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: 109
215
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Well, I called you a liar and a coward and I backed it up with proof that you lied and then so far have done every cowardly thing you can to NOT back up your own words.

Can you please PROVE that I am redundant, obtuse, unimaginative? Or are you just calling me names because you are an angry little boy that hates to have his lies pointed out?

I am not afraid to commit to a theory. I am not afraid of anything.

Get something straight. YOU are here JUST TO PLAY THEORIST.


Redundant: “Coward is a term used most often to refer to people who get called out for being dishonest "
“something else and it is also a lie.”
“offering up a blatant lie”
“All lies.”
“ liar and coward”
“so that would make you a liar.”
“ You lied.”
“I called you a liar and a coward”
“you lied and then so far have done every cowardly thing you can”
“hates to have his lies pointed out”

And more of the same....

Obtuse: “You are trying to say that with enough force, Aluminum can penetrate all that concrete and steel. Sure, with enough force eventually that could happen. You did not have that kind of force here. There was nothing behind the airplane applying force. It had inertia and that inertia would need to be so insanely great that you need to drastically change the speed of the plane or the mass of it. Are you claiming it was really going thousands of miles an hour with a continuation of forward force after impact?”

Not much into math and physics are we?

Imagination: Given your explanation on how a commercial airliner travelling at high speed cannot penetrate a concrete wall, I allow that you have proven that you have a fertile imagination and retract that claim.

You say you are not afraid to commit to a theory. You are not afraid of anything.

OK, Commit. Call it out. Account for the events and physical evidence. Test it.

Your last line should have read "Get something straight. 'I think' YOU are here JUST TO PLAY THEORIST."




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 


Your arguments are ludicrous. Because you don't believe what the man witnessed, he could not have witnessed it.
* That’s the worste straw man (38) ever. That’s not even remotely close to what I said.

In the future, attempt to comprehend what I wrote before you post.

This sounds like a numbered fallacy to me. I give it a (43).

What the hell do you think you are numbering? What you said was a straw man.

Structural failures do not violate any physical laws other than the ones you invent on the spot. (44)
bare assertion (39) You have not presented any proof that I have invented any physical laws nor have I claimed to. What the hell do you think you are numbering? What you said was a bare assertion.

You also stated “The same way the burden of proof falls on you to prove that a 757’s wings would fold back in mid flight for apparently no reason as Mike Walter claimed.” Are you serious?(45)
quote mining (40) Dead serious. Try quoting me in context. What the hell do you think you are numbering? You were quote mining.

He claimed that the wings folded as the aircraft was colliding with the Pentagon.


No he didn’t. Perhaps he alluded to that, but what he actually said was more ambiguous.

“What I saw was the actual jet going in but the wings folded back like “this””

He does not explain why the wings folded back. I would guess that reason he doesn’t is because they wouldn’t. The engines are the heaviest pieces of a plane and they would have had the most penetrating potential. They would not have folded back in the manner in which Walter describes unless they hit something that the fuselage did not. As I mentioned in this post .

You referred to your previous post which said Mike Walter
“Says he saw the “plane” down the infamous light poles (OS flight path)”
“Says without a doubt it was an American Airlines 747/737. (OS plane)”

Then came the illogical capper “Since it is an impossibility that the plane clipped the infamous light poles and taking into account his other testimony where he describes the wings folding back (which is also impossible, refer to my previous post). I must conclude that Mike Walter is either brainwashed, lying or has been threatened.”

Ok . . .

(46)Why would you conclude that it is impossible that the plane clipped the light poles and that the wings folded on impact?
Because all of the eyewitnesses besides Mike Walter prove that it is. We’re talking about around 20 witnesses and counting that discredit Mike Walter. Are you seriously considering the notion that Mike Walter, who has a conflict of interest, is telling the truth and the other 20 witnesses cited in this thread are mistaken?
What the hell do you think you are numbering?

