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.

 

100% conclusive evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon.

page: 20
24
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Believer101
I finally finished reading every post on every page of this thread and I noticed a lot of you OSers seem to miss one giant point. After the initial explosion, THERE WAS NO HOLE IN THE WALL WHERE IT SUPPOSEDLY HIT. The hole everyone seems to think that came from the plane hitting was AFTER the wall had collapsed. Around 20+ minutes after the initial explosion. How do you explain that, exactly? No, I do not believe it was a missile the whole time, but I know that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. It went around, going to the south side of the building after the explosion. I know this, because of a witness statement made by a man who actually works at the Pentagon. He was in the south loading dock when the explosion happened, went outside not 15 seconds after, and saw a plane about 50-100 feet off the ground flying directly over the parking lot. Lemme guess, you're gonna say he's diluted and mistaken, right? I seriously doubt that.

Now that I've made my point, I'm going to leave this thread. I don't partake in unreasonable arguments with people who won't use common sense or provide actual facts. Period. Reply to my post all you want, I'm still not going to reply back.


Well that's a chicken %*&* attitude to take - hit and run, but it's probably better you do run - troll.
Here are the pics of the impact hole before collapse: www.oilempire.us...

Then there's the eyewitnesses who *watched* the plane hit the building - as opposed to someone who came out sometime later and likely saw the circling C-130

Buh-bye




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Yes, I believe it was an airplane. The reaper has just about the right wingspan...



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by matadoor
 





I'm managing 7 federal contracts right now, and trust me there isn't any way on this planet that there is any federal department that is competent enough to pull off something this large, in plain sight, without completely farging it up.


Yes, it makes much more sense that a bearded man on dialysis (whose primary mode of transportation was a camel) was able to successfully orchestrate the whole of 911, without any interruptions or interference from the most technologically advanced and state of the art air defense system in the world, as if by magic - from a cave in Afghanistan.

P.S. they DID farg it up, thats why we are discussing it to begin with.

edit on 22/6/2011 by Lono1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/6/2011 by Lono1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I didn't read all the responses but I don't see how a lamp post will smash a window and cause no damage to the front end of a car. The man who drove the taxi was interviewed and claimed that he lifted the post out of his window. Consider the size of the hole left by the plane that impacted the Pentagon and then consider the size of the holes left in the World Trade Centers. Dr. Morgan Reynolds did several videos on this subject. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by CoRiBu
 


The man who drove the taxi is a liar whose wife works for the FBI. He admitted that 9/11 was planned by people with "lots of money", and that he got involved but didn't want to be. Here's a snippet from "National Security Alert" which shows his interview, in which he practically has a psychological breakdown when confronted with evidence to go against his story. You'll see what I mean:



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


He was in the south loading dock when the explosion happened, went outside not 15 seconds after, and saw a plane about 50-100 feet off the ground flying directly over the parking lot.


15 seconds would place the plane 2 miles past the pentagon, not over the parking lot.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


You are the epitome of ignorance. You don't provide any facts in your posts, instead your only argumentative tactic is to underscore the silliness of our government planning and executing the 9/11 attacks. I know for a fact that you have not seen Loose Change, or any 9/11 documentary for that matter, yet you judge that film, regardless of how many engineers, architects, pilots, or professors come forward with heaps of evidence to prove that the official story is a lie, based solely on your belief that our government would not do such a thing. You speak of 9/11 truthers as "delusional", yet when provided with evidence and facts that the official story is a lie and our government has committed false flags in the past, you retort with something along the lines of "Oh do you expect me to believe that?" or "It's sad that people think our government would do that". You seriously need to take a step back and consider just how irrational your state of mind is; denying and tossing aside any and all evidence with a simple "You truthers are loony LOL".


‘Reality and common sense’ needs no proof in this world to be justified in the eyes of people that think or have a conspirators brain, it’s not in the equations or the matrix of life to even argue.

‘Reality needs no proof‘…Period!

Moreover, the reality is, a plane hit the towers, a plane hit the pentagon, and terrorists did it and our beloved government had no knowledge of this until 911.that’s reality, and if i believe then you should believe it...end of story.

If you believed what i believe you would be a much better person in life...No question!
edit on 22-6-2011 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)


If a plane hit the Pentagon why havent we seen any conclusive proof yet? Why are they refusing to release the confiscated footage (from 10 years ago) from the Sheraton Hotel? Why are there SOOO many conflicting reports from eye witnesses that day who all swear they saw different things? How are you so sure that the official story is 100% factual?

You say reality needs no proof...REALLY??? Well reality is that our government isnt trustworthy and they lie to us ALL the time and commit tens of thousands of crimes each year against the world and its own citizens.....Wake up buddy....



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


That security cam video show that whatever hit the Pentagon was HIGHER then your 3D reproduction and the black stuff behind it does NOT look like smoke, no way !

In the security video it looked like it might be a fighter jet, isn't that what most of the eye witnesses said hit the Pentagon ?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I couldn't even find that video...very good. What kind of computer do you have? Once again... very good.

If you can't beat em, well, then join em!
edit on 23-6-2011 by CoRiBu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MACchine
and the black stuff behind it does NOT look like smoke, no way !


Congratulations Truther this time you are correct, it does NOT look like smoke.



