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 hole in the pentagon..is the big hole in the 911 story

page: 22
62
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Peloquin
 


Sorry - wasn't suggesting you did doubt it - was just an indicator that the suggestions that everything vaporized wasn't really true - even though it's been suggested on both sides of the argument.

Until next time - take care.




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Peloquin
 



I can see several parts, that really may have been part of a 757, but when I look at the pictures of the 757, I think there should be more debris.


In these pictures you are seeing debris which wound up outside the building - either on the lawn from the
initial impact on the E Ring or in the alley outside the C Ring after some of the heaviest parts punched
through the wall

Most of the debris including the jet engines was left inside the building - much was destroyed in resulting fires
which burned for several days before being fully extinguished

Here are pictures of the engines

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Peloquin
 



By the way - Rummy is of german origin, that should tell you something, shouldn't it?



1 out of 6 American has German Ancestry

This not includes Rumsfield, but Bush who has some German ancestors in his background

Slandering someone because of their ancestry is racist....



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Calm down, I am a german myself (as I wrote before).


And Rumsfeld did have german ancestors - his great-great-grandfahter Hermann lived in Sudweyhe/Germany, before in 1866 he emigrated to the US.


edit on 26/6/11 by Peloquin because: (no reason given)


But thinking about it, I have to say it was a stupid comment I made. It was just that that I so good could imagine, that Rummy would have made a great career in the Nazi Regime. But... finally, as we know, he made a career in another Regime. So I don't want to slander Rummy for being of german origin, but for being a war criminal.




edit on 26/6/11 by Peloquin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


Ok, never mind!


Post scriptum: I remember having heard about videos of surveillance cameras of nearby hotels that filmed the impact and that have been confiscated - what do you know about those videos, did they ever reappear?

Those videos would tell us, what really happened.

And the people, who monitored the cameras...
edit on 26/6/11 by Peloquin because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/6/11 by Peloquin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Thanks, thedman! Ok... the comparison of parts of the debris with the pictures of the engines show indeed similarities! So I have to say, that now I tend a bit more to the real possibility, that a plane may have crashed there. But again - as far as I can remember, the plane was not much time in the air, when it came down, so the tanks should have been filled with a lot of fuel. Wouldn't that amount of fuel have caused more damage?

I'm asking this, because as we were told, the amount of fuel in the tanks of the planes that hit the WTC was able to cause a temperature that made the steel of the towers melt down.


edit on 26/6/11 by Peloquin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


You're right in asking how such an operation could be hidden from the people. But possibly there's an easy explanation, why they could success with that anyhow: The idea that their own government could decide to sacrifice a part of the population for a higher purpose is so absurd, that even to think about it is laughable.

But the Jews and all the other people in opposition to the Nazi regime also couldn't imagine, what finally happened to them.

And even today it seems so absurd, that a group of psychotic maniacs could have managed to get in control over a highly industrialized nation and lead it into a world war that finally would have caused the loss of 55 million lifes. But it happened.

Ever heard about the "Project for a New American Century"? Google for it in combination with "a new Pearl Harbor".

Or look right here: en.wikipedia.org...

Whoever said: "Those who forget history, are dommed to repeat it."



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peloquin
reply to post by thedman
 


Thanks, thedman! Ok... the comparison of parts of the debris with the pictures of the engines show indeed similarities! So I have to say, that now I tend a bit more to the real possibility, that a plane may have crashed there. But again - as far as I can remember, the plane was not much time in the air, when it came down, so the tanks should have been filled with a lot of fuel. Wouldn't that amount of fuel have caused more damage?

I'm asking this, because as we were told, the amount of fuel in the tanks of the planes that hit the WTC was able to cause a temperature that made the steel of the towers melt down.


edit on 26/6/11 by Peloquin because: (no reason given)


Far less steel in the Pentagon -really completely different building by construction standards, so I personally wouldn't make a comparison - but that's just me.

As to your question above - the following is a link that describes what the FBI found on the tapes confiscated:
www.911myths.com...

Additionally, you can find here: www.judicialwatch.org... the videos that were released. Please note that scores of truthers grumbled a lot about how the Citgo gas Station was in the perfect position to record the event - when, in fact, it did not. This is indicative of assumption based on lack of specific knowledge that has become pervasive in the truther threads ("there HAD to be a MILLION cameras!", "the best protected building in the world", etc.) - that sort of mind set. The truth is that we really never envisioned this kind of attack seriously and so were ill-prepared to respond to it.

