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: 112
215
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
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.


Scott,

Truthers decide what they don't want to believe can be packaged and called "The Official Story" and then summarily be dismissed as part of some gigantic government and media coverup.

As for questioning the so-called "Official Story" - we have warehouses of solid tangible evidence and unanimous credible evidence being contested by things like amateur videos of guys in gas stations pointing in the air, a confused old man being prodded mercilessly about a windshield that broke 8 years ago. All leading to an implied concocted scenario that lacks a shred of evidence or iota credibility.

There is Fact and there is Fiction.

Facts:

On Sept 11, 2001 - the sun came up. The US was attacked by 4 hijacked passenger planes. 3 crahed into targeted structures. 3,000 people died horribly.

These are indisputable and substantiated on multiple levels. Personal testimonies only supply details.

No credible alternative "Unofficial Story" has been assembled in 8 years.
A small sub-culture ignores the overwhelming data and hard evidence. They feel they can dismiss what is corroborate by searching for inconsistencies in reportage and testimony. It's like trying to throw out a report due to spelling mistakes.

Not much else can be said when people choose to deny reality refusing to see what is in front of their noses.

The world keeps rotating while you run around in circles.


M



[edit on 5-12-2009 by mmiichael]




posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
Scott,

Truthers decide what they don't want to believe can be packaged and called "The Official Story" and then summarily be dismissed as part of some gigantic government and media coverup.


Seeing as how the truth movement has been working on getting others to see that the official story doesn't wash for 8 years now, I don't see how you can think that they've summarily dismissed it.


Originally posted by mmiichael
As to the questioning the so-called "Official Story" - we have warehouses of tangible evidence and unanimous credible evidence...


Can you provide any of this evidence you believe exists?



Originally posted by mmiichael
...being contested by things like videos of guys in gas stations pointing in the air,


2 of the "guys" you're referring to were pentagon police officers. One of them bets his life that he saw the plane on the north side of that gas station, instead of the south, and the other corroborates his story that the plane was on the north side. They, in turns, are backed up by more than a dozen other witnesses who all place the plane's final approach to the pentagon on the north side of the citgo gas station. Compare this with a few highly questionable reports of south side witnesses. I really don't understand why you think that the south side witness reports are more credible.


Originally posted by mmiichael
a confused old man prodded mercilessly by amateur video makers,


9/11 is a subject where discussions can get heated, to be sure. But honestly, CIT's interviews with Lloyd England were relatively mild, when compared to the type of pressure that people face in open court, which is where Lloyd England -should- be testifying. The fact that he's never done so speaks volumes of the powers behind 9/11 in my view. We're talking about 3000 people murdered that day, and thousands more killed because of that day; this isn't light stuff.


Originally posted by mmiichael
and implied concocted scenarios that lack a shred of real evidence or an iota credibility.


Can you be more specific in regards to these implied scenarios that you believe lack "a shred of real evidence", as you say?


Originally posted by mmiichael
The sun came up on Sept 11, 2001.


On this, atleast, we can agree ;-)



Originally posted by mmiichael
The US was attacked by 4 hijacked passenger planes,


I'm not even sure that -that- is accurate. There's these reports that some if not all of the alleged flights to be hijacked didn't really exist. Nevertheless, I certainly grant that 2 planes hit the twin towers, 1 plane hitting each one, and some type of aircraft seems to have "crashed" (by being shot down in my view) over pensylvania.


Originally posted by mmiichael
3 flown into important targets.


I'd bring that down to 2...


Originally posted by mmiichael
3,000 people died horribly.


Around 3000, yes.


Originally posted by mmiichael
These are indisputably substantiated on multiple levels.


It's these types of statements that I'm sure frustrate many people here. I don't even want to -try- to count the amount of people in this forum who dispute some of the statements you've made up to this point.


Originally posted by mmiichael
personal testimonies supplement[ed] with details.


Again, specifics here would be good. Perhaps you should bring up testimonies that you think are relevant?


Originally posted by mmiichael
No credible alternative "Unofficial Story" has been assembled in 8 years.


