It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon "plane" crash - Where is the plane?

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 




The only thing that is blatantly obvious is that a cover-up was carried out by the Government.

To answer your question..... THE CONFISCATED VIDEO THAT SHOWS A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON.

But if you accept that planes hit WTC why would TPTB use bombs and missiles at the Pentagon?

If you were planning the whole 911 thing what would you have used?




posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





That makes no sense


It makes perfect sense to me. I can't help it if you're too ignorant to understand it.




Rather a suspicious tone to take against someone asking honest questions


I'm not wasting my time with you. I have no need to explain myself to you.

This isn't my first rodeo and you are the biggest pile of pasture patties I have ever had the unpleasant experience to catch a whiff of.

Good day to you.


edit on 6/7/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 




The only thing that is blatantly obvious is that a cover-up was carried out by the Government.

To answer your question..... THE CONFISCATED VIDEO THAT SHOWS A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON.

But if you accept that planes hit WTC why would TPTB use bombs and missiles at the Pentagon?

If you were planning the whole 911 thing what would you have used?

It's quite evident that a 757 could not have performed the necessary maneuvers to bring about the desired damage that was inflicted on that part of the building, which was obviously its intended target because the "plane" did a 180 turn when it could have gone straight and hit the other side where good ole Rummy had his lying butt parked.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by maxella1
I don't understand,
I don't understand,
I don't understand,

The two cases of the plane parts seem to me as if they were planted.



The reason you don't understand is because you are a Truther. Truthers can not take two pieces of evidence place them together and come to a rational conclusion. Penny Elgas's statement, the piece of debris, and the mark on the pole, all fit perfectly together to draw the conclusion, that, the debris is genuine and not planted. But you are not capable of doing that.



As always you completely missed the point. And I'm wasting time even replying to you.
It's not the parts of the plane that are inconsistent, instead it's the chain of custody of these airplane parts that is suspicious. If you want this evidence to be taken seriously you must prove chain of custody. Both Aziz and Penny Elgas could be lying about even being near the Pentagon.

edit on 7-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni


I like this photo the best when it comes to the PENTACON.


Remember the big fireballs at the wtc?

Remember the fireball we saw on the two frames allegedly showing a "plane" hitting the Pentacon??

Does this photo correspond with those supposed fireballs?Note the PC on the desk and the book on top of the chair...this is where "they' would have you believe the "plane" cut through the building.
Note the total lack of fire internally.

I don't give a monkey's how many staged photos you show me of wreckage so small as for it all to fit on my lounge floor...its all lies.

If wtc1 and 2 collapsed because of fire, wheres the fire on this photo?Why didn't it also collapse ?

After all, if that claptrap is good enough for wtc's 1 and 2, why does the same bullish#t not hold up to scrutiny here?

Bring whatever excuses to the table as you wish.

No plane hit the pentagon.


How wide is the collapsed area? It is not unreasonable to assume that the portion where the plane penetrated got smashed and burned and a wider area around of it collapsed at the seams, if the area is wide enough to account for a plan smashing inside it and an even wider area where portions of the building outside the diameter of the plane collapse at the seams.

If the collapsed area is not very wide, then it is indeed curious how that damage came to pass, when you compare it to the impact hole of the WTC. Maybe the lack of damage from the wings and the sturdy engines is because the pentagon is a very sturdy building?
edit on 7-6-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1

I just started to read a book called Until the Fires Stopped by Charles B. Strozier, And This is what he writes..

'United Flight 175 is especially unstable as it roars into its target. In fact, the United plane comes close to falling apart from the vibration caused by being flown at high speed at such a low altitude, where the air is thicker.'

Does this sound right to you?


What do YOU think?



Are you saying this plane is flying at over 500 mph ?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





One is looking at the evidence and coming to the most obvious logical conclusion


The real evidence that you conveniently seem to forget and always want to ignore WAS CONFISCATED by the FBI.

The most obvious conclusion is that there was a cover-up.

You are neither Good, nor are you Old and I'm damn sure your name isn't Dave either.

Is there anything about you that doesn't wreak of falsity and farce?

You continue to proclaim and exaggerate the most extreme "Truthers" theories. Which we all know didn't come from a real Truther. Any theories like



a secret plot to take over the world.


Came from your mind. Not one real Truther has stated that theory.

