Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 28
24
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



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

Wrong and misleading - yes they did.

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.

Why would any rational person question why so little wreckage was found ON THE WAY TO the accident scene. Face it, if the lawn were strewn about with tons of aircraft wreckage you would be questioning why all the wreckage wasn't inside the building.

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

Brilliant! And you wonder why there isn't a massive movement to start a new investigation with blindingly obvious incite like that.

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

Do I need to point out what is wrong with this little gem? And please tell me you would be satisfied if the FBI and the airlines released a parts list - c'mon.

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.

And you have nothing but the ability to parrot the idea that everyone is lying that doesn't support your little fantasy.

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.

Again, taking down the old "everyone is lying" tool off the shelf whenever you are confronted with the truth.

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

Like how you would accept a parts list from the airlines but don't believe the DNA evidence because there is no "independent chain of custody"? And exactly what would that be anyway? And how would that have worked on 9/11? "No, no - don't touch the bodies! We need Captain Independent to come by and verify the remains as, of course, we all being government employees must be the prime suspects"!

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,

No, quite a few people can say for sure, it is not all speculation.

....but the idea that a Boeing hit the pentagon is also just as ridiculous when you really look at the details.

Or, more importantly, ignore all the details and call everyone a liar.




posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

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

GoodOlDave, your presence is required in this thread.

You made a claim about a photo of a particular light pole lying on top of a cab.
You have not yet shown the location of this photo.

Before slamming truthers, you should first concern yourself with your own take on the 'facts' of 9/11.
edit on 5-7-2011 by tezzajw because: grammar, sorry.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Wrong and misleading - yes they did.


Then please show it.


Why would any rational person question why so little wreckage was found ON THE WAY TO the accident scene. Face it, if the lawn were strewn about with tons of aircraft wreckage you would be questioning why all the wreckage wasn't inside the building.


Huh? This discussion includes all wreckage, no one mentioned anything about wreckage found on the way to the scene.

But if the engines were not on the lawn, then where did they go? They didn't go inside now did they?

Any rational person who looks at the details of the case can see something, or a lot of things, are missing.


Brilliant! And you wonder why there isn't a massive movement to start a new investigation with blindingly obvious incite like that.


Well, I'm sorry the blindingly obvious bothers you.


Do I need to point out what is wrong with this little gem? And please tell me you would be satisfied if the FBI and the airlines released a parts list - c'mon.


I'm just pointing out that when you claim you have indisputable evidence you better be able to verify that evidence, other then faith in what you've been told. Just because something supports what you want to believe it doesn't make it fact.


And you have nothing but the ability to parrot the idea that everyone is lying that doesn't support your little fantasy.


Well unless there is indisputable evidence then I AM going to question the validity of any claims. I don't see anything wrong with that, unless you think faith is good enough. There are so many HUGE holes in the OS then every little detail is automatically suspect, and will not be simply believed on faith. YOU need to be 100% in your claims because YOU are supporting something that is in question. What the 'truthers' say is not what is in question, the OS is. Remember that.


Again, taking down the old "everyone is lying" tool off the shelf whenever you are confronted with the truth.


No, my point was it doesn't matter either way. There is much more relevant evidence that is much harder for Dave to dispute.


Like how you would accept a parts list from the airlines but don't believe the DNA evidence because there is no "independent chain of custody"?


You are just projecting your assumptions. I never said I would except a parts list from the airlines. Do you have a parts list? If there is no chain of custody then there is NO evidence, again I don't work on faith.


And exactly what would that be anyway? And how would that have worked on 9/11? "No, no - don't touch the bodies! We need Captain Independent to come by and verify the remains as, of course, we all being government employees must be the prime suspects"!


Independent chain of custody from the collecting of DNA to the doctors testing it etc., that didn't come from the entity who is in question.


No, quite a few people can say for sure, it is not all speculation.


No they can't. If there was a definitive witness of the plane impacting the pentagon then there would be no questions. But I was actually referring to Dave's claim that 'truthers' claim it was a cruse missile.


Or, more importantly, ignore all the details and call everyone a liar.


