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: 114
215
<< 111  112  113    115  116  117 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x


Nope. The point I'm trying to make is this:
Michael said something that apparently was mistaken. He made a mistake. Did he -consciously- say something that he knew wasn't true? I see no evidence of this.


Well I hate to be like this but you should really read our entire exchange. He claimed it was MY theory. I asked him to prove I ever said that. I told him that he could prove I said it or he could admit it was wrong, a mistake, or a lie.

How many replies later has he responded to everything but those requests?

You tell me, if it was a MISTAKE then why not just own up to it? If you are purposely trying to be deceptive then I could understand letting it stand and pretending you never said it.

Scott, your little friend has had more than ample opportunity to clear it up. I specifically asked if it was just a mistake. I know he has read this because he has responded to me, just not addressing this statement.

Sorry buddy but he could have admitted it was a mistake a couple pages back. What I really do not understand is why you are even trying to defend him making these "mistakes" after you posted "I did not say that" a handful of times as a response too. Apparently MM makes a lot of mistakes when it comes to what other people have said. So either he needs to start actually reading what he is responding to, or he needs to stop lying. Either way, how many times in one thread do you think someone should be asked to prove the statements they are making about other people and continually fail to do so?




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by Lillydale

If he did not see it hit the building, he did not see it hit the building. You cannot make 23 witnesses out of one man claiming to see something that we all know did not happen.


Seems to be a fixation on Mr Harrington and his 'guys' here which is not what I implied. He is just one more to add to the list of witnesses who claim to seen an impact whether it be with the helipad, the ground or the building or all or any of the above. Let's place those people in a group of 'non-flyover' witnesses.


I am not fixated but that is who the discussion was about when you jumped in to add

A number of witnesses mentioned that they thought it contacted the lawn just before the building



Those impact accounts have been published online and discussed ad nauseum for years so it would appear pointless if I really have to paste them all here yet again and you can leave out Mr Harrington and his guys if his story is not to your liking.


Ah, the bluff is called. They may have been DISCUSSED online for years but proven, published, corroborated, confirmed, etc. are things they NEED to be. You cannot link to them because they do not actually exist. You are telling the same fairy tale as Jthomas. "There were tons of witnesses but I will not find any of them because I am sure someone else covered that once before blah blah blah...."

Then why are you here? What are you even saying anything for? Why jump in to add something about witnesses if you cannot back any of it up?


I mean, with all the investigation you've done to arrive at a definite conclusion on what happened surely you've read every one of those accounts more than once?


Sure, I have read all the scores and hundreds of accounts of witnesses to the impact.



I seem to have lost them though. Since you bring them up, can you find them for me?

You must be an old banned member because I know this little trick very well. You brought something up to make a point. You were asked to prove what you brought up. You resort to saying it has been covered so you do not need to cover it. Great! Then nothing else you say seems worth reading either if it has all been covered. Thank you for trying to pretend you had evidence that you clearly do not. Go bluff at a casino, this is a pursuit of the truth. If you have the truth, linking to it should be pretty easy. You fail.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Scott, your little friend has had more than ample opportunity to clear it up. I specifically asked if it was just a mistake. I know he has read this because he has responded to me, just not addressing this statement.

Sorry buddy but he could have admitted it was a mistake a couple pages back. What I really do not understand is why you are even trying to defend him making these "mistakes" after you posted "I did not say that" a handful of times as a response too. Apparently MM makes a lot of mistakes when it comes to what other people have said. So either he needs to start actually reading what he is responding to, or he needs to stop lying. Either way, how many times in one thread do you think someone should be asked to prove the statements they are making about other people and continually fail to do so?


K J Gunderson,

Just catching this because I've been ignoring your posts - my option.

But for the record, if you interpreted anything I wrote as calling you a liar and trying to insult you personally I am sorry for that. I apologize for anything unreasonable.

I can't pull a quote as I don't like to search through old messages. But my usual intention is to attribute a theory or claim to the person referring to it as "your theory" meaning "the theory you put on the table" not necessarily "the theory you created."

Hope this is satisfactory.


M



[edit on 7-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael



Scott,

I won’t descend to the level of trying to prove to anyone something basic like DNA tests were real unless you can provide evidence there was tampering.

