Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
106
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

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





Have you ever been to a plane crash site? I have. Three separate times where I was early on the scene.

But yours wer not traveling 500mph into a stationary object.




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
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.


I thank you for not moderating this in any way so far. I suspect tho you'll still have to answer for it in due course. I told you that my first-hand knowledge stems from the day after. The next day. You understand what the next day means, right? It's not days later. Thanks again, anyway.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
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.


So now the story changes ?
?

First you emphatically state that you were there on the 12th and That You saw the hole ... even commenting as to it's 'small' size.

If you didn't arrive until the 12th there's no way in hell you saw the impact hole. The whole 55-65ft section collapsed within 35-40 minutes of the initial impact.

[paraphrase]
The hole was small and it didn't collapse until After I was there on the 12th
[/paraphrase]

Your words, not mine.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by underduck
 


planted.

thanks for playing



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
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.


Agreed. There are countless posts on this site from people with claims of "first-hand knowledge" that amount to little more than, "When I was there I didn't see anything."

WE HAVE PICTURES!!!! LOTS OF THEM ... your first hand account of not seeing anything means little next to them.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


bring them here to this forum then, I'll gladly talk to them.



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

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





Have you ever been to a plane crash site? I have. Three separate times where I was early on the scene.

But yours wer not traveling 500mph into a stationary object.


Very true, but that is a problem in and of itself. Hitting that target at that speed is very difficult. I've never flown anything that large or that fast, but I do fly. My skills would be superior than the guys that were supposedly flying those planes, and I can tell you there is no way to hit that wall at 500 mph.

My amateur experience at flying tells me ground-effect would be a major problem, but some other more experienced ATS pilots say ground-effect is less pronounced on a large aircraft. However, there are plenty of professional accounts of all the other technical difficulties with hitting that target.

Think of this. When a pilot comes in for a landing at a slow speed, in landing configuration, they always overshoot their target by a few hundred feet, sometimes more. So, imagine coming in at a fast speed, without landing configuration, you would overshoot your target by a mile or more! No way a pilot could hit that building at that speed so perfectly on one attempt. They might have overshot it and hit the opposite ring of the building, the might have crashed into the ground and tumbled into the building, but it is almost impossible to have hit the building so perfectly at that speed.

And, there are plenty of other crash site footages where things did crash at considerable speed and still had plenty of debris left over to show for it.



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

Originally posted by hooper

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?


you know, your obstinance in this regards is quite glaring, just saying...

You never thought it was suspicious to have collected all the debris so quickly at the pentagon and at ground zero in NY? Poor poor you!



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 





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.


Ok fine you have first hand knowledge.
However you lack any proof.

Tell us in detail what you saw then or didn't see.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by underduck

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.


I don't have a history per se yes it's true. That can work in someone's favor or not, can it not?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

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.



but they want to dismiss it, out of turn. to me this speaks volumes already. but I already calculated the responses before I posted, and so far it hasn't been outside of my initial estimation. Wake some sense in the rest of ya I want! lol



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 





The part that I always thought suspicious, was the trajectory.

Look at the Google sat view.
If you had a choice I think you would have chosen the same wedge. It had a long aproach without tall structures in the way.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
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.


then don't hinder those that have the truth that you supposedly want!



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 


Thanks for sharing. I have a question for you that might sound a bit complicated but I think your answer will be very helpful for many.

The preamble. The "official" story of any event is the explanation that is given, in not too specific detail, within the first 24 hours of the actual physical event. This is a known, time tested, technique that exploits a defect in the brain. Once the official story is established as FACT, then everyone who has heard the official story is then charged with accepting it, or PROVING the story is false - proving it as false is nearly impossible. Instead of people showing what the story is through the process of experiencing the events details without prejudice, the brain has to debunk the official story first - the brain defect is that the brain is mostly unwilling to do so. It is like asking a computer to just "ignore" the code just written, it can't, and if you need to keep the unwanted code in place, the workaround code can't be a huge challenge or pain to accomplish.

