Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by jthomas
So I was right and saw right through you.

What? Right about what, exactly? You mean you realised that I don't accept that a plane hit that building? Well done you!

How about attempting to refute any of the points in my post? I'll even make them easily quoteable so you can address each in turn if you like.

What happened to the engines?

Why was the fuselage able to punch right through the building?

Why didn't the windows immediately above the impact point break, where the vertical stabiliser should have hit?

Originally posted by jthomas
It's not strange that you have to keep fibbing to support your house of cards.

jthomas, you've never once been able to demonstrate where I've claimed to know what happened.

I don't have a house of cards.

You do.

You believe the official government story, yet you have been quoted refuting the Pentagon Security Images.

You make yourself look more foolish than anyone else ever could.

Originally posted by Karilla

Originally posted by jthomas
So I was right and saw right through you.

What? Right about what, exactly? You mean you realised that I don't accept that a plane hit that building? Well done you!

How about attempting to refute any of the points in my post? I'll even make them easily quoteable so you can address each in turn if you like.

What happened to the engines?

They were in the wreckage.

Why was the fuselage able to punch right through the building?

Why is straw able to penetrate a tree or telephone pole in a tornado? Physics. Energy. Look it up.

Why didn't the windows immediately above the impact point break, where the vertical stabiliser should have hit?

Designed to survive explosions. Why don't you know that yet?

I've repeatedly given you all the sources to verify your claims. It is your responsibility to do your homework but, no, you're just happy to ask questions over and over and over as if they never have been addressed.

I can't make you support your claims when you are not interested in the truth, now can I? So stop whining. I've given you sources. Now refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
It's not strange that you have to keep fibbing to support your house of cards.

jthomas, you've never once been able to demonstrate where I've claimed to know what happened.

You've claimed there is an "Official Story" instead of the massive evidence.

So, yes, you don't know anything.

Originally posted by jthomas
You've claimed there is an "Official Story" instead of the massive evidence.

You do so enjoy arguing in illogical circles, jthomas.

Of course there's an official government story. It was sold via many politicians, reports and media sources ever since the event took place.

You know the official government story, it's the same one that you live and breath and dare not question. Yet, it's the same one that you contradict when you refuse to endorse the Pentagon Security Images.

reply to post by tezzajw


So tezz, where is your proof that something else happened?
Rather than troll on and on asking irrelevant questions about trajectories of lamposts that have more to do with chaos theory than a mathematical science, and how to account for every single damn piece of debris that flew out of a chaotic crash scene, how about you pester CIT about their humorous illogical fantasies about the Pentagon and magic fly-overs? I have yet to see you ask them anything relevant other than patting them on the back and praising them, and then nit-picking over minute details of the actual facts and accounts of the ones who are debunking this garbage.

Tezz, where is your proof that the "official story" is wrong? How can you call it an "official story" as if it is handed down by some government authority complicit in the actions on 9/11, while ignoring the thousands of NON-governmental sources and eyewitnesses that were inside and out the Pentagon before, during, and after the impact?

You crow and crow about how jthomas cant provide you pictures of passengers strapped to chairs in the debris, which was confirmed by two sources, who WERE there, you ignore the numerous eyewitness accounts of the aircraft impacting the Pentagon, you ignore the thousands that were inside on S&R efforts, you ignore the thousands that had to clean up the mess.

Tezz all you have done here is nit pick and nit pick and nit pick. Trolling and trolling, I have yet to see you make any constructive arguments or add anything useful. Nit picking over which way or how a lamp post can land on a taxi cab. Damn tezz, how about next time when you drop a plate or a glass and it shatters on the floor, I want you to mathematically show me how one piece managed to slide across the floor and go under the stove, while another managed to bounce up and land three feet away, while another one managed to stay in place and then I want you to shatter another plate or glass and recreate the exact same ending. Sounds familiar? And you wonder why we cant take you seriously.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
You've claimed there is an "Official Story" instead of the massive evidence.