No need to ignore anything, or call anyone a liar. Maybe you need to really look at what the witnesses said instead of what you think, and want them to say.

BTW why are you answering for DAVE? Now if DAVE replies I have to reply again to DAVE.

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



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by hooper
Wrong and misleading - yes they did.


Then please show it.


sites.google.com...

If you read this carefully, you'll notice several eyewitness accounts of direct impact. However, since all you ever seem to do is try to discredit evidence provided - I doubt you'll believe witnesses either - even though you have NOTHING to counter their testmony with



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by hooper

But if the engines were not on the lawn, then where did they go? They didn't go inside now did they?

How do you know this? Any proof?


I'm just pointing out that when you claim you have indisputable evidence you better be able to verify that evidence, other then faith in what you've been told. Just because something supports what you want to believe it doesn't make it fact.

Ironic statement coming from someone who hasn't offered one piece of proof to his argument yet.


What the 'truthers' say is not what is in question, the OS is. Remember that.

Nope - if you've got an allegation - supply your proof/evidence/empirical data to support it - otherwise, it's just an unfounded allegation and the people supplying actual facts are light years ahead of you in this subject.


No they can't. If there was a definitive witness of the plane impacting the pentagon then there would be no questions.

Again, there ARE. The first and most obvious was the guy in the Helipad control tower - he watched it go right into the building.


Maybe you need to really look at what the witnesses said instead of what you think, and want them to say.

Maybe you ought to do more fact checking before you make any more comments like this. You've been supplied proof - deal with it, or find some childish reason to question their veracity just as you've done all along in this thread when proof was supplied to you.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Then, you have nothing to back up your assault on me. I gave you my story and it is verified only by being in the service from 1969 to 1977. Google up "Forensic detective Vietnam era" and read about a world you know nothing about.

You can believe it or trash it, who cares. I have obviously been there and you have not. I defended my county but not for people like you, perhaps your kids or your wife... It is obvious to me that you have had a lot of trouble in your life because you never put your balls in danger or perhaps you let someone else protect your sheltered, delusional life.

It is so easy to post crap. Think this is crap? Ask another Vet from this part of American history, and maybe they will fill you in, as for me - we are done talking.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Building 7.

Molten metal pouring from towers.

Good luck, shill.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Observer99
 
Let's hope observer99 begats observer100 who begats observer101 who...



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
the proof is not in the evidence it's in the lack of it - there are a multitude of video angles that were never released that could clearly show what happened in full detail, baring that I can only say since day 1 I have felt we were being lied to about what happened - by who or for what reason I don't know but I know the truth is not being told.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by circuitsports
 


How do you know this - where's your proof?



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what's the use of this thread?

Positive, undeniable proof, acceptable in any court of law has already been supplied here:

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Their report simply cannot be argued with, unless of course you have a further agenda or are mentally deficient. Which is it OP?



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
How do you know this? Any proof?


It's not up to me to provide proof, that is the job of the government. If there were engines on the lawn then where are the marks they made, where are the engines? Did they simply neglect to take pictures of them?



Ironic statement coming from someone who hasn't offered one piece of proof to his argument yet.


Again it's not my job to provide proof, that was the governments job. I am looking for proof from the government that their claims are true but they fail to provide that, so I question it.


Nope - if you've got an allegation - supply your proof/evidence/empirical data to support it - otherwise, it's just an unfounded allegation and the people supplying actual facts are light years ahead of you in this subject.


We provide lots of evidence, if there was no evidence, no questions, then why are so many questioning?


Again, there ARE. The first and most obvious was the guy in the Helipad control tower - he watched it go right into the building.


No there isn't. I will ask again for you to provide the witness statement that says they saw the plane IMPACT the pentagon. Just saying there are doesn't work mate.


Maybe you ought to do more fact checking before you make any more comments like this. You've been supplied proof - deal with it, or find some childish reason to question their veracity just as you've done all along in this thread when proof was supplied to you.


