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: 27
24
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirric
reply to post by userid1
 


germane
/jərˈmān/
Adjective: Relevant to a subject under consideration.

Yes it is.

There was a plane and No, it did not hit the Pentagon, a missile of some sort is more likely what did.

Hence Chaney's reason to not shoot at the plane since it wasn't planning on hitting the Pentagon as it was a most likely a diversion for the missile.


May I ask which one of those damned fool conspiracy websites you're repeating this from? It sounds suspiciously like the drivel that September Clueless site is pushing out, with no planes hitting the WTC or Pentagon, all the passengers were nonexistant, all the TV imagery is fake, all the evidence is manufactured, and all the witnesses/families of victims/gov't officials/reporters/researchers/etc are secret disinformation agents.

Even the ATS moderators here dismiss September Clues as lunatic nonsense, and they've seen every conspiracy claim under the sun..




posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 




You replied only how I misunderstood then bashing my logic and telling this will be the last time you will reply..
are you getting tired?

Why didn't you answer with your brilliant logic how a big airplane could only do so little damage and vanish with only debris and a hole that apparently the nose of the plane hit? if the plane vaporized why didn't that amount of force break down more walls?

jeez.. try again.. oh you gave up...



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Originally posted by sirric
Originally posted by userid1



Oh, here's another video to wrap your head around, but you'll most likely will keep it in the sand.


This video is for crap - lies within the first 9 seconds.

1 - Look carefully at the first shot of the damage - notice how much wider the hole is on the first floor than the upper floors? (hint- the dowward arrow with the label 73') points right to the additional penetration area. The Plane hit at a downward angle between the first and second floors.

Here are pics pre-collapse. These pics alone show you vid to be nothing but uninformed supposition. www.oilempire.us...

2 - This video is an excellent example of why I hate it when people mix the Pentagon and WTC. You simply cannot compare the damage between the two buildings. They were constructed entirely differently - and the damage reflects this.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


Normally it would not be necessary to point out something so PAINFULLY obvious, but it WAS necessary

Userid was forced to explain such an obvious thing to a person that couldn't seem to grasp the concept.


1. I don't see any damage to the wall around the hole, only black smoke damage some broken windows.
2. I don't see any damage to the lawn/grass at all, didn't the wings crash into it?
3. If the twin tower burned that good why didn't pentagon burn that good too? there are books and furniture not burned you can see it in that blown out hole.


Apparently we are not all bright individuals with an abundance of logic... Some of us are lets say...... "special"


edit on 6/28/2011 by ShaunHatfield because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by userid1
 
"They were constructed entirely differently..." What a brilliant, showstopping observation! And here we are thinking that a 110 story glass and steel skyscraper and the re-inforced concrete pentagon are the same thing. It takes a superior intellect such as yours to catch us when we're obviously laboring under a misconception. Keep up the good work, Al.



Aside from the quote by sirric noted above by ShaunH, the comparison was also made in the Truther video provided by Sirric which I was told to watch, and which you obviously didn't watch. So you had two opportunities to understand why your comment was stupid and irrelevent - and you screwed the pooch on both.

Keep up the good work troll...you're coming across like a real intellectual.
edit on 28-6-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Its hard to think for yourself without the OS I understand.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by notonsamepage
 


Better to follow the facts than to seek attention by making up some hair brained delusion using only partial facts and opinions. One is the result of boredom and the other is a result of logic.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I'm getting tired of this "truther" vs "sheeple" battle. This video proves nothing. ABC tried to push one down our throats showing the plane hitting the pentagon with no engines. They also tried to show a vid of WTC2's floors pancaking down but the core columns stayed erect.

This video tries hard, I'll give it that. There are quite a few more points that it doesn't address.

There is no major pieces of debris. OS states it was completely incinerated/vaporized by the ensuing fireball. If this is true, how on earth were they able to identify every single passengers remains?
I have never come across a plane that has been completely incinerated/vaporized due to a crash into anything or being shot down.

As it's been stated many times, this maneuver that the plane pulled off was nigh impossible. Some moron that couldn't drive a toyota accomplished this feat?

As for the "a missile could not hit the light poles" argument due to the wingspan (I'm inferring this) is not valid. If you watch the video, the light poles hit within about 1/3 of the wingspan of the 757. 1/3 of 124ft 10in is roughly 41ft 8in. There are plenty of UAV's, small planes, and 2 cruise missiles that I know of that have wingspans around this length.

