U.S. Government admits nose cone of Flight 77 SURVIVED Pentagon crash!

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

This site delivers information about current U.S. foreign policy and about American life and culture. It is produced by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

Just thought you may want to point out this little note on the America.gov website homepage.

then why quote it if they won't endorse it? By that logic, they might as well link to infowars.com, in order to showcase the "crazies" while at the same time not endorsing it.

Either way, there's no reason a state department would just decide to use all these independent websites unless they influenced and possibly even control them.

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by 767doctor
How is this deserving of a discussion?

Well the United States government is making a claim about something related to national security based on an email sent outbound to an anti-conspiracy website - if you don't think that's worthy of discussion then leave the thread.

I personally think the government should be held to at least the standards of say, ANYONE IN THE WORLD, when they use a citation. Using that as a source is NOT a source, it's a lie.

No, its a mistake, not a lie. And you didn't respond to my central point...does the conspiracy depend on an intact "nose cone" at the Pentagon? Why would they lie about it? What purpose does this lie serve? It's an unimportant detail that you've latched onto because you're an anomaly hunter. I'm just trying to get you to escape the minutae and look at the bigger picture. Nose cone intact? ZOMG INSIDE JORB ELEVENTY111!!1 Sheesh.

I wrote the OP and MY point is to discuss what the United States government is using as a source... if you want to talk about your OS conspiracy theory start your own thread.

Originally posted by 767doctor
It's an unimportant detail

Are you joking?? The point of their website is to convince people of certain facts that have to do with national security. What investigative methodology did they use to maintain these facts?:
A) Scientific evidence
B) Eye witness report
C) an anonymous letter someone made up and sent out to a website
D) The actual piece of the airplane

They chose (C) - something that any person on the planet could create in one minute and have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY.



[edit on 4-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]

The official lie is so weak and so dead that they are desperate to come up with anything to try and cover it all up. The fact that so many people reject the obvious lies of the government scares them a bit...they still have to keep up the coverup as long as we remain alive. They of course will come out in 50 years with the truth but thats too late to wait.

The official story is an insult to science, intelligence, reality and common sense....anyone who accepts it must by definition be either unable or unwilling to use reason and logic.

If all they can come up with are nonsense like this, we know that they are on the ropes.

Originally posted by Gold_Bug

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
According to trusted sources within the U.S. Government....

I STOPPED READING RIGHT THERE.

There is no such thing as trusted sources within the U.S. Government, unless you are trusting them to dish out more propaganda and disinformation.

The explanation for all this hoopla from the OP is called cognitive dissonance.

It goes like this:

1-Some truthers will say that nothing from the MSM is true regarding 9/11. They tell nothing but lies. They're part of the coverup. They can't be trusted. They're ignoring all the "smoking guns" that honest and serious researchers like Jones, Gage, Woods, etc present to them. They are the tools for controlling the sheeple regarding the takeover of the world. They are all powerful and unstoppable. Ad infinitum

2- BUT, when they print something that, through quote mining and screwy interpretations that can be twisted into something that can be made to seem to back their delusions about 9/11, then they are unimpeachable, or made a mistake, or someone is feeling guilty and getting the true info out. Ad infinitum.

So give yourself a pat on the back, for at least you are sticking to your beliefs and don't really believe anything anyone says.

Unfortunately, you're wrong, but hey, be proud that you're not falling into the trap of cognitive dissonance.

Hmm,so the fuselage and nose cone survived,but the wings vapourised before they had time to smash into the walls of the pentagon...
Riiiighto.

Wow, what a misleading thread title.

we saw pieces of the nose gear.

The following three items were mentioned: a piece of the nose fuselage or nose cone, a landing gear, and a tire tread.

a chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear

This larger piece of debris may be the fragment of "nose cone"

Nowhere in there does anyone say the nose cone SURVIVED the crash.

Your thread title is bunk, this thread is bunk, and those that are blindly agreeing with you without actually reading what is written are nothing more than blind little sheep with no real interest in the "truth", but merely out to find a conspiracy within the big bad government.

Hopefully the mods will get rid of this bogus thread.

Originally posted by 767doctor
No, its a mistake

All these people were mistaken about the same thing?


"we saw pieces of the nose gear."

"The following three items were mentioned: a piece of the nose fuselage or nose cone, a landing gear, and a tire tread."

"a chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear"

"This larger piece of debris may be the fragment of "nose cone"

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Thanks for that - your post was an excellent example of your own cognitive dissonance. Turning humor and sarcasm into a mini Psych lesson to avoid feeling discomfort about such an atrocious research method by your government.

Not many people would argue that using an outbound email as a source is good - nice job avoiding it.

Ah I get it, so now pieces of the nose cone = an intact nosecone?






Boy oh boy I see that reading comprehension and critical thinking are no longer welcome at ATS?

And this is a shining example of just how the TM pushes its nonsense. Through twisting, misinterpreting, and willfully ignoring the facts and editing facts to mean something completely different. I do hope the mods will see through this deception and junk this thread as willful deception.

PIECES of a nosecone now means intact? Boy oh boy, someone alert Webster Dictionary. They have to rewrite their definitions for "pieces" and "intact".


So just to be clear now, if I find a smashed glass vase on the ground, and i find pieces of the glass laying everywhere, its actually an "intact" glass vase?


[edit on 6/4/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Oh, for Pete's sake!!

You guys will jump on any bandwagon, without checking it first...there's already an ATS thread about this site (implying that it is new, somehow)...

Well, if you go and look (rather than bleating in 'admiration' and blindly agreeing with the OP) you might learn something.

Here, take a glimpse:

About Us
State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) engages international audiences on issues of foreign policy, society and values to help create an environment receptive to U.S. national interests.