A pretty tough thing to do considering one would have to fake months of test results and detailed reports made by lab workers, technicians, supervisors, who would contribute to reports that for which summaries became part of the public record.


You keep missing the point made. Can you not understand that the labs would not have to be the least bit in on it since they did not collect any DNA. They just tested WHAT THEY WERE GIVEN. The only people that need to be in on it are the people that dropped off this DNA. Do you not understand this concept?



[edit on 12/7/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
K J Gunderson,

Just catching this because I've been ignoring your posts - my option.

But for the record, if you interpreted anything I wrote as calling you a liar and trying to insult you personally I am sorry for that. I apologize for anything unreasonable.


You are severly learning disabled. Not only have we covered this here twice already but in the U2U exchange as well.

I NEVER SAID YOU CALLED ME A LIAR. I SAID YOU CLAIMED I SAID SOMETHING I DID NOT.


I can't pull a quote as I don't like to search through old messages. But my usual intention is to attribute a theory or claim to the person referring to it as "your theory" meaning "the theory you put on the table" not necessarily "the theory you created."

Hope this is satisfactory.




Not even a little. Who put it on the table?

You were specifically talking to me. You specifically said "your theory."

I really thought you would be a man and just admit you were wrong eventually. Sad, really really sad. Please go back to ignoring me and perhaps I can have a constructive conversation with people that do not need to make things up and then weasel out of them.

p.s. You have not been ignoring me. You forget that people can go back and read posts here. You have responded to me more than once since calling your lie. You have just failed to actually address that until now. You have already appologized for calling me a liar. You neve called me a liar and I never complained about that but that proves you have not actually been ignoring me. LOL, can you tell the truth at even if you try?

Scott, I hope you are satisfied now. It was not a mistake. If this excuse is satisfactory to you, then you have fun with Jthomas, Pteridine, and this liar. None of them have been able to stay honest in their argument and cannot even just man up when busted.

Is this just a 'mistake' too?


Just catching this because I've been ignoring your posts - my option.


Now read this thread. He has responded to me several times and even about this subject. If you want me to accept that MM is not a liar, then fine. Given your post to him and this new data, he makes about 1 mistake per post. Any reason I should keep giving him the benefit of the doubt when he makes that many mistakes and has so far admitted to 0 of them?

[edit on 7-12-2009 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
Nope. The point I'm trying to make is this:
Michael said something that apparently was mistaken. He made a mistake. Did he -consciously- say something that he knew wasn't true? I see no evidence of this.


Well I hate to be like this but you should really read our entire exchange.


I did.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
He claimed it was MY theory.


I know.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I asked him to prove I ever said that. I told him that he could prove I said it or he could admit it was wrong, a mistake, or a lie.


I think that he has subtly admitted that he was mistaken on this point. Honestly, I think his larger error wasn't that he was mistaken here (we all make mistakes), but his terminology; aka, the fruit loop reference, something he clinged to even though he realized he was somewhat off concerning your point of view.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
How many replies later has he responded to everything but those requests?


I'll show you where I think he made his final response on the matter:

Originally posted by mmiichael
by may accounting, any explanation that preclude [the plane] 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.


He said it 2 days ago, on page 110:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seems clear to me that he had second thoughts as to your precise point of view on what happened at the pentagon.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You tell me, if it was a MISTAKE then why not just own up to it?


You mean straight up say he was mistaken? Whether it's OSSers or truthers, I've found that most people rarely if ever straight out say they were mistaken. Hell, it doesn't even have to be on here; I see the same thing happen everywhere, not just online, but offline as well; you've probably heard the saying, 'it takes a big man to cry'? Well, it takes a big person to outright admit they're mistaken to people they don't get along with and sometimes even with people they do; I generally don't expect it from people, although I'll admit that I too have been like you and demanded that they admit they were wrong; it doesn't always end pretty, but I've done it.

Instead of outright admitting they're wrong, most willl shift the argument to something else. For me, this is generally good enough; the trick, in my view, is to try to steer the conversation in such a way that we try to collectively agree on what happened on 9/11. Emotions are involved, ofcourse, which is why I personally avoid personally insulting others, with either the caps lock key, or insults, such as the 'fruit loops' thing.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
What I really do not understand is why you are even trying to defend him making these "mistakes" after you posted "I did not say that" a handful of times as a response too.


