker that was well said, none of those questions have been properly
answered and know one held responcible



Affirmative Reaction
I’m even going to bother quoting you,


You did what I you would do through this thread, any correspondence with me was in the negative, and you would think that that would add to the debate of this thread. But not in your case, sorry, you have nothing to add that Is either against or for the title of this thread
Just incase you forgot it’s called ‘ The Pentagon was hit on 9/11 it wasn’t staged, I say it was a setup, a (NEE—OOOO---CCON) job.
But do you show me info on who or were I'm wrong? no you try to bring it to personal level? I’m left to believe you are a façade, (oups pardon my French, a Russ,) and have no position to stand on, show me where I’m wrong?

So shoots the messenger!

You tried to trash the material, then you tried to trash where the articles came from, then you try to trash me LOL, but you can’t prove me wrong in what I say, I’m typing slow so you can read this, It is my opinion from what I have read, not all mind you, but it’s my belief that the Bush cabal let 911 happen, bottom line, and a jet (i.e. 757) did not hit the pentagon, again show me were I am wrong in saying the United States Government let 9/11 happen and or that a 757 jet did not hit the pentagon
P.S. I brought Delta Force the Games up to bait you, sorry just had to prove a personal point,
And I do play on line once in a while, but there is to many campers, you will find the owner of this site Playing Delta Force longbow as well at times,

Until you have any pertinent info to show me where I'm wrong I will not be responding to your post in this thread.

your avatar just kicks,


[edit on 9-8-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phi2
Wow. This is the first time i've read these boards in a long time and i'm truly amazed at the characters now seeming to camp here all day to debunk any post as quickly as possible.


[edit on 9-8-2004 by Phi2]



Well, since it seems you have already been warned for your abusive post, I’ll ignore those childish little tidbits and set you straight where you show your flaws regarding my posts. Cool Hand is very capable of defending his own.

If you would use the logic you claim I do not when reading the post instead of going off half cocked trying to come up with a witty response, (you failed…it wasn’t witty at all) you would realize that what was discussed was the AFTERMATH of the actions of terrorists. They DO require publicity, albeit after the fact. For them to cover their tracks WHILE attending flight school was indeed imperative to the success of their operations. The operation itself HAD to be public, the bigger the bang, the better. You should have learned that by looking at the WTC attacks. I guess your logic escaped you there, eh? What was also of great value was the humiliating effect it had on the country when we found out we had indeed trained several of the murderers at our civilian flight schools. THAT logic escaped you as well, I see. The fact that the news agencies continued to cover the event ad nausium should be of no surprise to you…it was the biggest act of terrorism ever perpetrated, and it was all caught on tape. It was story one, and still remains in the top five , IMHO. But I guess THAT logic escapes you as well.

And as I have already posted, I do not come here only to debunk, as you claim. I simply pass on correct information where others make mistakes, misrepresentations, or outright lie…

Tell you what…do yourself a favor. Join the military or a government agency that will give you a security clearance and a need to know, then go take a course run by AFSOC called DIT (Dynamics of International Terrorism). After you get an education on what terrorists really want and how they accomplish their objectives, come back as an informed individual and well discuss.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Joker




You seem to be able to dish it out to the likes of mrmulder and ECK but when it comes back at you, this is somehow not fair and all we are doing is trashing people without contributing to the thread. Seems to me that there is a fair bit of thrashing content within the posts of one Affirmative Reaction.



If you'll read the posts of those you quoted, you'll see that they act like children...therefore they shouldn't be suprised when they are treated as such. If I made such comments, I would have no problem with being rebuffed for it.

And by the way, I didn't start the Playstation thing...if you had read the posts you would have seen that...




[edit on 9-8-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron


Affirmative Reaction
I’m even going to bother quoting you,

Until you have any pertinent info to show me where I'm wrong I will not be responding to your post in this thread.


