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.

 

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 105
215
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by superleadoverdrive
 


Aluminum melts at 660C [1220F] a temperature that can be reached in building fires. The steel alloy and titanium parts would not melt.




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 

"Liar" is a term used most often by those who can't handle the truth. You are an excellent example. As the interview of dead people, that was an extreme that I called out to show the failure of another poster to define his statements, although interviewing dead people would be more entertaining than reading your posts.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOAlienLover
Well ....moving along... Where were the bodies?




Many remains were found, most were identified, however some passengers could not be.

"Courage After the Crash: Flight 93" by Glenn J. Kashurba. SAJ Publishing, 2002.


King: "We stopped and I opened the door. The smell of jet fuel was overpowering. I will never forget that smell; it is really burnt into my mind. ...I walked down the power line and got my first glimpse of human remains. Then I walked a little further and saw more."

Lieutenant Roger Bailey, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department: "We started down through the debris field. I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail...Mail was scattered everywhere. ...the one guy who was with us almost stepped on a piece of human remains. I grabbed him, and he got about half woozy over it."



www.pittsburghlive.com...


When former firefighter Dave Fox arrived at the scene, "He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote. He saw three chunks of torn human tissue. He swallowed hard. 'You knew there were people there, but you couldn't see them,' he says."


www.postgazette.com...

The FBI has mandated DNA testing to confirm the identities of remains, a process just beginning that Miller said could take four to six months. But using mostly dental records, Miller and staff have identified remains of 12 passengers -- a number that the coroner said might grow with last weekend's recovery of additional remains.



www.usnews.com...


All that debris, and the fact that only 8 percent of the human remains could be recovered, mean the site is, essentially, a cemetery, Miller says. "The real story is about what those people did, deciding to rush the [terrorists] and sell everyone else on the idea," says Miller, who spent weeks crawling around on his hands and knees searching for remains and would rather talk about anything else. "Where it landed is not what matters. The most important thing is that they be properly remembered."


Your research capability is pathetic.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Pathetic

1. causing or evoking pity, sympathetic sadness, sorrow, etc.; pitiful; pitiable: a pathetic letter; a pathetic sight.
2. affecting or moving the feelings.
3. pertaining to or caused by the feelings.
4. miserably or contemptibly inadequate: In return for our investment we get a pathetic three percent interest.





I am putting pieces together that I find. You seem to have your pertaining media sources at the tips of your finger.

I am searching for the truth.



[edit on 30-11-2009 by UFOAlienLover]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 


Thanks for the random walk through your logic 101 textbook.

You're welcome . . .


To prove your points, all you had to do was to dismiss witness testimony that you didn't like.
appeal to motive (16) I did not dismiss the witnesses because “I didn’t like them”. I dismissed the witnesses because they are unreliable.

Rationale for why the witnesses are unreliable. A & B



This is a CIT tactic.

What tactic is that? Having evidence and using logic?


If testimony or evidence contradicts predetermined conclusions, it is a lie or a plant, respectively.
bare assertion (17) I said nothing of the sort. Until you quote me in context, your claim is groundless.


What are your predetermined conclusions?

loaded question (18)


Try the following:
1. Name the many witnesses who claim to have seen a flyover.
You’re demanding negative proof (19).

You are the one claiming that people saw a plane impact the pentagon.

I however, never claimed that there were witnesses that saw a plane fly over the pentagon.

If you are claiming that I need witnesses to such an event, what you claim is an argument from ignorance. (20)

However, we do happen to have this witness. Roosevelt Robert Jr.

Ironically, that currently leaves us with more reliable witnesses supporting a “fly over” than you have supporting a plane crash.

We have at least ONE reliable witness, you currently have NONE.


2. Use your vaunted logic to explain the thousands of pounds of jet fuel that were burned.
It’s unclear as to what you are even proposing here. I therefore suggest you use your infamous logic to form a viable request.


3. Bring forward the Latin term that shows how explosives were used.

straw man (21) I never claimed that explosives were used. No Latin needed.


4. Expose the witnesses who saw airplane parts being planted immediately after the impact.

straw man (22) I never claimed that plane parts were planted immediately after impact.

5. Open your evidence files against first responders who were part of the big plot.
The evidence “files”, as you put it, are already completely open and all over the net. Not sure what you were hoping to accomplish by saying that . . .

PS: I just realized I mistyped Lloyde England’s name on two occasions in this thread. Just so others are sure, I’m not referring to any other Lloyde.

[edit on 11/30/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
More reports on remains being found:

www.post-gazette.com...


DNA comparison is just one of several techniques to be used by members of the federal Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team, which is charged with recovering and identifying the remains of Flight 93's passengers, crew members and hijackers. All 44 people who were on board died in the crash.



www.washingtonpost.com...


As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.



www.post-gazette.com...

Investigators have identified remains of four of the 44 people aboard Flight 93, the jetliner that crashed here 11 days ago, the Somerset County coroner said yesterday.



www.post-gazette.com...

