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

page: 2
106
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



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


I guess your definition of "first hand" is different than mine.


No, I wasn't there the day off or saw the rocket slam into the building.


Ergo, you're drawing your own conclusions after the fact. That's not "first hand".
edit on 4/18/2012 by yeahright because: Adding tags


Do you have any other thread to point to that speaks of first-hand knowledge? I thought first-hand means from their perspective, not relying on others? I don't have to, I was there, the next day, and saw no aircraft debris. One would think this would've been a simple enough endeavor, to see a fuselage or wing or wheel or SOMETHING! Guess not... extra DIV




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


that's so idiotic I don't know if it warrants a reply! lol



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


thanks! yes, there was a reason why that side of the pentagon were being reinforced, or else they used that opportunity of reinforcement to minimalize casualties. that's a mouth-full to be sure. I learned then who the real in charge folks were then, here's a hint: ARMY



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by Alfie1
 


thanks, looks good just my first glance at it. my first-hand knowledge confirms there were no plane debris.


Fortunately we don't have to rely on your confirmation. Aerospace engineers have considered the engine parts at the Pentagon :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Why coming forward now? This sounds like another one of those unsubtantiated claims threads that really shouldn't be on ATS.



Can you read? I've given my reasons already. And if you wish it removed, perhaps there's another motivation at play? hmmmm?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The part that I always thought suspicious, was the trajectory. The hole in the building, is from the ground up, and one would think that if a plane flew in, it would have been angled down, and taken out part of the roof, or more of the ground.

The hole that's always been shown, looks like something drove directly in along the ground


Quote from TheMindWar:


We know 9/11 was not done by some cave men in tora bora, that falsehood is total hogwash.


And that ^
They supposedly had better cell phone service than Canada, I've been bugged by that for years now.
They had cell capability in a cave in Afghanistan, that many years ago, and I still don't have cell service where I live?
Satelite cell phones aren't cheap.....
edit on 18-4-2012 by snowspirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


Well I've given you the reasons in my opening post. Suffice it to say, that I personally believe that our time on this planet is running on fumes, as it were. I'm going for broke. I've posted before on my account elsewhere, and it wasn't met with open arms, as I'm sure you can imagine. Don't care anymore atm. That might not be enough for you, but it's all I got.

10 years after the fact. You must not have cared. Why the change of heart?

No proof other than your word. Your word means no more to me than what’s said on the campaign trail.

The world is running on fumes? WIth optimisim like that you should just stay in your room.

You come across like a tin hatter. A depressed tin hatter.


I would think after 10 years this stuff is common knowledge, I guess not..

Are you still around? Why?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   


I thought first-hand means from their perspective, not relying on others?


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Allow me to elucidate. You didn't say first hand conjecture. You said first hand knowledge. Knowledge as in, you know. You don't know, you're drawing a conclusion after the fact. You weren't there, and didn't observe the events as they transpired. That would be first hand knowledge.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
For me, the best evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon is the complete lack of footage showing the plane on approach.

With all the CCTV and building security cameras in place around the Pentagon, the hardest part that I have a problem believing is that there is no footage of the plane coming in.

Release the footage, and you'll silence the skeptics, well, most of them anyway. There will still be the idiots out there who will claim the footage has been faked.



Exactly the reason why they can't, because the footage shows the truth. All those trying to slam doubt on this thread already...and how does such a new post get all this attention anyway btw? I'm stumped. But not really. We all know that we are monitored in real-time, and flags go up instantly when something like this comes up. Sorry, but you guys have already lost. Because I was there, and I saw what I saw. Now, certainly, you can cause those on the fence to stay on your side. Good for you.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 


What's idiotic about it?
There you have someone taking the time and pointing out with pictures that it was the plane.
The burden of proof is on you.

What's idiotic is someone coming on here and claiming to have proof that contradicts the official story.
But then offers no proof to back up the claim.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by Alfie1
 


thanks, looks good just my first glance at it. my first-hand knowledge confirms there were no plane debris.


