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: 110
215
<< 107  108  109    111  112  113 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

I can wait for your proof, pteridine. So far, after eight years, you have not proven that the light pole hit the taxi.

When you manage to do so, let me know, ok?




posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Eight years? When do you think this thread started? Maybe too much alien probing has damaged you.
I will be looking into the taxi-light pole event with all the attention that it deserves.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I will be looking into the taxi-light pole event with all the attention that it deserves.

So you can not prove that the light pole hit the taxi, pteridine?

Why not?

You've had eight years to try and present a definitve case for it happening.

How much longer do you need to prove your claim?

[edit on 5-12-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You keep repeating the "eight years" claim. You may have missed the part about the time this thread was started or you have some proof that I have been working on the topic for eight years. Which is it?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You keep repeating the "eight years" claim. You may have missed the part about the time this thread was started or you have some proof that I have been working on the topic for eight years. Which is it?

How much time time do you need to construct a proof that the light pole hit the taxi, pteridine?

I'll believe you, if you can prove it - but you always come up short. I can't just believe because you typed it.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


With a problem of this import, no one can predict when a breakthrough will occur. I am now searching the web for lists of flyover witnesses who may also have seen light poles being planted. If you have such a list it will help in the investigation.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

The burden of proof to show that the taxi was struck by a light pole is entirely up to you, pteridine. It is your claim, not mine.

You have been the one making this claim (along with mmiichael). Perhaps the two of you can join forces and try to prove that your claim is true.

How you accomplish this, is entirely up to you.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Posted for those who have a genuine interest in what happened to Flight 77.

A good overview here with many links:


www.flight77.info...


A page with witness testimonies:


www.flight77.info...


Fantasy lovers and "Desperate to Deny" types will ignore of course

Another good page summarizing what witnesses saw


wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon.

Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size

7 said it was a Boeing 757

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole)

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris

4 mentioned seeing airline seats

3 mentioned engine parts

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris

Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged

3 took photographs of the aftermath

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings"

And of course

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away





[edit on 5-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

mmiichael, I don't see the part where you prove that thousands of witnesses saw the alleged plane depart.

mmiichael, I don't see the part where you prove that hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon, knocking down light poles.

mmiichael, I don't see the part where you proved that the light pole hit the taxi.

These are all your claims, within this thread - why don't we see the proof of these?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
mmiichael, I don't see the part where you prove that thousands of witnesses saw the alleged plane depart.


Someone who has never proven anything and is terrified to express an alternative theory.

The proof is there as it has been since Sept 11, 20001 - with details added as analysis and testimony were correlated.

Over a hundred people watched what happened that morning.

No re-edited manipulated prodding of testimonies years later will change that. Nothing will change the solid evidence at the site, the DNA of the dead passengers.

Tragic Truthers to protect their frail egos dismiss what's in front of them and always has been.

You know you're in serious trouble when you are compelled to ask the same questions over and over and over again. Questions for which the answers are right there. And hope to get something different. It's the classic definition of insanity.




[edit on 5-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The proof is there as it has been since Sept 11, 20001 - with details added as analysis and testimony were correlated.

Please link me to the proof that shows how thousands of people saw the alleged flight deaprt, that shows how hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon knocking down light poles, that shows how the light pole hit the taxi.

So far, in this thread, you have failed on all accounts.




Originally posted by mmiichael
Over a hundred people watched what happened that morning.

Please show me the independently verified accounts of the hundreds of people who saw the plane flying around the Pentagon, knocking down light poles.




Originally posted by mmiichael
You know you're in serious trouble when you feel compelled to ask the same questions repeatedly.

You know you're in serious trouble when you fail to prove your claims.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
So far, in this thread, you have failed on all accounts.


I have failed to find an ounce of evidence of "Alarming Information" from an "Independent Investigation"

Lots of talk about some old guy whose windshield was smashed. The importance of which I fail to see as it was peripheral to a 90 ton plane with passengers crashing into the Pentagon.

Nothing has been presented that conflicts with all the established widely-known and supportive information of that event.

I realize those who can't come to grips with a plane crash that happened over 8 years ago must have few people in the real world they can carry on an intelligent conversation with.

But some of the things I've read on this thread really make me wonder what kind of people are out there and in front of keyboards.

Watch for my proof video on Youtube as soon as I save up for some fancy editing equipment. Lots of red arrows and graphs, with real dramatic music and solemn pleas for justice. I promise.