Truthers may have said it was a false flag event to start a war for money and power.

But that does not "connect the dots" with them trying to take over the World. We all know they make money pitting two sides against each other than they do unifying anything.
edit on 6/7/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)


Don't even bother arguing with GoodOleDave aka G.O.D.

He spends ALL his time arguing against anyone who looks into a possible conspiracy, yet here he is in a conspiracy forum. I don't get it man. He has way too much time on his hands. He has his own mindset, refuses to change it at all, but yet will still log on to this forum everyday, multiple times a day, calling anyone's theory a hoax.

It's like a person who hates horror movies actually going to see a horror movie and then complaining about how they hate horror movies. He's a broken record who loves being a broken record and gets fulfillment out of coming to this message board every day and claiming ignorance on everyone else.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
The real evidence that you conveniently seem to forget and always want to ignore WAS CONFISCATED by the FBI.


The REAL real evidence you conveniently seem to forget is that the FBI was doing their job. When someone is stabbed in a convenience store parking lot which has a security camera that may have videotaped the stabbing, the cops are going to want to look at that video. It has everything to do with wanting to learn more about what happened and nothing to do with the cops wanting to cover up the murder. If there's a chance a security camera caught the plane impact on tape the FBI going to want to see it for literally the exact same reason.

Out of all the imagined gripes the truthers have, this one has to be the most silly. What did you expect them to do, wring their hands out in the parking lot while looking at the security camera in anxiety wondering whether the cameras caught anything?


You are neither Good, nor are you Old and I'm damn sure your name isn't Dave either.


I hope you will understand my position when I say I do not give a damn whether you think my name really is Dave or not. Al I care about is if you can show why anything I'm saying is wrong...and I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.


Came from your mind. Not one real Truther has stated that theory.

Truthers may have said it was a false flag event to start a war for money and power.


What the heck is the difference between "a false flag to start a war for money and power" and "sinister secret agents working on a plot to take over the world?" What is the "power" this war the false flag was started to obtain, if not "over the world"? I'm guarantee it's not the power to control the distribution rights to Jar Jar Binks action figures.

Do you ever actually think your conspiracies all the way through before you post them?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
There is a world of difference between picking up a piece of plane wreckage, looking at it, and thinking "a plane must have been here", and picking up a piece of wreckage, looking at it, and thinking "sinister secret agents planted it here to get me to think it came from a plane to cover up a secret plot to take over the world".

One is looking at the evidence and coming to the most obvious logical conclusion, and the other is, well, actually, I don't know what the hell it is, but it certainly isn't "connecting the dots".


When's the last time you saw a few guys cart off a 757 by hand in a few minutes time? Why are you so baffled that anybody would like to see some evidence of a 757 in the side of the Pentagon? Why are we wrong for wanting to see at least a dent from the wings and tail section, when those very same parts were able to penetrate 18 inch thick steel beams on the side of the twin towers like a knife through butter? Are we supposed to believe that cement is that much stronger than steel? Then why could they not build skyscrapers above 20 floors until they learned how to use steel? Who mixed that magic concrete? You can't have it both ways, silly OS'er.

As a side note, I googled "sinister secret agents" for this site and came up with 57,900 hits. "Damned fool conspiracy websites" turned up a mere 4580 results. I would venture to guess the vast majority of them are yours. Don't you think its time to reprogram your auto-keystroke thingy? If you are actually typing this claptrap over and over again, wouldn't it be time to seriously have your OCD condition checked? I have a friend with similar issues and his doctor recommended some rather generous doses of Anafranil. It might really help you.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus

It makes perfect sense to me. I can't help it if you're too ignorant to understand it.


It should say something about your position when the only person it makes sense to is you. Asking why you'd accept video when you steadfastly refuse to accept photographs is an honest question and it deserves an honest answer...and so far all you're doing is running away from it like all the other truthers do when I asked question. Why is it that I'm supposed to be the sinister secret agent here and yet you're the one who's refusing to answer any questions?

Guess what THAT tells me.



I'm not wasting my time with you. I have no need to explain myself to you.


