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: 12
107
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malynn
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.

Sorry if I've been off in my replies. I've just having a sport of these chaps. Perhaps I should consider better what they'd have to say. But like I said, I'm certain that I was there, so all these punks who try and spout off nonsense, they weren't there, so why should I take them seriously? But yes, I believe you are right in spirit, just because fools can't respond with as much as I have backing me, shouldn't mean that I ridicule them. So okay, from henceforth, if they have something worthy to consider, I'll do my best. Not promising anything of course. I've seen it all before, anyway. They try and do the best they can to try and obfuscate from the fact that I've been there, and they haven't. God, I know I'm talking from both sides of my mouth, but I can't help it if i'm superior in this one particular go around. If you knew the sky was blue, and all the idiots tried to convince you it was green, wouldn't you respond in kind like I've been?




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
What qualifies you to be able to see, spot and identify plane parts?

How many plane crash sites have you expected in the past, including all kinds of impacts/angles of impact, commercial/military craft etc.?

I am asking since it's a LOGICAL thing to do with 99,99% of "I know the truth of 9/11" people being armchair scientists. Again..before you (OR ANYONE) comes and makes semi-scientific claims and sells them as "truth", i would like to see proof that the person is even capable of making such a statement based on their experience.
edit on 18-4-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks

Funny how they say that if there were first-hand accounts, we'd see them. But then when a few do surface (like mine) the initial reaction is to shut it down. Well certainly, that's not up to me to decide. Plus enough people have already seen this thread to make your case that all the more suspicious. So have at it, I say.


He's suggesting that your story is merely trolling. You have provided no evidence besides your word. The mere word of an ATS commenter isn't worth jack. I'll take this seriously once I see some evidence. I definitely think this belongs in the "grey area" if not the hoax bin.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by shortsticks
 


I see.
Well that cinches it.
You refuse to confront me with something other than a LOL.

You obviously are a troll.
You can't explain or refute the visual evidence in an intelligent manner.

Who's paying you to post this bs stuff online?


Ok, I'll give your due respect. What was the question again? sorry.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
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)


holy shi* how can I take anything you say serious now! lol jk so if you're knowledgeable in chem engineering, you should have lots of empirical observations that bring what you've been taught into doubt to what you've witnessed personally in your own experimentation's, right?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

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..


well that ain't me sister



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 


shortsticks,
While I certainly have my questions and doubts with regards the veracity of the 'official story' regarding what Actually happened and took place on that fateful day back in '01. However, you've done nothing here so far to add any shred of credibility to your supposed claims of having been @ langley, the pentagon or anywhere else near the same on the 12th.


What you have done, throughout, is to since have stooped to the level of near outright 'trollery' ... what with the various personal attacks and deviations from Your own topic, in amidst and all the while.


I had to step out for a bit, run some errands and go to the post office, but having since returned and gone back through the last few pages of interactions and replies, it's become quite clear - your 'purpose' here.

Quite the pathetic play on others for your own personal and rather obvious 'enjoyment'. - so it would seem. :shk:

First it was ' I have proof of no plane @ the pentagon', then it somehow got all convoluted and into the masons are wussies [whatever the hell that's supposed to mean] and now you seem to just be acting out against any opposition whatsoever that calls into question your views, claims or anything otherwise seeking some sort of actual validation.

Yeah. Your purpose and intent here seem quite clear.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
What qualifies you to be able to see, spot and identify plane parts?

How many plane crash sites have you expected in the past, including all kinds of impacts/angles of impact, commercial/military craft etc.?

I am asking since it's a LOGICAL thing to do with 99,99% of "I know the truth of 9/11" people being armchair scientists. Again..before you (OR ANYONE) comes and makes semi-scientific claims and sells them as "truth", i would like to see proof that the person is even capable of making such a statement based on their experience.
edit on 18-4-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)

lol

yeah

as if it takes a specialist to see that the chair he/she sit in is brown, because they've never sat in a brown chair before



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


No one needed to be told any official story. The days events unfolded before our very eyes.
I dont know about you but I never left the TV screen for more than a few minutes that day. I wasnt 'fed" an official story, I watched it.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by shortsticks

Funny how they say that if there were first-hand accounts, we'd see them. But then when a few do surface (like mine) the initial reaction is to shut it down. Well certainly, that's not up to me to decide. Plus enough people have already seen this thread to make your case that all the more suspicious. So have at it, I say.


