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

page: 6
106
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annie Mossity

Originally posted by shortsticks
... and I know for a fact the slab still leaning when I got there didn't fall until some time afterwards.


Hey. I'm not looking to drag you through the gutter or anything, I'm just going by what you've posted thus far in this [Your] thread [Your words].

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




But what makes my account different is that I was there the day after. No, I wasn't there the day of




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

*bold/underline emphasis mine

The initial impact/entry point was about 12-13ft in diameter. The entire 55-65 foot section collapsed within 35-40 minutes after impact.

The 'leaning' portion you're referring to that was on the right-hand side, the part tilting down because it consisted of several levels resting upon or being supported by underlying debris, didn't 'collapse' ... it was torn down/demo'd/removed to allow for safer access and shoring up of the remaining structure and interior columns and whatnot.

Therefore there is simply no way you saw 'that hole didn't collapse until the next day after when I was there. It was a small hole'.

The abnove, in and of itself, casts far mOar than a mere shadow of doubt upon your claims.

Simple as that.



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


To say what?

No. I wasn't there that day, but then again I'm also not the one making such emphatic claims of 'proof' ... only to later change my story and start tripping all over myself when called on the obvious contradictions and discrepancies throughout.

$.02


you said it, you weren't there. I was.




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 



like you're looking at the hole in the pentagon, that left. at first there were just tents, can you guess who the primary players were at first? probably not since you weren't there.


Now hold on just a minute - how do you know that I wasn't there?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
very simply, if you weren't there, and you're relying on the internet for you info, consider yourself duly slam dunked, as it were. if you were there, then I'll respond kindly. if you weren't, [SNIP]. you have no say, and are unmatched. i'm bold because I was there and can back my assertions and my boldness, provided you were there and give me ample credibility that you were. as it is, none of you suckers have a lick of credibility like I do.


Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.
edit on 19/4/12 by argentus because: snipped insult



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by shortsticks
 



like you're looking at the hole in the pentagon, that left. at first there were just tents, can you guess who the primary players were at first? probably not since you weren't there.


Now hold on just a minute - how do you know that I wasn't there?


give me evidence you were. be warned: I'll tear through bs like a warm knife through my own.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
if you weren't, [SNIP]. you have no say, and are unmatched. i'm bold because I was there and can back my assertions and my boldness, provided you were there and give me ample credibility that you were. as it is, none of you suckers have a lick of credibility like I do.


Careful there Tonto. I don't think the mods here take too kindly to that type nonsense when replying to others.
Just sayin'...

As for your 'I'm bold because' commentary...
What exactly have you given us all to prove you were ever Actually there in the first place? Your 'word' ...which has already been shown as perhaps more than just merely questionable. (?)

Seems to me more a case of you getting a bit perturbed because your 'slip' is beginning to show.


Looking back over your posts thus far seems to show an initial 'air' of calm, collected confidence at the onset, but ... more and more ... that has since apparently devolved to mere insults and ridicule of any veritable questions or critiquing of your 'claims'.



edit on 19/4/12 by argentus because: removed quoted insult



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks

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?



Interesting. So it seems you are saying that those who respond to such events (OK city bombing comes to mind) that the overwhelm of both the experience and the job at hand, prevents one from seeing much more then what is supposed to be there. It would seem that even the sharpest of minds, when provided with a very specific job to do, would block out the reality that might not fit the job. So your job was to help folks get back to work, and NOT evaluate anything beyond what was required for that. As a result, it all seemed "normal" to you. It would also seem that had the job you were to do, been off in some way or not part of the official story, you'd have noticed. Example: had you been told you were to help "regular" folks get back to normal and found aliens instead of Joe and Jane, then you might have started to look around. But because you expected upset, disoriented Joe's and Jane's it all seemed normal. So we can assume that on site people will be unlikely to see anything "out of the expected norm" at the time of the event.

At what point do you start to sense that things didn't match up? Was this "feeling" and internal thing as in "hey, I don't remember luggage, or seat cushions" or was it more "I have a nagging feeling associated with my experience and I wonder what it is?"



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annie Mossity

Originally posted by shortsticks
if you weren't, [SNIP]. you have no say, and are unmatched. i'm bold because I was there and can back my assertions and my boldness, provided you were there and give me ample credibility that you were. as it is, none of you suckers have a lick of credibility like I do.