No, actually, you do. You're here pushing your alternative history stories and you're copping an attidure on how everyone else is less intelligent than you are, and yet you refuse to back either of the claims up. Any ten year old can call someone a "poopy head" and then run away giggling, you know.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 





It's quite evident that a 757 could not have performed the necessary maneuvers to bring about the desired damage that was inflicted on that part of the building, which was obviously its intended target because the "plane" did a 180 turn when it could have gone straight and hit the other side where good ole Rummy had his lying butt parked.

But if you were planning 911 would you use two planes in NYC and bombs and missiles in DC?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





It seems to me you're just making up excuses for why you shouldn't have to give up your conspiracy claims.


This has always been my favorite.

“Conspiracy theorists are prone to faulty thinking and having unnatural desire to be marginalized by critical thinkers who know better than to look at the evidence. “

Right GoodolDave?

edit on 7-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





an honest question and it deserves an honest answer...and so far all you're doing is running away from it like all the other truthers do when I asked question.


I answered your question already. You asked me what evidence I will accept.

The answer was video that shows a plane hitting the Pentagon. There has been only 1 video released. I would like to see the video from the gas station, the hotel and the freeway cams.

Anything, even photos or videos of the plane making its decent and approach would satisfy me. Yet there is absolutely nothing. There should be multiple cameras from the Pentagon itself that would have captured some kind of clear image of a plane.

There is absolutely no good reason why the Government should withhold the video evidence from the public.

Time for you to answer my question now.

What reason is there that the other videos should not be released?






You're here pushing your alternative history stories and you're copping an attidure on how everyone else is less intelligent than you are, and yet you refuse to back either of the claims up.


I never made any claims that I am more intelligent than anyone. You're seriously deluded and misguided attempts to insert your lies are just more OBVIOUS evidence of your ignorance.
edit on 6/7/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Some more interesting photos from the pentagon..


PLANT (LIVE): Well, and speaking to people here at the Pentagon, as they're being evacuated from the building. I'm told by several people that there was, in fact, an explosion. I was told by one witness, an Air Force enlisted - senior enlisted man, that he was outside when it occurred. He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is - excuse me - and he then saw fireball go into the sky.[...] It's a very tense situation obviously, but initial reports from witnesses indicate that there was in fact a helicopter circling the building, contrary to what the AP reported, according to the witnessess I've spoken to anyway, and that this helicopter disappeared behind the building, and that there was then an explosion. That's about all I have from here.






Photos taken from the Sheraton Hotel about 10 minutes after the crash. The view is over the Navy Annex with the Pentagon to the right. As the helicopter is going away from Pentagon and the photographer identified it as a military helicopter, this could have been the same helicopter caught by the Pentagon security camera.








HOWEVER, several other witnesses saw a second aircraft none identifying a 'fighter jet'. The White Jet that was seen at all of the other 9/11 crashes either by the camera or by witnesses can't be ruled out.





posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus

It makes perfect sense to me. I can't help it if you're too ignorant to understand it.


It should say something about your position when the only person it makes sense to is you. Asking why you'd accept video when you steadfastly refuse to accept photographs is an honest question and it deserves an honest answer...and so far all you're doing is running away from it like all the other truthers do when I asked question. Why is it that I'm supposed to be the sinister secret agent here and yet you're the one who's refusing to answer any questions?

Guess what THAT tells me.



I'm not wasting my time with you. I have no need to explain myself to you.


No, actually, you do. You're here pushing your alternative history stories and you're copping an attidure on how everyone else is less intelligent than you are, and yet you refuse to back either of the claims up. Any ten year old can call someone a "poopy head" and then run away giggling, you know.


I would prefer video evidence over photo evidence so no, he is not the only one. The problem with your way of thinking dave is that you use circular logic to deflect any unanswered theories, and since they are unanswered because TPTB will not re-investigate you use it to assert your view that the 9/11 commission report is right.

Just today an article came out stating that within minutes of a Cessna going off course and flying into "Obamas fly zone" he was tailed by an F-16...on 9/11 4, i repeat 4 planes went off course and none of the were stopped and they expect us to believe its because of the war games that were being carried out? Keep in mind that both of these exercises Global Guardian AND Vigilant Guardian were both moved up a month to coincide with 9/11, remember Dave think OUTSIDE of your comfort zone, you might learn something.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
The answer was video that shows a plane hitting the Pentagon. There has been only 1 video released. I would like to see the video from the gas station, the hotel and the freeway cams.


