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.

 

emergency medical team at the pentagon

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
have been out of the loop for about a year or so but would like to say that i know a member of the fairfax, virginia emt and he said that he was at the pentagon 3 hours after it was attacked. he told me that he found body parts and had photos of the 757 wreckage (i have not, to date have seen these photos). i believe that a missile hit the pentagon, not an airplane. will keep all posted and will forward his photos if they should arrive.




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by cydonia19.5
 


Why would the pentagon attack them self with a missile?it just doesn't make sense,unless less it was a cruse missile and it was initially fired at another target but then they changed their minds and decided to attack a place that was off limits for evidence collectors



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by cydonia19.5
 


The missile has been debunked before.
On this website I may add. And quite thoroughly done to boot.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



It was a plane.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
It doesnt matter if they used a missile or an aircraft, what happened on 9/11 was an American coup. The very office of the missing two trillion dollars was hit, go figure.

The pentagon attack was done just to stamp thier authority on the US military, and was probably done by no more than a hundred dedicated people.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I don't understand why people would think it was a missile and not an airplane at the pentagon when airplanes were used on the WTC towers, which we all saw with our own eyes. I saw the pentagon damage 2 days after the fact and to speculate based on photographs you've seen is irresponsible. The damage was far more profound than even pictures showed. That is a big, heavily reinforced building, and planes are lightweight, mostly hollow aluminum structures that are no match for thick concrete walls.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by cydonia19.5
 


Wait, this makes no sense. You spoke to someone you know personally, who told you this:


....virginia emt and he said that he was at the pentagon 3 hours after it was attacked. he told me that he found body parts and had photos of the 757 wreckage (i have not, to date have seen these photos).


SO, you do or do not trust this man, the EMT??

Because, this is so puzzling:


i believe that a missile hit the pentagon



And yet, there was the DNA of passengers and crew, the Flight Recorder, the eyewitnesses......the damage path, the airplane specific parts and debris......the Radar tracking, etc.......all thoroughly explained countless times.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by cydonia19.5
 





And yet, there was the DNA of passengers and crew, the Flight Recorder, the eyewitnesses......the damage path, the airplane specific parts and debris......the Radar tracking, etc.......all thoroughly explained countless times.


Theirs more to that then you may think, I think flight 93 is what you would be interested in. My memories a little foggy. Don't be so quick to discount.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by pocketsando
 



I think flight 93 is what you would be interested in.


Oh, I know a great deal about that, too.

But here, another iteration of "no airplane at the Pentagon"? It's demonstrably false, despite what a person "thinks" or "believes" or "opinionates" about.......

.....the idea of a "missile at the Pentagon" was first planted into the (sometimes gullible) public psyche by a French author......who spit out a crap book within mere months of the September 11 attacks.

Name of Thierry Meyssan

His claims are pure bunkum.

CNN article from 2002:


Although he did not personally travel to the U.S. for his research and does not claim to be an expert, Meyssan bases his theory -- and now a follow up book defending his theory -- on his own analysis of official documents.


LOL!! ^ ^ ^....he "did not personally travel to the U.S." when doing his so-called "research"!! And, he dares call himself a "journalist"!


Like so many after him, it is idiocy like this:


He also uses photographs which he says do not show much that looks like an airplane and do show a hole in the Pentagon which is too small, he claims, to be caused by a jumbo jet.

But photographs Meyssan left out, including some by CNN's Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre, picture debris that clearly came from the hijacked plane.


Yes, indeed:


A Pentagon spokesperson, Victoria Clarke, called the book disgusting.


There is crap everywhere, in books, on the Internet, everywhere.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 

Except that the thread you used as a "debunking" thread, can't explain why investigators can't come up with any parts, with stamped part numbers, from the plane it says impacted the Pentagon.

It doesn't explain why the windows are intact above the hole were the plane "supposedly went into.


And that's just a few things!!!



