The PentaCON

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


I firmly believe something is up with the Pentagon and consequently with the whole of 9/11.

In some recent posts I've tried to think through and dissect the scene. I know the Pentagon pre and post crash scene was 'staged'. It's obvious to me. So now I got to figure out exactly how. But because I am personally convinced there is staging at the Pentagon scene I'm already over the hump the 9/11 physics guys face saying the towers couldn't fall that way or some outside energy must have been used etc.

I've concluded something is fishy and the Pentagon is my way in.

And of course, by extension, I'm willing to bet there's something fishy at every 9/11 scene. I hardly think if there be 'staging' planning at the Pentagon, then there wouldn't also be the same everywhere we look. You're not going to stage the Pentagon scene and leave the complete destruction of the towers and WTC 7 up to just luck, randomness and gravity chance.

As well, I hardly think the "terrorists" planned the post crash Pentagon scene.

I've talked about the witnesses and how none of them mentioned the smoke trail under the plane as it scooted diagonally across the entire lawn from the highway to the wall impact. (I'm referencing that animated Solidworks video with the smoke trail shown under the right engine.) Many many of these witnesses did though, mention seeing a plane. But still, the early photos show no 757 lawn wreckage really. And there was a smoke streak on the gate cam video (Solidworks animation) that no witnesses even mentioned.

I spent a post going on about the gate cam/smoke trail but the thing is, the OSers will say like, "How can you not take the witnesses seriously? You calling them all agents or liars?!" Well sure they seen a plane see, but yet, there is really no wreckage of a 757 apparent on the lawn. So what does that mean? That the witnesses seem to be indicating that the photos with a lack of plane parts are phony? Or is it the other way around? That the lack of plane parts in the photos means the witnesses are mistaken, lying or are all government agents?! Which is it?

Another thing I want to add is the smoking generator in the construction area, it is suspicious in its placement and activity on 9/11, smoking away there on the lawn. It is presumed it was hit by something that came in just above the wire spools but not above the corner of the generator, catching it on fire. That's all highly suspect to me. Not the least of which it being hit in a way it would smoke the way it did. I find it and its activity highly questionable because it was hit the way it supposedly was, leading me to think that it was set and not really accidently hit by whatever may have scooted across the lawn.

With me so far? Ok.

I been thinking about all the witnesses seeing planes and all the TV Fakery Theories. Clearly that all gets shot down because many many people saw planes on 9/11 with their own eyes, there are countless street witnesses and even people in here who say like, "My cousin, brother, ex wife, all seen planes on 9/11!" And again the Pentagon witnesses claim this as well. Even though the early Pentagon photos don't seem to contain what you would expect. As well, we are all aware of the lack of Pentagon video footage etc. And in NYC weren't the black boxes destroyed and not recovered?

Interesting. For I mean, how can you have eye witness reports of planes and no plane pic wreckage? Or video and eye witness account plane impacts and no black boxes?

I'm not one for Live TV Fakery or CGI, I just think that would be too hard and even too obvious, right? I mean if it could be proved some clip is truly fake then everything would quickly unravel. You agree? That's way too many media people to involve. So I personally do not believe in fake video or CGI planes. Further to that I think those witnesses, either at the Pentagon or in New Jersey or the streets of Manhattan that saw planes did indeed see planes. I think the news videos shot that day seen planes too and that no big video fakery is afoot. It would be too risky to leave the crime of the century secrecy to some idiot TV producer or film maker editor. Am i right?

No, people saw planes that day. But does that mean I think the Pentagon photos that show no plane are phony? No, not in that way. Rather than pit one thing against the other I'm taking a third path, one that thinks the witnesses are telling the truth and that as well, the early Pentagon lawn photos also tell the truth. Same with the towers and there being no black boxes...

That people saw planes on 9/11 is abundantly clear to me. I don't think regular people were lying or that the videos were faked... no, not at all.


Cheers




posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by anoncoholic
No need to comment, I have better things to do with my time than having to keep explaining reality to those who don't know which side of a tale to believe in.


I take it that you don't want to explain your reality to those who desperately need your guidance. You posted because you don't want comments and have better things to do with your time.

Is this post akin to a dog marking territory or do you secretly want to respond and have this post as an escape hatch when you back yourself into a corner?

Was it a missile, flyover, drone, or demolition and CGI?