You are using your unfounded conclusion to reject testimony. (47)You are being illogical. (48, 49, 50)
bare assertion (41) nearly 20 (and rising) reliable corroborative eyewitness is not unfounded. What the hell do you think you are numbering? What you just said is a bare assertion

Your rejection of Penny Elgas is just as whimsical. You said “Penny Elgas” MUST BE DISMISSED as a witness because there is no evidence that she even exists, save for the unprofessional website “her” testimony appears on.” You determined the website was unreliable and then you questioned her existence.
. . .

How do you know any of the CIT witnesses exist? Those could have just been actors in those videos.(51)
raising the bar (42) Regardless, If they are actors they exist. What the hell do you think you are numbering? All you did was "raise the bar"

The really amusing part is that you wanted the thread to be left "to people who are logical." When are you leaving?
bare assertion (43) You have provided no evidence that I have been illogical. In fact, your claim is completely erroneous considering you have committed FOURTY TWO logical fallacies and I have committed NONE.

JPhish 0
Pteridine -43

[edit on 12/4/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


JPhish: "He does not explain why the wings folded back. I would guess that reason he doesn’t is because they wouldn’t. The engines are the heaviest pieces of a plane and they would have had the most penetrating potential. They would not have folded back in the manner in which Walter’s describes unless they hit something that the fuselage did not."

Ah, before you said the wings were the heaviest parts and now you are changing your statement (73) When I asked how you knew that the wings wouldn't have folded back, you didn't answer because you had no evidence(62). You didn't explain how they would not have started to collapse as the fuselage penetrated to the wing root. Then you stated that the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon because it flew NOC and therefore couldn't have and that this was a proven fact. (149) Of course, it isn't. You are using faulty logic. You aren't technically trained either, are you.

Your scores are incorrect.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
You must realize a lot of us just hang around here in sheer awe and disbelief that people who can turn on a computer and type can be
unaware of the world around them.
bare assertion (20) you have provided no evidence that I am unaware of the world around me.

The Pentagon was struck by a hijacked airliner Sept 11, 2001.

bare assertion(21) particularly in light of the evidence that the OS flight path is erroneous.

8 years later there are some people who were not there, who have not looked at material gathered on this event, but like to argue there is no proof.

straw man (22) what material that is relevant to this thread have we not looked at?

They will continue to disbelieve. Just as there were people who once believed the Earth was flat, the world was created in 6000 BC, alien bodies were recovered in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, there are demons hiding under their beds.

appeal to ridicule (23)

To try to carry on an intelligent exchange with these people is a sheer waste of time.
bare assertion (24)

A scary aspect of this willful ignorance is knowing that if these people are ever in a serious situation involving the destruction of property, threat of injury, loss of life, they will lack the basic self-awareness to protect themselves or others.
bare assertion (25)

If you're a hard core Truther lock your doors and stay out of bad neighbourhoods.
You never know when those government agents will try to get to you because you know what thy did.
appeal to ridicule (26)

Now, if Michael is done being illogical as usual, readers can observe the following two links which are actually on topic.

Proof the plane witnessed by the 20 or so witnesses featured in this thread did not hit any light poles and approached the Pentagon North of the Citgo Gas Station.

More Witnesses

[edit on 12/4/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Proof the plane witnessed by the 20 or so witnesses featured I this thread did not hit any light poles and approached the Pentagon North of the Citgo Gas Station.

More Witnesses


Yes cherry picked quotes taken out of context and badgered witnesses 6 years after the fact.

Yet witnesses were clear as day on THE SAME day, of the event, that they saw an AMERICAN airlines jet hit the pentagon.



Grasping at straws and using the citizen fraud team as your support.. eghad.. they are the bottomless pit of lies.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
bare assertion (20) you have provided no evidence that I am unaware of the world around me.


There's that wonky numbering system again.

Wondering if there is a real person at a keyboard or if this is just some badly written computer program being tested in beta version.