Fortunately we don't have to rely on your confirmation. Aerospace engineers have considered the engine parts at the Pentagon :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...


Gimme the skinny, is this for or against?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


Personally I think you should close this thread.
I'm thinking he's just trolling.

But in case he's not maybe he can show the mods the proof then you can reopen the thread for more comment.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit
The part that I always thought suspicious, was the trajectory. The hole in the building, is from the ground up, and one would think that if a plane flew in, it would have been angled down, and taken out part of the roof, or more of the ground.

The hole that's always been shown, looks like something drove directly in along the ground


Let me tell you, that hole didn't collapse until the next day after when I was there. It was a small hole, as one internet search will show you. No bldg damage from the wings. It was a missile. That's the only way you could achieve that kind of angle, of course. (So easy, a cave man could do it.)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 



If you have a specific example of my account, then just spit it out, otherwise I don't know how or where to begin. There's lots in my head. Crack it open, but first you have to try.

You said you were there on the site on 9/12/2001 at a "debris collecting point" and that there was no airplane debris. Ergo, no airplane. Ergo, those that said Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon were lying, which means that they knew what did kill the folks at the Pentagon, which means they were complicit in their deaths which, of course makes them mass murderers which means you are witholding evidence of a capital crime. Which, by the way, can make you complicit in their deaths as well.

Or is it possible that you weren't there, there was no "debris collecting point" and you've never even been to Washington, D.C.?


+13 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


But, if part of his duties there were collecting debris, and if he had full access to key areas were debris was stored, and if he was there within a reasonable time after the crash, then he does indeed have "knowledge" of the lack of debris, and therefore the lack of a plane.

The eyewitnesses who were there at the time of the impact have differing opinions, the only released camera footage lacks any evidence of an airliner, so this person's first-hand knowledge is just about as close as one can possibly get to "facts."

I doubt there is any indisputable proof available outside the upper echelon's of FBI and military, but a first hand account, from the site, directly involved in clearing debris is about as close as we can hope for isn't it?


+3 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


So a super moderator needs to say that my first-hand knowledge of looking at all the debris in the collection point and sans plane, isn't valid?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
For me, the best evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon is the complete lack of footage showing the plane on approach.

With all the CCTV and building security cameras in place around the Pentagon, the hardest part that I have a problem believing is that there is no footage of the plane coming in.

Release the footage, and you'll silence the skeptics, well, most of them anyway. There will still be the idiots out there who will claim the footage has been faked.



As a fellow skeptic of the O.S. I can guarantee one of the OS Troops is going to flame you and deny the Pentagon had any cameras on the outside. They truly believe the Pentagon has only 1 shoddy ass camera watching the exterior wings of the building and that the DoD feels no need to surveillance the grounds even though classified/top secret things are being held within the building.
edit on 18-4-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
You were there you said, and this.


The clearance I had included all areas, including the debris collecting point. That's when I saw all the debris, and what was clearly lacking: any debris from an aircraft.


You saw all the debris, what kind of debris, what did you collect, what did the debris look like to you, and how are you qualified to determin what is plane debris, or something different?

You are very defensiv against the skeptics, you shouldent be, they want the truth as much as anyone.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
This is the first time I have seen some of these pictures of the debris inside thanks to the regen article. Unless someone placed a couple large pieces of a commercial airliner in their office before the impact this evidence clearly shows that a plane hit the pentagon.

However it does not explain the coincidence of the fact that the plane hit the only portion of the pentagon that was reinforced to receive an impact like that, nor does it explain the countless other "coincidences" that happened on that day.

Personally this puts to rest my concern of a missle hitting the pentagon. To be honest though that never made much sense to me anyway. If you are orchestrating a false flag operation, why would you use 3 real planes and one missle? Too many people would be able to see it fly across the lawn and hit the building at that time of day. As a matter of fact there are plenty of eye witness accounts that claim to have seen a plane hit the building that morning. Who sent it though is still up for debate.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


omg, if you are here to tell the official story, I think you're on the wrong forum, bud!





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
106
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join