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

page: 3
106
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


Exactly! The Walmart parking lot has 30x more camera coverage than the Pentagon. It's a budget thing!
OR.... it's a flat out lie, and there are dozens of angles of that strike and impact, but they aren't being released. Now why would they not be released?




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


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


I can go to any airport in the country and stand on a spot where there's no plane. Is that first hand knowledge that no plane ever occupied that spot? Would it be first hand knowledge that no plane was there the previous day?

Absolutely not.

He can say based upon his observation days after the fact, it's his belief that no plane hit the Pentagon and I'd have no issue with the context of the opinion. But to call this first hand knowledge, is at best inaccurate. It's first hand opinion. It may be educated opinion based upon observable conditions, but first hand knowledge it is not.

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


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
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.


I've seen this tactic before, an appeal to the mods to close this thread. 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.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by homervb
 


Exactly! The Walmart parking lot has 30x more camera coverage than the Pentagon. It's a budget thing!
OR.... it's a flat out lie, and there are dozens of angles of that strike and impact, but they aren't being released. Now why would they not be released?


They swarmed that gas station like there was no tomorrow.

Guess what? Don Rummybaby came by one day to reassure us all the good work we were doing. And ge\uess what? His bodyguard details were as defeated as anybody could possibly be. Just like looking at the body language of those astroNOTS that didn't go to the moon, their body language said it all: they knew what was going on, and it wasn't the official story. They were defeated, and I saw it in their faces. Now tell me I'm full of shi*. Go ahead. This is a great opportunity to cling to your last remnants of hope! lol



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
nevermind.
edit on 18-4-2012 by jim3981 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


technically correct. inherently incorrect. I hope you and others can understand. My first-hand knowledge of the debris is: FIRST HAND. No plane parts. how is this so hard? I don't understand. Try again, if you please.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
fatal flaw?

Okay. You said ...

Originally posted by shortsticks
Let me tell you, that hole didn't collapse until the next day after when I was there. It was a small hole...


When in fact the initial hole was approximated to be about 12-13ft in diameter .... which about 35-40 minutes later collapsed across the 55-65ft section seen in later photos from THAT DAY [Sept. 11]

Exactly which hole, section or whatever are You claiming didn't collapse until AFTER you were the on Sept. 12!?

Inquiring minds would like to know, ya know.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by yeahright
 


technically correct. inherently incorrect. I hope you and others can understand. My first-hand knowledge of the debris is: FIRST HAND. No plane parts. how is this so hard? I don't understand. Try again, if you please.


Then how would you explain the actual pictures shown in the link on the 1st page of this thread?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jim3981
 


Yup yup, and I personally don't want to shorten the expiration date of mylife before the end of this year, if at all possible. I chose this time and place before I incarnated (as is my own personal belief, so take that as you will). So for me to shorten that would be spockish and illogical. I know the real world. pfft.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 



I can go to any airport in the country and stand on a spot where there's no plane. Is that first hand knowledge that no plane ever occupied that spot? Would it be first hand knowledge that no plane was there the previous day?


That isn't a fair comparison. If you were tasked with picking up the pieces of that plane the very next day, and you couldn't find any pieces I think it says an awful lot more than what you are comparing it too.

Now, as others have claimed, the OP could be making up the whole thing. That would be a fair critique. How do we know he was there at all? But, if he was there, the next day, and he did have the clearance he says he had, and he did work specifically in the task of clearing and collecting debris, then it is certainly a first-hand account!

Have you ever been to a plane crash site? I have. Three separate times where I was early on the scene. Two of the times were small aircraft where I was a witness to the crash. One was an icing incident where a plane went down literally across the street from my house, and due to the full throttle of the engine trying to overcome the effects of the icing, we had plenty of warning and were standing outside and watched it crash! The other time was a small plane that run out of fuel and crashed on the intersection in front of where I worked. The third crash was a FedEx 727 that clipped trees on its approach into Tallahassee and crash-landed short of the runway. All three times the planes were readily visible! Two of the crashes had fires so intense you could feel them from several blocks away! Even after the intense fire, the planes were easily recognizable for many days, and many pieces of the planes were entirely intact.

If there was a plane, and if he was on site the following day, he would have seen the plane. Just my opinion of course.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by grey580
 


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


I've been here long enough to read many posts with bogus information.
Claims of UFO's that turn out to be either bugs or birds.
And outright lies.

Deny Ignorance, right?

So I show you a post that CatHerder did. And all you can do is laugh at it.
But you don't offer any proof.

Besides snarky remarks what have you brought to the table?
Where's the proof?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 


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

Do you see the little box around everything I posted in this thread? I assume your powers of observation are sufficient for that. It means I won't be closing this thread, or moderating it in any way.

I have no problem with you telling your story. I do take issue with your calling it something other than what it is. When I see "first hand knowledge" in a title, that's what I expect to read in the thread. That's not what this is.

"First hand knowledge of Bigfoot rampaging through a house", doesn't mean I saw the damage days later and drew a conclusion.

You have no first hand knowledge. You couldn't testify to anything other than your claim that you personally failed to observe anything after the fact which would lead you to conclude a plane hit the Pentagon.

Now if people find that worthy of discussion, have at it. I'm out.


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 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





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."

Except for the witnesses who saw a plane.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by yeahright
 


technically correct. inherently incorrect. I hope you and others can understand. My first-hand knowledge of the debris is: FIRST HAND. No plane parts. how is this so hard? I don't understand. Try again, if you please.

So, according to you, on 9/12/2001 there was a complete and total collection of all the "debris" all fully assembled and you saw no plane parts?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Annie Mossity
 


Well I know that a slab of the pentagon was there inclined when I first arrived, and then it didn't fall completely until later. Exact sequence of events? Sure I can't say. Perhaps I shouldn't have implied that I saw the original hole that can be found by a quick internet search. If that causes holes in my account, then good lol.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by grey580
 


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


Ummm Grey580 has been around for a couple of years. You have been around a couple of days. I think he/she knows a little bit more about these forums than you. Just saying.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





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."

Except for the witnesses who saw a plane.


That is exactly why I say they had differing opinions. There were many eyewitnesses, and many of them saw different things. Some saw the plane over here, some over there, some heard it but didn't see it, some even claim to have seen it miss the Pentagon and fly off.

There is no clear-cut fact, there is no clear-cut video that has been released, there is no clear-cut radar footage, everything is a shade of gray.

So, when it comes to this 9/11 story, our OP here is as close to first-hand knowledge as we can get.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Woop! Thanks!

Shi* this reply will self-implode in

3
2
1

for not providing anything else of substance, right?

ha, okay then

Who has been in the military? Who else was there on 9/12 and subsequently thereafter? Give me a question about any specific detail, and I'll answer you. Perhaps all the nay-sayers weren't there. But they like to cast someone who was, particularly ME, in some sort of doubt. I'll be waiting. Be careful tho, my first-hand account can give you back your butt on a platter lol



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by underduck
 


aye since 2007 thanks.
And let me state. I don't care about the official line.
I want the truth.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by grey580
 


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


I've been here long enough to read many posts with bogus information.
Claims of UFO's that turn out to be either bugs or birds.
And outright lies.

Deny Ignorance, right?

So I show you a post that CatHerder did. And all you can do is laugh at it.
But you don't offer any proof.

Besides snarky remarks what have you brought to the table?
Where's the proof?


what proof has a first-person account to give, I ask you? were you there? doubt it. if you were, you'd probably have something better to call me on. but you haven't. so you're not winning, you know...for the record and all. just sayin.





new topics
 
106
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join