Seven victims of the Sept. 11 United Airlines Flight 93 crash in Somerset County were positively identified over the weekend, bringing the number of identified bodies to 11.

But Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said that additional identifications could take months. There were 44 passengers and crew members on the flight. -- reported 9/24/2001


www.post-gazette.com...

The Somerset County coroner said yesterday that officials have now identified the remains of 16 of the 44 passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93, the plane that crashed into a former strip mine in rural Stonycreek Sept. 11.

The addition of four names to the list came through DNA sampling -- the first DNA matches made in the identification of remains, Coroner Wallace Miller said yesterday.


www.post-gazette.com...

Investigators have positively identified the remains of another 14 persons aboard United Airlines Flight 93 and Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said the investigation could conclude more quickly than expected.

At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts -- seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal -- from trees near the crash site.


www.post-gazette.com...

The coroner's assessment came yesterday as he confirmed that the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory has used DNA samples to match recovered remains with the last of 40 crew members and passengers aboard the hijacked jetliner 14 weeks ago when it slammed into a recovered strip mine at around 500 mph.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Based on your post you must not subscribe to the CIT theory of a flyover. You have ignored all the witnesses that saw an impact because you determined them to be unreliable. What witnesses are reliable? Those few whose testimony you like? With arguments like that, you'll take the Rhetoric prize on the debate team.

How does your theory explain thousands of pounds of hydrocarbons burning inside the Pentagon if an aircraft did not take them inside? We'll see if you have any "arguments based on technical skills" in you.

[edit on 11/30/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 


Based on your post you must not subscribe to the CIT theory of a flyover.

How so?


You have ignored all the witnesses that saw an impact because you determined them to be unreliable.
bare assertion (23) I have not ignored any witnesses. Your sentence is illogical. I've acknowledged and heard the tales of all witnesses presented and dismissed those that are unreliable. There's a difference.


What witnesses are reliable?

Which witnesses are reliable?
The witnesses that are reliable, do not have a conflict of interest, are supported by the physical evidence, corroborate each other, and recall events that are possible.


Those few whose testimony you like?
appeal to motive (24) AGAIN. I did not dismiss the witnesses because “I didn’t like them”. I dismissed the witnesses because they are unreliable.

Rationale for why the witnesses are unreliable. A & B


How does your theory explain thousands of pounds of hydrocarbons burning inside the Pentagon if an aircraft did not take them inside? We'll see if you have any "arguments based on technical skills" in you.
loaded question (25)
I never said I had a theory. Where is your proof that thousands of pounds of hydrocarbons burned inside the Pentagon?

[edit on 12/1/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
I know its hard for you, but please answer my questions and address my post.

Start reading, jthomas. It's been done.


No, you boxed yourself into a corner.


Why have you failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, jthomas?


When will you graduate from junior high school?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 


Based on your post you must not subscribe to the CIT theory of a flyover.

How so?


You have ignored all the witnesses that saw an impact because you determined them to be unreliable.
bare assertion (23) I have not ignored any witnesses.


Where are the statements of the hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots? What did those people see?

What's taking you so long, JPhish?




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Here is a segment of your witness rejection post you referenced...

"the damage is in no way shape or form consistent with that of an airplane hitting the building.

An aluminum alloy plane is 100% incapable of penetrating 1, let alone 3 steel-concrete reinforced walls.

The only objects on the plane that would have had any penetrating power at all are the engines because of their sheer weight, density, and form.

There is no current evidence readily available, observable and testable to suggest otherwise.

I'd love to see you crash an aluminum alloy plane into a steel concrete reinforced wall as thick as those at the pentagon and have the plane penetrate it. It won't happen. Newton says it won't."

The basis for your rejection of the witnesses is that you don't understand how the plane penetrated the building and therefore the witnesses who saw it happen must be mistaken or lying. You are an expert speaking from a position of knowledge and authority. You even invoke Newton to support you but I doubt that he would.
As an exercise for the student, delineate the many logical fallacies in your witness rejection argument.

Now you should explain the damage to the building since you say that an airplane couldn't have done it and earlier rejected my suggestion that you provide details on the explosives used.

You can also explain the origin of the fireball and burning hydrocarbons.



Tell me why you rejected all those witnesses, again.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
No, you boxed yourself into a corner.

Your nonsense has been addressed and dismissed, jthomas.

You have not proven that the light pole hit the taxi.

Why have you failed to do this after eight years?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 


Here is a segment of your witness rejection post you referenced...

"the damage is in no way shape or form consistent with that of an airplane hitting the building.

An aluminum alloy plane is 100% incapable of penetrating 1, let alone 3 steel-concrete reinforced walls.

The only objects on the plane that would have had any penetrating power at all are the engines because of their sheer weight, density, and form.

There is no current evidence readily available, observable and testable to suggest otherwise.

I'd love to see you crash an aluminum alloy plane into a steel concrete reinforced wall as thick as those at the pentagon and have the plane penetrate it. It won't happen. Newton says it won't."

