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.
Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by anoncoholic
Try again. I never said the plane was ten miles away. I said it's *starting point* was ten miles away (Andrews AFB - remember?). I never implied the plane was ten miles away when seen - you did.
While flight directly over the Pentagon is not supposed to happen - it happened every-single-day, particularly with prop driven cargo planes coming into National Airport.
Are you honestly telling us that you've *never* seen pics of the wreckage from the Pentagon attack? Is that what your comment about "no evidence" is supposed to mean?
Then there's the problem with the witnesses to the impact - literally dozens of them. Please explain these away - including those whose recounting of events don't precisely match the OS - but still saw the plane impact the building.
Bet my soul bearing false witness? Have you lost your grip?
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by ProudBird
Then you're so ignorant that I don't want to convince you or any one like you. I'm glad you believe it. Let it be.
edit on 18-10-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
Ha Ha, the columns weren't Solid ?
Compare them to a human skeleton ?
You have no chance of convincing me of anything.
Originally posted by userid1
PS - make sure you bring your evidence, not your opinion.
Google Video Link |
Google Video Link |
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect
look at the state of it ... that didnt "survive" the crash , i mean like - IN-TACT- yeah sure they look battered they lose a few little bits here and there but not to the point of recovering a few inches of the engine. That was faked , really really faked , and they cant deny it , their so called evidence defies logic.
it doesnt even look like a 757 engine.
Originally posted by anoncoholic
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect
engines survive plane crashes ...... just thought i`d point that out
2nd line.
So assertive of you. Are you an NTSB aviation expert? I'd point out too that landing gear tends to survive crashes also.
What I really meant to ask is: Are you suggesting that remnants of engines (or landing gear) were not found at each of these sites?
edit on 18-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)
A C130 was seen climbing in altitude at the Pentagon and what is a C130 but a cargo carrier and why would it be climbing (unless the Pentagon were a landing/takeoff strip) if not to drop off cargo and in this case speculating it was plane parts seems more logical than all the jumbo-jets pieces turning to vapor.
I have yet to hear an explanation of what was under that blue tarp but then again it would all be a lie to keep covering up the evidence. IMO it was the remnants of a missile but not having been there all I have is my own conjecture. Why not give the people the evidence and end all the theories?
As to why nobody had come forward that they are still alive and were on that plane, doubtful any were left alive (dead men tell no tales) and it isn't out of the question that all the planes that supposedly were hijacked that day were fitted with gas to knock the people out first then remote controlled to fly into the buildings. That is my thinking and isnt based on anything but suspicion as to how liars carried out the attacks in the first place.
Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by anoncoholic
What part of the word P-E-N-T-A-G-O-N do you *not* understand?
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by anoncoholic
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect
engines survive plane crashes ...... just thought i`d point that out
2nd line.
So assertive of you. Are you an NTSB aviation expert? I'd point out too that landing gear tends to survive crashes also.
What I really meant to ask is: Are you suggesting that remnants of engines (or landing gear) were not found at each of these sites?
edit on 18-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)
A C130 was seen climbing in altitude at the Pentagon and what is a C130 but a cargo carrier and why would it be climbing (unless the Pentagon were a landing/takeoff strip) if not to drop off cargo and in this case speculating it was plane parts seems more logical than all the jumbo-jets pieces turning to vapor.
Yes, a C-130 was confirmed in the area. The pilots of that craft had been assigned at the time to follow Flight 77 and report on it's heading.
What else do you think it was doing?
I have yet to hear an explanation of what was under that blue tarp but then again it would all be a lie to keep covering up the evidence. IMO it was the remnants of a missile but not having been there all I have is my own conjecture. Why not give the people the evidence and end all the theories?
Okay, be careful how you tread with this one. You may come across as a bit of a paranoid conspiracy theorist if you jump to conclusions like that. You'd also have to resolve why witnesses saw the c-130 (which is confirmed) but didn't notice that it had shot a missile across DC airspace.
As to why nobody had come forward that they are still alive and were on that plane, doubtful any were left alive (dead men tell no tales) and it isn't out of the question that all the planes that supposedly were hijacked that day were fitted with gas to knock the people out first then remote controlled to fly into the buildings. That is my thinking and isnt based on anything but suspicion as to how liars carried out the attacks in the first place.
Now you say planes- remotely controlled. You just stated above that you're thinking is that it was a missile. So what exactly do you believe?