Clearly, this is something that many people have disputed with you here for quite some time. For your sake, I think it'd be best if you prefaced the above statement with something like "I have found..."



Originally posted by mmiichael
A small sub-culture ignores the overwhelming corroborating data and hard evidence.


Finally some acknowledgement of all the people who disagree with you here, laugh :-p. This "small sub-culture" isn't actually so small. From David Ray Griffin's book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, starting on Page 3:


Polling the American Public

[...]another measure of the convincing power of the evidence is the sheer number of Americans who by 2006 questioned the official account. A Zogby poll taken that May indicated that 42 percent of the American people believed that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed... critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks." Even more significant was the finding that the conviction that no cover-up had occurred was held by only 48 percent. (Ten percent said they were unsure.)(11) This meant that even though virtually all of the mainstream press coverage of 9/11 has supported the official account, less than half the American people are confident that the government and the 9/11 Commission have not covered up evidence contradicting this account.

People can differ, of course, with regard to the kind of evidence they believe is being covered up. Many may think of it as evidence that would merely embarass the government, not show its complicity in the attacks. More revelatory, therefore, was a Scripps/Ohio University poll in Auguest 2006, which showed 36 percent of the public holding that "federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them 'because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.'" (12)

Until the publication of these polls, the press had evidently considered the 9/11 truth movement a marginal phenomenon, which as such could be ignored. But these polls changed that perception. A story in Time magazine, reporting the second poll, wrote: "Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."(13)

A Flurry of Debunking Publications

This new perception was quickly followed in August by four subtantial publications intended to reassure those who still believed the official story...




[edit on 5-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
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


Thank you.

You told a blatant lie about me.

I asked you to back it up and you have not only failed to do so, you also failed to admit it was either a lie or a mistake.

You have lied. You were caught in your lie. You are refusing to admit you were wrong or a liar. Nice!

Now when I ask for the proof you keep claiming is everywhere all over the thread, you tell me to just go find it. Either it does not exist or you have no interest in anyone knowing the actual truth.

If you are just here to troll and argue and tell lies, be a man and admit it.

I wanted to add that your U2U invite sounded tough and now you just want me to shut up and go away. Just quote me saying what you claim I said or admit you were wrong. Why is this so hard?

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



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Originally posted by scott3x

Let's face it Scott, you haven't really done any research on 9/11 - just consumed whatever predigested Truther info you could find.

Those who keep up with what's happening in the world realize there are many things the US admin, it's agencies, and foreign allies like Pakistan's ISI and Saudi interests have kept from the public.

But there has never been any doubts about the specifics of the actual 9/11 attacks. Along with all the hard evidence, we have testimony and paperwork from the perpetrators themselves. Khalid Shekh Mohammed who co-ordinated the 9/11 attacks is a more credible source than Lloyde England whose taxi windshield was smashed or gas station attendants.

If you are afraid to look at theinformation and data - most of which is from non-aligned private or academic sources - it's your loss.

Except in the minds of Tuthers there is no "Official Story." How can there be? Everything you try using to disprove the known facts comes from the same sources.

People like uber-Truther Alex Jones deliver their messages through the same airwaves and communication lines as CNN and NBC. The New York Times publishes reports on US foreign policy using official stories, but also features articles by the likes of Seymour Hersh and Noam Chomsky,two of the most consistently savage critics of the US government.

The same book and magazine publishers, broadcasters, Internet Service Providers who bring you information on The Big Conspiracy are owned and operated by the same media conglomerates who bring you the 6 O'Clock News.

If the US government had any desire to conceal it's involvement in 9/11 you wouldn't be reading about it eveywhere. Trutherism is just another flavour offered by the MSM.

As Chomsky has pointed out, the US govt is delighted with the Truth Movement. Activism and criticism of foreign policy and personal rights have been dissipated and drained by so many people on a wild goose chase timing WTC collapses and drawing flight paths to the Pentagon.

The real bad guys get a laugh. Their crimes go largely undetected and they remain unprosecuted while naive individual just deflect from very serious crimes and conflicts of interest with their petty analysis of trivia. Like how some windshield was broken?