You do so enjoy arguing in illogical circles, jthomas.

Of course there's an official government story. It was sold via many politicians, reports and media sources ever since the event took place.

There is only the evidence, massive evidence, from thousands of different sources that you cannot refute.

You know it, so stop hiding.

reply to post by burntheships


i knew they were covering something up when they confiscated ALL TAPES that would have showed what happened...If they actually expect us to belive what they say, why dont they show those tapes of a "hi-jacked" airplane

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by tezzajw

 

So tezz, where is your proof that something else happened?

Isn't it amazing how these silly 9/11 "Truthers" just won't go to the sources of the evidence we give them? Instead, they repeat the exact same claims that we've heard since late 2001, the same claims repeatedly debunked for years here and on other forums.

Originally posted by taylor101
reply to post by burntheships

 

i knew they were covering something up when they confiscated ALL TAPES that would have showed what happened...

You've seen the tapes, then? No? Then you are completely incapable of claiming any tapes would have shown "what happened." So don't do it, ok?

Isn't it amazing how these silly 9/11 "Truthers" just won't go to the sources of the evidence we give them? Instead, they repeat the exact same claims that we've heard since late 2001, the same claims repeatedly debunked for years here and on other forums.

the reason some many of us doubt the official story is because there is so many lies and unanwsered questions that we have...if there so sure it was a plane why dont the release the tapes that would show it

Originally posted by jthomas

My Q:What happened to the engines?

Your A:They were in the wreckage.

I meant where is their impact point on the front of the building? There is one one hole and some blast damage. The hole is supposed to be where the fuselage went in, but there are no entr points for the engines, as there are on the trade centre. Why is this?

My Q: Why was the fuselage able to punch right through the building?

Your A: Why is straw able to penetrate a tree or telephone pole in a tornado? Physics. Energy. Look it up.

The plane was supposed to be travelling at around 480 knots (which some pilots have said is impossible at ground level) Are you saying that this is enough to send the fuselage right through the building but the engines, far more solid than the fuselage, did not? Is that what you are saying?

My Q: Why didn't the windows immediately above the impact point break, where the vertical stabiliser should have hit?

Your A: Designed to survive explosions. Why don't you know that yet?

Why be so condescending? Have I been condescending to you? No. See above. If the windows there are designed to survive explosions, why should they survive a solid vertical stabiliser smashing into them. An impact with metal is not an explosion. You can't have it both ways. If the fuselage did that much damage, the vertical stabiliser on the tail should have at least made a hole in the building, shouldn't it?

I'm not whining, and the evidence I have seen to support the claim that AA77 hit the Pentagon has more holes in it than the front of the Pentagon after AA77 supposedly hit it.

Your move.

Originally posted by jthomas


Isn't it amazing how these silly 9/11 "Truthers" just won't go to the sources of the evidence we give them? Instead, they repeat the exact same claims that we've heard since late 2001, the same claims repeatedly debunked for years here and on other forums.

Exactly! I have yet to hear anything new. Its all been the same old tired crapola that I've debunked along with others, and have seen debunked years ago. And yet, they dredge up the same old garbage word for word and ask the same thing again, demanding we give them an answer, and at the same time they ignore the probably thousands of gigabytes of information that has been put forth to debunk the garbage. Hell, they cant even go back here on ATS to see the explanations.

Denying ignorance? Its like they are promoting it and living it!

Originally posted by taylor101

the reason some many of us doubt the official story is because there is so many lies and unanwsered questions that we have...if there so sure it was a plane why dont the release the tapes that would show it

well then, what are your unanswered questions? What lies?

But be warned, if you ask the same tired questions that have been already answered long ago, and you refuse to listen or read or even go through them, then what is the point? I'm pretty sure almost all the questions have been answered fully and satisfactorily in years past, everything from fires and steel right up through aircraft, videos, and the actual physics, chemistry and thermodynamics, along with metallurgy and even basic explanations of pictures and videos. Even the quotes taken out of context and eyewitness accounts taken out of context. Its all been explained ad nauseum. Its up to you to go through them and see for yourself, rather than having us do your homework.