You have provided no proof, only in your fantasy world. What you call 'childish reason' is attention to detail. You might read a witness statement that says they saw a plane and saw a fireball, then you make the leap that they must have seen the impact, yet they did not say that. It's a very important point because slight of hand could have been used, and what people assumed they saw didn't happen at all. Witnesses tend to fill the holes after the event with details they missed gained from others.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by userid1

It's not up to me to provide proof, that is the job of the government. If there were engines on the lawn then where are the marks they made, where are the engines? Did they simply neglect to take pictures of them?

Who said there *were* engines on the lawn?
Why would it be necessary to take pics of *every* single piece of the engines - just to please people like you?
Do you honestly believe this is a realistic expectation?


We provide lots of evidence, if there was no evidence, no questions, then why are so many questioning?

WHAT evidence have you provided regarding the Pentagon yet?


No there isn't. I will ask again for you to provide the witness statement that says they saw the plane IMPACT the pentagon. Just saying there are doesn't work mate.

CAN you read? I provided your proof, I ALSO provided more proof in my discussions with another member in the same thread in which you posted both before and afterwards - which tells me you don't bother to read much of anything. In deference to you - I will post these links again. Please review and come back with your excuses as to why they're not valid
www.youtube.com...
video.google.nl...#
video.google.nl...#
video.google.nl...#
Sean Boger who was in the Pentagon Helipad ATC tower during the impact - see page #11:
www.thepentacon.com...




You have provided no proof, only in your fantasy world. What you call 'childish reason' is attention to detail. You might read a witness statement that says they saw a plane and saw a fireball, then you make the leap that they must have seen the impact, yet they did not say that.

After watching the videos and deposition listed above - care to revise your assessments?



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by D377MC
 


I wasnt aware of any court accepting the "evidence" from these clowns

Give us name of court and case where it was offered up as evidence and accepted by the judge.....



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


My self and 2 passengers SAW the plane impact the building. So did several others on the same pkwy.. Whats your point? You wont believe anyone that tells you something, that disagrees with your delusion. So really, whats the point?



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


Shaun, how you doing man? Question for you...

I just finished checking out those videos userid1 just posted from eye witnesses that seem to recount that a plane did in fact impact the Pentagon, only problem, the fourth video witness, Steven Gerrard, claimed to see a "twenty passenger corporate jet, no markings on the side..."

Now, I gotta ask you, since you were there and seen the plane impact the building:

Exactly what kind of plane was it?

Cheers



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 
Shaun, must have missed your reply. What kind of plane was it, again? If your too busy to reply, you can tell me at the MENSA meeting.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


You really don't have enough self-awareness to realize that you just come off as "smart-ass in training" do you"?

Try debunking the other videos sport.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 
I'm well aware of how I come off. People such as yourself should be well aware of what a smart-ass is, because all you do is belittle anyone who disagrees with you. How is it possible that after all that's been written here, you are still treating as gospel, the ridiculous OS? Why should I consider anything you say as credible, when you've ignored every fact presented here, time after time? In my world you have to earn respect, and that's why I treat you with none. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding about my feelings regarding your contributions to this topic, sport.
edit on 11-7-2011 by dillweed because: addition



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by userid1
 
I'm well aware of how I come off. People such as yourself should be well aware of what a smart-ass is, because all you do is belittle anyone who disagrees with you. How is it possible that after all that's been written here, you are still treating as gospel, the ridiculous OS? Why should I consider anything you say as credible, when you've ignored every fact presented here, time after time? In my world you have to earn respect, and that's why I treat you with none. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding about my feelings regarding your contributions to this topic, sport.
edit on 11-7-2011 by dillweed because: addition



There were never any misunderstandings - I'm simply calling an ass - an ass, publically.

Show me the "facts" I've ignored - rather than addressed?

You treat no one with any respect - unless they tow your line pefectly. You've NEVER shown any respect to ANY dissenting opinion - no matter how well presented on this topic. You live to give a one line smart-ass comment and then run away. You never stay to present an argument. You ALSO don't bother to read since I've made it clear in threads like this that there is a hole in the OS.

You clearly miss the point about worlds. Your world is inconsequential since it's the *whole* world you have to live and interact in.






top topics



 
24
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join