A painful lesson to learn...
edit on 26-6-2011 by userid1 because: clarity



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by userid1
 


Do you know the definition of 'exclusion'.
I recommend you look it up.

Call me thick, if you wish....but I doubt you even know what you are implying when you use such a term.
Then again...your avatar is of some weird guy who comes across as an imbecile.



I see you're unable to defend your point that DNA wasn't passed by the FBI to Military Mortuary Affairs. Which is pretty much like all the other "holes" you mentioned that were addressed and you couldn't defend.

So we're left with avatar bashing...so pathetic.

Have a nice day.


Not so much avatar bashing, but pointing out your inability to comprehend equals one of the same as your avatar.

Why did the FBI provide no DNA samples to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to make comparisons to the remains from the other crash sites? Why did the FBI only have DNA samples for the alleged NY ten? Why was the FBI so slow in cooperating with the OCME in any way when they were in fact under fire in the public eye of the attacks for their lack of cooperation with other government and intelligence agencies? One would think the FBI would be bending over backwards to appease. Instead it looks more like they were looking for a fix to create a distraction. They got both by way of the OCME positively identifying terrorists with DNA that has no documented accession before it arrived at the OCME.


I have ALREADY shared this with you. Your speculation that it is untrue holds no weight, holds no water, and surely makes no sense.

And of course I cannot defend 'holes' in a story. That is why they are 'holes'.
Like I said, I dont claim to know what happened that day, I claim to know that we are being lied to in many avenues.

The term to define you escapes me at the moment. Obtuse comes to mind, but your rationale is not that sharp.

By the way...did you look up the term 'exclusion'?
Funny that you argue both sides.
edit on 26-6-2011 by DIDtm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


What is it with sheep? The ones who believe the fairy tale we are being told also lack the ability to read between lines.
I would explain it layman terms, but am afraid it might still go over 'Trusters' heads.

Keep standing in that line.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Elbereth
 


Us "skeptics" do not ignore that at all. If you read Mr Farmer's book, you will find that he believes the 9/11 Commission did a thorough job in investigating the circumstances and events of the day. The references to the stories being told by the DoD and the Administration not matching the reality of the day have absolutely nothing to do with hiding a sinister plot within the US Government. What it does mean is there was an attempt to make the Government look less inept and unprepared for what we faced that day. And yes, they did discuss criminal references in some cases.....until they realized those would only open up a hornet's nest and involve many, many other current members/past members of the US Government for their negligence in the performance of their duties through the years.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Originally posted by DIDtm
Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by userid1
 



Do you know the definition of 'exclusion'.
I recommend you look it up.

Call me thick, if you wish....but I doubt you even know what you are implying when you use such a term.
Then again...your avatar is of some weird guy who comes across as an imbecile.


My patience with your inane yammering is at an end.

1 - Show me where I used the term "exclusion" - I dare you in front of all the readers here.
2 - The term you seem to not understand in its proper context was made by the Washington Post. If you think you are on a level to dispute grammar and syntax with the Washington Post - please have at it. We'll just sit back while hilarity ensues...


Not so much avatar bashing, but pointing out your inability to comprehend equals one of the same as your avatar.

Why did the FBI provide no DNA samples to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to make comparisons to the remains from the other crash sites? Why did the FBI only have DNA samples for the alleged NY ten? Why was the FBI so slow in cooperating with the OCME in any way when they were in fact under fire in the public eye of the attacks for their lack of cooperation with other government and intelligence agencies? One would think the FBI would be bending over backwards to appease. Instead it looks more like they were looking for a fix to create a distraction. They got both by way of the OCME positively identifying terrorists with DNA that has no documented accession before it arrived at the OCME.


I have ALREADY shared this with you. Your speculation that it is untrue holds no weight, holds no water, and surely makes no sense.

I didn't speculate - I showed absolute proof


And of course I cannot defend 'holes' in a story. That is why they are 'holes'.

You can't defend a single thing you've claimed from where I stand - feel free to explain how I'm wrong.


Like I said, I dont claim to know what happened that day

You're far too modest - it really isn't just that day is it?


..., I claim to know that we are being lied to in many avenues.

And unable to prove a word of it - as has been shown time and again in just this thread alone.


The term to define you escapes me at the moment. Obtuse comes to mind, but your rationale is not that sharp.

Neither are your powers of observation since you haven't made a salient point yet.