You could fall back on the standard truther variant and say "I don't know what it was but that there are too many holes in the story and events just didn't happen the way I expected them to."

Have at it.


my reality? If it were my reality you had to worry about you wouldn't be in the # you are in with mass murder coming in vogue.

Here again you trolls prefer to make this personal about me and my thinking rather than the common sense of logic leading you through the motions. Suspend belief in physics, suspend it in all your senses and deny the explosions, the molten steel, the evidence tampering and hasty removal contrary to crime scene protocols and just keep buying the goop they feed you because like a mushroom you thrive in the dark when fed bs.

Can I say positively what happened? No, neither can anyone but those involved ... however, the one thing I am sure of is none of them would come forward without a firm foundation of public support protecting them and people like the deniers are preventing any disclosure on that basis alone.

It would be far better to just keep your "opinions" to yourselves and let a new investigation have the chips fall where they may. Unless of course YOU have something to hide?


So you really did want a response and did fall back on the old "I don't know what it was but that there are too many holes in the story and events just didn't happen the way I expected them to." Then you suggest that only you can see the truth and the rest of us don't understand the physics and have ignored evidence tampering. This is mere repetition on your part unless you want to detail the physics that we have suspended belief in.

I take it you don't have any theory about the Pentagon and have mixed in erroneous details about the WTC to hide that fact. This is a predictable, common ploy that many others have used to no avail.

Try to be an imaginative truther and propose what exactly happened at the Pentagon that fits all the evidence. Maybe it was mass hypnosis and a flyover with timed demolitions, planted bodies, and DEW attacks to melt the billions in gold bullion hidden in Cheney's skivvies pulled by Silverstein. The world of conspiracy is waiting......



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


I totally agree. There was never any mention of how much of the 100 billion in gold bullion that was stored beneath the WTC was actually recovered other than that 280 million found already loaded on a truck.

There were many reports that day of explosions and demolition and then the story changed to not include those implications.

There were too many people also reporting explosions that the MSM had to ignore and even the commission had to ignore otherwise they couldn't promote the pancake theory and yet personally I find demolition not only the most plausible, but the most probable knowing what I know was going on in the periphery of public dissemination.

The one card they never could play well was the human card and too many people simply do not know how to answer questions honestly when it is all based on a lie. That audio clip of Popular Mechanics is epic and would even be funny if it weren't something as serious as mass murder and yet there is something going on behind the scenes to make all these people co-conspirators and I don't want to believe it was all for money... can humanity sink so low?

I know people can as evidenced by themselves every chance they get.

As far as 911 belief... what more can be said? In 10 years of probing for hidden facts and coming up against an immoveable and insane force of will to the contrary of common sense and anything of logic aren't we all facing that seed of incredibility that once planted casts doubt on every belief structure we were raised upon? Those who never believed vs those who never knew anything but belief and the victim is truth. While every person has their own flavor of it, who has the correct recipe that defined what 911 cooked up?

None of us, regardless of how loud they scream or stamp their feet like little tots with a spit the dummy mentality.

Only the perps know what roll they played and yet as I mentioned earlier in this thread it is doubtful any will come forward when truth is faced with such hostility..... never mind outright threat. Would you take a bullet for a crowd hell bent on being right regardless of facts? Many would rather the facts go away than face truth. That much is obvious. Its like the video of PM I keep talking about. Not a single comment trying to explain it because it can't be explained other than an obvious lie but admitting it and taking that leap from a denier to a truther is the epitome of fail I guess.

I may not have all the answers, or maybe I am not even asking all the right questions, but I do know I have my integrity and truth will always be truth so if it is a dirty word to be a truther as it is spit out like a disease or something then screw them all. I would rather be a truther than a habitual liar. and in the end, only the truth will have mattered.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by anoncoholic

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by anoncoholic
No need to comment, I have better things to do with my time than having to keep explaining reality to those who don't know which side of a tale to believe in.


I take it that you don't want to explain your reality to those who desperately need your guidance. You posted because you don't want comments and have better things to do with your time.

Is this post akin to a dog marking territory or do you secretly want to respond and have this post as an escape hatch when you back yourself into a corner?

Was it a missile, flyover, drone, or demolition and CGI?

You could fall back on the standard truther variant and say "I don't know what it was but that there are too many holes in the story and events just didn't happen the way I expected them to."

Have at it.


my reality? If it were my reality you had to worry about you wouldn't be in the # you are in with mass murder coming in vogue.

