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 exponent
Try to look at this from the other perspective Griff. There are over 100 eyewitness accounts indicating the plane impacted the building, 20+ of which identified the plane as an American Airlines jet. There was extensive impact damage to The Pentagon as well as large amounts of debris and fire.
Not only this, but earlier that day, two airliners had impacted WTC1 and 2 and a single group had been implicated in all of this.
I appreciate that it's possible to look back with hindsight and say "ah, this was not conclusively proven", but that is of little actual value.
Some people are beyond convincing (see the rest of this thread) on the topic, and some people require no convincing at all.
I don't entirely disagree with you in that some documentation from maintenance records would be useful, but I think it's highly unlikely that anyone seriously questioned the type or identity of the plane in this manner until these conspiracies became popular. Indeed many of the early claims we now know to be false (hole was too small, 6 reinforced concrete walls etc) but these requirements remain.
Regardless of these questions, unless you are one of the aforementioned people who are beyond convincing, there can be no doubt that there is far more physical, eyewitness, circumstantial and documentary evidence to suggest AA77 impacted The Pentagon. I made a list earlier on in the thread and in fact SPreston made the perfect case against this theory by listing all the requirements for planted or faked data, far more than his theory has in support.
Please try and see things from the investigator's point of view, it might help you to understand why this evidence isn't available.
Originally posted by newagent89
Hey this is fascinating and I am not being sarcastic but isn't the WTC countdown off topic from this thread about flight 77?
Originally posted by exponent
Did these videos include the actual collapse after they said that, because as far as I know there's no information about timing.
Originally posted by Griff
And I can give you thousands of eyewitness accounts of UFOs and even abduction from said craft/beings. Does that make it so?
Very astute that you mention that Al Quieda was implicated well before even the pentagon strike. You may just turn out to be a "twoofer" after all.
Little actual value? We went to 2, count them 2 freeking wars over this. Not to mention the rights that I as a citizen of the US have lost. Little actual value. That statement right there has insulted me and my intellegence. Thank you very much.
So, we just willy nilly threw out all protocall in investigations because we "knew" it was Al-Quieda from the start? No offense, but IMO that makes it more suspicious to me.
Let me ask. Is it impossible that the parts were planted before hand? Really truelly impossible?
I am tryng to see this from an investigator's point of view. I investigate buildings. Do you really think I'd get away with saying "Well, I knew the brick was going to fall on your head, but I just assumed it was a waste of my time to document it."? Do you really think I'd get away with that? Then why have they?
Originally posted by newagent89
What I want to see is tezzas response to the picture. While I do not always agree with his methods, I would enjoy his reaction.
posted by newagent89
I can look deeper, but apparently, some have said that it is a piece of the power supply for the emergency lights.
Like I said before, I would like a professional or at least quite experienced opinion on this picture.
I wonder why the Defense Department did not place a photo of a Flight 77 passenger strapped in his seat and burned up, in their propaganda book? Then it would be much easier for disinformation specialists to back-up their lies.
posted by newagent89
Stop posting on this, SPreston. I hate to repeat myself. So, for the last time, I ask for an expert on analyzing pictures. Not you. You may not set any standards for what is and is not good evidence. The reason that I do not post on what the serial number says is because I am not so rash as to assume I know exactly what every figure on that bar says. Is it an 8 or a B? That is why I asked for a professional: someone who knows how to look at a picture and determine what exactly it is we are looking at.
Originally posted by cashlink
Tezzajw, you posted a great thread, and you have proven who ever made the statement, their where bodies found in their airplane seats, had lied.
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
In 23 pages, there has been nothing to confirm either side of the argument.
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
You did not prove ANYONE was lying.
Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't have to prove that witnesses were lying, ThroatYogurt. YOU have to prove that they were telling the truth.
So, where is the documented proof that clearly shows there were bodies strapped to airline seats?
Again, by page 8, you admitted that you could not prove this.
Originally posted by exponent
The burden of proof is on neither of you. I made the original claim that two witnesses saw bodies strapped into seats. This was later backed up by the actual two witness statements.
Originally posted by exponent
Can you not defend your own posts? I was under the impression that there was evidence available. If you understand it, surely you can present it.
Originally posted by newagent89
Sorry tezza but no more points on this thread for u from me. I've degenerated into arguing with 'you know who'.