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

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Alfie1


Excellent vid, I only have watched the start, will settle down and watch later.......cheers. Nice one

reply to post by CaptainBeno


Debunked video.

You replied to the guy that posted the link which completely debunks that video, and thanked him for posting the video he debunked...


sigh

Here's that link again, showing how the makers of that video intentionally lied to you:

scienceof911.com.au...

i'm 80% convinced i believe you, the media is so messes so much with the people's heads that no one cares to think outside the box and do some research for themselves, thanks for bringing this up, it's quiet interesting i must say

reply to post by Archon23


I'm not sure you can assume a causal link between "the media is so messes so much with the people's heads" and "no one cares to think outside the box and do some research for themselves".

I also think that if you look at the OPs claims, and do that research you're talking about, you'll find he's lying... that 80% will go down to 0%.

For instance:


Versus:

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, 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.)

That's OBVIOUSLY a giant lie.

Why lie abut that?

The collapse was shown on television about 30 minutes after the plane hit.

Why lie?

Unless you believe he lied about that (which he obviously did) and not about the rest of it? How convenient.

Originally posted by Juanxlink

Well, shills and retards abound, cant see why not this one?

Its the whole fairytale team, ohsoobvious, dave et al...

I wonder why they let you post retarded crap too...

Allow me to direct you, in part, to rule #15 of the T&C of ATS

15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

It is one thing to discuss theories, it is another to outright lie. This is why I question why this thread still exists. Let me point out the next rule.

15a) Offensive Content: You will not Post forum posts... that are unlawful, harassing, libelous, privacy invading, abusive, threatening, harmful, hateful, vulgar, obscene, and/or disruptive.

At the beginning, when questioned, the person took to a defensive role, and lashed out against everyone by simply asking questions of his post, ignoring the question completely. At that point, people were doing what they always do, and that is ask questions.

Finally, please don't call anything people post here "retarded", you might not agree with it, but show a little more courtesy when replying.

Originally posted by hooper
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.?

lol, oh man, give it a break dude. if this guy was really there, then he was there. dont try and lay this BS on him. its making you sound all wierd and jealous. take a break on the chill chair.

Oh no you don't. The first few pages make this quite clear.

And why is this still active? Oh, because most discerning people are protesting the veracity of the OP's claim.

No offense to all involved. Nevermind.

wow....32 pages...got to 13 and couldn't read anymore. Too much posts. I'm not sure if the OP is still with us.

anyway...wanted to point out something. I see some people are saying they weren't fed the official story...they saw it on TV...minute by minute. And I say...it's the same thing. How do you suppose the feeding is done...a door to door salesman comes and tells you the official story? We have media for that. That's how indoctrinating is done.

As far as the pictures of wheels and fuselage goes...I've seen a lot a 9/11 videos, pics, memorial posters etc...there is much faked material...on either side. If we wanna be factual...you can not prove where were those pics taken, and when. Was it even of the event in question. Stills are easily faked.

So, posting links of pictures of some fuselage or a crushed wheel is no way a rock solid proof of airplane crashing at Pentagon.

Even though I support the cover up theory, I want conclusive proof. Not speculation derived from my own personal belief that the gov is evil...

Sure there is some evidence that backs up the official story...however, there is also evidence that doesn't support it. SO which ones do you choose to accept and which ones you trow out? For me...there is much more proof in non physical evidence...which is non debatable....like behavior of some key elements to this story.

1. Total failure of all...and I can't stress that word enough...ALLL security measures on the day.From NORAD to FAA, to intelligence community up to the government.

2. Very unbelievable execution of the attacks. At a glance, it appears that if you randomly hit such big buildings, on any given floor, they are certainly going to fall, in much the same manner, and take out the other buildings around with it. If, and I say if it is at all doable, to bring these buildings down with airplanes, buildings would need to be examined and a weak spot would have to be found and hit...whole lot of calculation would need to be done, and in the end...it would be in the hands of the pilot who would have to hit it perfectly as planned. Since the buildings were hit on different floors, and they fell the same way...not to even mention building 7 which also fell in to the footprint, we can conclude that it doesn't matter where you hit them and how, or at all...I find that extremly unbelievable.

3. There were apparently 19 hijackers...and 4 planes...that's like 4,7 hijackers per plane. There is like over 6 crew members per plane (not sure about the number, probably more). Since the hijackers were apparently armed with box cutters, If I were to plan to take over the cockpit, I would need at least...at least 2 hijackers to control the cockpit and the crew...with box cutters. That leaves 2,7 hijackers to control the rest of the plane, the passengers...again with box cutters. If you have at least 10 grown men (and we know there were more than that) on the plane, and you take over the plane with 4,7 hijackers, and 2,7 of them are trying to control the panicked kidnapped passengers...with box cutters. I say...that plan has an extremly low probability of success.

4. The president and the vice president weren't cooperating in a open and truthful manner with the commission. They refused to be questioned separately. They denied for their testimony to be written down. They were allowed to refuse to answer questions if they wanted to. All notes from the testimony were subject to white house censorship.