[edit on 9/12/2009 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by Karilla

I'm not whining, and the evidence I have seen to support the claim that AA77 hit the Pentagon has more holes in it than the front of the Pentagon after AA77 supposedly hit it.

Your move.

Too bad you don't want to look at the evidence or support your claims, isn't it?

You're welcome to start here and show us all the supposed "holes" you claim but do not demonstrate:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Please note that everyone who says what you do never can demonstrate anything to refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Will you do the same and just ignore the evidence?

Put your money where your mouth is.

You've seen the tapes, then? No? Then you are completely incapable of claiming any tapes would have shown "what happened." So don't do it, ok?

wow, maybe i didnt make sense the last time...ok there is a hotel and a gas station and other buildings with security cameras looking right at the pentagon and before they could look at them the FBI confiscated them...im not saying a plane didnt hit the pentagon i dont what happened...but why would they want take the tapes that would clearly show what happened and not show them to anyone, it doesnt make sense

reply to post by jthomas


Maybe you could do me a favour. I have trawled through lots of eyewitness testimony that is supposed to corroborate the plane hitting the building. Understandably, seeing a jet coming towards them, they all either covered their heads or ran away. I haven't found one person that actually saw the plane hit the building facade. If you could supply one, since you are obviously au fait with the supporting evidence, I would be grateful.

From the testimonies I have read it seems eminently possible that the plane could have flown over the building at not much more than roof height.

My own hunch (it is no more) is that it wasn't a missile that hit the building, but some kind of bomb slung underneath the plane that smashed the generator and detonated on contact with the building, sending the bulk of it's energy through the building to punch through the inner ring. Plane wreckage was then brought to the site by first responders or was to hand already.

I'm sorry you think me ignorant to disbelieve the official version of events, but that is the case. You're either here to convince people or snipe at them. If the former then I sincerely want to be convinced, if the later, I'm wasting my energy bothering to engage with you.

But be warned, if you ask the same tired questions that have been already answered long ago, and you refuse to listen or read or even go through them, then what is the point? I'm pretty sure almost all the questions have been answered fully and satisfactorily in years past, everything from fires and steel right up through aircraft, videos, and the actual physics, chemistry and thermodynamics, along with metallurgy and even basic explanations of pictures and videos. Even the quotes taken out of context and eyewitness accounts taken out of context. Its all been explained ad nauseum. Its up to you to go through them and see for yourself, rather than having us do your homework.

ok heres a question how does our country suck so bad that we let some iraqi terrorists hi jack planes in our own airports and fly them into our own buildings when we spend lots of money to lots of people making sure that exact same thing doesnt happen

reply to post by jthomas


I'm looking through the witness statements on the page you linked to above, 9/11 lies, and it has a statement from Sean Boger, in the Pentagon Heliport tower:
"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

This directly contradicts what he said to CIT. In the video a couple of pages back he says that he saw the plane coming towards the building but hit the deck and covered his head before the impact. No wonder there is such confusion.

Also, Steve Anderson, in the USA Today office, claims he saw the wing draggin on the ground prior to impact. (Both these statements are on list 2) Yet there are photos showing that the lawn in front of the wall was completely undamaged immediately after impact.

There are also a few witnesses in that list that say they also saw the plane fly over the Navy Annex, which supports the claim of the more northerly flight-path, which makes it impossible for the plane to have hit the light poles. See the CIT video for further implications of this.

how do we have one of the best national gaurds in the world not be able to stop the them. We knew the plane was hijacked at 8:25 and the plane hit the pentagon at 9:37 how does that much time pass and we dont do anything. i doesnt make sense

[edit on 12/9/09 by taylor101]