What it looks like is oil vapour. As AA77 was approaching the Pentagon its starboard engine ingested the top portion of this tree:

(unless you think top secrete US government topiary agents trimmed it while no one was looking)


This would have lead an imbalance in the engine damaging the seals and allowing oil to exit the engine.

The trail behind the aircraft is white not black. Oil burns black but it steams (boils) white.

The trail left behind the aircraft is most likely oil vapour.

Here is an example of an oil trail exiting a damaged engine.



Here is another. Note the engine on the right is burning = black smoke The engine on the left is trailing oil vapour.


Here we can see whats left of the oil steaming out of the engine on Murry st.



Here is an excellent example of oil boiling out of a damaged engine Where is it coming from?



Here.


edit on 23-6-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
2. If it wasn’t an airplane where are all the passengers?

Better question: If it was an airplane where are all the passengers?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
Loll, do you really expect some one to believe in this conspirator made video of a bunch of dumb hypothesis about some missile and some false illusion about some government conspiracy.

The excerpt from Loose Change which I posted simply documented eye witness accounts and statements by people in the aviation industry which contradict the official story. Wheres the "conspirator" aspect?

Its a bit ironic that you are laughing at documented statements by witnesses and aviation personnel yet you are giving credibility to a cartoon...
edit on 23-6-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lono1
reply to post by matadoor
 





I'm managing 7 federal contracts right now, and trust me there isn't any way on this planet that there is any federal department that is competent enough to pull off something this large, in plain sight, without completely farging it up.


Yes, it makes much more sense that a bearded man on dialysis (whose primary mode of transportation was a camel) was able to successfully orchestrate the whole of 911, without any interruptions or interference from the most technologically advanced and state of the art air defense system in the world, as if by magic - from a cave in Afghanistan.

P.S. they DID farg it up, thats why we are discussing it to begin with.

edit on 22/6/2011 by Lono1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/6/2011 by Lono1 because: (no reason given)


He's got a point...Do you happen to work with one of our "intelligence" agencies?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I must tell you that I am immune to your "I know more than you do" antics. I work in the computer department for our company and maintain our own security surveilance systems. We migrated from the older tape systems using a dedicated monitor to disk storage accessible via web browser so I'm familiar with how both works. Yes, you can set the frame rate to anything you want, but the higher the frame rate the more storage is needed to keep it. This was back in 2001 so most security systems were still using tapes, and with a 30 fps a 12 hour security tape would become a 4 hour security tape.

So the Pentagon couldn't afford to buy some spare tapes for their security cams? Yeah, right. Well they were certainly missing 2,3 trillion dollars, so they had to cut down to max two video tapes per surveillance camera to be on budget...



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This is neither here nor there because I know full well the Pentagon security systems recorded one frame per second. How do I know? The video they released that everyone is arguing about was recorded in one frame per second. Even then it's neither here nor there because hordes of eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon so bickering over FPS for security tapes is nothing but a desperate conspiracy mongor red herring to begin with.

1. What is the original resolution and specifications of this security cam?
2. Is the video presented at the same resolution as originally recorded?
3. If it was recorded in a higher frame rate, how difficult would it be to select only 1 fps and skip the rest of the frames?

You don't even need to be a Hollywood cgi wizard to do that. A 6 year old can easily do it with free software from the internet, but those "dumb" and under-budgeted surveillance guys at Pentagon couldn't??? "The whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."


This one adds to my questions....

This is a frame by frame comparison between the two only available clips released by the Pentagon. There is something that doesn't convince me. Watch my clip, and if you don't trust what I say, you can compare these two movies on your own. For what I see, they were intentionally censored to hide what has hit the pentagon.



"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."
- J. Edgar Hoover



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Awesomke, definitive evidence. Great job OP!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


You are a comedian? Right????....

Did you really watch the videos you embedded before posting?? The funny thing is that they greatly contradicts almost everything you have posted previousely in this forum...


#1 - Onion News.... Give me a break!
You are truly a comedian...
#2 - Your "beloved government" doesn't come out as a "beloved government" in this one...
#3 - The same as #2 for the official story goes for this one.

..and still you can't understand why people question the official story??? This is getting better and better...



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
If you are new here, this thread should serve as an excellent example of how a small group of marginally talented individuals can disrupt our fight to bring the criminals responsible for 9/11 to justice. As a previous poster said, this thread should read 99.9% proof a plane didn't hit the pentagon. Their story's weak, and growing weaker with each post they make propping up the OS. Keep posting boys, you're digging your own graves.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
20 pages of bickering? This imortal guy wants to argue he has no intention of finding the truth and we are all feeding this guy.

Nothing anybody says will change their closed pea sized brains

Bad old dave sums these osers up perfectly. A very credible professional believes it was an inside job and because this opinion contradicts his fantasy HE MUST BE LYING! pathetic i think its time to call this thread a day.

All these ppl who mock conspiracys why the hell are you on a conspiracy site then? DUH!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by kaya82
 




All these ppl who mock conspiracys why the hell are you on a conspiracy site then? DUH!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 
Thanks for your insightful observations. You obviously care deeply about this issue, please continue to lend your powers of reasoning to this discussion. How does a man of your integrity put up with us 'mouth breathers'? I know, it's hard.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join