It's embarrassing.

I really don't know what else to say.


M


[edit on 5-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
But there has never been any real doubts about the specifics of the actual 9/11 attacks. Along with all the hard evidence, we have testimony and much paperwork from the perpetrators themselves. Khalid Shekh Mohammed who co-ordinated the 9/11 attacks is a more credible source than Lloyde England whose taxi windshield was smashed or gas station attendants.




Where?
Where is all this evidence?

Stop talking about it and point it out.

Oh and how is Atta is more credible than a random US citizen? The guy you claim masterminded the death of over 3000 Americans is a credible source to you? You really are an amazing kind of person.

Show some proof.

Back up your claims.

Explain how someone you claim to know is an enemy of the US is now a trusted informant.

[edit on 12/5/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
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.


i just said that's fine in this post. We'll make believe I'm 100% wrong about the "wings folding back" statement.

Now address the questions in this post pteridine.

Let's stay on topic

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

More Witnesses

[edit on 12/5/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Well I will stand by it. The wings did NOT fold back into the plane. Now Pteridine can pick and choose which fight to weasel out of.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
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?



Originally posted by JPhish
simply because someone was present at an event, does not mean they witnessed something.

This is what i said actually.

Now . . .

An event is a point in time. There is an event every moment, the nature of the event is of no consequence. A person being present at a point in time does not necessarily mean they witnessed an event.

Let's stay on topic

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?



Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

More Witnesses

[edit on 12/5/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by JPhish
 


Well I will stand by it. The wings did NOT fold back into the plane. Now Pteridine can pick and choose which fight to weasel out of.


no, let him have it. I know it didn't happen, you know it didn't happen, even the 9-11 commission knows it didn't happen

their assessment of the damage is sufficient proof that the wings didn't fold back and my original assertion was not bare.

but it's not worth fighting over.

He needs to prove that the plane took the OS flight path and hit a bunch of light poles before a planes wings folding back and hitting a building is even a consideration.

[edit on 12/5/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


When you have this many people outright lying in support of their precious OS, I really do not think it is too much to ask them to back up each and every claim they make. He can try to answer you first, I am patient.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
Let's face it Scott, you haven't really done any research on 9/11 - just consumed whatever predigested Truther info you could find.


Which is why I've been banned from truther forums, I'm sure. Let's stick to the topic though...



Originally posted by mmiichael
Those who keep up with what's happening in the world realize there are many things the US admin, it's agencies, and foreign allies like Pakistan's ISI and Saudi interests have kept from the public.


Here, atleast, we agree.



Originally posted by mmiichael
But there has never been any doubts about the specifics of the actual 9/11 attacks.


How you can say this, I still don't understand.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Along with all the hard evidence,


What hard evidence?



Originally posted by mmiichael
we have testimony and paperwork from the perpetrators themselves. Khalid Shekh Mohammed who co-ordinated the 9/11 attacks is a more credible source than Lloyde England whose taxi windshield was smashed


If he gets his day in court, he might be. So far, all we've allegedly gotten from him is "confessions", many of which may well have been extracted under torture. He's allegedly confessed to things that we -know- he couldn't have done. Torture a guy long enough and a guy might "confess" that the sky is purple if that's what he thinks will make the interrogator happy.

You may note that I use the term allegedly; there's a reason for it. David Ray Griffin, in his book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", has this to say on KSM's "confessions", starting on page 130:


Reliance on Third-Hand Evidence

[...] I turn now to a type of evidence that is so obviously dubious that Kean and Hamilton [9/11 Comissioners] even admit it.