Simply stating something is not "conclusive evidence"
Simply drawing something is not "conclusive evidence"



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sliick
There is no major pieces of debris. OS states it was completely incinerated/vaporized by the ensuing fireball. If this is true, how on earth were they able to identify every single passengers remains?


Maybe your definition of "major" and other people's aren't the same. Landing wheels, landing struts. piece of aluminum outerskin (painted in AA colors no less) at least 3' long don't qualify as major pieces of debris?

Does the OS say *everything* was vaporized?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by Sliick
There is no major pieces of debris. OS states it was completely incinerated/vaporized by the ensuing fireball. If this is true, how on earth were they able to identify every single passengers remains?


Maybe your definition of "major" and other people's aren't the same. Landing wheels, landing struts. piece of aluminum outerskin (painted in AA colors no less) at least 3' long don't qualify as major pieces of debris?

Does the OS say *everything* was vaporized?




DuH!, everything had to be vaporized if not, there would be some seats and sh1t laying around..

don't try again..



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Hey mods- before you remove this post ask yourself who you think you're protecting? This same group of posters have been posting the same garbage for years, and yet we are supposed to treat them as though they are earnestly seeking truth? Pahleese! Go ahead, strike another blow for censorship, and continue to let these blowhards waste our time, and tie my hands behind my back. Why we have to coddle these people is a total mystery. Have a nice day!



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
Hey mods- before you remove this post ask yourself who you think you're protecting? This same group of posters have been posting the same garbage for years, and yet we are supposed to treat them as though they are earnestly seeking truth? Pahleese! Go ahead, strike another blow for censorship, and continue to let these blowhards waste our time, and tie my hands behind my back. Why we have to coddle these people is a total mystery. Have a nice day!


They removed your ignorant comments because your acting like a troll with a big belly.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by notonsamepage

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by Sliick
There is no major pieces of debris. OS states it was completely incinerated/vaporized by the ensuing fireball. If this is true, how on earth were they able to identify every single passengers remains?


Maybe your definition of "major" and other people's aren't the same. Landing wheels, landing struts. piece of aluminum outerskin (painted in AA colors no less) at least 3' long don't qualify as major pieces of debris?

Does the OS say *everything* was vaporized?




DuH!, everything had to be vaporized if not, there would be some seats and sh1t laying around..

don't try again..


Since there were passengers found still strapped to their seats - that pretty much discards your "logical" argument. Try using facts - or don't bother trying again.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
Hey mods- before you remove this post ask yourself who you think you're protecting? This same group of posters have been posting the same garbage for years, and yet we are supposed to treat them as though they are earnestly seeking truth? Pahleese! Go ahead, strike another blow for censorship, and continue to let these blowhards waste our time, and tie my hands behind my back. Why we have to coddle these people is a total mystery. Have a nice day!


Someone a little butt hurt because he can't understand the T&C's? Well, it *must* be someone else's fault then right?

Maybe if you didn't go for nasty personal attacks when you're fresh out of facts/evidence you wouldn't have your comments yanked - or is that a little too complicated or you?

If it's such a waste of time - please feel free to not bother to respond. Honestly with an ATS points rating of NEGATIVE 1956, do you think you'll be missed?



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by notonsamepage

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by Sliick
There is no major pieces of debris. OS states it was completely incinerated/vaporized by the ensuing fireball. If this is true, how on earth were they able to identify every single passengers remains?


Maybe your definition of "major" and other people's aren't the same. Landing wheels, landing struts. piece of aluminum outerskin (painted in AA colors no less) at least 3' long don't qualify as major pieces of debris?

Does the OS say *everything* was vaporized?




DuH!, everything had to be vaporized if not, there would be some seats and sh1t laying around..

don't try again..


Since there were passengers found still strapped to their seats - that pretty much discards your "logical" argument. Try using facts - or don't bother trying again.



If the OS says so, it gotta be true..


I am done, no more 9/11 threads ever again, you say I don't have logic, I say you don't have logic and bla bla..
If something even gets close to be a "smoking gun" in this topic it will be pissed on by people like you any way..

This is lame, maybe you did get a paycheck defending the OS I don't care, I am out period.

