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

page: 7
106
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks

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.


*You* are the one spouting lies and BS..."...the debris collecting point was located on site...blah blah blah". You lie about that, what makes *anything* else you spew out believable?

Any idea what the destructive wallop of a 90-ton airliner traveling at 750 feet per second packs? Tell me what sort of missile in our inventory...or ANYONE'S inventory...that has a warhead that can even come *close* to the destructive power of a 757 slamming into the building.

[SNIP]. Every word you say.

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

edit on 19/4/12 by argentus because: removed censor circumvention and quotes of other censor circumventions




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Why is this silly thread still open?

I will say that the 911 forum never fails in providing immediate entertainment value though.

You kids play nice now, ya here?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Rocket? Why not just planted explosives. They make a nice symetrical blast hole also



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by cbvh27
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.


Anybody trying to doubt it isn't a pilot. Simple.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


why do you keep proving me right? glutton for punishment?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused
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


what bases were you in? I can handle you on multiple fronts, not just supposed logic, which will be your undoing. c'mon, let's have a go. were you in or not?



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


Without a doubt, the angle make no sense. Then when you look at the "exit" hold that the nose of the plane is said to have made, the angles really don't make sense. For those that don't understand all the angle arguments, please watch the Toronto Video from 9/9/11 where they discuss it.

A planes nose penetrating 3 concrete walls... lol. I love fairy tales



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
[Removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]



lol what I thought, you've absolutely nothing. next.


Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.
edit on 19/4/12 by argentus because: removed huge nested quote



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Classified Info
 


you mean ya hear?

otherwise your post doesn't make any sense. i'll give you a next try, if you want, but I think that once you blow it, you're shot.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by cbvh27
reply to post by trebor451
 


Rocket? Why not just planted explosives. They make a nice symetrical blast hole also


could be, just like wtc. and there was ample opportunity in the refortification of the walls of the pentagon. but surely the highest brass would've been more suspicious that the stupid dupes of the clanging gongs of the wall street #. just my own personal opinion, but the military is trained very well to look out for anything suspicious, how ever remotely unlikely it very well may be. civilians aren't stupid, they're just not trained like us, is all.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by hooper
 


why do you keep proving me right? glutton for punishment?


Actually, you keeping digging your own hole deeper and deeper. Its one thing to claim that you examined all the debris on 9/12/2001 at the Pentagon site, that's your own word and you have to live with your own lies, but then you start making absolute statements about who else was or was not there even though you have no clue who they are - well that's just transparent silliness. But go ahead.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by cbvh27
 


just like the wtcs, they chose a time when there would be fewer casualties. almost makes us want to say thank you to them don't it? DON'T IT? No? yeah well, the fact remains they did minimize casualties, the pentagon's recently reinforced walls testament to that. yeah, I'd still pull the trigger if they were in my crosshairs on any average given day. but facts are the facts.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by hooper
 


why do you keep proving me right? glutton for punishment?


Actually, you keeping digging your own hole deeper and deeper. Its one thing to claim that you examined all the debris on 9/12/2001 at the Pentagon site, that's your own word and you have to live with your own lies, but then you start making absolute statements about who else was or was not there even though you have no clue who they are - well that's just transparent silliness. But go ahead.


I will, so you'll excuse me, mr silliness with nothing to add to the conversation at hand. I on the other hand, have valuable testimony to give.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 



I'd still pull the trigger if they were in my crosshairs on any average given day. but facts are the facts.



If who was in your crosshairs?

Because terrorists don't pick dates and times that intentionally minimize casualties. They do pick giant iconic targets though. They had no way of knowing the towers would come down, but they do like to use airplanes. They had no way to know that was the strongest part of the most secure building in the world, but they do like iconic targets, but they had the White House and Capital that would have been much easier to target.

I dunno who did it, so I don't know who I would want in my crosshairs?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by shortsticks
 


I know it is a violation of the T & C to post stories that are known to be lies.
So just because you didnt see what looked like plane parts they simply didnt exist huh? DId you personally see all the dead bodies ? Did you comb through every piece of debris ?
We have videos of planes.
If you truly are a new member and not just a reinvented old member then you should know that 9/11 is hotly debated here. Reinvented old members know this, which would then make this a total troll thread if thats the case.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I have noticed the term 'chaps' used several times. Did the OP grow up or spend a lot of time in GB?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortsticks

what bases were you in? I can handle you on multiple fronts, not just supposed logic, which will be your undoing. c'mon, let's have a go. were you in or not?


This thread is becoming quite confrontational. To the point where credibility is being lost.

The OP claims, 'I was there, the day after, so I know what happened the day before.'

Others are bringing nice, concrete, hard evidence to the table, to be met with the OP repeating, 'I was there so I am right."

This is not a discourse by any stretch of the imagination.
Why the anger and condescending remarks?


The members here have a right to vet the OP's claims to determine the validity of the statement, but the OP here doesnt seem willing to assist in validating his own story, just repeatedly claiming presence at the site and seeming more and more confrontational as the thread moves on.


edit on 18-4-2012 by youdidntseeme because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
106
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join