The greatest difficulty they had in getting access to people and information they needed, they report, was "obtaining access to star witnesses in custody..., most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a mastermind of the attacks, and [Ramzi] Binalshibh, who helped coordinate the attacks from Europe." (146) Kean and Hamilton explain why getting such access was essential:


These and other detainees were the only possible source for inside information about the plot. If the commission was mandated to provide an authoritative account of the 9/11 attacks, it followed that our mandate afforded us the right to learn what these detainees had to say about 9/11.(147)


This was a right, however, that they were not given and that they in the end did not even demand. After CIA director Tenet turned down their initial request for access to the "more than one hundred detainees", they narrowed their request to "only seven key detainees", but this request was also denied. They then offered a compromise:


[The Commission's] interrogators could be blindfolded on their way to the interrogation point so that they would not know where they were.....[They would not] interrogate the detainees themselves [but would instead] observe the interrogation through one-way glass [so that they] could at least observe the detainee's demeanor and evaluate his credibility. Or our staff could listen to an interrogation telephonically, and offer questions or follow-up questions to the CIA interrogator through an earpiece. (148)


But this compromise was also rejected.

Accordingly, believing strongly that they needed at least this much access because otherwise they "could not evaluate the credibility of the detainees' accounts", they considered going public with their demand. However, "[t]he Bush administration pleaded with us not to take this issue public." And so, evidently assuming that the Bush administration made this plea not because it had anything to hide but only, as it claimed, because it "did not want to risk interrupting the interrogation of these detainees [by the CIA], which was important to US efforts to obtain intelligence to thwart attacks, capture terrorists, and save American lives", the Commission "decided not to take the issue public." (149)

It instead accepted Tenet's best offer: the CIA would appoint a "project manager", through whom "we could submit questions and follow-up questions". But this procedure meant, as Kean and Hamilton point out, that "they were receiving information thirdhand- passed from the detainee, to the interrogator, to the person who writes up the interrogation report, and finally to our staff in the form of reports, not even transcripts." The Commission "never even got to meet with the people conducting the interrogations". (150)

The implications were serious, as Kean and Hamilton admit, saying "We... had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed... was telling us the truth?" (151) With regard to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed- usually referred to simply as "KSM"- the Commission was completely at the mercy of the CIA. The CIA could have simply made up anything that it thought would bolster the official account of 9/11, then claimed that this alleged fact was learned during an "interrogation of KSM"- a phrase that occurs ad nauseum in the notes to the 9/11 Commission Report, especially the notes for the all-important Chapter 5, "Al Qaeda Aims at American Homeland".

In spite of these severe problems, Kean and Hamilton assure us that it all worked out: "we did get access to the information we needed; our report... draws heavily on information from detainees, notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh." Now Kean and Hamilton's statement may be true in the sense that they got "the information [they] needed" to portray the attacks as having been authorized by bin Laden. But if the question is whether they got the information that they would have needed to give a true account of 9/11, they, by their own admission, can have no such confidence. For all they know, (assuming the truth of what they have told us), KSM might not have made a single statement attributed to him.


[edit on 5-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Are you saying that the wings did not fold back, even though that was possible, and the plane went in as shown?

Your complete theory will explain this, of course but I will settle for a synopsis.

[edit on 12/5/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


If you accept the assessment of the damage in your link

911research.wtc7.net...

as being from a plane whose wings did not fold back, are you saying a plane hit the Pentagon?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Scott,

Attempts to create doubt of the plane crash into the Pentagon don't work on me. I prefer Fact to Fiction.

You, supposed Investigators, anyone can contact Joe Harrington, an independent construction foreman working on the Pentagon renovation the morning of Sept 11.

He received a frantic call from his wife around 9:30 AM telling him about the WTC attacks. He responded by calling work to a halt and having his 23 man crew quickly hastily leave the site. They were reaching the parking lot when they saw Flight 77 coming in and crashing.

So you can add 23 more on the spot eyewitnesses. Ignored by people like yourself and supposed Investigators.

Details in this book:

"Ground Stop: An Inside Look at the Federal Aviation Administration on September 11, 2001" by Pamela Freni. Also mentioned in the Sept 14, 2001 issue of "Pentagram" magazine.

A few phone calls and emails to these people would expose the CIT fraud for what it is. But bone of you will ever lift that phone because you really have no interest in what actually happened on 9/11.

You just want to carry on with your dream version. You'll keep pretending you need more proof, better proof. And find some feeble excuse to deny any of it.

To avoid actual facts you'll focus on inconclusive irrelavant tid bits like whether wings folded, a broken windshields, etc.