Here again you trolls prefer to make this personal about me and my thinking rather than the common sense of logic leading you through the motions. Suspend belief in physics, suspend it in all your senses and deny the explosions, the molten steel, the evidence tampering and hasty removal contrary to crime scene protocols and just keep buying the goop they feed you because like a mushroom you thrive in the dark when fed bs.

Can I say positively what happened? No, neither can anyone but those involved ... however, the one thing I am sure of is none of them would come forward without a firm foundation of public support protecting them and people like the deniers are preventing any disclosure on that basis alone.

It would be far better to just keep your "opinions" to yourselves and let a new investigation have the chips fall where they may. Unless of course YOU have something to hide?


So you really did want a response and did fall back on the old "I don't know what it was but that there are too many holes in the story and events just didn't happen the way I expected them to." Then you suggest that only you can see the truth and the rest of us don't understand the physics and have ignored evidence tampering. This is mere repetition on your part unless you want to detail the physics that we have suspended belief in.

I take it you don't have any theory about the Pentagon and have mixed in erroneous details about the WTC to hide that fact. This is a predictable, common ploy that many others have used to no avail.

Try to be an imaginative truther and propose what exactly happened at the Pentagon that fits all the evidence. Maybe it was mass hypnosis and a flyover with timed demolitions, planted bodies, and DEW attacks to melt the billions in gold bullion hidden in Cheney's skivvies pulled by Silverstein. The world of conspiracy is waiting......


meh, don't hold your breath. It is more than evident that you prefer to take this to a level of you, you, you, and I, I, I, and in your haste to seem like one of wit are ignoring the issue of fact based and in fact the truth is found, not in more tales or tongue wagging. I asked for a simple answer and was never given one but I did see a whole lot of ego and butt hurt forged in attitude and tempered with hostility so should I then respond in kind rather than stay the course of awaiting my simple question to be answered?

Let me ask it yet again... why the need to lie if all was as we are being told?

That simple, no conjectures, attitudes, personal slanders or hidden slurs, no hidden agenda, merely a simple question regarding evidence in the public domain. No opinion or conjecture, EVIDENCE.

why do deniers always avoid that simple question?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


9/11 Video fakery has been proven over and over and over again.
You just have to look in the right places!

www.septemberclues.info
www.cluesforum.info

No planes were hijacked and crashed on the 11th September 2001, in spite of
what we were led to believe

Take out eye-witnesses with connections to the military and the media (both suspected
of complicity in events of that day), and you ain't left with much!



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


You seem to be hinging your opinion on that video you posted on Page #1 (actually, it's a radio interview). Listening now.

But, rather than making people sit through it, why not point out the parts you think are "lies", since that's what has a bug up your bum on this topic.

Oh, and by the way.....the rather antagonistic (hardly neutral) show host just said it's been "five years"...so, that information in the video/radio interview is old, isn't it? From 2006.

In any case, so far it seems that is only the opinion of the radio host that something is being "lied" about and "withheld". I would say that in terms of the facts of all four airplanes, and the events of that day, he is wrong.

He claims there is "unseen evidence"...really, what is actually missing most likely is the ineptitude of the various alphabet agencies that failed to stop the plot in its tracks.

The host also thinks that some photos of American 77 hitting the Pentagon (besides the ones released) are being kept hidden. He is wrong.

At about 09:30, the topic is switched (by the host) to 7 World Trade...and the rest is more babbling about the same refrain heard here on ATS, he brings up just about every long-debunked "conspiracy theory" about many things, and is not relevant to the Pentagon (subject of this thread) after that point.


edit on Wed 19 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


"September Clues" has been shown to be without merit, in countless ways...and in any case, has no relevance in this thread about the Pentagon.

Peddling the "no-planes" nonsense is a bit ludicrous, and no one of any intelligence falls for that silliness. It belongs in the bin...here on ATS, best place for it is in the "Hoax" Forum.

Spamming that junk is not contributing, nor is it appreciated by people actually seeking to uncover all facts relate to these events.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


You seem to be hinging your opinion on that video you posted on Page #1 (actually, it's a radio interview). Listening now.

But, rather than making people sit through it, why not point out the parts you think are "lies", since that's what has a bug up your bum on this topic.

Oh, and by the way.....the rather antagonistic (hardly neutral) show host just said it's been "five years"...so, that information in the video/radio interview is old, isn't it? From 2006.