Careful there Tonto. I don't think the mods here take too kindly to that type nonsense when replying to others.
Just sayin'...

As for your 'I'm bold because' commentary...
What exactly have you given us all to prove you were ever Actually there in the first place? Your 'word' ...which has already been shown as perhaps more than just merely questionable. (?)

Seems to me more a case of you getting a bit perturbed because your 'slip' is beginning to show.


Looking back over your posts thus far seems to show an initial 'air' of calm, collected confidence at the onset, but ... more and more ... that has since apparently devolved to mere insults and ridicule of any veritable questions or critiquing of your 'claims'.





I'm calm. I'm collected. But I am human. You can't be at the Pentagon and witness first-hand the trauma experienced by those who actually lived it and not get somewhat emotionally charged. Am I emotionally charged about this issue? You betcha. If you're not, you ain't human. So stuff it. I wanted to take those responsible, including dr with his smug look while telling us that we're doing a fine job, and shove it up where the sun don't shine. If that makes my account less credible, then you're beyond all hope.
edit on 19/4/12 by argentus because: removed quoted insult



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by crankyoldman

Originally posted by shortsticks

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?



Interesting. So it seems you are saying that those who respond to such events (OK city bombing comes to mind) that the overwhelm of both the experience and the job at hand, prevents one from seeing much more then what is supposed to be there. It would seem that even the sharpest of minds, when provided with a very specific job to do, would block out the reality that might not fit the job. So your job was to help folks get back to work, and NOT evaluate anything beyond what was required for that. As a result, it all seemed "normal" to you. It would also seem that had the job you were to do, been off in some way or not part of the official story, you'd have noticed. Example: had you been told you were to help "regular" folks get back to normal and found aliens instead of Joe and Jane, then you might have started to look around. But because you expected upset, disoriented Joe's and Jane's it all seemed normal. So we can assume that on site people will be unlikely to see anything "out of the expected norm" at the time of the event.

At what point do you start to sense that things didn't match up? Was this "feeling" and internal thing as in "hey, I don't remember luggage, or seat cushions" or was it more "I have a nagging feeling associated with my experience and I wonder what it is?"



God, you're so on point, I don't know where to begin. Thanks, in any case. Wish you were there and not me. You might have had a better chance of seeing through the carefully crafted veneer of reality that I wasn't so much keen to do at the time. Yes, it's just like the military of today, all they can see is getting their job done for the day or the next as it were. Then blanket on that the customs and courtesies and those leaving or those coming, and you don't have much time to think about the real situation you're in at the time. But then again to my credit, I never was one who played by the rules. This post should stand as the ultimate testament to that fact. In your face.


+7 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by shortsticks
 


Hey- maybe this will help your credibility - where was this debris pile located? I mean there are thousands of photos of the Pentagon the day after maybe we can all see this debris pile. And if the pile is off-site than I am sure there will be reports of truckloads of materials being hauled away on the night of 9/11/2001.


the debris collecting point was located on site, just off to the left a few hundred meters from the main area of interest as it were. no one could see it of course, it was enclosed. for good reason. this was a security issue. of course they didn't consider that someone wishing to help the state of mind of those actual persons collecting the debris would eventually rise up and turn against them.

Still no one else there but me on this forum? why should I humor any of you poor chaps any longer? I mean, seriously. Because they know I can shoot them down in the blink of my eye. There are details that only those there would know, nothing you can find on a google search. Hate to say it, but yes, I win.


[SNIP]. Pure and utter [SNIP]. The collection site was over in the north section of North Parking and anyone driving past on Rte 27 could see it, clear as day. I drove past it at least a couple times a week for months after 9/11. I worked at the time in Crystal City, a mile and a half away from the building. The Navy unit I was attached to as a reservist, up until the previous January, was the Navy Command Center, which lost 30-someodd personnel in the impact. The CO of the reserve NCC unit (who was in the building when it was hit and does indeed have "first hand knowledge" of an aircraft hitting the building, not second or tertiary "opinion") asked me to come back on active duty for a few months to help set up the NCC's IT capability up in an interim space at the Navy Annex.

Your claims are pure [SNIP]. T'would be in your best interest to just stop right now and go away. Your story is silly and, to be honest, pretty lame and ridiculous, and you've established your troll credentials without question.

Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.

edit on 19/4/12 by argentus because: removed censor circumventions



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by shortsticks

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by shortsticks
 


Hey- maybe this will help your credibility - where was this debris pile located? I mean there are thousands of photos of the Pentagon the day after maybe we can all see this debris pile. And if the pile is off-site than I am sure there will be reports of truckloads of materials being hauled away on the night of 9/11/2001.


the debris collecting point was located on site, just off to the left a few hundred meters from the main area of interest as it were. no one could see it of course, it was enclosed. for good reason. this was a security issue. of course they didn't consider that someone wishing to help the state of mind of those actual persons collecting the debris would eventually rise up and turn against them.

Still no one else there but me on this forum? why should I humor any of you poor chaps any longer? I mean, seriously. Because they know I can shoot them down in the blink of my eye. There are details that only those there would know, nothing you can find on a google search. Hate to say it, but yes, I win.


[SNIP]. Pure and utter [SNIP]. The collection site was over in the north section of North Parking and anyone driving past on Rte 27 could see it, clear as day. I drove past it at least a couple times a week for months after 9/11. I worked at the time in Crystal City, a mile and a half away from the building. The Navy unit I was attached to as a reservist, up until the previous January, was the Navy Command Center, which lost 30-someodd personnel in the impact. The CO of the reserve NCC unit (who was in the building when it was hit and does indeed have "first hand knowledge" of an aircraft hitting the building, not second or tertiary "opinion") asked me to come back on active duty for a few months to help set up the NCC's IT capability up in an interim space at the Navy Annex.

Your claims are pure [SNIP]. T'would be in your best interest to just stop right now and go away. Your story is silly and, to be honest, pretty lame and ridiculous, and you've established your troll credentials without question.


So I take it you went inside like I did? you're so full of lame I don't know where to begin. But you have come the closest, so I'll give you that. I wonder why they didn't trust you to see everything, or that you didn't care to. No big surprise there.
edit on 19/4/12 by argentus because: removed quoted censor circumventions



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 



give me evidence you were. be warned.....

I didn't say I was there - but you did say I wasn't. Thats an affirmative statement. Which means you are implying that you have direct knowledge; but since you have no clue who I am or where I was on 9/11/2001 or 9/12/2001 you can't have that knowledge. Which means you are telling tales.

I'll tear through bs like a warm knife through my own....

Yeah, right.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Only way a plane could crash at the pentagon is if the fbi cleared all plane debris before the media even showed up, meaning on the day when norad and the faa had their pants down the fbi was way ahead of the game clearing up airplane wreckage. Only way that s possible is f it was a staged event.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by shortsticks
 



give me evidence you were. be warned.....

I didn't say I was there - but you did say I wasn't. Thats an affirmative statement. Which means you are implying that you have direct knowledge; but since you have no clue who I am or where I was on 9/11/2001 or 9/12/2001 you can't have that knowledge. Which means you are telling tales.

I'll tear through bs like a warm knife through my own....

Yeah, right.


You weren't there. enough said.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Jules
Only way a plane could crash at the pentagon is if the fbi cleared all plane debris before the media even showed up, meaning on the day when norad and the faa had their pants down the fbi was way ahead of the game clearing up airplane wreckage. Only way that s possible is f it was a staged event.


the fbi was there, I guarantee you. even if the agents were young chaps. just doing their job, after all.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
thats always been obvious to me, ONE grainy video - no wreckage - and a nice neat hole? really? its a joke.
as if there is only one cam at the place? i kinda think there are hundreds of cams there of very good quality.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
The Toronto Hearings
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The first video linked to in that thread goes into great detail how a plane couldn't have hit the pentagon. By far the best evidence i've seen. Many pieces of evidence I haven't seen before also.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 



You weren't there. enough said.

And you know that how?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 


I was in the Air Force,

Bull! I have "first hand knowledge" that proves that you were never in the United States Air Force!
I spent my first 18 yrs. growing up on numerous Air Force bases, and I know that I never saw you, therefore you were never in the Air Force.

That's the same damn argument you are giving, regarding aircraft debris at the Pentagon. It's also just as valid!

Do you see how that works?

See ya,
Milt





new topics
top topics
 
106
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join