Only data input being CIT pseudo-information.







[edit on 4-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl

Originally posted by JPhish

Proof the plane witnessed by the 20 or so witnesses featured in this thread did not hit any light poles and approached the Pentagon North of the Citgo Gas Station.

More Witnesses


Yes cherry picked quotes taken out of context and badgered witnesses 6 years after the fact.
bare assertion (3) In the links i just presented, where were there cherry picked quotes besides those cherry picked by the news? And where is your evidence that witnesses were badgered by CIT? (i'm assuming you're referring to CIT witnesses)? I'd hardly call a witness who invites people into his home badgered.

Yet witnesses were clear as day on THE SAME day, of the event, that they saw an AMERICAN airlines jet hit the pentagon.
bare assertion (4) Only ONE witness in the links i presented claimed to see an American Airlines jet hit the pentagon.

Grasping at straws and using the citizen fraud team as your support.. eghad.. they are the bottomless pit of lies.
appeal to ridicule (5) I'm not relying on CIT for support. I am supporting CIT. There is a difference.

[edit on 12/4/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 

Ah, before you said the wings were the heaviest parts and now you are changing your statement (73)
straw man (44) pretty sure i said the engines are the heaviest parts. They just happen to be on the wings.


When I asked how you knew that the wings wouldn't have folded back, you didn't answer because you had no evidence(62).
bare assertion (45) I didn’t answer because you were demanding negative proof. The burden of proof is yours.


You didn't explain how they would not have started to collapse as the fuselage penetrated to the wing root. Then you stated that the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon because it flew NOC and therefore couldn't have and that this was a proven fact. (149)
True, and it is a "proven fact". Unless you are suggesting that the 20 or so witnesses presented in this thread are mistaken/lying and Mike Walter is the only one telling the truth.

This is the same Mike Walter who has a conflict of interest and describes a plane trajectory which is irreconcilable with the physical evidence and other witnesses.


Of course, it isn't.You are using faulty logic.
bare assertion (46)


You aren't technically trained either, are you.
genetic fallacy (47) I could be a bum off the street on a library computer. Doesn’t make my claims any more or less valid.


Your scores are incorrect.

bare assertion (48)
Show me one time where I committed a logical fallacy.
Show me one time where I insisted you committed a logical fallacy and you hadn’t.

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

More Witnesses

[edit on 12/4/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas

As always, you're way behind, JPhish:

Pentagon View Shed Analysis
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Are you dense? Your weak inductive reasoning proves my point, simply because someone was present at an event, does not mean they witnessed something.


Oh, there was an "event?"

Pray tell, what "event" would that be, JPhish?




posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


JPhish -- "”The wings are the heaviest part of a plane. The wings on a 757 would NEVER fold back unless the engines impacted something and the fuselage did not.”

Bare assertion (63).

You should be studying for final exams or you may be taking Logic 101 for the third time.

As to the "genetic fallacy;" see your doctor, there may be a treatment available.

[edit on 12/4/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


So are you stating that the wings did indeed fold back into the plane? You are supporting this statement so I want to assume you support the theory. Would that be correct?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


I am stating that JPhish rejected a witness because he claimed that the wings would not fold in a collision. That is one of his bare assertions and he should state why the wings wouldn't fold up in a collision.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
genetic fallacy (47) I could be a bum off the street on a library computer. Doesn’t make my claims any more or less valid.



A bum off the street would not take the time and effort to properly research a subject.

Typically he would happen on some conspiracy site or Youtube series that appealed to his limited life experience and understanding of science. If some non-representative out of context prompted testimony pushed a wild theory the Pentagon attack being staged by the US govt, the bum would take it as an article of faith.

He would dismiss all the data and evidence that conflicted with what he chose to believe as an Official Story which he could ignore. Because realizing he'd been conned would cause tremendous cognitive dissonance.