Here is the difference between you and me; while you go on and on about the fact that he lied about what he said, I simply point out to him that I didn't say certain things. Since it's generally acknowledged that a poster knows more about what he or she said than someone who's responding to them, the burden to prove that I'm mistaken is clearly on his shoulders; if he fails to do so, I think that most intelligent people will understand who was mistaken, even if the person who was mistaken doesn't outright admit it.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Apparently MM makes a lot of mistakes when it comes to what other people have said.


Yes, he does.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
So either he needs to start actually reading what he is responding to, or he needs to stop lying.


One can read what others write, then forget the details of who said what and start making mistakes. I personally make it a point of always trying to quote what I'm responding to instead of paraphrasing it; moderators don't always like it have at times 'edited' a few of my posts to remove some or all quotes (sometimes making my posts somewhat unintelligible), but it saves me from putting words in others' mouths.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Either way, how many times in one thread do you think someone should be asked to prove the statements they are making about other people and continually fail to do so?


I think Michael has already admitted that he wasn't quite sure about your point of view as to what happened at the pentagon. I think he shouldn't have used the fruit loop label. I wish we could just leave it at that.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


So you spend all that time to basically defend someone for making 'mistakes' and willfully refusing to admit they were mistakes? Sorry if I do not find that so defensable. Thanks a ton for your opinion on whether or not someone else lied about me. Now you can move on to defend Jthomas and Swampfox for their blatant "mistakes."

I guess the thing really is is that if MM had a decent defense, he is capable of typing it himself. Like I said, he even lied in his last response about ignoring me. That is too many mistakes for me. If he really feels he has a defense, he is a big boy. You have made your thoughts clear. Thanks a ton. You can let go of his hand now. He signed up all on his own. He made these "mistakes" all on his own. He replied without ever making it right, all on his own. I am not sure what you goal is or what it is you think you hope to accomplish but I decide if I feel like someone lying about me is someone lying about me. You admit right in your response that he refused to admit he was wrong. Unless you are his mom, that is his problem and not yours.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by scott3x
 


So you spend all that time to basically defend someone for making 'mistakes' and willfully refusing to admit they were mistakes? Sorry if I do not find that so defensable.


I have already mentioned that I think he subtly acknowledged making a mistake on what you believe happened at the pentagon.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Thanks a ton for your opinion on whether or not someone else lied about me.


You're welcome.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Now you can move on to defend Jthomas and Swampfox for their blatant "mistakes."


I have defended jthomas in the past, as I believe you know. And I will certainly admit that it has and will continue to cause me problems with members of the truth movement. Now, if all I was interested in was winning a popularity contest, I think I'd just make statements that most if not everyone could agree with, and leave it at that. Alternatively, I could become very partisan, cheering on the truthers regardless of whether they're mistaken now and then. But personally, I'm interested in getting the truth of what happened on 9/11 better known, and I don't think this is best served by belittling others, by calling someone's theory 'fruit loopy', or insisting that someone's mistake is a 'lie', or even insisting they make a big show about the fact that they're mistaken about some point.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I guess the thing really is is that if MM had a decent defense, he is capable of typing it himself.


Why do you think lawyers exist? Aside from the legalise, I maintain that there's also the issue that it's not easy to defend oneself, not least of which because one can be accused of denying the facts, whether consciously or unconsciously, for the purpose of bettering one's own image. This is why even lawyers frequently employ other lawyers to defend them.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Like I said, he even lied in his last response about ignoring me.


From what I recall, he said he had been ignoring you, but broke this because of something he read. I really don't want to try to analyze how mmiichael defines ignoring someone, and I find it irritating that you must characterize everything mmiichael does that you don't agree with as a 'lie'. Why can't you just stick with 'wrong'? You might still be mistaken, but atleast you won't be adding insult to injury by assuming that he's purposefully trying to deceive.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
That is too many mistakes for me. If he really feels he has a defense, he is a big boy. You have made your thoughts clear. Thanks a ton. You can let go of his hand now. He signed up all on his own. He made these "mistakes" all on his own. He replied without ever making it right, all on his own.


Again, we disagree on that point.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I am not sure what you goal is or what it is you think you hope to accomplish but I decide if I feel like someone lying about me is someone lying about me.


