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: 111
215
<< 108  109  110    112  113  114 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
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


Michael, do you have a post somewhere which explains why you think that there is nothing else that's plausible? I've read KJ's followup to your post as well; I really want to believe that you actually believe what you say, and the fact that you're responding at all in my view precludes the possibility that you lack intelligence. So for me, the real issue is why you, as well as many others support the official story on this.




posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


KJ

You have a very unpleasant posting style. Calling someone a liar evidently comes easily to you.

Your posts are not even redeemed by any interesting content.

A couple of your recent statements :- " 0 people actually saw AA 77 impact the building ." " simple fact that no bodies were actually found in the Pentagon rubble."

Perhaps you could back those statements up for me please ?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


So, you paraphrased your own bare assertion from a previous post. You challenged me to show where you had a logic fault and I did. Now you want to say that it is quote mining on my part. Is that how you operate, Phish? Witness testimony is no good because you decide that it is from a bad website. Then you reject another witness' testimony because something he claimed to witness was impossible, according to you. When you are questioned, you dance around and pull a "quote mining" excuse out of your logic book.

A bare assertion it was, unless you have proof of your statement.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


KJ

You have a very unpleasant posting style. Calling someone a liar evidently comes easily to you.

Your posts are not even redeemed by any interesting content.

A couple of your recent statements :- " 0 people actually saw AA 77 impact the building ." " simple fact that no bodies were actually found in the Pentagon rubble."

Perhaps you could back those statements up for me please ?


I called someone a liar because they told a blatant lie.

Can I claim that you have made the claim that the GFL was responsible for 9/11? Can I claim that you have stated that Dick Cheney and his male love slave were behind it all? That would make me a liar would it not?

Claiming I said that the government blew up the Pentagon is a lie.

I am sorry that you do not understand what a lie is. Perhaps you need to look it up. Yes it is easy for me to call someone a liar when they tell a blatant lie about me.

Are you really trying to defend a lie? You want to stand up for the OS and in the course of it you stop to defend someone for lying?

So anyway, now you want me to prove that something did not happen and that something else did not happen. You are a smart cookie.

Please explain to me how you prove that something did NOT happen.

I can explain to you how the coroner and the DNA lab outweigh an anonymous website quote but I am afraid you would not understand.

P.S. If my posting style is unpleasant to you, put me on ignore. If you do not like me asking someone to back up the lies they told about me, then you should see about getting them to stop telling lies.

Get back to me when you can understand any of the basic concepts outlined here.

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



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I really love it. In defense of the totally true, completely proven 100% real 'official story' we have Pterry and MMMMMichelle both telling lies. Now their little friends have come in to defend them for lying.

That is cool. I am just curious why anyone needs to lie in order to stand by the truth.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Where is your theory, Gunderson? This is your opportunity to set the record straight and prove to all your incisive logic, technical knowledge, and advanced sleuthing skills.

My theory is that AA77 hit the Pentagon as described and that no other theory fits all the data.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
We're all getting a little too caught up in the who said what, motives of members, and assorted other nonsense...

Guess what? It stops, now.

The title, and hence the topic, is: Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information.

Remember that? Good.

Stay on topic, and the topic isn't each other...



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


I think, if people assert things they should be able to back it up.

So far as witnesses to the impact with the Pentagon is concerned you know there are scores even if you choose to call them all liars.

You also said " simple fact that no bodies were actually found in the Pentagon rubble ."

This is an exhibit in the Moussaoui trial :-


www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Evidence considered in a court ol law, not some truther speculation bandied about the internet. Does that make you a liar ?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


I think, if people assert things they should be able to back it up.


You are right. When are you going to prove that AA77 hit the Pentagon?


So far as witnesses to the impact with the Pentagon is concerned you know there are scores even if you choose to call them all liars.


Scores? Can you produce just one score? Why is this asserted over and over yet never backed up.

What is it you said...something about backing up assertions? Ok, where are these scores of witnesses?


You also said " simple fact that no bodies were actually found in the Pentagon rubble ."

This is an exhibit in the Moussaoui trial :-


www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Evidence considered in a court ol law, not some truther speculation bandied about the internet. Does that make you a liar ?


