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.
An investigation's course of action is to either accept the gigantic bulk of the evidence that conforms to each other, or to spin a gigantic convoluted conspiracy scenario entirely for the sake of spinning gigantic convoluted conspiracy scenarios. So which one are you doing?
What do YOU think?
What eyewitness to the attack is actually "contradicting these events" as you claim they are?
Google Video Link |
Originally posted by kwakakev
Looking for an answer that accepts all the facts, not just most of them and ignores a few important details.
There where fatalities at the Pentagon, I have no doubt about that. From the photos, parts of the fire where very intense but other parts where not, as demonstrated by the clothing still intact. So if this was a plane, where are the seats? Ok, parts of the fire where very hot and they may have melted away, but other parts did not reach such intensity and would remain and be visible as they are built to withstand crash events.
There is a lot of evidence that something was flying at the time, the contention is what it actually was. Pilots for 9/11 truth have classified a lot of these statements into a North path that contradicts the official story with the poles getting knocked over and the released Flight Data Recorder information and a South path that supports the official version pilotsfor911truth.org... .
But lets cut through a lot of these damn fool conspiracy sites and witness what hit the Pentagon for ourselves. This is a zoomed in section of the object that hit the Pentagon.
Whatever the object is, it does not match the size of the alleged plane. Just one of those little details
1. You need to use the waybackmachine.org to access it, but here is one link that questions the integrity of the witness statements www.911-strike.com... . I cannot set up a direct link due to the web address structures between ATS and the Wayback Machine.
Try looking here - www.oilempire.us... Notice the big painted piece right on the lawn? Would you say that's a piece of fuselage or not?
2. A hand full of parts from 10,000's leaves a lot missing. As for the fuselage parts, again, where are they?
And again, where are the seats?
The problem is that you seem to have a completely different viewpoint of what the "important details" happen to be
Please explain to me why I shouldn't consider this as an exercise in excuse making on your part.
Look at the lower right corner, and you'll see two curved bars parralel with each other. Those are arm rests to a seat.
Oh, and you did know the personal effects of the passengers were recovered and returned to their next of kin, right?
The reason why is the same reason why you refuse to address eyewitness accounts- he has no way to refute them so he pretends they don't exist.
There is absolutely no way you can tell the size or shape of the object hitting the Pentagon from these blurry images. You know that and so do I. This is why we're required to rely on the eyewitness who specifically saw what it was that hit the Pentagon. You likewise know that and so do I.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I know you're fond of beating that dead horse, but you still haven't addressed the question that started this whole "taxi cab photo" discussion to begin with- Ingersoll took that photo of the cab, which you conspiracy people are saying is staged or faked...
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right then, let's test this statement. Here are photos of several passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon ruins.
Passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon (Warning: graphic)
Passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon (Warning: graphic)
Passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon (Warning: Graphic)
Photograph of a body part found inside the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into the building [Viewer discretion is advised]
Boy, there sure do seem to be a *lot* of witnesses discredited because they fit this author's definition of a "deep insider". But you don't find that odd/convenient? However, I *do* notice a lot of these witnesses say exactly the same thing - the plane, regardless of approach, hit the building. How do you account for that?
Try looking here - www.oilempire.us... Notice the big painted piece right on the lawn? Would you say that's a piece of fuselage or not?
Seems to be your strongest argument as much as you're repeating it. How does it compare to the other debris that has been photographed?
1 - Your 71' mark is in the foreground compared to the impact point which automatically makes your 35' measurement (many yards behind it) suspect. How exactly did you come up with a 35' mark to "scale" when the two points of measurment are so far apart?
2 - How tall do you think a 757 with gear up is?
Originally posted by kwakakev
I have presented evidence that refutes the witnesses that claim they saw a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. There is a lot of strong evidence that something was flying and hit the Pentagon.
Now who is on an excuse making exercise? This one piece of evidence that cuts through all the witness conflicts and provides some answers and direction with who to believe.
Originally posted by tezzajw
However, would you please prove to me that those were remains of passengers?
