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: 116
215
<< 113  114  115    117  118  119 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 





What's interesting is that they were allegedly discovered in 2 contradictory places; both at the entrance whole and at the exit hole.


I do not know where you get your information. Remains of Flight 77 passengers were recovered starting near the entrance hole and all along the path that the wreckage took through the building, including the remains of one passenger that were recovered from the second floor.


Second thought, you quote DRG......nevermind question answered.




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x
 





What's interesting is that they were allegedly discovered in 2 contradictory places; both at the entrance whole and at the exit hole.


I do not know where you get your information. Remains of Flight 77 passengers were recovered starting near the entrance hole and all along the path that the wreckage took through the building, including the remains of one passenger that were recovered from the second floor.


Second thought, you quote DRG......nevermind question answered.


Would you mind terribly if I were to ask where you got your information? I do specifically mean where remains were found at the crash scene. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


KJ

.


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.



Ah, well let me most sincerely appologize for not seeing you ask me for this before. It raises a very interesting question though.

Are you telling me that you went into trial evidence and dug up two pictures to present as the bodies of passengers from AA77 and you did not even bother to check if that was true first? See, since they were used in the trial, they were ID'd. That is the only reason they could be used.

You are honestly admitting that you have no problem digging through evidence for pictures but cannot be bothered to check what they are actually pictures of? You admit that you presented them as passenger bodies even though you really just never bothered to check?

Now you want me to go back to your evidence and explain where it was identified to you?


Is that how it works now? So if I publish a picture of a UFO over NYC and claim that is what really took down the towers, I am right until you go and prove where the UFO really came from?



I will be more than happy to make you look bad but the least I can do is offer you enough time to go back and do even the most basic research about the items you are trying to pass off as evidence of something.

This is how the real world works. You showed us two bodies. Those photos were evidence in court. They were identified so they could be used as evidence in court. You dug them up to prove that passenger bodies were found. Why can you not prove that those are passenger bodies?

See how honesty works? Want to call me wrong or a liar? Cool. I will be happy to correct you or appologize but you first. Can you prove the pictures you showed us were the bodies of passengers as you claimed they were?


KJ

For someone apparently only too ready to call another poster a liar you are remarkably casual with your own false statements; especially when it just takes a glance at the last few pages of this thread to refute them. Please direct me to where I claimed the two court exhibit pics I posted are of passenger bodies or withdraw the allegation.

On page 110 you made this false statement :- " no bodies were actually found in the Pentagon." I responded with a picture which clearly refuted what you said but I made no claim that they were passenger bodies.

You corrected yourself by saying that you meant passenger bodies. I then posted a pic of a terribly mutililated body and I posed the question " Employee or passenger ?" (page 111) I made no claim either way.

It was you who came down on one side of the fence by stating:- " That picture is not a passenger body. It was DNA tested and identified. "

Since then I have asked you twice to back up your assertion that it was not a passenger body, and I am genuinely interested, but all I get are false statements and inappropriate lol faces.

Do you have any information to support your statement " That picture is not a passenger body" or is that another porky ?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


There is an exhibit used in the Moussaoui trial that showed the physical location of the remains found. It is also in a couple of other places that I am currently trying to find again. However, because of the network restrictions here, I cannot access quite a few of these sites.

This link is to the trial exhibit, where the "map" should be. I am sorry to say that I cannot download it and post it.

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I can help you out.

According to the Official Story, all but 1 body from the plane was identified.

The two men pictured are not any of the people identified on this list



So can you explain how they are both the one missing passenger?


[edit on 12/8/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


If it was not an executable file inside of a zip file, maybe I might be willing to look at it. Thanks but I do not run .exes from anyone anywhere unless I went and got it because I know exactly what it is.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I know its set apart as a jpeg..somewhere and is saved on my home computer....7,000 miles away from me...still looking for it..



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I know its set apart as a jpeg..somewhere and is saved on my home computer....7,000 miles away from me...still looking for it..



I understand that. I appreciate the effort and I hope you understand why I am weary of downloading unknown .exe files, especially from you know - the enemy.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


lol. I'm not the enemy. We just dont agree about the US government in relation to the attack.

Anyway, I cannot access the site on my computer, however doing a "google image" search using "flight 77 victims" brought up what looks to be the trial exhibit diagram showing where the remains were found. Unfortunately, that website hasn't "catagorized" by the computer security people here.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

The files are an 8mb download but the map is reproduced here: 911research.wtc7.net...

