It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Pentagon was hit on 9/11 it wasn't staged.

page: 11
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Banshee

Originally posted by Sauron
Why was there no luggage? Why were there no bodies?

Why are you making assumptions?
Did you talk to any of the recovery workers who spent countless hours in the rubble of the Pentagon?

I did.
One of my best friends was hip-deep in concrete and body parts.

I guess he made up that child-sized suitcase he found with toys and small clothing spiling out, huh?


Dude your about to make me cry, seriously. For heavens sake does everything have to be a conspiracy. It was a planned terrorist act that needs to be avenged. Even if war lasts a 100 years I will still support it.

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 02:31 AM
It was my day off. I worked for ABC NEWS the National News in D.C. I had my ABC radio at home, the phone rang and woke me up. It was the guy who I had taken to be interviewed a few months before 911. The interview was by the DOD reporter and it was all about Bin Ladin. I was told of the hit in NY, I said, I hope they do not hit the Pentagon. I was not moving very fast, turned the TV on and hit the shower. I heard a big plane fly lower than I have ever heard before go over the house. The tv said the hit happened and I grabbed my radio and asked if they wanted me to go. I went and ran the first tape from the scene. The guy on the phone that woke me was my father, former DIA Director. I was a motorcycle courier. I later was the number one screener at Regan National. I do not work there any more. There are many things I have seen and know about and they are quite ironic. One thing is for sure, it was a plane and it did happen.There was something that was also ironic that day. There was this guy also on a motorcycle, who ran the first tape from ground zero. Peter Jennings had him live minutes after the fall. He was there to pick up a coworker who was finishing up some photos of the WTC. They were doing a story on why people wanted to destroy the building and ther ZINE was called Prophezine, a Christian local mag in NY. His female coworker died that day and they never did any follow up story on the guy. Wild huh?

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 04:31 AM

Originally posted by The Merovingian
Who, by the way, provided the details regarding this particular fellow's autopsy? It wouldn't be anything or anyone related to the government now would it?

And by the way, could they tell from the autopsy that "he was killed with one of those box cutters after attempting to fight off terrorists"?
Just curious.

It was posted on CNN and every other news outlet when they covered his funeral. Look it up if you do not believe me.

Do you honestly think that the crew would not have tried to prevent that from happening?

[edit on 13/8/04 by COOL HAND]

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 09:20 AM
You know, I could go through every point you are trying to make here again and again and again, but you are repeating your bogus trash so many times that it just isn't worth it any more. I could shove a pie in your face and you would say, "There is no pie". So I'll just point out a few glaring lies/misconceptions that you continue to post.

On the pilot question, you can believe whatever you wish, it really doesn't matter. I'm sure you know way more than I do, as my 20+ years of flying for a living don't mean a thing. I'm clueless, right? Teaching in the formal school house for 4 1/2 years means nothing, right? Right. I'll leave you to your delusion here, but suffice to say that the terrorists that flew the planes on 9/11 did so themselves, and were more than able to do what they did. The only exception may have been the guy who tanked it in PA. There are still a few questions about that one, but we aren't talking about that here, are we?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

2)The light standards were hit, and at least one knocked over as the craft traveled across the roadway. Light standards are what 20-35 feet above ground? The craft would have been descending, by the time it crossed over the roadway and onto the field, it would have had to be even lower than the 35 feet to knock over the posts.

Again, I asked you to give information on the light standards height and position in relation to the building so as to prove your ascertation of a "skimming the ground" aircraft, which is the whole basis to your bogus theory, and you do not. You ignore it because it suits your purpose to do so. You keep repeating the same crap with no new information. If the light poles were 50 feet high, 25 feet from the building and the top 5 feet was clipped off, that would make the VERTICLE trajectory quite steep, now wouldn�t it? Simple math�it�s called geometry.

The bottom floor of the pentagon is not on stilts, the craft supposedly hit between the first and second floors, � That means that the craft would have had to have entered the first floor with at least a generous 17 feet slicing into the second floor.

And just what is this supposed to prove? It surely doesn't prove trajectory, as you seem to be alluding to.

Post 733429 shows the security camera�s video of the incoming flight just as it passed in front of some sort of box like structure, which as you can from the clip is quite short compared to the building...Me- 719729- Yes there is photographic evidence, as presented previously on this thread, and as provided by a security camera.

The "footage" you allude to shows only the explosion as the aircraft hits the building...not, as you claim, the trajectory of the aircraft. If you can ascertain the trajectory of the aircraft from these few frames, you need to be in the intel analysis business. Another bogus claim of evidence that does not support.

i.e.: The fact remains that the craft sheared those standards, knocked over at least one, and slammed into the first and second floors of the Pentagon, which had to have been at a maximum, 16 feet off the ground.

