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.

 

I have first-hand knowledge that no plane crashed into the Pentagon

page: 11
107
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Rut ro, your ignorance is showing. Better cover up.
Planes dont run on Kerosene. Sorry.


Maybe you should google that! They certainly do run on Kerosene-A. Jet Fuel is Kerosene-A.



Jet fuel is a mixture of a large number of different hydrocarbons. The range of their sizes (molecular weights or carbon numbers) is restricted by the requirements for the product, for example, the freezing point or smoke point. Kerosene-type jet fuel (including Jet A and Jet A-1) has a carbon number distribution between about 8 and 16 carbon numbers (carbon atoms per molecule); wide-cut or naphtha-type jet fuel (including Jet B), between about 5 and 15 carbon numbers.[

Saved you the trouble of looking yourself.
Still laughing though!
edit on 18-4-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)


lol jet fuel bringing down a structurally-sound bldg. what idiocy.




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by shortsticks
 


All you have done so far in this thread is to make major errors which are bound to cast doubt on your assertion that you were at the Pentagon on 9/12 :-

a) you didn't know the further Pentagon collapse happened within minutes of impact. You thought it was after you say you were there.

b) you didn't recognise the C-ring exit hole and thought it was the impact hole.

c) you got the location of the debris collecting point wrong.

Difficult to see why any of us should take you very seriously but, even if you were there 24 hrs later , why should we take any notice of your claim not to have seen any aircraft debris when there is so much photographic evidence like this ?

911research.wtc7.net...



yeah, so anyone who thinks that was an exit hole lol you're priceless


You are just digging your own hole deeper but I am inclined to agree with getreadyalready that this is a spoof troll thread.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by R0CR13
.

reply to post by shortsticks
 


Well it is the only piece of video released to date of the impact ...

And it is Clearly Not a 757 .

.



yeah I understand. definitely not a 757.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 



don't need to. give it your best, if you wish to prove yourself. just be warned: you will head straight for the looney bin.


Yes, I was starting to expect that would be the best place to find you.


I'm already 7 minutes over my work day, and for a government worker this is a mortal sin! We do not work overtime!! I'm out, but ya'll enjoy your thread.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 


No
you claim to have knowledge that no planes crashed . But you cant have first hand knowledge of this unless you were at the original event. Not the clean up crew the day after. That is not first hand knowledge of a plane or no plane. That is only first hand knowledge of what you personally saw with your own eyes. It neither proves nor disproves the plane theory because it is the day after. Personal first hand knowledge means you were there the day it happened and you personally saw that no plane crased into the building.
This is exausting.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by shortsticks
I thought i was pretty clear.

I went up to the pentagon then next day, 9/12.

I went into the debris sifting section on site.

there was various office debris, but no aircraft wheels or fuselage or luggage or wings or anything that seemed to indicate to come from an aircraft of any sort.


I couldn't get that from your posts. thank you.

Now as for you saying that there was no air plane parts.
Please explain the following.


Is this not a airplane rim?


And here is this not a piece of fuselage?

Again I invite you to peruse this thread here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



didn't you see my

LOL

before?

guess not. if it's not enough for you, sorry, but this sort of stuff is just silly.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

Originally posted by shortsticks

well until you can contribute anything to really put anything I've said thus far into any light of doubt, I think your words are what they are: shallow, lacking of any substance, and full of it. that's to speak plainly. maybe this time you can understand. if you can't, I'll do better next time.


Its already been done by various members before me here, please check the post above yours, at the images that were taken at the site that you claim to have been at. Explain that please.

And yes, please do better, because so far you havnt.


I'm sorry that you can't do better, in managing a better reply to my first-hand account.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by shortsticks
 



I know, I know. but look how many vehemently try to deny the obvious!

Hmmmm. What?

I haven't seen many on here denying that you are a troll. Some of the few changed their mind after a few pages of your blarney.