In any case, so far it seems that is only the opinion of the radio host that something is being "lied" about and "withheld". I would say that in terms of the facts of all four airplanes, and the events of that day, he is wrong.

He claims there is "unseen evidence"...really, what is actually missing most likely is the ineptitude of the various alphabet agencies that failed to stop the plot in its tracks.

The host also thinks that some photos of American 77 hitting the Pentagon (besides the ones released) are being kept hidden. He is wrong.

At about 09:30, the topic is switched (by the host) to 7 World Trade...and the rest is more babbling about the same refrain heard here on ATS, he brings up just about every long-debunked "conspiracy theory" about many things, and is not relevant to the Pentagon (subject of this thread) after that point.


edit on Wed 19 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


the relevance is if there is a single lie then nothing should be believed. It is old and that in itself is telling isn't it? The first five minutes Coburn spouts credentials, then when calls are taken I think it is the second or third one that he gets caught lying on and from there it was all downhill as far as veracity goes.

You say all this has been solved here and yet I have my doubts otherwise you all wouldn't be so sure about whose side you are on. Bottom line, I stand on the side of truth and I am not seeing a whole lot of it being defended by many here and even the post above yours about the no-planes is suspect to me. I know planes were employed, just one modality and by no means all methods employed that day.
I think the point was to confuse the efforts of solving the crime and turn us all against each other chasing tales while the crime goes not only unsolved, but gets more in depth.

I am curious where ATS stands on Rick Seigel and 911eyewitness? I have my own idea and trust him implicitly just wondering where ATS is on him...



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
reply to post by NWOwned
 


9/11 Video fakery has been proven over and over and over again.
You just have to look in the right places!

www.septemberclues.info
www.cluesforum.info

No planes were hijacked and crashed on the 11th September 2001, in spite of
what we were led to believe

Take out eye-witnesses with connections to the military and the media (both suspected
of complicity in events of that day), and you ain't left with much!


I watched September Clues years ago and have forgotten much of it, probably have to review it again.

One part of it I recall though is the whole "nose out" portion. In it, if I recall, please correct me if I'm wrong if you are more in depth on it, but wasn't that about the overlay overshooting the building edge looking like the shot went on too long and then had to fade out because it was an obvious mistake to extend the frame out that far?

Also showing what appeared to be the incoming nose of the plane extending out too far?

Is that a fair description? I haven't seen it in a long while and this is just my recollection of it, it's hazy.

So though, is what SC is saying is that the plane was a video overlay that went too far and was then cut short and changed cameras or cut out some seconds of time as a result? Right? Am I recalling that correctly?

A fake video plane overlay hit that went too far past the edge of the building line?

Because if that's what you mean by video fakery then I think that's a mistake etc.

By that I mean, I don't think that's a fake overlay extended into the building too far.


Cheers



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Interesting. For I mean, how can you have eye witness reports of planes and no plane pic wreckage?


Please look at the pics in this link www.911myths.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

I am curious where ATS stands on Rick Seigel and 911eyewitness? I have my own idea and trust him implicitly just wondering where ATS is on him...


Rick doesn't like truthers and sued Sophia Sasquatch, or what ever the clunky clunk ladies name is, for faking the audio on his collapse footage, she used in 911 mysteries.

Sorry.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Originally posted by anoncoholic
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by anoncoholic
 




You say all this has been solved here and yet I have my doubts otherwise you all wouldn't be so sure about whose side you are on. Bottom line, I stand on the side of truth and I am not seeing a whole lot of it being defended by many here and even the post above yours about the no-planes is suspect to me.


We're still waiting to hear your list of "lies" (your term not mine), about the Pentagon that have been created and spread by (insert villian here). I asked you previously to be specific, and now others have also and you keep dancing away from the challenge. Why is that?

This is really starting to sound like the old Truther argument of "I can't provide any proof - but I just KNOW this is a lie!" Is that where you are? Is there anything to your claims? Why would you start a thread with nothing to offer it?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by anoncoholic

I am curious where ATS stands on Rick Seigel and 911eyewitness? I have my own idea and trust him implicitly just wondering where ATS is on him...


Rick doesn't like truthers and sued Sophia Sasquatch, or what ever the clunky clunk ladies name is, for faking the audio on his collapse footage, she used in 911 mysteries.