He's suggesting that your story is merely trolling. You have provided no evidence besides your word. The mere word of an ATS commenter isn't worth jack. I'll take this seriously once I see some evidence. I definitely think this belongs in the "grey area" if not the hoax bin.


the fact that no one has been able to argue any specifics should be proof enough for you, ugly sister face. I'm still waiting.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 


The question is.

Given that there is some photographic evidence of plane parts.
With examples in my prior posts.

How do you explain the presence of engine parts, fuselage, landing gear and tire rims in some of the pictures taken after the crash?

If in fact there was no plane?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annie Mossity
reply to post by shortsticks
 


shortsticks,
While I certainly have my questions and doubts with regards the veracity of the 'official story' regarding what Actually happened and took place on that fateful day back in '01. However, you've done nothing here so far to add any shred of credibility to your supposed claims of having been @ langley, the pentagon or anywhere else near the same on the 12th.


What you have done, throughout, is to since have stooped to the level of near outright 'trollery' ... what with the various personal attacks and deviations from Your own topic, in amidst and all the while.


I had to step out for a bit, run some errands and go to the post office, but having since returned and gone back through the last few pages of interactions and replies, it's become quite clear - your 'purpose' here.

Quite the pathetic play on others for your own personal and rather obvious 'enjoyment'. - so it would seem. :shk:

First it was ' I have proof of no plane @ the pentagon', then it somehow got all convoluted and into the masons are wussies [whatever the hell that's supposed to mean] and now you seem to just be acting out against any opposition whatsoever that calls into question your views, claims or anything otherwise seeking some sort of actual validation.

Yeah. Your purpose and intent here seem quite clear.






well let's just say I've stayed up long past my bed time here. check back after your day is complete, and see how many replies I have then. probably not many. I will get back to all you schmucks to be sure. just for my own shagrinss and giggleschmits.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


No one needed to be told any official story. The days events unfolded before our very eyes.
I dont know about you but I never left the TV screen for more than a few minutes that day. I wasnt 'fed" an official story, I watched it.


and yet you weren't there. in any of those places.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 


It's a pity you were only at the Pentagon 9/12 because if you had been there the day before, as I was,you might have seen AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

I was cleaning the windows of the heliport tower when the left wingtip of a Boeing 757 took the sponge right out of my hand.

Don't give me any bs about no plane wreckage, I was there and my bucket was full of bits.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by shortsticks
 


The question is.

Given that there is some photographic evidence of plane parts.
With examples in my prior posts.

How do you explain the presence of engine parts, fuselage, landing gear and tire rims in some of the pictures taken after the crash?

If in fact there was no plane?


you haven't been paying attention. are you asleep at the wheel for all these years? same way there's a wallet from one of the alleged terrorists. this is derpy-elementary stuff, if you don't mind my saying. which you probably do. no one continues to post to something they find unreasonably delirious, even the super mod can attest to that fact.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


HAHAHA took sponge out of your hands.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


No one needed to be told any official story. The days events unfolded before our very eyes.
I dont know about you but I never left the TV screen for more than a few minutes that day. I wasnt 'fed" an official story, I watched it.


and yet you weren't there. in any of those places.


And most importantly you did not see a plane hit the pentagon. You were TOLD one did, with no supporting evidence.
You watched the towers collapse (all THREE) at freefall speed - impossible without preplanted explosives. You were told a bunch of fairy tales.
Open your mind a little, visit a few web sites, such as those created by engineers, pilots, scientists, architects that have open minds and question the OS.
Have you seen the early photos of the pentagon - before the floor collapse? Explain to me how a Boeing made a tiny hole with no damage where the wings and engines (6 tonnes each!) would have been. Please explain that.




top topics



 
107
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join