It's called Denial. It's extremely common around here.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


I am stating that JPhish rejected a witness because he claimed that the wings would not fold in a collision. That is one of his bare assertions and he should state why the wings wouldn't fold up in a collision.


Ok...sounds to me like you are trying to avoid actually stating your opinion on this.

Let me try asking you this...are you claiming that you believe that it is possible that the wings folded back into the plane? Please do not refer to Jphish in your answer. I watched you pull that crap on other people. I am asking you a question that only you can answer for yourself.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Yes, I believe that during such a collision it is possible that the wings started to shear as the fuselage penetrated to the wing root. One witness claimed to have seen the wings start to fold back. The damage to the face of the Pentagon suggests that the wings didn't fold very far if at all.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Yes, I believe that during such a collision it is possible that the wings started to shear as the fuselage penetrated to the wing root. One witness claimed to have seen the wings start to fold back. The damage to the face of the Pentagon suggests that the wings didn't fold very far if at all.


You really are a weasel aren't you?

I believe the question was pretty clear.

Do you believe the that wings folded back.

You state you believe that they began to shear, then you say someone else believes they saw a fold back and that evidence might kind of support that.

Why can't you just answer simple questions. Do you not know what it is that you believe?

Do you believe the the wings folded back into the fuselage? This is important because you call this witness credible and even cite them as a source. So either you believe the whole witness account or you admit the witness could be wrong. Which is it?

It is simple. Yes or no. Do you believe that the wings folded back?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Yes, I believe that during such a collision it is possible that the wings started to shear as the fuselage penetrated to the wing root. One witness claimed to have seen the wings start to fold back. The damage to the face of the Pentagon suggests that the wings didn't fold very far if at all.


You really are a weasel aren't you?

I believe the question was pretty clear.

Do you believe the that wings folded back.

You state you believe that they began to shear, then you say someone else believes they saw a fold back and that evidence might kind of support that.

Why can't you just answer simple questions. Do you not know what it is that you believe?

Do you believe the the wings folded back into the fuselage? This is important because you call this witness credible and even cite them as a source. So either you believe the whole witness account or you admit the witness could be wrong. Which is it?

It is simple. Yes or no. Do you believe that the wings folded back?


You should take the time to read what you post or are you are weaseling yourself?

Do you not know what it is that you asked?

You asked "do you believe that it is POSSIBLE that the wings folded back into the plane." I answered that yes, as above. Then I stated further what a witness claimed to have seen. I can't prove what he saw anymore than CIT can prove what their witnesses saw. Why wouldn't he be as credible as any other witness that was there? You may have noticed that some would have only the CIT gaggle be credible and all others deemed unreliable.

Now, I ask you what you believe happened at the Pentagon on 911. It is a simple question that many on this board refuse to answer. They are just "questioning inconsistencies" or "gathering information" or "seeking the truth" or maybe just trolling.

What is your theory....no weaseling, Gunderson.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
It is important to note that at this point in time, neither pteridine or mmiichael have proven their claim that a light pole hit the taxi.

I'm still waiting for this to be proven...

[edit on 4-12-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You really are a weasel aren't you?

I believe the question was pretty clear.

Do you believe the that wings folded back.

You state you believe that they began to shear, then you say someone else believes they saw a fold back and that evidence might kind of support that.

Why can't you just answer simple questions. Do you not know what it is that you believe?



Sure, big mouth conspiracy guy. Try name calling with someone who has scientifically grounded knowledge that conflicts with your fantasies.

Your years ago disproven fruit loops theory of the Big Bad Government blowing up the Pentagon just might still be proven if you find a discrepancy in an account of what happened to airplane wings that were blown to smithereens in half a second.





[edit on 4-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You will have to wait a little longer until we discover light-pole witnesses that can meet your high standards. Be assured that we are working on it and do not want to disappoint you. Your needs are important to us and we value you as a customer.
According to your avatar, you are also still wanting to be abducted by aliens and ready to be probed.
How's that going for you?




top topics



 
215
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join