[edit on 9-8-2004 by Sauron]


Well, that was a nice little diatribe, and you can believe whatever you wish. However, ignoring the information I brought forth in this thread only proves you do not wish to learn anything, as you already have your mind made up. I showed positively that your claim of inaction by Rumsfeld was false by using YOUR OWN LINK! I know that's embarrassing, but try to live with it. If you wish to stop responding to my posts, that is your prerogative. But be forewarned that if you post erroneous information, I will continue to set the record straight.


And we thank you for your support.....



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
I showed positively that your claim of inaction by Rumsfeld was false by using YOUR OWN LINK!


Oh, and how did you show positively that his claim of inaction by Rumsfeld is false? By just saying that it is? Hey at least he provides a link. You haven't shown a link to prove him wrong. Just because you say it doesn't mean we believe you.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by mrmulder]

[edit on 9-8-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
I showed positively that your claim of inaction by Rumsfeld was false by using YOUR OWN LINK!


Oh, and how did you show positively that his claim of inaction by Rumsfeld is false? By just saying that it is? Hey at least he provides a link. You haven't shown a link to prove him wrong. Just because you say it doesn't mean we believe you.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by mrmulder]

[edit on 9-8-2004 by mrmulder]



WOW!!! Your promise to not respond any longer lasted what, 13 minutes??? That must be a record!!!


You ascertation that Rumsfeld was responsible for the aircraft not being intercepted was disproved by your own link to the story about the two ship of F-15s that just happened to be participating in an exercise and WERE dispatched to intercept, regardless of the fact that they could have never made it in time, even at the supersonic speed at which they were flying. In addition, the fact the military did not have fighters on alert on other than exercises since the end of the cold war would have made interception in the time allotted impossible.

Now, any more negatives you would like me to prove/disprove for you? Or will you be keeping your promise this time? Are you related to Alec Baldwin? He promised to leave the country for good if President Bush was elected...he's still here....



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   
If I can interrupt the path of this thread, which is to not rationalize the issue. It is clear that neither side of the debate can unequivocally substantiate their claim, which for al intents and purposes should encourage reasoned debate.

I countered a statement made by Affirmative, which I presume he missed, so allow me to repeat same. His statement:“you would You would be astounded how simple it actually is to fly an aircraft, and size makes very little difference.”

Q- Perhaps, but perhaps not. You assure me that it would be relatively easy for a novice to guide a 757 into a building after skimming the ground. This article though, seems to indicate another possibility. Hence I am still not any closer to either side of the tale:

www.geocities.com...


The point being that if the above information contained within that link is true, then it seems more plausible to me at least, a way to pilot a 757 just a few feet at most off the ground, and into the side of a building, as opposed to a novice executing such a path.

The issue of the (non) intercept I think has been answered by the 9/11 report, which really still leaves the question open as to why the communication failure, in that the report states:

A shootdown authorization was not communicated to the NORAD air defense sector until 28 minutes after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania. Planes were scrambled, but ineffectively, as they did not know where to go or what targets they were to intercept. And once the shootdown order was given, it was not communicated to the pilots. In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters circling above them had been instructed to “take out” hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to “ID type
and tail.” …

The civilian and military defenders of the nation’s airspace—FAA and NORAD—were unprepared for the attacks launched against them. Given that lack of preparedness, they attempted and failed to improvise an effective homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge.

The events of that morning do not reflect discredit on operational personnel. NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector personnel reached out for infor-mation and made the best judgments they could based on the information they received. Individual FAA controllers, facility managers, and command center managers were creative and agile in recommending a nationwide alert, groundstopping local traffic, ordering all aircraft nationwide to land, and executing that unprecedented order flawlessly.

At more senior levels, communication was poor. Senior military and FAA leaders had no effective communication with each other. The chain of command did not function well. The President could not reach some senior officials. The Secretary of Defense did not enter the chain of command until the morning’s key events were over. Air National Guard units with different rules of engagement were scrambled without the knowledge of the President,
NORAD, or the National Military Command Center.

(Excerpted from the 9/11 Commission Executive Summary)


That testimony is not very flattering for a case of tried interception. It is no surprise when reading this that some would either think the administration was extremely inept, or complicit.