On Internet discussion groups you'll find like minded people sharing new evidence, new "Alarming Information" which never quite materializes.

And people like myself and a few others, stunned but too polite to be brutally frank will continue to humour you.



Mike


[edit on 6-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Are you saying that the wings did not fold back, even though that was possible, and the plane went in as shown?

Your complete theory will explain this, of course but I will settle for a synopsis.

[edit on 12/5/2009 by pteridine]


Prepare to be let down. I know that you are interested in theories and what ifs but many of us are actually interested in facts and evidence. This is going to upset you but I do not have some crazy theory to give you to make you feel better. What I do have is the FACT that the way a plane is constructed completely defies this claim.

Your premise is faulty. If I said that I saw the plane flying upside down and backward, according to you that would be true until you offer up a theory as to why it is not possible?


Airplanes are not built with gian magical hinges on each of the wings. Do you really need this explained more?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 


If you accept the assessment of the damage in your link

911research.wtc7.net...

as being from a plane whose wings did not fold back, are you saying a plane hit the Pentagon?
It would NOT be evidence that a 757 hit the building, it would be evidence that IF a 757 hit the building, it's wings did not fold back and only the very end tips sheered off.

Do you accept the assessment of the damage in my link?

Still haven't answered this question either . . .

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?



Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

More Witnesses

[edit on 12/6/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


I find Pteridine's logic completely fascinating. He believes the wings sheared off as well as folded back. He believes they folded back as well as did damage to the building. I would really love to understand just what shape Pteridine thinks an airplane's wings are and how it is they are attatched to the body.

In order for it to fit his scenario, they would have to be on a hinge that is magically strong enough to make it through the first few walls, dragging the wings into the plane and hole. Before impact though, these wings need to both break apart from the plane but not the magic hinge and turn themselves forward in order to damage the building all the way across before folding back.




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
Scott,

Attempts to create doubt of the plane crash into the Pentagon don't work on me. I prefer Fact to Fiction.


Should I assume that the alleged fact(s) you're referring to are brought up below?


Originally posted by mmiichael
You, supposed Investigators, anyone can contact Joe Harrington, an independent construction foreman working on the Pentagon renovation the morning of Sept 11.

He received a frantic call from his wife around 9:30 AM telling him about the WTC attacks. He responded by calling work to a halt and having his 23 man crew quickly hastily leave the site. They were reaching the parking lot when they saw Flight 77 coming in and crashing.


Sigh. Harrington said that it seemed that it crashed into the parking lot, before the wedge. That doesn't even concord with the official story. To whit:


Joe Harrington -- in parking lot outside Pentagon
"About two minutes later one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd., It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge. It was like a Hollywood movie or something."


Source:
911research.wtc7.net...



Originally posted by mmiichael
So you can add 23 more on the spot eyewitnesses. Ignored by people like yourself and supposed Investigators.


Admittedly, CIT essentially just brings up what is contained in the above quote concerning Harrington. I've googled for him, but haven't come up with more than the above quote myself. Considering the amount of witnesses they've dealt with though, I think they've done an impressive job. I personally don't know if Harrington's testimony that it went over Washington Blvd. would agree or conflict with the official story's flight path. Another thing; where did you hear that his 23 man crew witnessed what he witnessed? Heck, I couldn't even find where his 23 man crew was referenced. Do you have a link to this? It would certainly be nice to hear them speak for themselves, but I don't have the money to go down there and try to get it.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Details in this book:

"Ground Stop: An Inside Look at the Federal Aviation Administration on September 11, 2001" by Pamela Freni. Also mentioned in the Sept 14, 2001 issue of "Pentagram" magazine.


Do you have the book? If not, could you excerpt a relevant section as I've been doing with David Ray Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" book?


Originally posted by mmiichael
A few phone calls and emails to these people would expose the CIT fraud for what it is.


I don't believe that, but if you really believe this, why haven't you done this yourself?



Originally posted by mmiichael
But none of you will ever lift that phone because you really have no interest in what actually happened on 9/11.


