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: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ATH911
 


SHOW them properly....NOT filtered through "Clown-Town":



I agree, citing killtown is ridiculous... that guy, while certainly obsessed with 9/11, has no credibility. Rather than citing killtown, it would be better to cite the primary sources directly, after all, the mentioning of those sources is no coincidence, but done by killtown himself to "enhance" his own theory's credibility... so cite them directly.

This is necessary, because we all know how popular quote mining is with the no planer side.

Not an a priori rejection, but an informed precaution.
edit on 10-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by cydonia19.5
reply to post by Alfie1
 


be informed and know that afgan. is the best route for piping oil from central asia. we have military posts exactly along the path in which the oil can be piped and carried off. afgan. is only a necessary route. iran, we would have problems.


A pipeline across Afghanistan as a cause for war just doesn't stand up to scrutiny :-

www.911myths.com...

There was of course no pipeline in 2001; there is no pipeline now more than a decade later; and there is no prospect of such a pipeline in the forseeable future.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rafe_

Originally posted by Reheat

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...


Yes he did.He confirmed it after it was stated that he had given the order to shoot down the plane,his answer was yes.on 2 occasions did he confirm this.


You seem to be confused between an authorisation to shoot down and it actually happening.

If you think there is a record of Cheney confirming an actual shootdown of UA 93 would you please direct me to it..



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Rafe_

Originally posted by Reheat

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...


Yes he did.He confirmed it after it was stated that he had given the order to shoot down the plane,his answer was yes.on 2 occasions did he confirm this.


You seem to be confused between an authorisation to shoot down and it actually happening.

If you think there is a record of Cheney confirming an actual shootdown of UA 93 would you please direct me to it..
Yes of course.Let me call my friends at the pentagon to release the records for you and send me the originals as well while they are at it.It might take a couple of weeks though.

Until then we will have to make due with the spoken confirmation we have of Cheney in the video interview.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
These sources have no credibility?...

(Army)
(Washington Post)
(Arlington County, Fire Engineering)
(USA Today, Army)
(Arlington After-Action Report)


So show the actual quotes from those sources. Should be simple for you to do, unless....



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rafe_

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Rafe_

Originally posted by Reheat

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...


Yes he did.He confirmed it after it was stated that he had given the order to shoot down the plane,his answer was yes.on 2 occasions did he confirm this.


You seem to be confused between an authorisation to shoot down and it actually happening.

If you think there is a record of Cheney confirming an actual shootdown of UA 93 would you please direct me to it..
Yes of course.Let me call my friends at the pentagon to release the records for you and send me the originals as well while they are at it.It might take a couple of weeks though.

Until then we will have to make due with the spoken confirmation we have of Cheney in the video interview.


You still can't differentiate between an authorisation and an actual shootdown can you ?



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



So, all coincidences?

Not when you consider that the Pentagon was located at the end of a runway. Its called preparation - its what professionals do for a living.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by cydonia19.5
 


I am not well informed but I always had a theory that the plane was overhead and pulled up like some accounts stated and a missile was launched as a deterrent and it hit the Pentagon. I am probably wrong but we will never truly know 100% for fact in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

So show the actual quotes from those sources. Should be simple for you to do, unless....

They are all there if you simply click on the link I posted and then click on individual claims that takes you to the actual quotes along with the source links. Kinda like how 911myths website does it that you skeptics love to link to. Really not much that different. Funny how your mouse buttons all of a sudden seem to be broken when it comes to having to click on a truther's site.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 




You can always count on hooper for some stupid responses!



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



You can always count on hooper for some stupid responses!


So tell me whats so stupid about pointing out that the Pentagon is located pretty much at the end of a runway and therefore there is nothing unusual about first responders in the area and at the Pentagon being prepared for an event that can include a plane crashing into the Pentagon.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Flint2011
 



....theory that the plane was overhead and pulled up like some accounts stated .....


Actually, ino accounts state this.....



....and a missile was launched as a deterrent and it hit the Pentagon.


A "missile" launched from where?
There weren't any "missiles" just laying around nearby.



.... but we will never truly know 100% for fact in my opinion.