Originally posted by tezzajw
Once again, it is a sign of your extremely poor logical skills in action. You can not collectively group people together, when they do not hold the same beliefs, or opinions about what might have happened.
I don't need to answer for anyone, GoodOlDave. Your insistance that I should, shows your desperation in wanting me to be a part of your imaginary collective group - which I am not.
Please, for the sake of your future credibility, you really need to study an entry level course in logic and reasoning. Your arguments fail basic logic. If you need to learn one thing, then please learn that false generalisations are easily disproven with a single counterexample.
No you haven't. Not even remotely.
I'm not here to insult you or to make you feel bad about yourself.
So, do you believe the photos of passenger remains are faked or real?
Originally posted by kwakakev
I know these witness statements are an important issue. Lets say someone gets shot in a pub, everyone says Kev done it so the police lock him up. Later the investigation looks over the surveillance video and it shows Dave shooting the victim. How will the court decide?
I thought it was crazy when I first heard of the missile theory, but that is a closer description than an Boeing 757 when reviewing the Pentagon surveillance video. Combine this with strong evidence that fuselage parts where staged after the impact and serious questions about the integrity of the investigation develop.
1/ The road along the impact site was closed to stop too many witness.
2/ The fallen poles where staged with the taxi to sell the flight 77 story.
3/ A small plane / missile flew over and hit the Pentagon.
4/ Fuselage parts where scattered on the grass to further sell the flight 77 story.
5/ The actual passengers of flight 77 where killed with DNA placed on the scene.
6/ Witnesses and the media intentionally and unintentionally collaborated to further sell the flight 77 story.
The part of the Pentagon hit was undergoing renovations, as well as investigating the missing Trillions that Rumsfeld announced the day before. A surgical strike was required to contain the damage and help bury its skeletons. There was no way they could trust an inexperienced pilot to hit the right spot so they done it themselves.
Giving a hypothetical scenario to explain another hypothetical scenario isn't proof.
There is zero evidence that the "fuselage parts were staged".
Before you continue any further, you need to know you're only digging yourself deeper into that conspiracy hole of yours.
This "trillions of dollars missing" was entirely accounting oversights, and no money was missing whatsoever
Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by userid1
Witness collaboration, intentional and unintentional. When a crime takes place people notice different things and fill in different details as these are usually very brief events. So with a bank robbery for example, some people will say they had a black shirt, other will say a red shirt or other different details.
This is all very standard and it is important that witnesses are kept isolated before questioning. What happens if they do start talking with each other or start seeing other versions of the events is that their memories and recollection changes to adapt to the most dominant versions of the story, despite generally being inaccurate.
All the media coverage around this has tainted the witness statements as the witness question what they saw with what they where told.
Why is there non of these parts on the grass when the first responders where on the scene?
Why are their photos of office men interfering with these parts when there are a lot more pressing issues at hand?
The events surrounding these fuselage parts on the grass is clear evidence that staging of events has taken place.
Not the strongest, but is a strong one like the seats themselves as they are made to survive crash events. Still where are the seats?
I acknowledge there is some room for error in the calculation and did call it an approximation. While the objects are far apart, they do share a similar depth of field which allows for a general perception of size. Even if the flying object happens to be twice as far away as the point of impact it is still too small to be a Boeing 757.
Originally posted by kwakakev
1/ The road along the impact site was closed to stop too many witness.
Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by GoodOlDave
1/ The road along the impact site was closed to stop too many witness.
2/ The fallen poles where staged with the taxi to sell the flight 77 story.
3/ A small plane / missile flew over and hit the Pentagon.
4/ Fuselage parts where scattered on the grass to further sell the flight 77 story.
5/ The actual passengers of flight 77 where killed with DNA placed on the scene.
6/ Witnesses and the media intentionally and unintentionally collaborated to further sell the flight 77 story.
So why go to such lengths?
The part of the Pentagon hit was undergoing renovations, as well as investigating the missing Trillions that Rumsfeld announced the day before. A surgical strike was required to contain the damage and help bury its skeletons.