Don't think that your characterization of the situation will change the obvious: that I'm right and you're wrong, bub.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by shortsticks
I'm sure I'm beating a dead-horse here on this forum


You damn right you are. You actually saved me from posting an amusing picture of a horse being beat with a baseball bat.

The no plane theory is fascinating and interesting, but it's invalid. There is actually enough evidence that a plane did in fact hit the building.

You see what you want to see and what you see is a conspiracy.


I love how stupid people don't mind showing how stupid they are. are you a pilot? nope.


You do realize that's a silly attack, right?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Let me ask, as a newcomer to this forum, how does a new thread garner so much attention? Are they watching 24/7, I mean, all the time, or just when they're alerted to things from their superiors?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by shortsticks
 



don't need to. give it your best, if you wish to prove yourself. just be warned: you will head straight for the looney bin.


Yes, I was starting to expect that would be the best place to find you.


I'm already 7 minutes over my work day, and for a government worker this is a mortal sin! We do not work overtime!! I'm out, but ya'll enjoy your thread.


what line of work are you in? not a bait question, because I think you're sincere. just curious.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Ok, I've had enough. I read up to 6 pages of this thread but then got fed-up.

I am willing to believe you were there the next day. I'm willing to believe no plane hit the pentagon, as I too am very skeptical of the official story, and the evidence just doesn't make sense. However, you sir are doing nothing to improve your case.

The opponents/skeptics in this thread have been extremely civilized. Apparently you haven't spent much time around here to know how rare that is. They've asked simple questions in the process of attempting to look at all angles of your story rationally. You've responded with nothing but belligerance, ridicule, and scathing remarks. Unless of course the poster was buying your story without question. Under normal circumstances all your body hair would have been singed away by the flames of the skeptics that are usually hunting topics like this one.

If you can't take the heat you've come to the wrong place. Especially lukewarm heat like you've been taking in this thread. I have a hard time listening to and defending someone's theory when they can't withstand scrutiny.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 


Government regulation. I lead a team of investigators. My degree was originally Chemical Engineering, but I am 2 semesters short of that degree and instead finishing up a public administration degree. I am also a private pilot.

I am the perfect shill! I was also a Mod on this site for awhile, which makes my shilldom even more perfect!

I really am logging off now though!

edit on 18-4-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by shortsticks
 


No
you claim to have knowledge that no planes crashed . But you cant have first hand knowledge of this unless you were at the original event. Not the clean up crew the day after. That is not first hand knowledge of a plane or no plane. That is only first hand knowledge of what you personally saw with your own eyes. It neither proves nor disproves the plane theory because it is the day after. Personal first hand knowledge means you were there the day it happened and you personally saw that no plane crased into the building.
This is exausting.


I'm sure you meant exhausting. but we'll excuse your lack of precise english. and we'll also excuse the apparent attempt to star your post to proof you have a clue as to anything you speak of. in all honesty, you don't have an inkling of a bit of information that you hope you have. You can convince yourself and others, but not me sister. How does it feel to know you've lost?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks


so you've been stationed at the pentagon I take it


That is Classified and strictly on a need to know basis. I shudder to think of the amount of bloodshed that would needlessly be spilt, the heartache that would be felt both near and abroad if I disclosed such information.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by shortsticks

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by shortsticks
I'm sure I'm beating a dead-horse here on this forum


You damn right you are. You actually saved me from posting an amusing picture of a horse being beat with a baseball bat.

The no plane theory is fascinating and interesting, but it's invalid. There is actually enough evidence that a plane did in fact hit the building.

You see what you want to see and what you see is a conspiracy.


I love how stupid people don't mind showing how stupid they are. are you a pilot? nope.


You do realize that's a silly attack, right?


No, I thought that was the most logical reply in all the world! (what does that say to someone who asks?)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Let me ask, as a newcomer to this forum, how does a new thread garner so much attention? Are they watching 24/7, I mean, all the time, or just when they're alerted to things from their superiors?


It has garnered attention because many on here take 9/11 issues seriously. Unfortunately that can be abused by someone starting a bs thread for their own amusement..



new topics

top topics



 
107
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join