It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CCLLCCLL
reply to post by jhn7537
I know right?! Your telling me the PENTAGON only had ONE surveillance camera that caught like ONE frame of this event?! That alone is the most huge stupid discrepancy of the whole thing. Its like when my daughter was playing with the curtains and broke them, then I come inside and she says, "it was the dog!" but the dog was outside with me when it happened. This is all just a waste of time.
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Truthers NEVER watch videos debunking their theories, because if they realized the whole time that they were SO wrong SO silly it would be an UNBEARABLE blow to the ego due to the emotional investment in the truth movement.
I beg to differ! Sorry, but my ego is already at rock bottom and cannot go any lower.
Originally posted by Lyrian
Whatever you Pro- Government guys come up with as an argument, I prefer to listen to many hundreds of pilots who say that it's unbelievable that a plane hit the Pentagon.
Just release the surveillance tapes, wasn't there talk of some employees in a Hotel who supposedly saw the tapes before they were confiscated?
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
How can one honestly believe that a large commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon when:
1) There was no conclusive physical evidence (airplane parts, luggage, cargo, personal effects, seats, wiring, etc.) of such an aircraft impacting with the Pentagon.
2) No conclusive photographic or video evidence of the impact has ever been released.
3) A Top Gun Turban, who could not even fly a Cessna, performing such a complex high speed maneuver with an advanced aircraft is virtually impossible.
4) There is no photographic or video evidence from the airport of departure of these passengers or hijackers boarding the airplane.
5) There were no family members awaiting the arrival of the passengers at the destination airport.
6) 53 passengers on a transcontinental flight wouldn't even begin to cover the fuel cost for such a long distance flight.
7) There are numerous conflicting reports by alleged witnesses.
8) Sections of the downed light pole(s) should have been flung half way across the state if impacted with an aircraft traveling at 450 MPH, not just knocked over.
9) The Pentagon lawn appears to be in absolutely pristine condition after the impact when there should have been debris all over the place.
10) There is absolutely no conclusive visual evidence of the jet engines impacting with the exterior wall of the Pentagon.
All this doubt, however, we are asked to believe that an airliner crashed at the Pentagon because of some flight data info (which can easily be made up) and alleged DNA evidence. I can tell you I have the DNA of Jesus Christ. Without providing any additional proof, would you believe me?
Originally posted by MonkeyWrench30
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
Donald Rumsfeld admitting that they cannot trace 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of US Taxpayer Money the day before 9/11 happened!!!. And wouldnt you know what department of the Pentagon was hit and ultimately destroyed even down to the very computer hardware and documentation in files?!?!?!?! THE ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT!!!!
Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by userid1
1) I'd love if you posted some pictures of the Pentagon aircraft debris which matches that of other airline crashes. Just type in Airplane Crash images, and compare that to the Pentagon plane crash site, and you'll notice how dramatically different the sites look.
2) We definitely know that there is other video evidence. There is no way that the only video camera which was facing the Pentagon is that one which gives us a measly, grainy three frames. There are many other buildings around it, not to mention it's the Pentagon.
3) The data-recorder flight path is a lie according to many eyewitness testimonies who claimed that the flight path given to the public in the OS does not match what they saw.
Scale that up to flying a Boeing 747 just a few feet above the ground (snip)
Another smoking gun in that video was an interview with the taxidriver (snip)
Did we have the technology to make in-flight calls in 2001?