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: 25
24
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by matadoor
 


AH - Pentagon was not granite

Outer facade was limestone, much softer, ironically the outer facade of the Empire State Building in New York
is made of same material from same quarry

Behind the limestone facade was ordinary brick wall

In July 1945 a B25, lost in the fog, struck the Empire State Building blasting a 30 ft hole, One of engines
punched all the way through coming out opposite side.

Now imagine a jet airliner weighing 15 times the B25 and traveling almost three times the speed - the energy
released would be over 100 times that at Empire State Building




posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ANOK
 


So you really think it's reasonable that all those engine parts were simply not photographed?

All those pics taken around the impact, and only three small engine parts ended up on film? Any reasonable person would find that a little odd.


Why? These photos weren't taken for anything other than a documentary record of an obvious event. They weren't taken to defend a narrative. To my knowledge, they weren't even listed as evidence for use against Zacharias Moussaoui in his trial.

A reasonable question might be "ARE there more pics?" - as opposed to "Why AREN"T there more pics?" (your implication)

One question comes from a neutral stance, the other from a stance leaning towards disbelief. Which of those two seems more "reasonable" to you?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Deleted wrong thread my apologies.
edit on 25-6-2011 by KaiserSouszay because: wrong thread



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by KaiserSouszayI would like to second that and say, you're right you are no expert. The sides are definitely picked in this game, and you've picked the wrong one.
 



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


Yes possibly I have and need to do more research,yet it is tough to find the time with the rigours of day to day life.

Also I moved my post to the other current 9/11 thread as that is where it was intended for discussion.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Banjamin Jefferson Madiso

Here you are trolls, explain away these valid questions regarding the crash or whatever it was at the pentagon.
1) You guys claim a 757 or 767 full of passengers and crew, impacted the pentagon. If so, why was there the remnants of only one engine at the scene, that engine was not a Rolls Royce nor a Pratt and Whitney engine which are the only two engines outfitted on Boeing planes? Except for a rare General Electric model only found on some of the earlier produced models.
2) What happened to all of the bodies that were supposed to be on the "plane"? And NO, they did NOT "vaporize"...
3) What became of all of the luggage and seat cushions that were supposed to have been on the "plane"? Again these did not vaporize into nothingness...
4) What indeed happened to the AIRCRAFT WINGS which were supposed to be full of jet fuel??? They did not punch holes through the building walls, they did not fall off from impact with the walls, they did not vaporize aginst the wall and leave any kind of marking,
5) Why wont the FBI realease just ONE photograph or video clip that conclusively shows an airliner impacting the pentagon? Surely out of the 80+ confiscated recordings, there must be SOMETHING that doesn't prove that a missile or a drone actually impacted the pentagon. Or else we would have seen something other than 5 frames that DO NOT show an airliner about to impact the pentagon.

Please adequately explain these questions away for me, and I will hoist the Idiot Flag myself and proudly march with y'all...but I seriously doubt that you can. Good luck.


I don't why you're being so melodramatic because everything you're asking for has been freely available in the public domain for years and readily found by a 30 second Google search. If this isn't proof that you're getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy web sites deliberately instigating false paranoia then I don't know what it.

1) the engines recovered were definitely identified as being the Rolls Royce engines that would be on flight 77. Here's an in depth write up from an aerospace journal on the engines recovered:

Aerospace engineers identify Pentagon engine as being from flight 77

2) I aleady posted links to pics of some of the human remains recovered from the Pentagon wreckage. These were presented as evidence in the Maussoui trial which the defense accepted as being legitimate. They're graphic in nature so it's obvious why the feds aren't handing them out like candy-

Human remains recovered (WARNING: Graphic)

Human Remains recovered (WARNING:: Graphic)

Human remains recovered (WARNING:: Graphic)

3) Suzanne Calley was a passenger on flight 77 returning from a business trip, and she was killed in the attack on the Pentagon. The crews recovered her remains and they returned her remains and her wedding ring to her husband Frank. Those damned fool websites spreading outrageous lies that no passenger remains and no passenger effects were recovered are self serving POS ghouls. This is one of the very things that disgusts me the most about those damned fool conspiracy websites; not even murder victims are off limits from being targeted by their propaganda-

News article on Suzanne Calley and her husband Frank

BTW look at the first photo of human remains I posted. Look at the lower right corner, and you'll see two curved protruding metal bars parallel with each other. Those are the arm rests from a passenger seat, and almost certainly the passenger seat this victim was sitting in.