Also important is Rumsfeld’s warning the very morning of 9/11, to members of Congress with whom he had a breakfast meeting, that something soon was going to happen, which I paraphrase.

As another poster alluded to, as did I, there seems to be a bit of concern regarding a mix up with another flight, which was mistaken for FL77.

There is much still unanswered. The events as they are relayed may be correct, but then again, they may be a more scandalous act of treason than was the Gulf of Tonkin incident.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   
In furtherance to The Joker's post, I have attached some photographs below to allow additional discussion. There are far too many anomalies and inconsistencies in the official lie, that don't add up.



Where is the debris field?
Why is there no damage to the lawn area?
Where is the damage on either side of the main collapse where the 10+ ton 'tempered steel' engines would have hit?
Where are the engines?



How is it that these cable spools remain intact and undamaged when just moments ago a 124 foot wide plane came crashing into the side of the building? Perhaps it was something smaller?




Again, too little damage and lack of debris for a 757 to have come crashing in.



What part of a 757 made this hole in the inner third ring of the pentagon and where did it go?



Where are the wings? Where are the engines? Where is the luggage? Where is anything?



Now what kind of 757 has such a small rotor component as this? The engines on a 757 are no less than 10 feet in diameter. Huh?

There are countless photographs to push our argument but none to defeat it. Why is this so hard to accept?



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
You ascertation that Rumsfeld was responsible for the aircraft not being intercepted was disproved by your own link to the story about the two ship of F-15s that just happened to be participating in an exercise and WERE dispatched to intercept, regardless of the fact that they could have never made it in time, even at the supersonic speed at which they were flying. In addition, the fact the military did not have fighters on alert on other than exercises since the end of the cold war would have made interception in the time allotted impossible.


Huh? Since where on this thread do I make and ascertation about Rumsfeld? I think you should be telling Sauron this. Not me. You're the one who questioned him about it.

[edit on 10-8-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 02:29 AM
link   
www.infowars.com...



AJ: He put on a symposium a few years ago that made headlines in major newspapers, in Portugal. We had one of those articles posted. And it says,

"Portugal-based investigative journalist has presented The News, with the version of the September 11th attacks that has to-date failed to attract the attention of the international press. The report, compiled by the independent inquiry into the September 11th World Trade Center attack, warns the American public that the government's official version of the events does not stand up to scrutiny."

And the man who put this on was Col. Donn de Grand , who's an American in a 72-hour non-stop symposium, deliberation by a group of military and civilian pilots under the chairmanship of Col. Donn de Grand. After deliberating non-stop for 72-hours, has concluded the flight crews of the four passenger airliners involved in the September 11th tragedy had no control over their aircraft.

They get into how the globalists clearly carried it out. Now, this was two years ago, folks. A very cutting edge... Now the mainstream foreign press has addressed it. And most Europeans believe the U.S. government carried it out. A lot of Americans are now waking up. And talking to this trailblazer, cutting-edge pioneer, Col. Donn de Grand. It's an honor, sir, to have you on the show.


Remote Tech guys.

I believe this in all ways...

I dont care what anyone trashes me for this. This seems to be the most simplest way to do things.

Plus not only that, why are there dead highjackers still walking around??? unless we all can see dead people now....
news.bbc.co.uk...

I believe it went down like this or something close to it.

serendipity.ptpi.net...