To be sure. By the same token, in a public forum, I can decide whether I agree with your stance or not. If you want a one to one with mmiichael, take it to PMs.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You admit right in your response that he refused to admit he was wrong.


I said he refused to outright admit it; I think he subtly admitted it, and for me, that's enough. In response to your last PM; if you don't want me to PM you anymore, that's fine; in fact, since I felt you might be at that point now, this is why I'm responding here. But I don't think it makes sense that you be allowed to make a show in this public forum and yet not allow me to comment on it.

I can easily imagine that seagull or some other moderator may at this point step in and say we should stick to the topic and I agree that the topic is what we should usually be focused on, but there are certain times when I think we have to try to address certain poster animosities to get the ball rolling again.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Ok, how exactly is that possible without this magic hinge? Please explain to me just how it is even remotely possible for the wings to fold back. What is it they are still attatched to that causes them to fold? If they break off, they will not be folding. They need to be attatched to some pivot. Either you can explain to me just how you believe it is possible or you are just talking for the sake of talking. Logic and anyone with even a basic understanding of how planes are constructed will tell you that you are wrong.

Apparently, you are not willing to even hear that could be wrong. You just want to cling to your belief that something is possible without any good reason to believe that. Why is that? Do you need this for your OS to be true? Please explain it to me. I am very confused as to why you would say something is possible but then claim that you do not believe that the circumstances necessary are true. Help me out here.


I'm sure that with your years of experience designing aircraft and then crashing them at high speed into buildings that you know exactly what is possible and what isn't. Magic hinges are not in your designs.
I do not know what the witness saw other than what he said he saw. The only other recent exeriences of planes crashing into buildings were at WTC 1 and 2. Those videos have been analyzed in many ways and it appears that the wings were strong enough to cut through the steel columns. The Pentagon was made differently and there are no videos available to analyze. Possible means possible, not probable.
Whether the wings appeared to fold back, collapse, or disappear into the building, the event witnessed was a passenger plane striking the Pentagon. Descriptions of details are expected to be different among witnesses. Penny Elgas described a plume forming around the fuselage as it penetrated the wall, a detail not reported by others but not detracting from the witnessed event of a plane striking the Pentagon.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas

See how usuual that "event" is, how loud it would have been, how easy it would have been to see it? And you want us to believe that the probability that someone witnessed and reported that event is zero?


You're asking loaded questions. You are the one claiming that hundreds of people saw something, i never made such a claim.


Nope. I asked you specifically: "Where are the statements of the hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots?"

We're waiting for you to provide their statements.


I never claimed to know what people witnessed. You are the one making that claim and you have yet to back it up.


Of course you have. You support CIT's claims that there were eyewitnesses who saw AA77 fly a NOC flight path, that all the eyewitness who saw AA77 crash into the pentagon are wrong, that AA77 could not have hit the light poles and crash into the Pentagon, and that AA77 "flew over and away from the Pentagon."

Don't blatantly lie, JPhish.

Now, will you retract your claims that AA77 flew over and away from the Pentagon? Or will you FINALLY provide positive evidence that it "flew over and away from the Pentagon?" Why are you avoiding providing positive evidence for your claims, JPhish? WHY?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Ah, the bluff is called. They may have been DISCUSSED online for years but proven, published, corroborated, confirmed, etc. are things they NEED to be. You cannot link to them because they do not actually exist. You are telling the same fairy tale as Jthomas. "There were tons of witnesses but I will not find any of them because I am sure someone else covered that once before blah blah blah...."

Then why are you here? What are you even saying anything for? Why jump in to add something about witnesses if you cannot back any of it up?

Sure, I have read all the scores and hundreds of accounts of witnesses to the impact.



I seem to have lost them though. Since you bring them up, can you find them for me?


Just for your reading pleasure, here's a link to 87 eyewitness statements all collected prior to 2004 so the event was somewhat fresher in their minds than anything collected more recently. I would have pasted them all in the thread but that would certainly incur the wrath of members and management alike so apologies if I'm making you work


87 Eyewitness Statements

The big question is - are these the statements you lost?



