I have first-hand knowledge that no plane crashed into the Pentagon

reply to post by shortsticks


i [edit]don't[/edit] believe your story..

and your attitude is crap

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by snowspirit

 

The part that I always thought suspicious, was the trajectory.

Look at the Google sat view.
If you had a choice I think you would have chosen the same wedge. It had a long aproach without tall structures in the way.

No tall structures indeed.

Just unscaved signs, streetlights, and a perfect and freshly mown lawn that didnt show a trace of impact, just building debris.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I don't think he's coming back.
He's been fined a bunch of ATS points btw.

I see that, although he says he is banned, (Again?) It's not a ban as per the profile. The attitude was not good latterly in comparison to the OP.

You should receive a medal for admitting it mate, star and flag.

I already knew it, I just hope others will read this thread and listen to the words in their head.

And no, your government doesn't give a crap about you, me or anyone, we don't have enough privelege or money to be part of The Big Club

Originally posted by shortsticks

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by shortsticks

Originally posted by underduck

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by underduck

 

thanks, look at that hole!

What about it am I supposed to be seeing?

so the wings would not have made any impact I guess against the structure..oooookay....

The pictures underduck linked are these :-

www.rense.com...

The "hole" picture in that series is an exit hole and you have just demonstrated your ignorance by asking about wing marks.

So, for someone who claims to have been there 9/12 you are wrong about the further collapse of the Pentagon ( which you said happened after you got there but in fact happened minutes after the impact ) and you can't even recognise the exit hole.

lol someone who wasn't even there, question ME who was, relying on internet info lol

You still havent PROVEN you were there and im starting to doubt that quite alot atm.

You might be pushing for the truth but you'r not taking the right route.

If you thought you would find "easy game" on ATS and less skeptiks than on other sites, you might actually wanna read some other threads first before posting one yourself.

This story from the OP has so many holes in it, I can't believe it went on for 17 pages...

He obviously wasn't there folks. He missed critical points, and his rebuttals were constantly "I was there so you're wrong". His demeanor and responses, such as "ass-hats", "chaps", and his childish responses and challenges to the questions being posed exemplify this.

However, IF I'm wrong....

My challenge to the OP:

- Give the site owners your name and where you worked in Langley so that they can verify that claim. If that pans out, the rest of your story might get the attention it deserves.

- A day like that doesn't fleet the mind... when an event like that happens, you can remember what you did that day. What pieces of debris did you pick up? How did you catalog them? Who did you report to? How did you keep the containment area free of contamination?

- Besides being there, what conclusive evidence do you have or witnessed that led you to say that it wasn't a plane? With so much evidence showing plane debris, surely, you must have something concretely that determines it wasn't a plane?

- Where did you park your vehicle?

- What level of clearance did you have? (everyone near a government building or access to government sites, including those of a crime, must have a clearance) If you were in a civilian capacity, what government agency or personnel oversaw you?

- How long were you on-site? Hours? Days? Weeks?

You should be able to answer all of these questions, and if so, I think everyone here will hear you out. But if you can't, you better make yourself obsolete on ATS because none of us take kindly to people that disrespect those who died that day by lying about what happened just to earn some imaginary respect from people you'll never know or meet.

~Namaste

-

You don't have to work very hard to convince me...

1) There is no way in hell a flying tin can could cleanly cut through 3 rings, 6 walls of the Pentagon and still be intact enough to leave a nice, clean, 14' hole on the inside wall of the 3rd ring. Not possible. The nose section of an airliner is probably one of it's weakest points.

2) We can clearly see by the planes that hit the Twin Towers that the wings left a nice silhouette where the wings went through the building yet there is no such evidence of wing contact at the Pentagon.

3) If the wings truly "folded back", that would mean that the wings were torn from the body and held in place by whatever was left at the junction between the trailing edge of the wing and the body; in other words a very small amount of flimsy aluminum. Again, simply not possible, The wings are about 12' wide where they connect to the body; that would mean that that full cross section made contact with the face of the building, after "folding back", and remained connected and were pulled into the building. This in itself is unbelievable. If a jet can do this, can you imagine what a missile could do to the Pentagon? A building that is supposed to be "hardened"? The arrogance of the people involved, thinking we are so stupid to believe such a preposterous story is beyond comprehension.

reply to post by MentorsRiddle


Not really... The reason why is because releasing those videos, and the 911 truthers, as they call themselves, and they will not relent until every video is released, would show the flaws of a very important building which terrorists would love to get their hands on to, to attack. Yes, there are terrorists out there.

Releasing video of those cameras, the ones that pan around and even the stationary ones, will show any flaws in the security of the Pentagon. The last job I held before becoming totally disabled was as a customer engineer, installing all sorts of security equipment in banks, and in military installations, finding flaws in already installed equipment, and any areas they might not cover, and talking to the customers about any updates to their security.

I am sure most of you are smart enough to know that if for example you even attempt to request videos from the security cameras at any bank you are going to be denied this plus you are going to get a visit from the FBI to find out exactly why you would make such a request.