Again, you continue this light standard thing, but you still refuse to present information requested. How far from the building? How tall? As I said before and you conveniently ignored, it makes a difference.

Me- 721869- Yes you are obfuscating. Your entire argument is based on conjecture supported entirely by a computer game, to try and prove that the pilot could have flown a 757 into the Pentagon.

Wow. Are you a student of Yoga? Because you surely are stretching here. You put words in my mouth, and tell me what I am saying, ignoring what has actually been said? Get real.

Three of the four pilots had pilot�s licenses. Do you think they got them by flying a simulator alone? You're being very absurd. What I said was that they "honed their skills" on flight sim's. Anyone can do it, with the obvious exception of you.

It is supposed to show exactly what it said. It is you who are ignoring the trajectory issue, I provided you with excerpts from Pentagon press briefings, directly from your DoD site, and have specifically referred you to a diagram that shows the defence�s rendering of the vertical trajectory on impact.. If that is ignoring the trajectory, then you must permit me some time to conjour up Hanjour via ouija board to have him sign an affidavit as to it being otherwise....

Ok, let me see if I can explain this in a way that you will understand, although trying to read your posts and keep them straight is very difficult, as you wander from point to point quite aimlessly.

The diagram on page three of the Pentagon renovation plan you link to DOES NOT SHOW VERTICLE TRAJECTORY! It shows the horizontal angle at which the aircraft struck the building. Can you grasp that, or does it escape you?

I never have, nor will I ever, disagree as to where the plane hit the building, first and second floor. You seem to be fixated on that, but all you are doing is arguing that point with yourself. Get over it, it's not germane to the conversation.

And oh, by the way, you've used the word "obfuscation" way too many times. Go back to the dictionary and find another one to run into the ground.

What are your credentials, that we are to believe your ridiculous assertion of SIM proficiency, while injecting your theorem that people exaggerate the height of C-130�s flying overhead at 300 feet, is likely why this construction crewman ducked just prior to this 757 barreling into the FIRST floor of the Pentagon?

This is the last question I will answer for you, as you keep mulling over the same inane points over and over, and offer proof that does not prop up your claims. As many here know, my credentials are thus. 20+ years active duty Air Force aircrew with a Master of Science in Aeronautical Engineering. 5000+ flight hours, with over 1700 of that being instructor time. But hey, what do I know, right? You've been watching "Mechanical Marvels" on the history channel, which makes you the expert, right?

You may continue your senseless diatribes if you wish, but please try to come up with something that supports your claims, and discontinue telling me what I said or meant to say, or paraphrasing me to support your drivel. It grows very tiresome.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:42 AM

Originally posted by COOL HAND
You are just unreal.

I saw the radar tapes from that day. There was nothing that flew away from the Pentagon after that plane hit. If we were to beleive your assertation that the plane was diverted then it would have shown itself there. Unless you are implying that the US gov't had a cloaking device that they used in this case.

Cool hand I'd hate to bust your balls but something did fly away from the area of the pentagon that day. What was it? A C-130.

Are you a member of the Air National Guard??? How did you get to see these radar tapes? Did the radar tapes that you saw show this C-130? Now i'm not saying this c-130 has anything to do with it but they witnessed the whole thing from their plane. These people were ignored until these guys came forward and said "yeah, we were there, we witnessed the whole thing" Why didn't anyone else who watched the plane hit the pentagon see this c-130?

Also why do people disagree with what they saw?? You have people saying that the wing hit the ground and it cartwheeled into the pentagon, you have people saying that it nose dived into the pentagon, you have people saying that it flew in straight into the pentagon, you have people saying that it hit the helicopter pad and the wreckage flew into the pentagon, you have people saying that they were so close that they saw the people on the plane that crashed into the pentagon, then you have peole saying that "I was so close that I could see the closed windows of the plane". Why so many different stories???? Why are these people seeing different things???? A plane cartwheeling into the pentagon and a plane hitting the pentagon straight are two different things altogether!!!! A plane nose diving into the pentagon and a plane hitting it staright on are two different things!!! A nose dive would not even look anything similar to a plane flying so close to the ground and hitting the pentagon like we know it did!! Hell you even have people saying that the plane they saw was small!! Why the discrepencies????

Why won't they just release the video footge that they have and shut us all up?? Why release just 5 frames of video footage. 5 frames? And the frames aren't even sequential. And why the hell is the wrong date and time on the 5 frames that they did release??? This is the pentagon, you'd think that they woul dhave the correct date and time on them.

top topics
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in