You can trow all your "national security" excuse to the bin. Considering the magnitude of the event...the white house should have been totally forthcoming to disclose any info concerning the event. Unless they have something to hide? I go by the old saying...truth needs no hiding. It only hurts if you've done something wrong.

5. Able Danger - Able Danger

The Senate Judiciary Committee first attempted to investigate the matter for the Senate in September, 2005. The Pentagon "ordered five key witnesses not to testify", according to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. "That looks to me as if it may be obstruction of the committee's activities," Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said at the start of his committee's hearing into the unit.[1] Attorney Mark Zaid, representing Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer and the other four Able Danger employees at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in September 2005, pointed out to the Committee that his clients had been forbidden by the Pentagon to testify to the Committee. He also discussed the Defense Intelligence Agency's decision to suspend Lt. Colonel Shaffer's security clearance shortly after it became known that he had provided information to the 9/11 Commission on Able Danger. "Based on years of experience I can say categorically that the basis for the revocation was questionable at best.

Navy Captain Scott Phillpott Capt. Scott Phillpott confirmed Shaffer's claims. "I will not discuss this outside of my chain of command," Phillpott said in a statement to Fox News. "I have briefed the Department of the Army, the Special Operations Command and the office of (Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) Dr. Cambone as well as the 9/11 Commission.[30] My story has remained consistent. Atta was identified by Able Danger in January/February 2000," he was quoted as saying.[31] [edit]James D. Smith Shaffer's claims were also confirmed by James D. Smith, a civilian contractor who worked on Able Danger. In an interview with Fox News, Smith reported that the project had involved analysis of data from a large number of public sources and 20 to 30 individuals.[32] Smith stated that Atta's name had emerged during an examination of individuals known to have ties to Omar Abdel Rahman, a leading figure in the first World Trade Center bombing. [edit]Major Eric Kleinsmith Major Eric Kleinsmith, who was with the Army and chief of intelligence for LIWA until February 2001, testified that he was ordered to destroy Able Danger's information. "I deleted the data," he said. "There were two sets, classified and unclassified, and also an 'all sorts,'" which contained a blend of the two, "plus charts we'd produced." Kleinsmith deleted the 2.5 terabytes of data in May and June, 2000, on orders of Tony Gentry, general counsel of the Army Intelligence and Security Command.[33] [edit]Other witnesses The Defense Department announced its findings on September 1, 2005, after a three-week investigation into Able Danger. The statement announced the discovery of three other witnesses in addition to Shaffer and Phillpott who confirm Able Danger had produced a chart that "either mentioned Atta by name as an al-Qaeda operative [and/or] showed his photograph." Four of the five witnesses remember the photo on the chart. The fifth remembers only Atta being cited by name. The Pentagon describes the witnesses as "credible" but stated that the document which allegedly mentioned Atta could not be found

So what is this...destroying data about the group? Why? Preventing forth coming whitneses to testify? Other "credible" (so says the Pentagon) whitnesses confirming Schaffers story?

And you don't find that suspicious?


These questions make me nervous and reluctant to believe the story is as told...

And I have a question for the OP, if he's still around.

Since you say there was no plane (I also believe that) at the Pentagon...what happened to the real plane that apparently took off from the airport? Or did it?

What about the passengers that were apparently on the plane?

Originally posted by Baddogma
...most discerning people are protesting the veracity of the OP's claim.

Yeah, they did that within two or three pages. Now that it has been proven to be false what else is there to add?

Even if you discount everything else and just focus on one statement, you can see why it shouldn't be here.

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

His claim is that he went to the Pentagon on September 12th. His claim is also that the hole collapsed on September 13th, when it collapsed on September 11th roughly 30 minutes after impact.

He would have known it had actually collapsed if he was there. because he would have seen it up close. The problem is, the whole thread is based on him "being there" and not seeing plane debris (which was also shown to be false).

Again, I draw you to Rule 15 of the T&C

15) Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

It's interesting to me to watch this conversation. While the thread may have plenty of stars it's seems most posters are critical of it. ATS used to be the Truther stronghold. It seems to have died off over the last few years. This is the first big Truther thread i've seen in a long time.

Looks like the Truther movement have finally died off. I'm not really surprised considered how far to the right things have moved around here.

Everyone involved in the conspiracy to attack your own people have been sufficiently silenced....

... except you, eh?

Well, if you are right, you will be now, right?

no I dont think so either... 15 minutes almost over I suppose.

reply to post by antonia


I think the reason is not so much the question of whether it was a missile or a plane. I think the underlying issue here is if he was even there to begin with. At least that is the gripe I have about it. And given he claimed that the hole was still intact when he was there on the 12th, claiming it crumbled on the 13, it shows he wasn't there because the hole crumbled on the 11th roughly 30 minutes after impact. He would have known this if he was at the site like he claimed he was.