Time Event
7:59 am UA11 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport
8:14 am UA175 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport
8:16 am First deviation of AA11 north of Albany, NY
8:20 am AA77 takes off from Washington's Dulles Airport
8:20 am AA11 transponder turned off
8:30 am First swap: Flight AA11-X takes over, transponder off
8:35 am Beginning of NY ATC transcript
8:40 am UA175 transponder is turned off
8:42 am UA93 takes off from Newark, NJ
First deviation of UA175 over northern NJ
8:46 am Second swap: Flight AA77X takes over, same t-code
8:46 am AA11-X strikes north tower of WTC
Nationwide alert begins
8:53 am Third swap: Flight UA175X takes over, transponder off
AA11 lands at Harrisburg
8:54 am End of NY ATC transcript
8:55 am AA77X transponder is turned off
9:02 am UA175X strikes south tower of WTC
UA175 lands at Harrisburg
Fourth swap: Flight UA93X replaces UA93
9:07 am UA93 lands at Harrisburg
9:09 am AA77 lands at Harrisburg
9:37 am AA77X overflies the Pentagon, aircraft or explosion at Wedge 1
9:45 am UA93 takes off from Harrisburg
10:06 am UA93 crashes near Shanksville, PA




Some people have said that this account of the events of September 11th 2001 is "too convoluted to understand". Actually it's quite simple:

1. Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off and shortly after the pilots are ordered to land at a designated airport with a military presence.
2. Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control to intercept the flight paths of AA 11 and UA 175 so as to deceive the air traffic controllers.
3. These (substituted) jets then fly toward Manhattan; the first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower.
4. A mock 757, destroyed just before impact, and two or three cruise missiles, hit the Pentagon.
5. The people on three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA 93).
6. This plane takes off and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.
7. Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.


[edit on 10-8-2004 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Here is some information that you might want to look at:

LINK

It even has links to pictures that show aircraft wreckage in the Pentagon.

For those who contend that this flight was done with remote control. Please provide a link that proves that signals were sent to the aircraft. That should not be too hard. If there was a signal sent to the aircraft than surely someone managed to pick it up.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Here is some information that you might want to look at:

LINK

It even has links to pictures that show aircraft wreckage in the Pentagon.

For those who contend that this flight was done with remote control. Please provide a link that proves that signals were sent to the aircraft. That should not be too hard. If there was a signal sent to the aircraft than surely someone managed to pick it up.



This is as much as speculation as anything else we have said. So in that we can say aliens commadered the planes and did something with them, in that we will not know untill this day's events become decalssified which will be probably wel after we die.

Considering it isnt covered in "mainstream news".

And the eyewitness accounts, well I could possibly belive them like the ones on Flight 93. which are probably true. But you know how hard it is to try and figure out what kinda a plane that was considering how fast it was going at the time. it was a task trying to catch the mistakes on the WTV ones like the missles shooting from the plane and the rocket housing on the bottom.. thats something to think about... the planes moved very very fast. so they might have seen something but it might not have been what they actually saw.

And about the Debri field wouldnt there be parts of the plane all over the plane on the outside of the crash site.. or is it just me. The main crash area looks way to clean for it to be a big just that they are saying. then again that is just me.

I guess there will be many unanswered questions regarding 9/11 but in the end all we can do is speculate, since nobody wants to give real proof of what happened.

[edit on 10-8-2004 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
This is as much as speculation as anything else we have said. So in that we can say aliens commadered the planes and did something with them, in that we will not know untill this day's events become decalssified which will be probably wel after we die.

Considering it isnt covered in "mainstream news".


How can this be considered speculation? There are quotes from people who were there as well as a link to a site that has pictures you can see with your own eyes. That is a hell of a lot more than what people have linked to here in the hopes of proving it was a conspiracy.

What events are you still waiting to be declassified?



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I have come to think other things. you know, you might be right... Then again I might be right. but all and all who knows all we can do is speculate.

I looked at most of the site you sent me to from the links they give i ended up here showing this.



www.humanunderground.com...
but then again like i said before we can only speculate.

[edit on 10-8-2004 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
but then again like i said before we can only speculate.


I do not feel the need to speculate when eyewitnesses say they saw a 757 go into the Pentagon, when people who work for AA recognize the wreckage as coming from an AA 757, and when photographic proof shows wreckage from a 757 littering the lawn of the pentagon.

What more do you people need. Didn't anyone here ever hear of Occum's razor?

Speculation is useless in this case. There is way too much physical evidence to make any logical, rational person believe that this was anything other than a terrorist attack.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join