[edit on 5-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
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).

quote mining/cherry picking/red herring
That was merely me paraphrasing what i said in a previous post. Which i shouldn't have had to do, but you insisted on asking the same irrelevant questions multiple times. It was a mistake for me to even mention the engines at all since our case does not rely on them.

However . . .

Let's make believe i'm wrong and the wings on a 757 would completely fold back as Mike Walter seems to illustrate. Let's make believe that what he described is 100% possible in relation to the wings folding back. I'm completely wrong.

Now we can move passed this and realize that this whole "bit" you’ve been doing, cherry picking me for claiming that the wings would not have folded back is really a way to derail the thread and divert attention.

Do not forget the topic of this thread or how it has digressed.

Discussing the wings folding back is not a logical place to digress because you cannot affirm a consequent.

You have yet to prove that the plane knocked down the light poles or took the OS flight path.



Without the plane knocking down the light poles and taking the OS flight path, Mike Walter is not even a consideration because at that point he is already lying blatantly.



Without the plane knocking down the light poles and taking the OS flight path, questioning the way the planes wings would have acted is completely inane



I’m nearly certain that Mike Walter is lying about a 757 hitting those light poles and traversing the OS flight path. I can say this with much confidence because nearly 20 reliable witnesses say the plane came in over the naval annex, north of the citgo, and did not hit any light-poles.

Nearly 20 witnesses vs. Mike Walter. Hmmm, I wonder who I should believe.

I’ll ask you the question again since you seemed to ignore it the first time.

Are you seriously considering the notion that Mike Walter, who has a conflict of interest, is telling the truth and the nearly 20 other witnesses cited in this thread are lying/mistaken?



PS: Would you like to "battle" on this tropic with me in a Member Debate pteridine?

You seem to think that i am doing a shoddy job.
I think you're being illogical.

Why not allow less biased members judge our efforts?

[edit on 12/5/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You asked "do you believe that it is POSSIBLE that the wings folded back into the plane." I answered that yes, as above.


No, you did not simply answer yes. You said that yes, you believed the wings would SHEAR OFF. You completely twisted your answer so as to leave room for deniability. Thank you for clearing that up.

See, I was curious to see if you were interested in the reality of the day or just a troll looking to fight for fun. You have stated clearly that evidence and facts are not at all what you are interested in. Now I have had to ask 3 times just to get a simple yes or no without some convoluted justification or reference to some other poster.

The answer you give is that yes, you do believe that the wings could fold back.

Here is what that tells us-

You are putting faith in a witness account that goes against all physical reality. Instead of actually looking into the possiblity of the wings folding back, you have just decided to believe it is possible and accept this witness testimony.

I really do not want to take the time to explain just how completely ludicrous this folding back story is but if you really need to be educated on the matter, please yell.

Thank you for letting me know that you are not interested in the truth or reality. You are just looking to bicker like a teenage girl on a night when the president pre-empts 90210.

Trolling threads is bad enough but trolling 9/11 threads just for kicks is sick.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
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.


You are obviously a very special kind of person.

1) When did I ever claim the government blew up the Pentagon?

You are a liar.

2) How can you claim the wings were blown to smithereens whilst also taking a shot at me for claiming they could not fold back?

You are incapable of reading.

3) Can you prove the wings were blown to smithereens?

It is a theory with no evidence and claiming it is true re-enforces the fact that you are a liar. Lots of liars here this week.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Posted for those who have a genuine interest in what happened to Flight 77.

A good overview here with many links:



0 people actually saw AA77 impact the bulding.

Thanks for that list, it was incomplete.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by mmiichael
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.


You are obviously a very special kind of person.

1) When did I ever claim the government blew up the Pentagon?

You are a liar.

2) How can you claim the wings were blown to smithereens whilst also taking a shot at me for claiming they could not fold back?

You are incapable of reading.

3) Can you prove the wings were blown to smithereens?

It is a theory with no evidence and claiming it is true re-enforces the fact that you are a liar. Lots of liars here this week.

Thanks for that list, it was incomplete.



I'm a liar now. Maybe I'm a disinformation agent. A government spook? Mossad? From the planet Niburu?

Here where I live on planet Earth, anyone interested in finding out details and specifics uses the vast resources for research available. There are public and private, free and paid databases from which you could, with a little time, effort, and some money, access most or all the testimony gathered on the Pentagon.

To keep one's sanity and costs down, we rely on summaries from those who have done the full research. These summaries have been posted on this thread, and links provided for further investigation.