The question: I'll have to assume that you were told the "official story" in the first 24 hours, PRIOR to you going on site. What was your mental process when you saw things that didn't jibe with the official story? How did you overcome the need to accept the official story, in the face of debris that didn't match up to that story?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





Have you ever been to a plane crash site? I have. Three separate times where I was early on the scene.

But yours wer not traveling 500mph into a stationary object.


Yeah thank God that that side of the Pentagon was undergoing reinforcement. try and debate this fact, I dare you.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Annie Mossity
 



If you didn't arrive until the 12th there's no way in hell you saw the impact hole. The whole 55-65ft section collapsed within 35-40 minutes of the initial impact.

[paraphrase]
The hole was small and it didn't collapse until After I was there on the 12th
[/paraphrase]

Your words, not mine.


This did cause me a second of pause.


I had to google to make sure my own memory hadn't failed, but I was pretty sure the hole had collapsed shortly after the impact. The small hole didn't last more than an hour as I remembered, and you verified.

Yes, this does shoot some giant doubt into the OP's account. Combine that with the Rumsfield statement and comparing it to the "astroNOTS" as he put it, and I am beginning to smell a troll.

Sucks to, because I defended his account against other attacks, but if the OP can't even be trusted to tell basic truths, then how can we trust any of the story?

Fail.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by snowspirit
 





The part that I always thought suspicious, was the trajectory.

Look at the Google sat view.
If you had a choice I think you would have chosen the same wedge. It had a long aproach without tall structures in the way.


I don't know what you mean, sorry. Dumb it down for me if you care.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks

Originally posted by underduck

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.


I don't have a history per se yes it's true. That can work in someone's favor or not, can it not?


Sure. It could. If your argument had some substantial evidence behind it. Unfortunately you are being held at your word which doesnt mean very much at the moment. The people here like their pictures, videos, and audio files. Seeing is believing. One of the comments you will see plenty around here is "pics or it didnt happen". There are piles of stories very similar to yours that have turned out to be nothing more than stories so please excuse us for being a little hesitant to believe you at your word right away. Not to say we dont "beleive" you didnt see any plane evidence. But that alone will not change many opinions around here.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by crankyoldman
reply to post by shortsticks
 


Thanks for sharing. I have a question for you that might sound a bit complicated but I think your answer will be very helpful for many.

The preamble. The "official" story of any event is the explanation that is given, in not too specific detail, within the first 24 hours of the actual physical event. This is a known, time tested, technique that exploits a defect in the brain. Once the official story is established as FACT, then everyone who has heard the official story is then charged with accepting it, or PROVING the story is false - proving it as false is nearly impossible. Instead of people showing what the story is through the process of experiencing the events details without prejudice, the brain has to debunk the official story first - the brain defect is that the brain is mostly unwilling to do so. It is like asking a computer to just "ignore" the code just written, it can't, and if you need to keep the unwanted code in place, the workaround code can't be a huge challenge or pain to accomplish.

The question: I'll have to assume that you were told the "official story" in the first 24 hours, PRIOR to you going on site. What was your mental process when you saw things that didn't jibe with the official story? How did you overcome the need to accept the official story, in the face of debris that didn't match up to that story?



Wow, I knew there was a reason why I had to share my account. See, I've been learning to listen to my sweet still soft voice, and not always successful. Like I said, better late than never.

Certainly back then, I was just as ignorant as some of the posters to this thread have thusfar been. I was just there at the time to provide a service, to help all those there. That's it. the first their coworkers were there, the next, they're gone. everything takes a back seat when you're looking at someone in the face trying to make sense of everything, and desperately hoping that all can get back to normal asap. that's why I was there. it's only after the fact, yes, that I can put the pieces of the puzzle together. how could it be anything different, under any other circumstances, I ask you all?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Well, I'm giving my account like I said, and I know for a fact the slab still leaning when I got there didn't fall until some time afterwards.

Anybody else there at the same time? Would love to be proven wrong/right. So far, nobody has the balls to say.





new topics

top topics



 
106
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join