IIP communicates with foreign opinion makers and other publics through a wide range of print and electronic outreach materials published in English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Persian, Russian, and Spanish. IIP also provides information outreach support to U.S. embassies and consulates in more than 140 countries worldwide.

www.america.gov...

I see that this page was last 'Updated' @ 15:00 EDT - 11 Apr 2008.

TWO YEARS AGO, at least, this web address (and site) has been around.

Recently, some ATS members took notice because they (the site) added a bit about current 'conspiracy' theories, and the status of such.

Kinda like a compilation, all pulled together in one place for easier access, and there are some salient comments on them. RATIONAL, and sane comments....

Type "conspiracy" into the site's 'search' field, and you get THIS:

www.america.gov...

Have fun!


OH...and...the "nosecone" survived?? Really, as others have said it already, I only have to add....:shk:. Amazing what people will believe....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, might as well provide the thread link for the one I mentioned...make it easier for people....www.abovetopsecret.com...





[edit on 4 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by GenRadek

I think the OP worded it wrong too, but funny pieces of the nose cone were reportedly seen, but no traces of the tail found.

reply to post by ATH911


"nose cone", when applied loosely here in the not-very-exact descriptions, that are anecdotal in nature?

How about finding the EXACT source of these comments? Demand a paper trail!!

(BTW...to an inexpert observer a LOT of aircraft pieces and debris can be mistaken for something else. Oh, and...how do you KNOW there weren't any fragments of any parts of the "tail" found?? You're very vague, there...any sources???)

Originally posted by weedwhacker

(BTW...to an inexpert observer a LOT of aircraft pieces and debris can be mistaken for something else. Oh, and...how do you KNOW there weren't any fragments of any parts of the "tail" found?? You're very vague, there...any sources???)

Funny how multiple people "mistaken" nose cone debris, but NONE reported tail debris.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ah I get it, so now pieces of the nose cone = an intact nosecone?

Boy oh boy I see that reading comprehension and critical thinking are no longer welcome at ATS?

Must be nice to not have to bother with that annoying thing called credibility

The EXACT QUOTE from the government website is

including the nose cone

I just don't understand why it's so important to derail a thread for some of you! I know you can read... try some INTEGRITY!

I'm honestly appalled - how do you live with yourself constantly doing things like this? I imagine you're laughing right now at causing other people problems - where does that behavior stem from, have you asked yourself? Really...



[edit on 4-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Well....MY 'integrity' is just fine, thank you....

Here, once again...IN CONTEXT, from your OP, the rest of the 'quote' (including the portion you just snipped out):

...reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone...

(MY bolding, and underlining).

Yeah, it is POORLY worded...but even the casual reader should be able to see the intent of the sentence.

"parts" of the airplane. ..."including" (and they didn't repeat, but implied) "parts" of the "nose cone"....

OR...maybe the bits there were written by just a few average people who can't write very well, or don't understand what they've read from other sources...as has been mentioned, already here...

I mean, it's an informational website, not a scholarly investigative paper.


Here's a grand idea: Why not sent an email to the site, and ASK them to clairfy?

reply to post by weedwhacker


I'd like to buy three cars, including that one parked on the street.

You want those in pieces or the whole car?

Since when does the word "including" at the beginning of a list imply the whole articles can be in pieces??


First rule in derailing a thread: always aim two steps away from the main idea so people focus on fixing the "cognitive dissonance" created


[edit on 4-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

How about finding the EXACT source of these comments? Demand a paper trail!!

There IS NO paper trail! From the government's own supplied information they are using an outbound email to a anti-conspiracy website for their "proof" LOL

Although I did submit this to the San Francisco Examiner


By the way - it's never mentioned in this thread that the website is "new"
[By "the website" here I mean the America.gov website we've been talking about since the OP - and not ATS or some other twisted rendition of "the website"]

I have a collection of high quality photos (1824x1226) from the pentagon showing damage and debris. I've had them for quite awhile but havent had the time to fully analyze them. Theres a total of 94 high res pentagon shots totaling right at 700mb.

If anyone is interested in them I'd be happy to send them and let others analyze them. Most just show the damage and clean up process, but they might be handy if anyone would like them. I also have a WTC high quality collection that is 350 photos and 1.5 gb.

I got the photos from a FEMA server in 2004 or so. There were thousands of photos, but due to their size I could only get ones I felt would be of some kind of analytical importance. They were taken by the only 2 FEMA photographers on the sites, one of which went on to be the focus of an international manhunt.

Here's one from the pentagon collection...

Pic (large)

reply to post by ThaLoccster


Thanks for the pic - I'd love to see more when you post 'em on here (different thread obviously )

So we've had chopping of sentences and calling it poorly written

We've had a few pictures of some debris at the Pentagon, although no pictures of wings or tail or anything that couldn't be planted.

We've had "from the source..." while quoting an entirely different, un-named source that doesn't support the OP

We've had "Does the 'Official Version' require the radome(sorry guys, I'm a stickler from proper terminology) to be intact for the conspiracy to hold up?" which addresses some conspiracy and not the OP

We've had "How is this desserving of discussion?" when talking about our government using an OUTBOUND EMAIL as a source

We've had "Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein" which has nothing whatsoever to do with the quote from the actual website, which is what we're questioning.

We've had pieces of the nose cone doesn't mean the whole nose cone, when quoted in the actual government website they say "nose cone" and NOT pieces.

Clearly we're working with adepts of DERAILING.

Any of you care to actually address the one question that is being posed? (I'll make it simple)

The government used an outbound email to a website as acceptance of a fact concerning national security.

Is using an outbound email as a source appropriate for the U.S. Government?



[edit on 4-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]