Sorry.


yes I was aware of the plagiarism by 911 mysteries . I was a member of Ricks forum way back then and knew about the pending legal issues. I don't think it was so much a question of Rick disliking truthers, in fact the issue was that 911 mysteries was editing the sound track of 911eyewitness and it was Ricks concerns that any alteration of evidence (the RAW footage was being held in a lawyers office pending criminal charges being laid) would negate the validity of 911 eyewitness. Whether by accident or design seems a moot point, the point was they took Ricks footage and tried to sell it as their own with modifications to the original sound.

Anyway I have had several decent conversations with Rick and he actually taught me a lot about USA and he is a true Patriot. The one thing I wasn't keen on was he is a hard boiled atheist and no amount of talk would ever make a believer of him. His right to decide whether he wants to have Faith in his life but unfortunately I think he hated Spirituality even more than the plagiarizing of his video.

Almost like people get on a mission when they are facing a challenge to their own beliefs when faced with someone of differing views or understanding..



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by anoncoholic
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by anoncoholic
 




You say all this has been solved here and yet I have my doubts otherwise you all wouldn't be so sure about whose side you are on. Bottom line, I stand on the side of truth and I am not seeing a whole lot of it being defended by many here and even the post above yours about the no-planes is suspect to me.


We're still waiting to hear your list of "lies" (your term not mine), about the Pentagon that have been created and spread by (insert villian here). I asked you previously to be specific, and now others have also and you keep dancing away from the challenge. Why is that?

This is really starting to sound like the old Truther argument of "I can't provide any proof - but I just KNOW this is a lie!" Is that where you are? Is there anything to your claims? Why would you start a thread with nothing to offer it?


meh, I posted my proofs across these threads and nobody has been paying attention.

Proof of foreknowledge, proof or propensity to commit heinous acts, proof of motive... the question I keep coming back to is why have all of you not recognized truth or is the denial just willful ignorance and refusal to see something that had been adhered to and it boils down to go along to get along (with you know who)

I do not know you, why should I trust you? You do not know me, why should you trust me? I do not know ATS, why should I trust them if I can't trust you? Follow me? Without trust and being faced with opposition to obvious truth where does that leave anyone but on their own, just like the prescribed plan called for.

When you all figure out that without each other being on the same page we are like oarsmen in a round boat all paddling in the same direction and going nowhere but in circles, maybe the minds will open to a logical conclusion instead of gawking at anyone going against the grain.

You ask for proof of lies... millions of dead and counting, billions even trillions in profits and counting, erosion of civil rights ala Patriot Act, the corporate nature of the entity we call government
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and yet nobody wants to see the lies and instead opt for the finger pointing game and crying about semantics is all I see here. Perhaps like the movie said, you can't handle the truth...



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Well...you got "meh" right...
Thanks for nothing.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
you know this is entirely ludicrous. In a court of law, a single lie when proven destroys all credibility of a witness and as pointed out repeatedly by me that lie is evident. Now rather than pay attention all of you instead take the path of shoot the messenger and don't deny it. You all throw the word truther around like it is a whip and a slap in the face of anything resembling truth and the only conclusion I can draw from it is that was the intent, to silence truth from coming out.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Well...you got "meh" right...
Thanks for nothing.



you are welcome, for everything. You just dont see it yet



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Interesting. For I mean, how can you have eye witness reports of planes and no plane pic wreckage?


Please look at the pics in this link www.911myths.com...


I looked at all the pics and there is one that is conspicuous in its absence. The one of the blue tarp being carried off.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 

What? Is "Truther" any more insulting/damaging then "OSr"? Wasn't it the Truth movement that actually coined the term originally?

Here's a thought for you...if 9/11 was all a put up, then ALL of it was a put up right? Well, show us where the "put up" in the Pentagon attack is? (Something you've been asked repeatedly to do - but *just* can't seem to mange)If you can't, then we've just seen a foundation block of all of 9/11 being a put up removed - haven't we? Sort of like when a single person lies they lose all credibility - take away a foundation block and suddenly the whole structure becomes unstable - doesn't it?



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Interesting. For I mean, how can you have eye witness reports of planes and no plane pic wreckage?


Please look at the pics in this link www.911myths.com...


I looked at all the pics and there is one that is conspicuous in its absence. The one of the blue tarp being carried off.



This blue tarp? www.rense.com...






top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join