You must be an old banned member because I know this little trick very well. You brought something up to make a point. You were asked to prove what you brought up. You resort to saying it has been covered so you do not need to cover it. Great! Then nothing else you say seems worth reading either if it has all been covered. Thank you for trying to pretend you had evidence that you clearly do not. Go bluff at a casino, this is a pursuit of the truth. If you have the truth, linking to it should be pretty easy. You fail.


You're just probing I believe

Never been banned or even warned on this, or any other forum anywhere and NO - I'm not going to provide references lol

Does what I presented for you, as you requested, qualify me to see any evidence you might have that can negate all of those statements?
Please - no utube, google video type 'evidence'.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



You must be an old banned member because...


...quoth the member who 'joined' in September, 2009 whilst speaking to a member who dates back to 2007....

An incalcitrant stance, and refusal to accept valid evidence when presented repeatedly, over and over, is a refuge of the devout.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
I have seen no evidence that the FBI obtained body parts, blood or teeth from the alleged flight 77 passengers. This doesn't mean that they didn't do it, only saying that I haven't heard that it was done. All I've heard is that they obtained DNA from most of the passengers; to do this, even skin will do. Furthermore, while it would certainly be interesting to know whether or not the FBI obtained anything more than DNA samples obtained from, say, skin of the alleged flight 77 passengers, the question that I think is even more important is, where, precisely, were the DNA samples obtained? I have heard that they were allegedly obtained in 2 contradictory locations; near the entrance hole, and near the exit hole. The exit hole was, ofcourse, where the alleged fireball that broke through the wall occurred; intense fireball, but DNA of almost all the passengers survives intact.. in a place that's off limits to everyone but the FBI. So who, precisely, in the FBI obtained these samples? Aren't you at least curious?

I don't know how many people would be involved in testing; you claim hundreds; for all I know, you're right. But how many FBI agents collected the alleged DNA? That number would be a lot less; a select team? Perhaps even one lone FBI agent?



Scott (presuming that is your name)

Will try to keep this on topic. But want to thank you for your unneeded but still appreciated attempts to defend my communication with Gunderson.

This is one of thousands of threads on a conspiracy forum. We are not writing material to be published in a book or peer review journal, producing formal reports, or in court of law providing testimony. We are exchanging views, information, memories, opinions. The closest analogy would be a recorded conversation.

The advantage is spontaneity in that we do not have to provide citations and confirm our sources for everything we put forward.

Myself I know to be true or at least believe whatever I type and submit. I think I have a better honed ability to separate solid information from uniformed speculation and disinformation others attempt to put forward as established facts.

I am used to it but internally feel insulted when something I refer to is labeled a component of the "Official Story" and questioned or dismissed as such. It is implied that I slavishly adhere to any information supplied by the American govt, it's intelligence, conservative media, etc.

I've made the point before but it should be re-emphasized. "Official Story" is a branding people who disbelieve the accepted version of 9/11 put on the facts and data which they do not want to acknowledge as it offers conflict to their chosen belief system.

So a Truther (sorry for the categorization) will accept, say, the plans of the Pentagon, the photos and reports of damage done to it, and other details as factual. But will proceed to deny whatever other data they are presented with that works against their preformed conclusion as to what caused the destruction on 9/11. You may not see yourself doing it, but it is done constantly.

Further, what is called the "Official Story" is not a series of papers produced by the US government and given to major media outlets as a Press Kit to supply the public with news. It is a massive composite of officially gathered and collated data, as well as eyewitness testimonies, reporting and analysis from independent writers and journalists, American and foreign, and a lot of logic and common sense weighing in all the information and evidence available.

There are writers who have a track record of criticizing and disbelieving what the US government says and does. They take every opportunity to find fault with what the public is fed, isolate dishonest officials, inconsistencies, hypocrisy, every manner of falsehood.

They too have had exposure to the events of 9/11 and the aftermath. They are better positioned to find out when officials and intelligence agencies are lying or concealing critical information. That's what they do for a living. They have an army of feeders supplying them with leads or doing leg work for them.

I can tell you from my own contacts, though many have put their feelers out and looked hard - there is no substantiation of the story circulating of the plane attacks being somehow faked. Many have looked at the bits and pieces offered by the likes of Griffin, Balsamo, Jones, Gage, et al. When assembled there is a pile of secondary inconsistencies and erroneous reports from official and recognized sources, a lot of innuendo and speculation, some aberrant testimony, but no solid substantation, no smoking gun.