? Actually, we do 100% for fact that American 77 hit the Pentagon. There are numerous witnesses, and the debris, and the Flight Recorders, and the DNA, etc.......



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Sorry to say but there is some sort of investigation group who spoke to several witnesses on camera about a plain and what path it took. Supposedly most of the witnesses saw it pull up in some manner. I saw it with my own eyes. So debate if you want but there are people saying this who were in the area. Now I have no clue how true it is and have stated I am no expert. It is a theory btw. I didn't state it as fact so don't say things that are not true yourself.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I have yet too see 100% proof evidence. I would like to see the videos. The one video shows nearly nothing. I again will state that it's not something 100% fact. I am not a truther nor an opposer. Just an observer who is meekly informed and I have stated as much. Please stop shoving your views down my throat. I have seen proponents do the same to those like yourself and it's why I stay out of these threads. You nit pick to find a fight with me and there is no reason for it.

Please read more carefully before picking my own written word apart for your context. Good day.

edit on 1-10-2012 by Flint2011 because: mispellings



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I have no clue where a theoretical missile would come from. Do you not think that the Pentagon has some sort of Land to air missile defenses or something like that? I have no clue and don't claim it as fact. Again, the word theory was used on my part and it is not even my theory.

Last time I even entertain commenting or discussing anything with you 9/11 discussion fanatics. 10 years I avoid it and I post a simple theory I read and watched and I get picked apart for it. Lighten up man. I made no factual claims and disrespected no one.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Flint2011
 



Do you not think that the Pentagon has some sort of Land to air missile defenses or something like that?


Not back in 2001. Not only was there no need seen, it would have been pretty impractical, given that there is a major airport about a mile away......Washington National Airport (now re-named "Ronald Reagan", but I refuse to call it that.....and man y Air Traffic Controllers, I've noticed, refuse to as well. Ronnie fired them all, back in the day, so they have no love for the old man).

As to now? There is no way the public will ever know about any "defenses" there, but just guessing, I'd still say "no" on "missiles"....it is just a big office building, after all....but they could have countermeasures in place of some sort.

Of course, primarily nowadays, the air defenses are not only focused outward, as in 2001, but more alert inward, so I'd bet that any airborne threat inbound to any important site will be met in the air, by jets with pilots....who themselves could be carrying the missiles.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Flint2011
 


Don't be so easily discouraged by this group of people, because they are not for real. If you follow any of them for any length of time it becomes very clear, that 'truth' is their enemy. Just stay the course, we are not going backwards.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Flint2011
 


I don't know, but it seems kind of unusual to keep claiming ignorance on the subject matter and when someone tries to tell you something to go off in a huff about people trying to jam their views down your throat. You either want to know, or you don't. Sounds like you don't want to hear anything that may detract from your worldview that there's all kind of doubt out there and nothing has been resolved.

For the record, no one saw a plane pull up and away from the Pentagon.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


I am not picking on said person. I gues sI am guilty of generalizing so my apologies. I really have never taken a side. It's all too damn emotional and fanatic regarding the debates and discussions on these things. It's nearly impossible for me individually to grasp an entire truth of all the events on that sad day. It's obvious our government has not released all information and much is suppressed. I can only assume for national security reasons.


I am one of those Americans who has been heart broken by the loss of life by the event and would like to see the whole truth laid out in an unbiased manner by the government. Full disclosure.

The only thing I know for certain is that our National Security failed that day and the government is responsible for that failure. And worse of all is 3000 or so people had to die because of that failure. Thousands more are effected every day by the events on that tragic day. Far too many emotions for me to even entertain getting involved with what is true or not in these threads.

Thanks for the comments just the same.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Again, you put things in your own context. I don't have to argue with you. I know what I saw and read from the independent investigation. You saying it didn't happen doesn't change the fact that there are people who gave video testimony stating that they saw it. It is not me claiming iognorance or that I don't want to hear it. You are insisting something that is off the path from what I stated as a theory. I didn't debate or argue anything.

Your truth doesn't equal mine or anyone elses. We all make up our own minds. Just because you say so doesn't make it so. I have stated I have no clue.

NO disrespect intended but I don't have a dog in this fight. Insist all you like.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join