I hope you all know this right?... Now, my question is, what do you think the answer would be if you ask for videos of the cameras of one of the most secured government buildings in the U.S.?...

To the op, sorry but you do not have any "first-hand knowledge that no plane crashed into the Pentagon"... All you have is your opinion. You didn't personally see that day whether or not a plane hit, and your response about "I didn't see any large pieces of an aircraft" clealy also show your very limited knowledge of what was recovered and why there wasn't any "extremely large pieces from the aircraft.

First of all, the Pentagon walls are made of cement, which would have destroyed and made into very small pieces most of the aircraft. One of the engines did create a large hole and large pieces of the engine were recovered.

I am one of those people who have been in these forums almost from the start of the discussions and I have read, and seen every evidence posted by both sides, and there is more evidence that a plane did hit the Pentagon than any evidence that "a missile hit it".

One of the most comprehensive, and full of facts threads about this subject is the following one which CatHerder made back in 2004.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can believe whatever you want to, but your "belief" does not equals to "facts".

Yes, there are things the government lies about, but the evidence on this does show that a plane did hit the Pentagon.

First hand means you were there that day and saw an explosion but heard or saw no plane even though you were standing in full view of that side of the building that was damaged.

Originally posted by shortsticks

Originally posted by underduck

Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by grey580

 

omg, if you are here to tell the official story, I think you're on the wrong forum, bud!

Ummm Grey580 has been around for a couple of years. You have been around a couple of days. I think he/she knows a little bit more about these forums than you. Just saying.

I don't have a history per se yes it's true. That can work in someone's favor or not, can it not?

Actually, you make an excellent point shortsticks. I believe in personal witness and I believe you're as close as it gets. Your length of time at ATS should not even have been mentioned.

[SNIP]

You and getreadyalready are right on the money, so hang in there.
Keep up the excellent posts, shortsticks, and don't let them get to you.



Mod edit: Removed unnecessary insults towards fellow members.

I guess all the people who factualy 100% proven boarded the plane that hit the Pentagon and the planes that millions of people saw fly into the WTC are still flying around out there somewhere.

I guess the families gave up searching for their lost loved ones who must have flown into time warp zone are still missing.I think they where trying to come back from the future and warn us about 9/11 happening on the same exact day.

reply to post by shortsticks

I don't even know where to begin with a post like this. But I'll try and start here:

We all know, or should know, that the angle of descent coupled with the speed and trajectory etc etc etc makes this impossible except for a missile of sorts.

Of course, of course we should all agree with you (or should) etc., etc. Know and should know of course of sorts coupled with etc., etc., ad infinitum. Otherwise impossible.

Geeez....

Originally posted by imalitehaus
Actually, you make an excellent point shortsticks. I believe in personal witness and I believe you're as close as it gets. Your length of time at ATS should not even have been mentioned.

Have you noticed some of the "older" members, perhaps those with their own little fan club, are becoming aged, drooling idiots? One of them has started to sound like a nursery-school child taunting a rival who really doesn't care what he thinks. Ah, the irony! The aluminum contained in reported "chemtrails" has apparently caused at least one "older" member to fall into dementia.

You and getreadyalready are right on the money, so hang in there.
Keep up the excellent posts, shortsticks, and don't let them get to you.

I have a fan club? You calling me a drooling idiot with dementia? Thanks alot for the compliment. And btw you're off my christmas card list.

You know I tried for 14 pages to get a coherent thought of that guy and time after time again he refused to have a conversation.
It was like someone was paying him to read from a script. And if his response wasn't in the script he just ignored the question.

Asked him to refute the photographic evidence. nothing.
Asked him what branch of the military he was in. nothing.

So I don't know what to tell you. The guy was an obvious troll that just joined a few days ago.
I don't see how you could believe he actually brought any sort of real evidence to the table.

This whole thread is an exercise mental masturbation but without the payoff.

a good friend of mine was working at the pentagon that day, still works there, he was out having a smoke when the plane went down, he said it hit a portion, ( partially ) that was not used as often. he isn't a good liar and I remember discussing it with him shortly after the event..

Just an observation.... Remarkably, the alleged logo on the plane piece of unknown origin looks a lot like part of the Barrack Obama brand logo. What's up with that? Is this what Obama was doing before he was Manchurian candidated? Did all the msm sources spell Osama's name wrong?

Just a little levity for an already heated thread ;-)

Cheers - Dave

whoever linked www.911research should be shot.

what a bunch of bolony that site is. you're basically told to treat anyone asking questions about 911 like they were crazy.

I was there like a week ago and i didn't see any hole.

?

So I read the op and I don't buy it.But I'm not reading the other 17 pages.I know how these posts go.Does he offer any proof besides his word,on a message board?

It's like used undies: I'm not buying it. Plane is everywhere.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by shortsticks

 

You cant have looked very far :-

www.rense.com...

There are a lot of other first hand accounts of aircraft wreckage here...I don't believe it but thanks for posting your interesting perspective...

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by shortsticks

 

You cant have looked very far :-

www.rense.com...

What can be said? You are very gullible or...... video.google.com...