One victim was found on the floor above.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas

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.
Their statements aren’t nessasary. What you are demanding is utterly ridiculous and illogical.

Say goodbye to your fallacious straw man argument.


Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas
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,

CIT does not claim that eyewitnesses saw AA77 fly a NOC flight path. CIT has provided evidence that a plane (NOT necessarily AA77) flew NOC. Nice straw man though.


that all the eyewitness who saw AA77 crash into the pentagon are wrong,
the only “reliable” witness presented in this thread that claimed to see AA77 crash into the pentagon is Mike Walter. So where are “all the eyewitness” that you claim saw AA77 crash into the pentagon?


that AA77 could not have hit the light poles and crash into the Pentagon,-
According to the FDR and the vast majority of the reliable eye witnesses presented in this thread. They are 100% correct.


-and that AA77 "flew over and away from the Pentagon."
No neither CIT or myself has claimed that AA77 flew over and away from the Pentagon. Nice straw man though.



Don't blatantly lie, JPhish.

What exactly do you believe I am lying about?


Now, will you retract your claims that AA77 flew over and away from the Pentagon?
I never claimed that flight AA77 flew over and away from the pentagon. You can’t even get basic facts straight. No wonder you refuse to battle me in a member debate.


Or will you FINALLY provide positive evidence that it "flew over and away from the Pentagon?
There is no evidence that AA77 flew over and away from the Pentagon and I’ve never claimed that it did, so why would I bother providing evidence for something I have not claimed? What you have presented is a straw man.

The only witness you have that claims to have seen AA77 knock down lightpoles on the OS flight path and impact the pentagon is Mike Walter.

His account conflicts with all of the other reliable witnesses in this thread.

His story conflicts with the FDR.

He also has a conflict of interest since he works for the very entity being implicated.

Are you saying the flight data recorder supplied by the NTSB is wrong and Mike Walter is right?

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?




" Why are you avoiding providing positive evidence for your claims, JPhish? WHY?
Any claim I have made I have supported.

Witnesses that I have provided in this thread

Witnesses and analysis of reports that CIT has provided in this thread

Analysis of “AA77’s” Flight data recorder supplied by the NTSB and interpreted by Pilots for 911 truth.

That’s a lot of evidence right there. All of which supports what I’ve claimed. I don’t need to provide evidence for your straw man arguments.

What evidence have you provided? Oh right, you haven’t provided any relevant evidence at all. The only thing you seem competent at is calling people lairs when it is likely that you yourself are one. It’s becoming hard to believe that you make this many mistakes post after post accidentally jthom.

The fact that you and pterdine won’t accept my challenge to battle me in a member debate is testament to the weakness of your story.

[edit on 12/8/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Considering reliability, when none of the CIT witnesses show the exact same flightpath, does that make them unreliable? When one of them says the plane hit the Pentagon, does that make him unreliable? When Penny Elgas describes the strange clouds around the fuselage as it penetrated, does that make her unreliable?
When you get to arbitrarily define what witnesses are acceptable and what witnesses are to be ignored, are you not determining the outcome through bias? If I define reliability and invoke preponderance of evidence what would the outcome be?
What is this debate you are referring to? Isn't this the debate? We already know your position and you know ours. Why would anyone waste the time to restate them on another forum? Such a debate will not change any minds but will likely only further entrench and polarize those with opposing views.

[edit on 12/8/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

The files are an 8mb download but the map is reproduced here: 911research.wtc7.net...

One victim was found on the floor above.


Thank you for supplying that. Now here is my question, and it is just a question so relax. I know it was mentioned and I am pretty sure that I have seen it too but there were two different accounts of where remains were supposedly found. I cannot find it right now so I will not swear on it or claim to know where it came from but that is my question. Anyone know where this conflicting account came from?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Well, if there is a definitive statement saying. "Remains were found here...and here..and nowhere else" I have not seen it. In the carnage, I doubt that anyone could make such a statement.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Interesting account with info from an American Airlines attendant not scheduled on 9/11 but who later visited the Pentagon site.

Note the point of wings and fuel storage, another damaged car on the highway story, etc.



www.ratical.org...