LOL. Yes and that is the body of a PENTAGON EMPLOYEE. Check your sources genius!



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
You also said " simple fact that no bodies were actually found in the Pentagon rubble ."

This is an exhibit in the Moussaoui trial :-


www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Evidence considered in a court ol law, not some truther speculation bandied about the internet. Does that make you a liar ?


Passenger bodies. Passenger bodies. Passenger bodies. Passenger bodies. Passenger bodies. Passenger bodies. Passenger bodies. Passenger bodies. Passenger bodies. Passenger bodies. Passenger bodies. Passenger bodies.

Get it?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


I think, if people assert things they should be able to back it up.


You are right. When are you going to prove that AA77 hit the Pentagon?


So far as witnesses to the impact with the Pentagon is concerned you know there are scores even if you choose to call them all liars.


Scores? Can you produce just one score? Why is this asserted over and over yet never backed up.

What is it you said...something about backing up assertions? Ok, where are these scores of witnesses?


You also said " simple fact that no bodies were actually found in the Pentagon rubble ."

This is an exhibit in the Moussaoui trial :-


www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Evidence considered in a court ol law, not some truther speculation bandied about the internet. Does that make you a liar ?


LOL. Yes and that is the body of a PENTAGON EMPLOYEE. Check your sources genius!


I am sure it is a Pentagon employee but look at what you wrote " no bodies were actually found in the Pentagon rubble." Still stand by that.

Now, how about this one :-

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Employee or passenger ? Not so clearcut is it ?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Here's how forensic evidence works in cases where there testimony is lacking or conflicting. Which is not really the situation here in "The Case of the Missing Flight and it's Passengers"

64 people take off on a flight from Dulled Airport at 8:20 AM Sept 11, 2001. There is a huge crash plane crash at the Pentagon at 8:37 AM. Subsequently it is determined body parts, blood and teeth of the passengers of that flight are in the wreckage.

It is also independently determined the flight was one of 4 planes hijacked by a group of terrorists in the same hour. There is even a later confession from a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, captured planner and co-ordinator.

Everything else, eyewitness testimonies of the plane flying over Washington, in flight phone calls received from passengers, pieces of wreckage found, descriptions from clean up crews, etc - is just human interest and additional support.

There are inevitable errors and inconsistencies in initial news reports, later witness testimonies. etc.

Tens of thousands worldwide have tried to disprove these basic hard facts.

Unless there was a vast conspiracy of thousands of Washington area people watching the plane flying over Washington, police, firemen, medical personnel, military staffers, DNA lab personnel, families of the dead passengers and crew, thousands assisting in the clean up and sorting of the wreckage - there is no alternative scenario that fits all the evidence.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I am sure it is a Pentagon employee but look at what you wrote " no bodies were actually found in the Pentagon rubble." Still stand by that.

Now, how about this one :-

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Employee or passenger ? Not so clearcut is it ?


Well I am very sorry that I did not clear it up this last time just for you. We were discussing bodies from flight 77 so I assumed when I said bodies in reference to the bodies that would have been from flight 77, you would understand that I was still referring to the very bodies we were discussing. I am sorry I expected you to keep up.


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


Just exactly which bodies did you think I would be talking about to 'demonstrably prove flight 77 ended up there?'

I hope you see now how I asked you to back up many things you said and all you could do was hang on semantics. Fine, there were no passenger bodies found. Now prove me wrong.

That picture is not a passenger body. It was DNA tested and identified. Pay attention to the crap you are tossing around.

Now, where are these scores of witnesses to that impact?

Where are the bodies of the passengers from AA77 that you claim were found in the rubble proving AA77 hit there? (Dead Pentagon employees do not do much to prove AA77 had anything to do with it.)

Can you back up any of your assertions or will you admit that you are just as full of BS as your brethren here?



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



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Claiming I said that the government blew up the Pentagon is a lie.


K J Gunderson,


The default explanation for what happened on 9/11 for those not accepting the evidence at face value, is that it was a government plot. Myself and others here have offered sample witness testimony and links to pages that have further elaboration and contact names and organizations.