That basically ruins the whole thread because this whole thread is based on him saying he was there and saw no plane debris. But, then he couldn't get something simple and widely known correct.

reply to post by DiscoveryOfTruth


I don't believe his story either. Like i said earlier, even if was true, it's not first hand evidence. The truther threads around here are pretty much dead. This section of ATS doesn't see much action. They are probably having a harder time moderating political madness. Most of the long time posters who kept this section active are pretty much gone.

reply to post by antonia


Oh, okay, I got you now, haha. Thanks for the clarification.

reply to post by antonia


I honestly consider the truther movement to be dead in the water, for so many reasons, first amongst them would be the endless lies. Then it's be the over the top aggression by the truther masses. Finally, the straw that broke the back was the endless truther in-fighting... 20 mins on most truther threads and you realise that they argue as much with each other as with any, "shills"... because in the absence of evidence all they have is a never ending stream if progressively wackier "theories"...

If you want a (schadenfreude based) laugh, check out this truther:

www.etcorngods.com...

He was a "big wig" in the truther threads for years...

This is also very interesting:

sites.google.com...

Simpson v. Zwinge (aka James Randi) et al **Caution: the woo is strong with this one Docket Report Updated February 1, 2008 Complaint Filed November 14, 2007 Simpson's complaint seeking $20 million in damages for claims of fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, misfeasance, malfeasance, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the First Amendment, violation of the Fourth Amendment, and conspiracy arises out of Simpson's use of an Internet forum on which Simpson told a tale about being visited by aliens called ET Corn Gods who advised him that it was his job to determine and share with the world decoding rules to reveal a hidden language that has been embedded into the English language by the aforementioned ET Corn Gods. Simpson claimed that he worked on cracking the code for 22 years. Not surprisingly, other users of the forum were skeptical of Simpson's claims, and quickly demonstrated that Simpson's "code" was nonsensical in that any word could, in fact, be translated into any other word a person chooses, by following the rules Simpson outlined, thus establishing that Simpson's claims about the code were untrue.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000 I was talking about the fact that Saddam Hussein ordered his intelligence service to assassinate George H.W. Bush in Kuwait on a visit he made as Former President Bush. That is an example of one way that the Iraqi Security Services were quite capable and no joke."

Well they didnt manage to assassinate G Bush Snr, did they, so that would make them look pretty incompitant, actually. Especially if presidents can be assassinated by the likes of lunatics like Lee Harvey Oswald..so what now you cant have it both ways either LH Oswald had major assistance by professionals or the Iraqi hit squad were not as "professional as a lunatic". So right there u discredit your self disinfo agent hahahaha.

Ouch... China is better eh? Is that why the second largest illegal immigration problem the United States has is illegal smuggling of human beings out of Mainland China? They are DYING to get here in a way Mexicans rarely know in any sense. Literally. China is that superior to our system eh? Well.. to each their own and I hope that works well for you. I'd just note a BIG fact here about how LITTLE China sees for illegal immigration among those trying to sneak INTO their nation. Oh.. North Korea would be the exception, but that is hardly a bragging point.

its not a case of China being better, its a case of China appears to be evolving into a more liberal society, where as the USA seems to be devolving into a totalitarian state. by the time all this plays out, I highly doubt the USA will look anything like it does today, as each year passes more civil liberties are binned. Detention without trial for instance, I hear you have that in common with China already, so give it another few years before you beat them at their own game.

There is just one other thing here. The whole point to this line of discussion is the idea that other world intelligence agencies wouldn't share the 'truth' of these big conspiracy theories because they aren't capable or competent to ferret out the truth? That is one of the points of argument here as I've been reading it. Aren't you finding the least bit of Irony that this is coming from a crowd of average computer users on their PC's on a net forum?

That isnt what I stated either, the fact I am forced into repeating myself, makes me feel like I am talikng to Sean Hannity or Bill O'#y. Like I already said its misleading, deliberately so, to keep telling they need to "ferret out the truth", this is another tactic to keep people actually in the dark. it like me telling someone there is buried treasure in a huge field, and to keep digging everywhere until they find it, whilst not giving them a map not a metal detector. And all the time the treasure is a big Mr T load of chins in plain sight around my neck.

So.....The world's intelligence services like Iraq, Libya and others are inferior to the point of bumbling idiocy.....but we, the members of ATS..and other forums on the internet....WE know the truth much better. So well, we can say..and know (?) that they don't? Hmmm..

Not what I said either Mr Hannity, we all know the well worn tactic of arguing the same point over and over, even though its been addressed already. Anyone with any brains still working half right sees through this USA news media style of shouting loud and talking over other people or being persistent on the same point and ignoring an y answers. So re read what I already wrote, instead of attempting me to run out of patients and walk out of the studio haha,.

Yeah... I'm not getting there in my mental gymnastics. I just don't bend or twist that far. Underestimating an enemy has led to more defeats of MAJOR military forces than any other single factor in human history. That is a cold fact...and I fear it's happening again on a scale they'll be teaching in class rooms many generations into the future.

edit on 19-4-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: fixing quotes

Please, the USA has war games set up for every conceivable scenario, including terrorist attacks, come on, the states went through decades of a cold war anticipating an enemy strike. to think they would not be ready for a terrorist strike is inconceivable. yet somehow 9/11 happened. Please, get a grip on reality.