… she had been to the crash site and had seen parts of the plane. I asked her about the speculation that the plane would have made a larger hole due to the wingspan. She informed me that the fuel was stored in the wings and that they would have exploded and broken off, as the fuselage slammed through the building walls.

I have spoken to dozens of other witnesses to the event, and to others who know the reports. Wayne Madsen, a respected local journalist, spoke to a camera person at WJLA-TV 7 who had been driving to the Pentagon on instructions from his office, expecting a public statement from authorities there in response to the events in New York City. Shortly after the crash he saw a woman standing by the road at the edge of the Pentagon, next to her car, and apparently in shock. He stopped to help her and found she could not speak. But she pointed him to the far side of her car. The passenger side had been sheared off in part and sections of the landing gear from the plane were on the ground nearby.

[…]

[September 22nd, she was approached along with other attendants to visit the crash site.]

Once inside the fence, she was unable to clearly discern where the original wall had been. There was just a gaping hole. She got off the van and walked inside the crash site. The other attendants broke down crying once they were inside. But my friend went in further than the others and kept her emotions in check as she has been trained to do and usually does in emergency situations.

She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757 plane. She identified the charred wreckage in several ways. She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell, an unpainted silver color that is unique to American Airline planes, and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them for years.

Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes, though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white.

She saw other parts of the plane and engine parts at a distance but they were familiar to her. She did not see any galley supplies, which she would have recognized as well, nor any jump seats. All the parts were charred but colors were still visible. She also saw charred human bones but not any flesh or full body parts.

One area of fuselage had remaining window sections and the shape of the windows, curved squares not ovals, was also distinct to the 757's she had flown. She also saw parts with the A/A logo, including parts of the tail of the plane.




[edit on 8-12-2009 by mmiichael]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 


Considering reliability, when none of the CIT witnesses show the exact same flightpath, does that make them unreliable?
Eyewitness testimonies always have slight variances. If they had all drawn the exact same flight path then I would be suspicious.

Here’s an example

All things being equal, 5 witnesses claim they witnessed a hit and run on a bridge from afar.

Before the witnesses saw their hit and run they had seen many stories on the news about a crazed trucker killing people by running them over.

Later they also hear a news story covering the hit and run they witnessed and the news reporter states that it may be connected to the crazed trucker serial killer and the person who was hit is possibly dead.

When they are finally called in for questioning an interrogator asks them “what color was the truck?”

Ike says the car was dark green
Jason says the car was dark brown.
Karen says the car was dark blue.
Lori says the car was black.
Mike says the car was white.

All the witnesses describe a truck.

All of the witnesses describe the man being mortally wounded.

Witnesses Ike, Jason, Karen, and Lori claim that the car hit a person and the body flew over the windshield.

Witness Mike claims the car ran the person over and the body went under the car.

There is a suspect detained.

Witness Mike is “coincidentally” friends with the suspect.

Witness Mike is an unreliable witness because of a conflict of interest and because his recollection of the event is not corroborated by the other witnesses.

All the other witnesses were and are reliable even though they all describe a slightly different color for the car.

Now if it turns out the car was really a jeep and not a truck, it does not mean the witnesses were unreliable, because you need to take into account the leading question the interrogator gave them.

Now if it turns out that the man who was hit was completely unharmed; simply because the witnesses assumed he was mortally wounded does not make them unreliable. Their belief that he was dead or near dead was merely the result of respondent conditioning.



When one of them says the plane hit the Pentagon, does that make him unreliable?
Not at all. Whether or not they think they saw a plane hit the pentagon is of no consequence. What is important is they all claim a plane came in north of the citgo and did not knock down any light poles. That proves that a plane did not hit the building regardless of the respondent conditioning they had been subjected to.

They all describe the same event; they just falsely assume the plane crashed. The same way the people in the car analogy falsely assume/describe the man being fatally wounded.


When Penny Elgas describes the strange clouds around the fuselage as it penetrated, does that make her unreliable?
No, her being employed by the government and having relations with the Bush administration means she has a conflict of interest. Her testimony also describes a scenario which has been proven irreconcilable by all of the other reliable eyewitnesses. That is why she is an unreliable witness.

other witnesses i have presented in this thread


When you get to arbitrarily define what witnesses are acceptable and what witnesses are to be ignored, are you not determining the outcome through bias?