The basis for your rejection of the witnesses is that you don't understand how the plane penetrated the building and therefore the witnesses who saw it happen must be mistaken or lying. You are an expert speaking from a position of knowledge and authority. You even invoke Newton to support you but I doubt that he would.
As an exercise for the student, delineate the many logical fallacies in your witness rejection argument.

Now you should explain the damage to the building since you say that an airplane couldn't have done it and earlier rejected my suggestion that you provide details on the explosives used.

You can also explain the origin of the fireball and burning hydrocarbons.



Tell me why you rejected all those witnesses, again.


How many witnesses actually saw the plane hit the building again? It seems you were asked about this before but you have failed to provide anything real. So far, only ONE PERSON has been confirmed as claiming to witness the impact. What did ALL YOUR WITNESSES see?????

When you figure that out, get yourself a dictionary. Look up the word delineate.

When anyone presses you for any kind of proof, you just wither back into your default insult mode. You have already tossed your own credibility out the window. How many times were you asked why anyone would care what you have to say when you admit that facts and evidence upset you and you would rather ignore them in favor of unfounded theories. You refuse and just bounce back to some other argument you have failed to make.

What witnesses? How many witnesses? Where can we find the documentation of these witness accounts?

Skip to the D section of your book to find delineate.

Come up with something useful for a change. Provide something real to back up your nonsense. People like you love to insult "truther logic" and yet logic is the last thing you seem to be willing to embrace.

Maybe there are other things your time would be better for. Explain to Jthomas the logical fallacy of proving a negative or see if he can explain to you what you would call a story made up and pushed by the government if not a government story. Maybe you can get Weedwhacker to meet a real pilot? Maybe you can help Joey Canoli come up with a better new name than "beard." Maybe you can go back to answering all your questions by starting with "Well Tezza did this and Tezza said that.

See, you can still be usefull. Until you are interested in truth, logic, facts, evidence, and have an understanding of the English language, I highly doubt you can be useful here.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 

"Liar" is a term used most often by those who can't handle the truth. You are an excellent example. As the interview of dead people, that was an extreme that I called out to show the failure of another poster to define his statements, although interviewing dead people would be more entertaining than reading your posts.



Coward is a term used most often to refer to people who get called out for being dishonest and in their response, they do not attack the accusation or facts, they latch on to the anecdotal phrase they can twist.

I could really care less what the context was. You and anyone else that can read can clearly see that the point of my post(s) have been to get you to explain what the hell you are looking for or have to offer when you so clearly stated in your own words that you are NOT INTERESTED IN FACTS OR EVIDENCE.

I have tossed this back at you over 5 times and you still have not given any explanation or even tried to clarify the fact that you said very clearly that you are NOT INTERESTED IN FACTS OR EVIDENCE.

You go ahead and ignore all that and act indignant.

The total sum of your contributions so far seem to equal "Nuh uh! Am not!"

Wow.

Thank you for demonstrating that you are a LIAR and a COWARD.

[edit on 12/1/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
More reports on remains being found:


All lies. Not even your first example actually is what you claim it is part of.

Where is the documentation of body parts found? You do not need to provide any more quotes from people who say things like all people were found or identified. If any remains were found on scene, they were documented heavily by the recovery teams as well as the search teams after the fact. Can you provide any of that? How about the coroners's report that claims remains were found? Why do you have to resort to these random statements to try and prove something that should have an over abundance of documented evidence if true. This is old hat, been covered and dismissed. None of your OS pushing friends were able to prove any remains were actually found either but thanks for the useless anecdotes.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   



Where are the statements of the hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots? What did those people see?

What's taking you so long, JPhish?



According to ripcurl they all ran to the Pentagon's perfectly greener than green lawn to pick up "remaining debris" from the huge "airplane" that "supposedly" penetrated through the pentagon.... and then disappeared like Houdini.


Here's another video of a witness of the other "airplane crash" at Shanksville aka UA 93 - In the video the woman said the FBI told her they had pictures of the plane before it crashed.......... check this out! The last part is other clips but the beginning is this woman witness.




[edit on 1-12-2009 by UFOAlienLover]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOAlienLover



Where are the statements of the hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots? What did those people see?

What's taking you so long, JPhish?



According to ripcurl they all ran to the Pentagon's perfectly greener than green lawn to pick up "remaining debris" from the huge "airplane" that "supposedly" penetrated through the pentagon.... and then disappeared like Houdini.


Your evasion is duly noted and recorded.

Try again.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I see that you have relapsed and are calling me names again. I forgive you. I promise not to latch on to any more of your anecdotal phrases if you promise to stop whining about it.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


As to witnesses who saw the plane strike, there are many more of those than saw the plane fly over. Links have been posted in this thread but if you are unable to find such, say so and I will send you a link. Try not to disqualify every witness you disagree with.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



So if there were witnesses that say there was a plane - a huge commerical plane mind you - that crashed into the pentagon.... shouldn't there be plenty of physical evidence showing that. Not a few pieces of debris that could have been from something else and planted....


If people saw this picture (below) anytime BEFORE 9/11 happened how many would actually say this looked like a plane crash?





new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join