Michael, have -you- called any of these people? I sincerely doubt it. I myself would rather digest the information out there then make calls to strangers who may not want to be bothered. CIT did far more than just call a bunch of people. They actually went -down- there and interviewed more than a dozen of them on location. They'd already done a fair amount of research on the issue as well and they continue to bring up very good points to this day.


Originally posted by mmiichael
You just want to carry on with your dream version. You'll keep pretending you need more proof, better proof. And find some feeble excuse to deny any of it.


I have never found you provide any credible evidence for the official story, let alone proof.


Originally posted by mmiichael
To avoid actual facts you'll focus on inconclusive irrelavant tid bits like whether wings folded, a broken windshields, etc.


Things like whether the wings could have folded (even an official story believer derided this one, not knowing that it was coming from an official story supporter), or the many criticis of the idea that the plane could have taken the south path aren't little tidbits; the fact that you think they are demonstrates your lack of understanding on the issues I believe.



Originally posted by mmiichael
On Internet discussion groups you'll find like minded people sharing new evidence, new "Alarming Information" which never quite materializes.


Michael, you have a very frustrating habit of denying that there are others who don't agree with you. I am willing to believe that you actually believe what you say. I don't understand why you can't extend the courtesy to people such as myself and others here who believe that CIT's videos -do- show alarming information.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x

Sigh. Harrington said that it seemed that it crashed into the parking lot, before the wedge. That doesn't even concord with the official story. To whit:


Joe Harrington -- in parking lot outside Pentagon
"About two minutes later one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd., It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge. It was like a Hollywood movie or something."


Source:
911research.wtc7.net...


He is an interesting witness

Places the plane low enough to take out those poles
IDs it as an AA aircraft
Supports the impact, not a 'flyover'
Suggests his 'guys', or at least one of them, can corroborate his observation and technically speaking, the initial impact was 'just before' the building IE the generator etc.

Is his account part of the 'Alarming Information'?

I can fully understand if it isn't included from what I've seen and read about the CIT theory.

The event is alarming enough no matter how it happened.

Full respect to you for your posting style but I just can't agree with the conclusions you draw from all this.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 



Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by scott3x

Sigh. Harrington said that it seemed that it crashed into the parking lot, before the wedge. That doesn't even concord with the official story. To whit:


Joe Harrington -- in parking lot outside Pentagon
"About two minutes later one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd., It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge. It was like a Hollywood movie or something."


Source:
911research.wtc7.net...


He is an interesting witness

Places the plane low enough to take out those poles


Low yes, but would the flight path that Harrington described intersect those light poles?


Originally posted by Pilgrum
IDs it as an AA aircraft


That in and of itself is suspicious, as many eyewitnesses didn't ID it as such.


Originally posted by Pilgrum
Supports the impact, not a 'flyover'


Yes, but he thinks that it impacted -before- reaching the wedge, which doesn't even concord with the official story.


Originally posted by Pilgrum
Suggests his 'guys', or at least one of them, can corroborate his observation


Yes, he does. I think we would agree that it would be nice to hear from this guy first hand though.


Originally posted by Pilgrum
and technically speaking, the initial impact was 'just before' the building IE the generator etc.


I hadn't heard that. I know that in theory, the plane was supposed to have made a big gaping scar mark on the pentalawn, as its engines would have been dragging in the dirt if the official story was correct; no such scar mark was ever seen. The amazing pentalawn, eh?



Originally posted by Pilgrum
Is his account part of the 'Alarming Information'?


Not to my knowledge, although CIT does make note at their site that he allegedly saw the plane crash before the wedge, which they seem to believe goes against the official story.


Originally posted by Pilgrum
I can fully understand if it isn't included from what I've seen and read about the CIT theory.


I think I can as well- there's just so many witnesses, hard to talk about every single one of them.


Originally posted by Pilgrum
The event is alarming enough no matter how it happened.


That's true.


Originally posted by Pilgrum
Full respect to you for your posting style but I just can't agree with the conclusions you draw from all this.


Well thanks for your respect. I'm fine with people not agreeing with the conclusions that I and others who support CIT/PFT's conclusions; the thing that frustrates me is when people to refuse to acknowledge that people such as myself even exist.



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join