4) I'm not a crash site forensics expert and neither are you, so neither of us would know what should or should not happen to airplane wings when a plane hits a concrete building. Aircraft wreckage was strewn all over the front laws so we know that most of it shattered like a mirror:

Wreckage of flight 77 on the Pentagon lawn

5) the only ones who ever claimed that any more footage of the plane even exists are from those same damned fool conspiracy web sites making up all these other lies to begin with. First, the conspiracy mongors insist the footage that was released was faked so they're lying through their teeth if they're claiming they wouldn't automatically insist any other footage of being faked, and second, it doesn't matter anyway as the plane hit in the middle of rush hour and hordes of eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentgon:

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack

I'm not here to insult you truthers so you don't need to admit you're an idiot. You truthers are for the most part intelligent and articulate people, and you simply don't know you're been horribly lied to by those damned fool conspiracy web sites you'e going to for all your information. I'm only here to show you that you've been horribly lied to, and if even one person here starts to think for him/herself and wonders, "hey, something about those conspiracy web sites doesn't sound quite right" then I'll have made my point. You are certainly not an idiot just because you were acting upon incorrect information.

...unless you're now going to accuse all this material of being faked like these mindless conspiracy zealots do with everything else that disproves their conspiracy stories, in which case, go right ahead and hoist your idiot flag. If you're going to be so childish and accuse everything of being gov't disinformation without even looking at it then why do you waste everyone's time asking for evidence to begin with?
edit on 26-6-2011 by GoodOlDave because: Corrected misspellings to placate the grammar Nazis



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
truthers... its so easy to label people when questions are coming flying ..

5frames of footage ( one footage ) should be enough to raise an eyebrow don't ya think?

If the "truthers" are wrong why use so much time defending the OS? why even care..

Is it fun to label us and tick us off? are you feeling mighty and wise since the OS is made by the Gov?

Are you feeling like an agent all of sudden? just like in the movies..?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by notonsamepage
truthers... its so easy to label people when questions are coming flying ..


What does that even mean? Have you watched people here on ATS write, and thought you could keep up? No chance, you lack the credentials (ability) obviously!



5frames of footage ( one footage ) should be enough to raise an eyebrow don't ya think?


How many frames do you require? Do you think the truthers would accept any evidence at this point? Yourself and other have proven that facts and proof mean very little..



If the "truthers" are wrong why use so much time defending the OS? why even care..


For the same reason that you care... That is a very ignorant question that keeps getting tossed around.



Is it fun to label us and tick us off? are you feeling mighty and wise since the OS is made by the Gov?


Lets pick apart this sentence.. Label you?? Maybe you should speak to your peers and have them stop naming web sites with "truthers" in the name.. Maybe you should figure out how to separate the folks that proudly call themselves "truthers" and those that are offended by the name.

"are you feeling mighty and wise since the OS is made by the Gov?"
What is that even supposed to mean? Was there a minimum text # that you had to reach? OS made by the Govt.?? LOL ROFLMAO... If Mickey Mouse recited the facts as they happened would you believe it more? Of course you would.. That is painfully apparent.



Are you feeling like an agent all of sudden? just like in the movies..?


Hmmmm... The truth movement is riddled with ignorance and hypocrisy. Lets get this straight.. You don't like being called a "truther" (which the founders of the movement called themselves) but have no problem calling people "agents"

Because I employ logic over emotion, I am an agent? Because I am not trying to hammer theories and opinions together, to fit my fantasy, I am an agent?

Agent Shaun Hatfield reporting for duty!!!!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


Someone answered me :O should I start to laugh now ?

I shouldn't ask questions in 9/11 threads its a real pain, yah my gramma sucks so I bow down to your amazing gramma attack.

The word "truthers" is being used against everyone and its a "negative" word because of the MSN talking about it when laughing so the masses don't grow some balls to ask questions against the GOv themself.

