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.

 

Columnist Ted Rall: AA77 hit the lawn, not the building

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by userid1
 
I keep hearing from you and others about the score of 'witnesses' to the plane impacting the building. Do us all a favor and get one of them to come here to ats. Ask them to give a little backround, where they were, why they were there and maybe their description of the impact. You see, I dont believe there is anyone who saw a plane hit the pentagon, because there is not enough evidence right now to prove that one did. There's a trunkfull of plane 'parts', 4 frames of a blur and an explosion and no wings, tail, engines, luggage or passengers. I know you believe there's evidence of a plane crash there but, there's obviously alot of us who dont. So, get somebody credible to describe what happened that day, and I'll quit posting on this topic. Now there's an incentive for you.



It's not my responsibility to provide this level of compliance to you. It's not even resonable for you to ask for it. As a matter of fact, the numerous links to eyewitness accounts provided in the past in these threads is FAR more evidence than you ever bother to provide when you make your usual caustic remarks against a percieved "OS'r" post. Your request is akin to me demanding to have one of your parents come on ATS, prove they're who they say they are, and verify that you were born wherever you might say you were born - simply unreasonable.

However, in the interest of getting you to stop posting "I don't believe it and there's no proof" posts, I'll do the next best thing I can think of - provide you with video evidence from witnesses.

Please note the following:
1 - The site this was taken from does NOT endorse the OS
2 - The witnesses in question were actually eyewitnesses to the actual impact
3 - Their testimony actually conflicts with part of the OS (which was the point of the video in the first place)
Please watch the interview with Sgt Brooks from 37:44 minutes through 38:15 minutes
Please watch the interview with Sgt Lagrasse from 42:40 minute through 43:34 minutes
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Now, can I be any more fair and even-handed than that?

Beyond this, if you're still unconvinced about witness testimony regarding the plane hitting the Pentagon - YOU have to start providing evidence to support that statement because this "I simply don't believe it" attitude ain't getting it.

Your turn...
edit on 20-9-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


That's a really crafty move - insult those who *might* be inclined to support further investigation.



What you or anyone else "might" be inclined to support is not really any of my concern. I am genuinely in deep remorse for not adhering to your politically correct standards.

However, to satisfy the "might be inclined" audience, I'll make sure to be more crafty with any subsequent observations.


If you'd like to show us crafty - why not answer any of the questions I posed to you on page #3 regarding witnesses, debris, and DNA evidence? Tell you what - I'll make it simple (in deference to you) - just provide verifiable evidence to debunk the eyewitnesses - as has been asked of you before, but you never seem to be able to do.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
The 'plane' didn't hit the Pentagon lawn for the same reason the planes in New York didn't miss the buildings. I mean come on, work it out. Could the terrorists fly planes or not? Make up your minds.

Anyway, don't matter much to me, because the post Pentagon crash group and 'evidence' photos are all clearly 'staged'.

And so I ask myself: Why would terrorists stage these photos? That seems like a lot of crafty unnecessary back planning to me.

And then we have threads on here endlessly debating whether or not the towers contained outside energy explosives or not. I say if the Pentagon lawn photos are staged then YES explosives were used. Why? It's simple. Why would you plan to fake post crash photos but leave the complete destruction of 3 giant buildings to chance, plane impacts, random fire and gravity?

The Answer is: You Wouldn't.

As for the Pentagon "witnesses", I'm sure we all remember 'Shaun' and how I could never seem to get a straight answer out of him...

Cheers



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
"Shaun" who?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

I don't know what it did because I was not there. My point however, is that aircraft will not make ruts in the grass when they do a belly slide. Regardless of whether it did or didn't touch the grass, you wouldn't see any evidence on the grass either way.
edit on 9/19/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)


Wow...I bet the material the plane was made of would do wonders for sport clothing companies. Imagine that. Players could slide in the grass making a catch without any worry of creating divits in it. No need for repairing a football field or baseball field.

On another note. If the belly did, in fact slide, along the grass and leave not a groove or divit in it....did the engines do the same thing. Correct me if Im wrong...but I just looked at a dozen pictures of jet airliners and it seems to me that the bottom of the engines hang down just as low or lower than the belly of the plane.

SOOO.....Could you please explain why the engines didnt leave a mark in the grass, either.

Thanks...



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by DIDtm
Please explain WTC7 then?
Cant wait to hear this.


Been over this so many times that I practically know it by heart now.

Debris from WTC 1 impacted and set afire to WTC 7. The debris caused a 20 story gouge in the building from the bottom up according to firefighters. Other documented picture evidence includes an 8 story chunk missing from the corner, and a piece knocked off the edge of the south side of the roof.

Firefighters also documented a 3 story bulge forming in the building over the hours that it was burning, and they determined that a collapse was likely to happen. They cleared a collapse radius, and the building collapsed, just as they predicted.

It took 7 hours, and a single column failed. The 8 story chunk missing from the corner caused a buckling in the supports which allowed approximately 8 stories of free-fall. After that, gravity took the building down naturally.


So it is your theory that the damage to WTC7 made from the collapsing of the other two WTC's had a significant bearing in the collapse of WTC7?
Because that is in direct contradiction of what NIST says.

SOOOOOO...you dont believe the OS either? Is that what your saying?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You need to know there is no such thing as "the government story". That's yet another pseudo-label the conspiracy theorists cooked up on their own to instigate abject paranoia.


WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the government paid for the investigation into 9/11 and then stood behind their findings...it became the 'official story'.

When I have to hear the commander in chief make references to 19 terrorist hijackers (I want to puke) and other scenarios that the government sponsored committees claimed.....then sorry Dave...it is the "OS".



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You need to know there is no such thing as "the government story". That's yet another pseudo-label the conspiracy theorists cooked up on their own to instigate abject paranoia.


WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the government paid for the investigation into 9/11 and then stood behind their findings...it became the 'official story'.

When I have to hear the commander in chief make references to 19 terrorist hijackers (I want to puke) and other scenarios that the government sponsored committees claimed.....then sorry Dave...it is the "OS".


So... if you paid someone to give you an expert opinion on what happened based on tests, math, and science, you would tell them they were completely wrong afterward based on your laymen understanding?

The government paid a lot of money to have the investigations done. It is not proof of a conspiracy. It is proof that an investigation was done. It is up to the Truth Movement to find flaws in the investigation, which does not mean screaming that things are impossible. It means doing things from a scientific medium, such as challenging the investigation in a scholarly journal, where others can critique your work and see if you're not just all rhetoric.

Instead, I only see websites and forums where the "truth" is out. It is not very convincing to me.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the government paid for the investigation into 9/11 and then stood behind their findings...it became the 'official story'.


It's patently obvious you never even bothered to read the commission report and are content with the drivel those damned fool conspiracy web sites are feeding you. The fact of the matter is, the 9/11 commission didn't just lock themselves into a closed room to concoct an explanation. It was an open conference that interviewed many, many, MANY eyewitnesses, from military and FAA personnel to people who knew the hijackers personally to even William Rodriguez. It was from their testimony that the details of the attack were put together and it was from their testimony that the report was based on. When, for example, Germain police officials testified Mohammed Atta left Hamburg to train in Al Qaida camps in Afghanistan, I'm going to believe them over the drivel those damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out.


When I have to hear the commander in chief make references to 19 terrorist hijackers (I want to puke) and other scenarios that the government sponsored committees claimed.....then sorry Dave...it is the "OS".


Before you put your foot into your mouth any deeper, you should know the Saudi government acknowledges the terrorist hijackers were Saudi nationals and have officially listed them as dead.

Saudi Government acknowledges terrorists were Saudi nationals

Go ahead, say that the Saudi gov't was infiltrated by secrect gov't disinformation agents. I double dog dare you.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by DIDtm
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the government paid for the investigation into 9/11 and then stood behind their findings...it became the 'official story'.


It's patently obvious you never even bothered to read the commission report and are content with the drivel those damned fool conspiracy web sites are feeding you. The fact of the matter is, the 9/11 commission didn't just lock themselves into a closed room to concoct an explanation. It was an open conference that interviewed many, many, MANY eyewitnesses, from military and FAA personnel to people who knew the hijackers personally to even William Rodriguez. It was from their testimony that the details of the attack were put together and it was from their testimony that the report was based on. When, for example, Germain police officials testified Mohammed Atta left Hamburg to train in Al Qaida camps in Afghanistan, I'm going to believe them over the drivel those damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out.


When I have to hear the commander in chief make references to 19 terrorist hijackers (I want to puke) and other scenarios that the government sponsored committees claimed.....then sorry Dave...it is the "OS".


Before you put your foot into your mouth any deeper, you should know the Saudi government acknowledges the terrorist hijackers were Saudi nationals and have officially listed them as dead.

Saudi Government acknowledges terrorists were Saudi nationals

Go ahead, say that the Saudi gov't was infiltrated by secrect gov't disinformation agents. I double dog dare you.


So youre not refuting that since the government paid for these investigations and is standing behind them, then they are in fact....the official story?

Other than that, you show me a website, I show you a website. What is the point? Youre not going to change my mind until my questions are explained rationally, logically and cohesively.
AND
Neither me nor any other 'truther' are going to change your mind until the government comes out and tells us they lied or you stop getting........oh..I cant say that.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You need to know there is no such thing as "the government story". That's yet another pseudo-label the conspiracy theorists cooked up on their own to instigate abject paranoia.


WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the government paid for the investigation into 9/11 and then stood behind their findings...it became the 'official story'.

When I have to hear the commander in chief make references to 19 terrorist hijackers (I want to puke) and other scenarios that the government sponsored committees claimed.....then sorry Dave...it is the "OS".


So... if you paid someone to give you an expert opinion on what happened based on tests, math, and science, you would tell them they were completely wrong afterward based on your laymen understanding?

The government paid a lot of money to have the investigations done. It is not proof of a conspiracy. It is proof that an investigation was done. It is up to the Truth Movement to find flaws in the investigation, which does not mean screaming that things are impossible. It means doing things from a scientific medium, such as challenging the investigation in a scholarly journal, where others can critique your work and see if you're not just all rhetoric.

Instead, I only see websites and forums where the "truth" is out. It is not very convincing to me.


???????????????
Where does anywhere in your rambling, agree or disagree with my point that what the government is telling us is, in fact, THE OFFICIAL STORY?

Why cant you people just answer questions directly instead of branching off onto something completely abstract?
Oh..thats right....when you cant refute what someone says.....create conflict. I wonder who else does that? --oh...I already know.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join