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by cydonia19.5
have been out of the loop for about a year or so but would like to say that i know a member of the fairfax, virginia emt and he said that he was at the pentagon 3 hours after it was attacked. he told me that he found body parts and had photos of the 757 wreckage (i have not, to date have seen these photos). i believe that a missile hit the pentagon, not an airplane. will keep all posted and will forward his photos if they should arrive.


Hi,

Did you ever see the following news report? ... www.youtube.com...

Regardless if it was a plane or missile --- it was still an INSIDE JOB!

GET OVER ARGUING ABOUT WISHY WASHY DETAILS AND WAKE THE [SNIP] UP PEOPLE!



Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.
edit on 8/1/12 by argentus because: censor circumvention



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pocketsando
 

This one?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by grey580
 

Except that the thread you used as a "debunking" thread, can't explain why investigators can't come up with any parts, with stamped part numbers, from the plane it says impacted the Pentagon.

It doesn't explain why the windows are intact above the hole were the plane "supposedly went into.


And that's just a few things!!!


How would you know the part numbers were correct?

The windows were "bomb resistant", duh!
edit on 5-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 


Problem is, this isn't true....it's what many have been "fed" by the "conspiracy" sites for years, though:


.....can't explain why investigators can't come up with any parts, with stamped part numbers, from the plane it says impacted the Pentagon.


It is foolish to think that every photo ever taken at the crash site is available for public viewing on the Web...."conspiracy" mongers count on people not realizing this, though.

But, here is one image:



I've seen better versions, more in focus...but found this one after a brief search.

But of course, there is substantial and over-riding evidence to identify the same jet that was operating as American 77.....especially the Flight Recorder. Which, besides the hijacked flight, contained records of several previously, all connected to this same airplane. The FDRs record about 30 hours total, so that's several flights accounted for.




It doesn't explain why the windows are intact above the hole were the plane "supposedly went into.


The main mass of the airplane is concentrated in cross-section of about the height of the fuselage, out laterally to just outside where the engines are mounted. This is the "beefiest" part. The vertical stabilizer and rudder (vertical fin and rudder) are made of "plastic"....did you know that?

Advanced reinforced composites, and graphite fiber, and such. Not much aluminum, and they those components would have shattered, more than penetrate. Especially since those windows were designed to be impact-resistant.


The "conspiracy" websites are full of half-baked speculations and insidiously ridiculous claims, time and time again.......



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by pocketsando
 

This one?



Would you kindly point out the time stamp where Cheney said an aircraft was shot down as opposed to an authorization to do so. Thanks



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


No, and yes. NO, Cheney did not "admit" UAL 93 was shot down.

And yes, listen very carefully.

And also, wrong thread.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by neotech1neothink
 


The title of that YouTube video says:


"NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON" only once aired report


It is clearly a lie title. ALL they talk about in those 50 seconds in the clip are about the airplane and the impact.

"inside Job" by butt.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 

It's in the first few seconds, the very first question in fact. The order to shoot it down would, I assume, be more or less immediately obeyed. "That's an order soldier!" kind of thing, no?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 


I wish I could find it. But there was a great show on the discovery channel I believe on how the pentagon was built.
Since its a military installation. Everything in there was reinforced.

Probably why the windows weren't damaged. Probably hurricane / high wind impact rated glass.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by Reheat
 

It's in the first few seconds, the very first question in fact. The order to shoot it down would, I assume, be more or less immediately obeyed. "That's an order soldier!" kind of thing, no?


No, it's not an order. It is merely an authorization to do so... No where does Cheney or anyone else say an aircraft was shot down...



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by freedom12
 


I wish I could find it. But there was a great show on the discovery channel I believe on how the pentagon was built.
Since its a military installation. Everything in there was reinforced.


Wrong. Do some research and then come back with correct information, please.


Originally posted by grey580
Probably why the windows weren't damaged. Probably hurricane / high wind impact rated glass.


I answered the question in a reply above. Stop guessing! They were "bomb resistant" sometimes called incorrectly "bomb proof".



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join