Yeah 5frames footage is lame, logic isn't hard, but my english gramma is.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by notonsamepageNoton, I don't believe I have seen a more condescending reply than ol' Shawn gave you. We're so lucky to have this particular group of dweebs that prop up the OS, because they have become the comedy hit of the year. Their support is dwindling to a trickle, and they know it. Keep posting, boys. Keep polishing your turd.
 



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by notonsamepage
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 

The word "truthers" is being used against everyone and its a "negative" word because of the MSN talking about it when laughing so the masses don't grow some balls to ask questions against the GOv themself.


Well what do you expect? We WANT to ask questions against the gov't...namely, I want to know more about that decision some genius had to send interceptors flying in a circle out over the ocean instead of letting them loose to hunt...but every time someone even whispers "let's investigate 9/11" the floodgates open up and hordes of crackpots and con artists rush out and waste everyone's time argung over foolish things like secretly planted controlled demolitions schemes, hologram planes, faked crash sites, and secret plots for the Jews to take over the world.

Sheesh, it's like ringing the dinner bell for an abject paranoia banquet.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
its hard, but some questions are good enough whatever the education you got behind you.
edit on 27-6-2011 by notonsamepage because: gramma !!!




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by notonsamepage
 


You ask questions that have already been answered. You don't believe any answer your given. You hang onto lies without even looking for the truth. Its rather pathetic at this point.

Intentionally ignoring facts and disregarding proof, is just as bad as lying.. maybe even worse..



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by notonsamepage
its a hard, but some questions are good enough whatever the education you got behind you.


I agree that grammar is of secondary importance when the person using the grammar is asking pointed questions, but it's likewise secondry importance to ask questions when the questions are mindlessly idiotic. Case in point- Photographs of passenger remains are readily available and in the photographs you can clearly see the remains of a passenger seat...and yet the conspiracy mongers demand to know where the seat cushions are. What's next, that they want to see photographs of the passenger's shoelaces?

This isn't wanting legitimate answers. It's grasping at straws in desperation from not wanting to accept the fact that their conspriacy stories aren't true.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by notonsamepage
its a hard, but some questions are good enough whatever the education you got behind you.


I agree that grammar is of secondary importance when the person using the grammar is asking pointed questions, but it's likewise secondry importance to ask questions when the questions are mindlessly idiotic. Case in point- Photographs of passenger remains are readily available and in the photographs you can clearly see the remains of a passenger seat...and yet the conspiracy mongers demand to know where the seat cushions are. What's next, that they want to see photographs of the passenger's shoelaces?

This isn't wanting legitimate answers. It's grasping at straws in desperation from not wanting to accept the fact that their conspriacy stories aren't true.


shoelaces? are you ridiculing now? I think so,,,

I am tired of 9/11 talk, you guys have your OS we have questions, you can't understand why there is questions because the OS answered all of your questions, "lets go and kick terrorists asses!!!




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by notonsamepage

I am tired of 9/11 talk, you guys have your OS we have questions, you can't understand why there is questions because the OS answered all of your questions, "lets go and kick terrorists asses!!!


Incorrect. The problem isnt that the conspiracy mongors have questions. The problem is that the conspiracy mongors don't want to accept the answers they've been given becuase they don't want to believe their conspriacy claims are false.

Give me an example of a question you have and I'll prove it to you. Or to be more precise, you'll prove it to me.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by notonsamepage

I am tired of 9/11 talk, you guys have your OS we have questions, you can't understand why there is questions because the OS answered all of your questions, "lets go and kick terrorists asses!!!


Incorrect. The problem isnt that the conspiracy mongors have questions. The problem is that the conspiracy mongors don't want to accept the answers they've been given becuase they don't want to believe their conspriacy claims are false.

Give me an example of a question you have and I'll prove it to you. Or to be more precise, you'll prove it to me.


Incorrect. The problem isnt that the official story people don't have questions. The problem is that the official story people don't want to accept the answers they've been given because they don't want to believe their official story are false.


Give me an example of a question you have and I'll prove it to you. Or to be more precise, you'll prove it to me.


I think I just did..



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by notonsamepage
Incorrect. The problem isnt that the conspiracy mongors have questions. The problem is that the conspiracy mongors don't want to accept the answers they've been given because they don't want to believe their conspriacy claims are false.


Ummmm...what?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


..? what?




top topics



 
24
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join