By the way...did you look up the term 'exclusion'?

Why? I never used it. However, I understood its meaning as did everyone else who read it in its proper context - except you of course.


Funny that you argue both sides.

It's sad that you can't comprehend that I'm not.

edit on 26-6-2011 by userid1 because: clarity for the "challenged"



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   


Originally posted by DIDtm
By the way...did you look up the term 'exclusion'?

Originally posted by userid1
Why? I never used it. However, I understood its meaning as did everyone else who read it in its proper context - except you of course.


Im only to respond to one of your many clueless points.
The fact that you never used the term 'exclusion'.
1 - Show me where I used the term "exclusion" - I dare you in front of all the readers here.

OKAY!....Have a look.
RIGHT HERE

Blatant disillusion on your end.
Right here you claim it as YOUR ARTICLE.

If you cannot keep up with your claims, how are you supposed to have a civilized conversation?

By the way the article is claiming that the alleged hijackers DNA was found by exclusion. Meaning that they matched the DNA from the victims to the DNA they got from relatives. It also means that the DNA that they had left over, was from the terrorists. Found through 'exclusion'.
Just so you understand.



edit on 26-6-2011 by DIDtm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm


Originally posted by DIDtm
By the way...did you look up the term 'exclusion'?

Originally posted by userid1
Why? I never used it. However, I understood its meaning as did everyone else who read it in its proper context - except you of course.


Im only to respond to one of your many clueless points.
The fact that you never used the term 'exclusion'.
1 - Show me where I used the term "exclusion" - I dare you in front of all the readers here.

OKAY!....Have a look.
RIGHT HERE

Blatant disillusion on your end.
Right here you claim it as YOUR ARTICLE.


I never made the statement as you implied in an earlier comment - the Washington Post did, and it would be hard for me to claim it's "my" article with the Washington Post attribution embedded in it. I claimed it to be the external source posting I submitted to the thread as a counter to the external source post you presented - nothing more. Do you not understand the difference or do you think I am the Washington Post?


If you cannot keep up with your claims, how are you supposed to have a civilized conversation?

With your lack of reading comprehension, this does not qualify as a "conversation".


By the way the article is claiming that the alleged hijackers DNA was found by exclusion. Meaning that they matched the DNA from the victims to the DNA they got from relatives. It also means that the DNA that they had left over, was from the terrorists. Found through 'exclusion'.
Just so you understand.


I understood perfectly and have been saying EXACTLY that from the start. YOU'RE the one that kept hanging on to the myth that the FBI never provided DNA evidence from the flight #77 hijackers to Military Mortuary Affairs based on the external quote you provided - which we now (apparently) both agree was a bogus claim.

Am I right in guessing that English is not your first language?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Peloquin
 


That was the point - to hijack aircraft on trans continent routes. Because of the distance the fuel tamks would
contain large amount of jet fuel

Aircraft which hit Pentagon had some 5500 gal (21000 liter) of fuel on board at impact. Object was to turn
aircraft in flying missiles which would inflict tremendous amount of damage by impact. The fuel would then
fuel massive fires to cause building to collapse



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
wingspan? there is no damage around the hole.. there is black smoke damage around the hole nothing more..
there was no damage to the nice green lawn only debris, if a plane came in at 500mph it would done much bigger damage than this jeeez.. 10years now people come on.

Are you saying the wings vaporized to nothing?
didn't the plane have any fuel? since there is books and furniture laying around in the pile, oh maybe they took out the fire that easily and quick since it was not freaking any plane fuel burning..

this is !@#$% hilarious..



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Peloquin
 


That still doesn't explain any of the plot holes really. I mean, like I said, the amount of people who would have to be in on this secret for 10 years and no one has come forward. No one has burst into the office of the New York Times with a cheque saying, "Look! Here's a cheque for $5 million the American government gave me to stay silent about 9/11. Where is my global fame and vast fortune?

Bill Clinton couldn't even get a suck in the Whitehouse without the whole of the world knowing, do you really think that the same country would be capable of covering up the biggest terrorist attack on its own soil?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by notonsamepage
 


Obligatory video:




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


really?
seen that video being used over and over again, don't get on your high horse yet.

how can you even compare that to a plane with more than one seat?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by notonsamepage
 


The aircraft struck the 1st and 2nd floors - the Pentagon has 5 floors.

When that section collapsed everything came down including the upper floors which were spared the
aircraft impact



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join