What is known - not theorized, not speculated, not assumed - is that Flight 77 left Dulles Airport, was hijacked, crashed into the Pentagon.

Though vast amounts of reliable witnesses corroborates this, there is no actual need for any testimony. Dozens of people took off in a plane at 8:20. the plane was tracked by air traffic controllers, their remains were inside the Pentagon destruction at 9:40.

No testimony, supportive or conflicting can change these hard facts.

As people experienced in investigations and the legal system will tell you - testimony can be misleading, especially as the time differential of event to recall increases.

Added to that, high profile cases involving something like this major catastrophe, a mass murder, can e a magnet for people trying to heighten their importance by exaggerating and distorting their involvement, Often they imagine things or outright lie when questioned. Police routinely have to filter out mistaken and false reports, even fake confessions when investigating things like serial killings.

My point, which I am positive you are incapable of comprehending, is that testimony is malleable. Prosecutors and defense attorneys make careers out of shaping incomplete and imperfect reports from witnesses.

The bottom line is all, and I do mean all, the tangible evidence show without any question Flight 77 left Dulles and crashed into the Pentagon little over an hour later with all passengers on board.

You have something that demonstrate something significantly different happened - present it.

Otherwise you just have an assembly of incomplete and poorly correlated testimony that has little bearing on the fact that a destroyed Flight 77 was found inside the Pentagon walls on the morning of Sept 11, 2001.

Barring magic, Divine Intervention, Science Fictional explanations, there is only one way it could have gotten there.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm a liar now. Maybe I'm a disinformation agent. A government spook? Mossad? From the planet Niburu?


Well, I will give you a choice.

Pick one.

You are a liar

or

You can quote me ever saying what you claim I said

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.


You said it was MY FRUIT LOOP THEORY. OK. Prove I ever put that theory forward or you are apparently a liar. What do you call it?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm a liar now. Maybe I'm a disinformation agent. A government spook? Mossad? From the planet Niburu?


Well, I will give you a choice.

Pick one.

You are a liar

or

You can quote me ever saying what you claim I said

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.


You said it was MY FRUIT LOOP THEORY. OK. Prove I ever put that theory forward or you are apparently a liar. What do you call it?


As nothing else plausible can explain the demonstrable sequence of Flight 77 leaving Dulles and ending up in pieces with passenger bodies in the Pentagon
- by may accounting, any explanation that preclude it crashing into the Pentagon is a Fruit Loop Theory. Whether you came up with your own or subscribe to one of the many, semantics notwithstanding, I'll call it's yours.

With your insistent requirements for proof of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon is naturally assumed you do have an alterantive theory.

You can change the course of history with proof the hijacking and crash were faked. You can prove some guy on a conspiracy site 9/11 thread is a liar.

So let's hear your theory and let's see all the proof you have for it.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

So let's hear your theory and let's see all the proof you have for it.






I will be more than happy to give you my theory and the proof of it as soon as you be a man and admit that you lied about what I have stated. You clearly credited me with a particular theory. Now that you have been called out, all you do is ramble like you punched in the face.

Did I say it or not?

See, if I never said it. You are a liar.

If I did say it, quote me.

It is pretty simple.


As nothing else plausible can explain the demonstrable sequence of Flight 77 leaving Dulles and ending up in pieces with passenger bodies in the Pentagon


No. YOU CANNOT THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE. Just because you are not intelligent enough or imaginitive enough to think of something else does not mean no other plausible explanation fits. You are really trying to claim it is either one of two things and since I do not buy one story, I automatically somehow claimed I support the other. This is what is known as either being incredibly stupid or lying. You pick.

There is also the very pesky little problem of the simple fact that no bodies were actually found in the Pentagon rubble. I have already watched you get called out on this too. Are you going to pull a Thomas and show me the website with a quote from an unverified 'source' claiming to find bodies strapped into seats even though that is a direct contradiction to both the coroner's report as well as the published DNA results?

When you can comprehend this and stand behind your own words, then maybe you will get what you demand from me. Until then, I will just enjoy that sad spectacle that is these two blatant liars trying to cheerlead for the government story.

'Well sure we lie about stuff and even when caught red handed will not admit it but people should believe us about this stuff anyway.'


Sorry, liar.

Did I ever say it? You said that I said it. Are you lying or can you quote me.

When did simple questions become so hard for people to understand?


[edit on 5-12-2009 by K J Gunderson]

[edit on 5-12-2009 by K J Gunderson]



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 107  108  109    111  112  113 >>

log in

join