It is generally ignored by people like yourself who just blanket deny the masses of independently verifiable proof and accuse other members of lying about it.

As I said in our brief U2U exchange, I am sorry you have taken what I have written as calling you a liar, personally.

If it means anything, I am regularly called a liar or disinformation agent, and see others who offer documented data also called the same and worse.

When you have taken the time to examine a representative sampling of evidence and testimony readily available on the Pentagon attack and supply a credible alternative explanation of how those passengers' body parts, teeth and blood ended up in the wreckage - you will have a receptive audience.

Keep in mind we are all exchanging other people's information here. We are, at best, retransmitters or couriers of what they have assembled for us. We are not the manufacturers.


M


[edit on 5-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
It is generally ignored by people like yourself who just blanket deny the masses of independently verifiable proof and accuse other members of lying about it.


I asked you to supply said verifiable proof and you have not. Why?


As I said in our brief U2U exchange, I am sorry you have taken what I have written as calling you a liar, personally.


Let me try this a third time.

I DID NOT THINK YOU CALLED ME A LIAR. I AM CALLING YOU A LIAR.

Please do not make me explain that again.


If it means anything, I am regularly called a liar or disinformation agent, and see others who offer documented data also called the same and worse.


If you can back up your lie, I would be happy to retract my claim.


When you have taken the time to examine a representative sampling of evidence and testimony readily available on the Pentagon attack and supply a credible alternative explanation of how those passengers' body parts, teeth and blood ended up in the wreckage - you will have a receptive audience.

Keep in mind we are all exchanging other people's information here. We are, at best, retransmitters or couriers of what they have assembled for us. We are not the manufacturers.




Right...and I have asked for this information many times. None of you seems to be able to supply it. None of you seems to be able to address the HUGE DNA mystery. You all talk about scores of witnesses but never actually put any up.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Here is some information about AA 77 witnesses and human remains recovery. No doubt you have seen it before and rejected it :-

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

I was interested to see you state that the terribly mutilated body in the last pic I posted had been dna identified as a pentagon employee. Can you please let me know the identity of that body as I would like to make further enquiries ?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
We're all getting a little too caught up in the who said what, motives of members, and assorted other nonsense...

Guess what? It stops, now.

The title, and hence the topic, is: Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information.

Remember that? Good.

Stay on topic, and the topic isn't each other...


I guess I thought that credibility meant something and I also thought it was against TOS to lie about other posters.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by mmiichael
It is generally ignored by people like yourself who just blanket deny the masses of independently verifiable proof and accuse other members of lying about it.


I asked you to supply said verifiable proof and you have not. Why?



As the previous messages in this thread will attest, samplings of testimonies, documents, and other material and links to multiple pages of immutable evidence have been put forward here multiple times. By myself in the last day.

If you are unwilling or incapable of looking at and absorbing this information - no one can help you.


M



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

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.


Cat got your tongue, JPhish?

You said there was an "event" at the Pentagon. We're still waiting for you to tell us what "event" occurred at the Pentagon.

Speak up, man. Have you forgotten what that "event" was?





[edit on 5-12-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 



Originally posted by seagull
We're all getting a little too caught up in the who said what, motives of members, and assorted other nonsense...

Guess what? It stops, now.

The title, and hence the topic, is: Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information.

Remember that? Good.

Stay on topic, and the topic isn't each other...


You have a very good point, starred. So many people don't seem to understand that even if someone says something that isn't true, it doesn't make them a liar, and may not even make them someone who has knowingly 'lied'. It only means that they're someone who has said an untruth. I myself have been banned from another forum (a truther forum, no less) precisely because a moderator thought I was "lying", when in fact I'd only made a mistake. By calling people who say things that appear or are untruths liars, we are speculating on the motive for what they're saying, and that, in my view, can be very counterproductive to determining the truth, as we start getting into name calling. Even if someone -knew- that someone else is lying, I still don't think it'd be great to be blatant about it, as again, it invites the whole name calling thing, which distracts from the actual topic. Best to try to stick to pointing out why we believe what someone says isn't true. So thanks for your post.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by scott3x]

[edit on 5-12-2009 by scott3x]



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 108  109  110    112  113  114 >>

log in

join