How can you not see how idiotic and stupid that statement is? You are literally saying that you don't care what evidence there is. If you don't see one single piece of it, then you will disbelieve all the other evidence.

There is mounds of evidence to support an airliner crash at the pentagon. It makes no logical sense to reject every single piece of evidence just because a video wasn't captured of the plane.

You are ASSUMING that there's a video with the plane on it. Don't tell me you're certain there is one. It's an ASSUMPTION. There is no proof that there is a video. Your entire belief system is based on lies.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I will quote from Cass Sunstein's paper on Conspiracy theories.

www.law.uchicago.edu...


Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.



Our main though far from exclusive focus – our running example – involves conspiracy theories relating to terrorism, especially theories that arise from and post-date the 9/11 attacks



After 9/11, one complex of conspiracy theories involved American Airlines Flight 77, which hijackers crashed into the Pentagon. Some theorists claimed that no plane had hit the Pentagon; even after the Department of Defense released video frames showing Flight 77 approaching the building and a later explosion cloud, theorists pointed out that the actual moment of impact was absent from the video, in order to keep alive their claim that the plane had never hit the building. (In reality the moment of impact was not captured because the video had a low number of frames per second. 62 )

Moreover, even those conspiracists who were persuaded that the Flight 77 conspiracy theories were wrong folded that view into a larger conspiracy theory. The problem with the theory that no plane hit the Pentagon, they said, is that the theory was too transparently false, disproved by multiple witnesses and much physical evidence



FOIA becomes relevant when the government holds, and declines to disclose, information that might rebut a circulating conspiracy theory. An example involves the disclosure of the Department of Defense video involving Flight 77’s crash into the Pentagon on 9/11.

A pro-transparency group, Judicial Watch, filed a FOIA request to obtain the video, but the Defense Department declined, saying that the video was to be used in the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. Judicial Watch filed suit to force disclosure, with the avowed objective of using the video to rebut the conspiracy theories surrounding Flight 77. However, when the Moussaoui trial ended the government released the video before the lawsuit could be decided. 7



Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so.


"If the Government can dispel such theories it should do so."

The easiest way to dispel the theory would be to release the video evidence to the public. Regardless if it confirms the impact of a plane or not.

The fact that the video was never released only perpetuates the theory of a cover-up.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
"If the Government can dispel such theories it should do so."

The easiest way to dispel the theory would be to release the video evidence to the public. Regardless if it confirms the impact of a plane or not.

The fact that the video was never released only perpetuates the theory of a cover-up.


Or... there isn't a video, and you're rejecting all the evidence for no good reason. You're ASSUMING that there's a video, and that it is subsequently evidence of a coverup. Your ASSUMPTION is what makes you inadvertently a liar.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
 




Just today an article came out stating that within minutes of a Cessna going off course and flying into "Obamas fly zone" he was tailed by an F-16...on 9/11 4, i repeat 4 planes went off course and none of the were stopped and they expect us to believe its because of the war games that were being carried out? Keep in mind that both of these exercises Global Guardian AND Vigilant Guardian were both moved up a month to coincide with 9/11, remember Dave think OUTSIDE of your comfort zone, you might learn something.

You are not thinking correctly.
AF1 has fighters in the area all the times and whos job is to do nothing but protect the airspace around it.

WTC has none.
Pentagon has none.

It appears that your comfort zone is in the conspiracy realm.

Until the truthers come up with a complete theory that covers all the known evidence for all four planes they will remain in the web pages of conspiracy web sites.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





There is mounds of evidence to support an airliner crash at the pentagon. It makes no logical sense to reject every single piece of evidence just because a video wasn't captured of the plane.

You are ASSUMING that there's a video with the plane on it. Don't tell me you're certain there is one. It's an ASSUMPTION. There is no proof that there is a video. Your entire belief system is based on lies.


You and all your chronie OS clones keep stating that I have rejected other evidence.

That is completely false. I accept the other evidence. However it is not conclusive evidence and the fact that the best evidence is being withheld is high cause for suspicion.

I want to see what the confiscated videos show. Whether it shows a plane or not. If the video was released it would at the very least dispel the notion that they are trying to hide something.

If there is nothing to hide then why isn't the video being released? They claimed it was released during the trial of Moussaoui. Where is it then?

Another pack of lies

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join