Qualified people have tried, careers would be made, book and magazine publishers would be thrilled, filmmakers would pay fortunes - but there is no "Unofficial Story" that seriously conflicts with the overwhelming and consistent version of events we have on 9/11.

My ADD just kicked in, so will end here.

Thanks again for your intervention on my behalf.

Mike



[edit on 7-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


KJ

You even seem to have p****d off the good natured Scott who is supposed to be on your side. That ought to be telling you something.

Anyways, that is by the by, but I would appreciate an answer to my query of a couple of days ago. You will recall I posted a sad picture given in evidence at the Moussaoui trial :-

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

You said in relation to it : " That picture is not a passenger. It was DNA tested and identified. "

If what you said is true I would like to know the identity of that body and that it was not an A 77 passenger please ? On receipt of that information I want to make further enquiries.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The advantage is spontaneity in that we do not have to provide citations and confirm our sources for everything we put forward.

Myself I know to be true or at least believe whatever I type and submit. I think I have a better honed ability to separate solid information from uniformed speculation and disinformation others attempt to put forward as established facts.


Casual readers, perhaps this is mmiichael's way of describing to all of us why he has failed to prove
- that the lightpole hit the taxi.
- that thousands of people saw the plane depart.
- that hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon, knocking down light poles.

These are all of mmiichael's unproven claims in this thread.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezzajw

How nice to see you survived the civil war on Pf9/11t. Much shooting and feet comes to mind.

Are you now in a position to prove that the Flight Deck Door was closed, like for ever, please ?

At least Lloyde's taxi and the pole has some evidence to back it up, just not enough for you apparently.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
tezzajw
How nice to see you survived the civil war on Pf9/11t. Much shooting and feet comes to mind.

Huh? What are you on about, Alfie1? Your pointless off topic speculations only highlight how little you think that you know.

Defy ignorance, Alfie1. Don't embrace it.



Originally posted by Alfie1
At least Lloyde's taxi and the pole has some evidence to back it up, just not enough for you apparently.

You've had eight years to prove it happened, Alfie1. Please show me where you have proven that the light pole hit the taxi?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



Originally posted by Alfie1
KJ

You even seem to have p****d off the good natured Scott who is supposed to be on your side. That ought to be telling you something.


Thanks for the complement, laugh :-). Anyway, my disagreement with him wasn't so bad. This is only an echo of what happened a while back when several ATS members who I generally agree with turned on me due to my defending jthomas on something. That one hurt a lot more. KJ's insistence that Michael was lying concerning certain things got to me, but we -do- agree that Michael was mistaken concerning said things, so I'm hoping we can just leave it at that.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by mmiichael
Scott,

I won’t descend to the level of trying to prove to anyone something basic like DNA tests were real unless you can provide evidence there was tampering.

A pretty tough thing to do considering one would have to fake months of test results and detailed reports made by lab workers, technicians, supervisors, who would contribute to reports that for which summaries became part of the public record.


You keep missing the point made. Can you not understand that the labs would not have to be the least bit in on it since they did not collect any DNA. They just tested WHAT THEY WERE GIVEN. The only people that need to be in on it are the people that dropped off this DNA. Do you not understand this concept?


Thanks, spared me having to repeat myself on this. I suspect he may have missed me trying to get this across to him; I did make a lot of points, after all. Hopefully this time around...



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
Thanks for the complement, laugh :-). Anyway, my disagreement with him wasn't so bad. This is only an echo of what happened a while back when several ATS members who I generally agree with turned on me due to my defending jthomas on something. That one hurt a lot more. KJ's insistence that Michael was lying concerning certain things got to me, but we -do- agree that Michael was mistaken concerning said things, so I'm hoping we can just leave it at that.


I don't follow every jot and titty you guys throw around. Not sure what I was wrong about. I don't claim to be right or remember everything correctly.

I do reject the CIT flyover scenario totally mainly because it's impossible. Highly improbable given the intensely elaborate planning and execution that would be required and the enormous risk involved in using so many confederates. Impossible given the overwhelming evidence and testimony of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon.

Name your own sugary children's breakfast cereal name for a description of the CIT theory.



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 111  112  113    115  116  117 >>

log in

join