Have fun with your bubble.




posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by notonsamepage

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by Sliick
There is no major pieces of debris. OS states it was completely incinerated/vaporized by the ensuing fireball. If this is true, how on earth were they able to identify every single passengers remains?


Maybe your definition of "major" and other people's aren't the same. Landing wheels, landing struts. piece of aluminum outerskin (painted in AA colors no less) at least 3' long don't qualify as major pieces of debris?

Does the OS say *everything* was vaporized?




DuH!, everything had to be vaporized if not, there would be some seats and sh1t laying around..

don't try again..


Since there were passengers found still strapped to their seats - that pretty much discards your "logical" argument. Try using facts - or don't bother trying again.



Lets see, either the plane vaporizes, or they find people strapped to the seats, you cant have it both ways, hope you can understand that...



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by notonsamepage
If the OS says so, it gotta be true..


I am done, no more 9/11 threads ever again, you say I don't have logic, I say you don't have logic and bla bla..
If something even gets close to be a "smoking gun" in this topic it will be pissed on by people like you any way..



I just find it absolutely flabberghasting at the depths of self-delusion the truthers are inflicting upon themselves to cling to these inane conspiracy claims. In short...

-We post that a hundred eyewitnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon. The truthers' response? They're all disinformation agents

-We post photos of wreckage found within and on the front lawn of the Pentagon. The truthers' response? The photos are all faked.

-We post photos of knocked down light poles. The truthers' response? Someone planted the light poles.

-We post that aircraft parts, wreckage, and even the black box have been recovered from the Pentagon. The truther's response? All that has been manufactured or planted

-We post that passenger remains have been recovered and identified by DNA testing. The truthers' response? The passengers never existed and the DNA testing is faked.

-We post that numerous people received phone calls from passengers from flight 77 reporting it had been hijacked. The truthers' response? They're all lying.

-WHY do they say these things? Becuase "we're stubbornly refusing to listen to what anyone else says and we're refusing to listen to the facts". Right.

I swear, sometimes I think these people are really just pulling our legs with these idiotic conspiracy stories and are simply posting this stuff for flame bait. I can't be the only one here who understands just how amazingly stupid the idea of "cruise misiles at the Pentagon" really is- with the immense overhead and support base needed to pull of such a conspiracy and to cover it up, it would be easier simply to fling a passenger jet into the Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
-We post that a hundred eyewitnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon. The truthers' response? They're all disinformation agents


Wrong and misleading. No witness saw the plane impact the pentagon. No need to call anyone a disinformation agent.


-We post photos of wreckage found within and on the front lawn of the Pentagon. The truthers' response? The photos are all faked.


No one says the photos were fake. But we do question why there was so little wreckage found. For example three parts from two jet engines.


-We post photos of knocked down light poles. The truthers' response? Someone planted the light poles.


Photo's do not prove the light poles were knocked over by an aircraft.


-We post that aircraft parts, wreckage, and even the black box have been recovered from the Pentagon. The truther's response? All that has been manufactured or planted


Do you have proof they were not planted? Like serial numbers etc?


-We post that passenger remains have been recovered and identified by DNA testing. The truthers' response? The passengers never existed and the DNA testing is faked.


Do you have the independent chain of custody for any of the DNA tested? You have nothing but faith in the government to not lie to you.


-We post that numerous people received phone calls from passengers from flight 77 reporting it had been hijacked. The truthers' response? They're all lying.


What does that prove either way? There is evidence the calls were fake but in the grand scheme of things this is not even a point worth bothering with.


-WHY do they say these things? Becuase "we're stubbornly refusing to listen to what anyone else says and we're refusing to listen to the facts". Right.


Well you tend to stick to the fringe beliefs you can easily ridicule. You tend to stay away from any real discussion of physics.


I can't be the only one here who understands just how amazingly stupid the idea of "cruise misiles at the Pentagon" really is- with the immense overhead and support base needed to pull of such a conspiracy and to cover it up, it would be easier simply to fling a passenger jet into the Pentagon.


Just because you think something is stupid it doesn't mean you are right. Personal belief does not make you right. No one can say for sure what hit the pentagon, it's all speculation, but the idea that a Boeing hit the pentagon is also just as ridiculous when you really look at the details.


edit on 7/5/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
24
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join