Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What Really Happened to the Pentagon on 9/11? Video

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 

But you can not deny that the best way to making trillions disappear is to make a public statement about it and then blow up several buildings that may or may not have evidence of it.




posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by spartacus699
that part of the equation was to cover up the 2 trillion that went missing.


Except 2 trillion never went missing, nor did anyone state any money was missing...... apart from that you are correct!

Funny how comments are disabled for the video - she is obviously afraid of people calling her out on her crap!

scienceof911.com.au...
edit on 27-7-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)


Sorry you're right it wasn't 2 trillion, it was 2.3 trillion, my mistake....

2:18




posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 


It wasn't actually missing and never was. It wasn't listed in the primary budget of the projects it was spent in, so they were having to go line item by line item for each project to find where and when it was spent. At the time there wasn't a centralized accounting system in place that kept track of every project.
edit on 7/27/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus699
Sorry you're right it wasn't 2 trillion, it was 2.3 trillion, my mistake....


Exactly where in that video does anyone say the money is "missing"?



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
MRuss, Barbara Honegger is far from a "highly regarded" "journalist". She's been nutty for quite some time now.

frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... html
edit on 27-7-2013 by Tuning Spork because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by spartacus699
Sorry you're right it wasn't 2 trillion, it was 2.3 trillion, my mistake....


Exactly where in that video does anyone say the money is "missing"?


2:18+



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus699
Exactly where in that video does anyone say the money is "missing"?


2:18+

What video are you watching? The one in this thread does not have the word "missing" in it...... I suggest you try actually watching it!



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


doesn't know where this money is means missing.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 


No, doesn't know where this money is means have to go back project by project to see where what was paid and when and create a central accounting system. The money wasn't missing. They knew it was paid, it just hadn't been properly annotated.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus699
doesn't know where this money is means missing.


No it does not - have a read of this, although it totally destroys the silly truther conspiracy theory that $2.3 trillion was missing....
www.911myths.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I dont have time to watch it now but my theory is that there was a combination of a fly over plane and a drone/cruise missile that hit the building. When the explosion went off no one paid attention to the fly over but that provided cover for witnesses to remember prior to the fact. Also I believe that plane parts could have been pre positioned in containers on the Pentagon lawn and quickly uncovered in the confusion.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


And nobody, out of all the people in the area, not one person saw the fly over plane? That's amazing given how many people live and work and were on the way to work at the time.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


someone posted a photo on ats of the hole in the pentegon and the computer screens in the offices were still on the desks next to it .

some explosion that



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


And nobody, out of all the people in the area, not one person saw the fly over plane? That's amazing given how many people live and work and were on the way to work at the time.


Not only is the Pentagon in the middle of an industrial park and surrounded by major highways, the Pentagon can clearly be seen from across the Potomac in Washington, D.C. Anyone who doesn't believe me is free to go there and see this for themselves. If a plane did in fact fly over after the explosion brought everyone's attention to that area, it *would* have been seen.

For someone to claim "noone saw what happened at the Pentagon" is simply just a case of people making things up out of desperation to avoid having to admit they're wrong.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by geobro
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


someone posted a photo on ats of the hole in the pentegon and the computer screens in the offices were still on the desks next to it .

some explosion that


Maybe that's because it wasn't an explosion, but an impact...?



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by geobro
 


I don't know why that one (the seemingly undamaged office photo) is continually dragged out as evidence of a conspiracy when a little investigation of where and how it happened will reveal that it was on an expansion joint in the building and only became exposed when the adjacent section collapsed about 45 minutes after AA77's impact. It didn't suffer any blast or fire damage, maybe a little smoke as it was well insulated up to the collapse.

As for the video, just a rehash of the same tired old vastly incorrect theories.
Perhaps she's planning to sell a book.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Truly an enlightening video. . .I am awestruck at the thorough, concise presentation here. Do yourself a favor, and just invest the 3 hours. . .it will be well spent.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Video is gone now. Could someone repost the link, please. thanks.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I`ve always thought there was something strange about the pentagon attack and then one day I was looking at some pictures of it and I finally realized what was so strange about it.

At the world trade centers we see a large fireball when the plane hits the building,a similar fireball is also seen at the pentagon.
They claim that burning jet fuel got so hot that it weakened the steel support beams.
apparently even after those huge fireballs we saw at the world trade centers there was still plenty of highly flammable unburned jet fuel left in the tanks that spread all through at least one floor of the flaming building without igniting until it reached all four walls or sides of the building.
In order for the building to fall straight down, like it did,all four sides of the building would have to have had their steel support beams weakened by the burning fuel.
Each floor of the building consisted of approximately one acre of floor space,so we have one square acre of space burning at a very high temperature, being feed by jet fuel and burning for a period of time long enough to weaken steel support beams.
Personally I think that all of the jet fuel would have burned up during the initial explosion and huge fireball.

At the pentagon there was no intense fire created by the jet fuel,the area affected by the fire was much smaller than one acre,the initial explosion and fireball was much less.
presumably it was the same type of jet fuel so why was there such a huge difference in the way the jet fuel reacted to the different crashes?

In the following pictures I don`t see any evidence of a large fire that burned hot enough to weaken steel.
What I did notice was:

The trees that are just a few meters from the impact point didn`t burn, not even the smallest branches and twigs on the trees are consumed by a fire that should have been hot enough to weaken steel beams over a one square acre area.
The electrical wires and other assorted wires directly next to the point of impact can be seen hanging down completely intact,they haven`t been melted or consumed by a fire that should have been hot enough to weaken steel beams over a one square acre area.
Wooden desks,plastic computer moniters etc directly next to the point of impact are still in pristine condition,they aren`t even blackened by a fire that should have burned so hot that it could weaken steel beams a half an acre away.
The paint on the poles and fire hydrant next to the point of impact isn`t blistered or blackened by a fire that should have easily covered an acre of area and burned hot enough to weaken steel beams.
The rolls of pvc conduit in front of the point of impact aren`t blackened,the pvc isn`t melted,they are still standing upright they weren`t even knocked over on their side by the force of the blast.









publicintelligence.net...
jet fuel is jet fuel it`s going to react the same way whether it`s in a plane that hits the world trade center or in a plane that hits the pentagon, but thats not what I`m seeing.
edit on 11-9-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


And nobody, out of all the people in the area, not one person saw the fly over plane? That's amazing given how many people live and work and were on the way to work at the time.


Yeah, amazing too at how many cctv were confiscated there.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join