Dismissing witnesses because they have a conflict of interest and because their stories are irreconcilable with all of the other reliable eyewitnesses, is not arbitrary.


If I define reliability and invoke preponderance of evidence what would the outcome be?
I don’t entertain hypothetical situations when we have plenty of facts to work with.


What is this debate you are referring to?

Ha, well it wouldn’t be a “debate”, considering you have nothing to back up your argument and you would lose miserably.

But the “debate” I’m referring to would be

“Lloyde England’s cab impaled by a light-pole as a result of AA77.”

You would obviously be arguing the pro position, since you claim to believe it happened.
And I would be arguing the con position since I know it didn’t happened.


Isn't this the debate?

No, this is not a debate. This is you trolling. You consistently ask the same irrelevant questions, pretend to not understand simple concepts, ask loaded questions, appeal to motives, appeal to ridicule, and shift goalposts; amongst many other illogical tactics normally employed by trolls.


We already know your position and you know ours. Why would anyone waste the time to restate them on another forum?
Because moderators would be judging us in the “member debate forum” and you wouldn’t be able to troll as you are right now.


Such a debate will not change any minds but will likely only further entrench and polarize those with opposing views.
Oh really? Accept my challenge then; because I’m pretty sure that if I proved your argument is fallacious with moderators judging the debate, those who support the OS would think twice.

[edit on 12/8/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Lost? No. This is the collection of statements that have already been presented and then scrutinized to no satisfaction. Far too many of them contradict each other. This has been covered. How do you suppose we handle that? Do conflicting statements cancel each other out or add up to make some magical new story to you?


Seems you now agree that these statements have been seen extensively even by yourself previously just as I stated earlier before posting a link to them as requested. Just as I predicted, it was pointless to go to the trouble just to have it all hand-waved away. And yet, I'm accused of a host of things like bluffing, evading and even being an old banned member returning under a pseudonym to cause trouble, none of which is true.

Conflicting statements?

I'd say there's a degree of variance and that's to be expected (for most, they had an observation time far less than 10 seconds) . In fact, it would be more suspicious if there wasn't some variance in their observations and I'll concede that some of them really didn't see as much as they claim they did due to location, terrain and other factors.

Key thing is the overwhelming general concensus that they observed a passenger jet at low altitude and high speed impact the Pentagon's west side. Not a single observation of a jet clearing the building unless you can point out those flyover witnesses for me.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
There is no evidence that AA77 flew over and away from the Pentagon and I’ve never claimed that it did, so why would I bother providing evidence for something I have not claimed?


Thanks for admitting it.

Now we'll wait for Craig Ranke to disown you for contradicting him. Thanks for slapping him in the face, JPhish.

So after all these posts, the conclusion is clear. AA77 still hit the Pentagon and Franco is still dead.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by JPhish
There is no evidence that AA77 flew over and away from the Pentagon and I’ve never claimed that it did, so why would I bother providing evidence for something I have not claimed?


Thanks for admitting it.

Now we'll wait for Craig Ranke to disown you for contradicting him. Thanks for slapping him in the face, JPhish.

So after all these posts, the conclusion is clear. AA77 still hit the Pentagon and Franco is still dead.
Admitting what?!
Are you really that slow? You can't be, you must be trolling.

There is no evidence that AA77 flew over and away from the Pentagon and I’ve never claimed that it did, so why would I bother providing evidence for something I have not claimed?

emphasis on AA77

sheesh, no wonder you and pterdine refuse to battle me in the member debate section; it's pretty clear to me at this point that you would be absolutely annihilated.

[edit on 12/8/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by JPhish
There is no evidence that AA77 flew over and away from the Pentagon and I’ve never claimed that it did, so why would I bother providing evidence for something I have not claimed?


Thanks for admitting it.

Now we'll wait for Craig Ranke to disown you for contradicting him. Thanks for slapping him in the face, JPhish.

So after all these posts, the conclusion is clear. AA77 still hit the Pentagon and Franco is still dead.
Admitting what?!


That AA77 did not fly over the Pentagon. It's right there - you wrote it.

Duh.

Now, Craig Ranke is going to very, very upset with you, JPhish, now that you admit AA77 hit the Pentagon - and no "jet flew over and away from the Pentagon" - something you have known all along.





[edit on 8-12-2009 by jthomas]



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 113  114  115    117  118  119 >>

log in

join