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 jthomas
So you didn't bother to read what I wrote.
IF any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon there would not just be one person who claimed to have seen a "flyover." Just what part of that still confuses you? Go back and review my posts for the last year on this subject.
Either produce the evidence of any "flyover" or admit that there was none.
Sheesh...
[edit on 11-9-2009 by jthomas]
Originally posted by Karilla
Originally posted by jthomas
So you didn't bother to read what I wrote.
IF any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon there would not just be one person who claimed to have seen a "flyover." Just what part of that still confuses you? Go back and review my posts for the last year on this subject.
Either produce the evidence of any "flyover" or admit that there was none.
Sheesh...
[edit on 11-9-2009 by jthomas]
Um. I can see the way you're used to talking to people. You've never met me, mate, not even on here, yet you're assuming that I am simply "on the other side". Anyway, You said that CIT had not produced a single eye-witness who had seen the plane fly away.
I pointed out that there is one in the video.
To which you reply that one witness means nothing and there should be many.
I was replying to your post to me. I have had a long break from this site, and if you think that I am going to read your posts from the last year you are much mistaken. Especially if they are as combative and contradictory as your interaction with me so far.
Originally posted by Jezus
Pretending that a lack of video or photographic evidence is meaningless is probably one of the most bizarre psychological phenomenons surrounding 9/11.
The accepted the official story is believed NO OTHER REASON except that the mass media reported it.
Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions
Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:
Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
There should be plenty of photos of the shanksville crash that show a plane ...none have been produced...
There should be plenty of photos of the pentagon crash that show a plane...none have been produced...
There should be plenty of videos of the amazing flight path of the plane that hit the pentagon...none have been produced...
This lack of any substantial physical evidence combined with the fact that many eyewitness testimonies contradict the official story
This isn't really debatable....the evidence does not exist...
Originally posted by jthomas
Another appeal to incredulity. There is no rational reason there "should be photos" showing a plane. The jet was destroyed as expected.
Originally posted by jthomas
Yet another appeal to incredulity. There is no rational reason there "should be videos" as if cameras should have been focused on the crash spot 24/7.
Originally posted by jthomas
You haven't refuted the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Nobody has any reason to accept your claims.
...
You understand that no one has any reason to accept your fallacious claims, don't you?
posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas
So let me get this straight, there shouldn't be any videos(photos) of a plane flying through and striking the pentagon, other than the frames we've seen? So there would be no security cameras on the pentagon facing outward? My former high school, in a farm town with less then 400 people in it, has a dozen security cameras on it facing outward to give a full view of the perimeter, but of course the pentagon wouldn't have that would they?
Maybe someone should come back to the rational world.
Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
So let me get this straight, there shouldn't be any videos(photos) of a plane flying through and striking the pentagon, other than the frames we've seen? So there would be no security cameras on the pentagon facing outward? My former high school, in a farm town with less then 400 people in it, has a dozen security cameras on it facing outward to give a full view of the perimeter, but of course the pentagon wouldn't have that would they?
Maybe someone should come back to the rational world.
There were hundreds of people on the freeways, bridges, in the parking lots, and in surrounding buildings immediately around the Pentagon in positions able to see ANY flyover had one occurred, particularly in the manner CIT claims of a fast moving, low flying jet. Many of these people would have had the jet and the explosion behind in directly in their line of sight.
I have already made clear through a standard GIS view shed analysis the geographic area within a two-mile radius of the center of the Pentagon that is within visibility of an aircraft flying 100 feet over ground level at the center of the Pentagon.
Review it here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There is not one single report from anyone around the Pentagon at the time, nor is there one single media report, of any aircraft flying over and away from the Pentagon. Do you actually want us to accept that NONE of those people would see a flyover had one occurred? If so, explain in detail.
Now, CIT has deliberately hand-picked "eyewitnesses"
Pentagon, so "it must have flown over the Pentagon."
I was replying to your post to me. I have had a long break from this site, and if you think that I am going to read your posts from the last year you are much mistaken.
Especially if they are as combative and contradictory as your interaction with me so far.
I suggest you do your homework then and don't bring up what has been discussed endlessly, and debunked, for almost 3 years here.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
posted by jthomas
Yet another appeal to incredulity. There is no rational reason there "should be videos" as if cameras should have been focused on the crash spot 24/7.
posted by Jezus
If the plane actually followed the path needed to hit the pentagon there would be plenty of videos to show the plane....
Why would you expect not to see the videos?
posted by jthomas
Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.
If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.
In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.
Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by mmiichael
No, ironically my high school was not the pentagon, a gas station, a hotel, or one of the various other buildings in the area of the pentagon. And what evidence do you have that the complete security system was destroyed in the attack leaving no visible evidence to be reviewed?
Originally posted by mmiichael
a thousad people saw it happen - the Pentagon does not feel compelled to prove that something happened that there is no question about.
Originally posted by burntheships
Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information
www.thepeoplesvoice.org
(visit the link for the full news article)
Researchers present new eyewitness testimony which they say proves the government's story to be a "monstrous lie".
A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, "conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned
Related News Links:
www.prlog.org
81 minute Free Video Presentation: Scroll to bottom of page for link
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...
[edit on 30-8-2009 by burntheships]
Originally posted by mmiichael
And there is no question whatever they released wouldn't be satisfactory.
posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by mmiichael
No, ironically my high school was not the pentagon, a gas station, a hotel, or one of the various other buildings in the area of the pentagon. And what evidence do you have that the complete security system was destroyed in the attack leaving no visible evidence to be reviewed?
The videos taken from the Pentagon area after the 9/11 attacks were mentioned in the Maguire declaration, where FBI Special Agent, Jacqueline Maguire responded (see below) to a request from Scott Bingham.
In Summary:
* She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
* Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
* Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
* The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
* No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.
Originally posted by SPreston
He is just 'pimping' for the 9-11 perps.