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: 122
215
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 



Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
I'm glad that you qualified your statement with seems, because from what I have heard from both CIT and PFT, the fireball would have made it nearly if not impossible to see the plane continue initially. After that, all eyes that saw the explosion would probably be remain glued to it.


Perhaps you missed the sequence of events as he described it:


Disc, you were talking about -all- of the witnesses to the event.




posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Originally posted by Lillydale
Between K and myself it was repeated, quoted, and linked to more than once.


I brought it up as well.


Originally posted by Lillydale
You obviously have a little thing for MM because you are just plane making this part up.


What do you believe I'm making up?


Originally posted by Lillydale
You already took something of truly little import to the thread and stretched it out well past necessity.


I'm only following your lead Lilly. You can end this any time you wish.


Originally posted by Lillydale
Not only was it reiterated exactly where, when, and how MM lied


Again, I have never seen any evidence that Michael has been deliberately deceptive.


Originally posted by Lillydale
but I believe it was even repeated how many times you had to tell him he was wrong.


Lilly, there are 2 things here, which you and KJ frequently confuse; there is being wrong. There is being deliberately deceptive. They're not the same thing.


Originally posted by Lillydale
You go on to admit that many people, including you, feel he tried to mislead.


I have -never- said that he has tried to mislead. I said that he got things distorted, made assumptions and otherwise got things wrong.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 



Originally posted by discombobulator
reply to post by scott3x
 

I think I'll follow the lead of the other truther in the room and stop giving you the attention you're obviously lacking.

You have displayed an Ultima1-like quality of mild retardation and I have better things to do with my time.


If you want to ignore me, fine. But I've grown tired of your insults, and this time I reported your "mild retardation" insult.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Originally posted by Lillydale
Between K and myself it was repeated, quoted, and linked to more than once.


I brought it up as well.


Originally posted by Lillydale
You obviously have a little thing for MM because you are just plane making this part up.


What do you believe I'm making up?


Let me help you out here.


originally posted by scott3x
I accused you of claiming that Michael has been deliberately deceptive without providing evidence that this is the case.


You said that she presented no evidence and then when she points out that we both gave you the evidence, you say that you brought it up to. I really hate having to agree with Discombobulator but...



I'm only following your lead Lilly. You can end this any time you wish.


Trust me, you are all done there. Maybe you can get back to 9/11. At least then you made sense.



Again, I have never seen any evidence that Michael has been deliberately deceptive.


Yes you have. You just refuse to acknowledge it as such. Unfortunately, I can read out actual exchange and he misrepresented me and then I told him quite clearly it was wrong about about a dozen pages later he has responded a handful of times with anything and everything EXCEPT "I was mistaken." If he was not trying to be deceptive, then why was he trying so hard at it?


Lilly, there are 2 things here, which you and KJ frequently confuse; there is being wrong. There is being deliberately deceptive. They're not the same thing.


Actually you are mistaken about what is fact and what is your opinion. This is a matter of opinion all the way around and yours really does not matter. You are doing a good job of getting ignored though. Good way to get the truth about 9/11 out there, eh?


I have -never- said that he has tried to mislead. I said that he got things distorted, made assumptions and otherwise got things wrong.


LOL. So the difference is that you never said that he "tried." You say it right there, he got things wrong (misleading) and he got things distorted (misleading) and he made incorrect assumptions (misleading.) He mislead and has been misleading. Your contention is that he did not try to. Glad to see that although you do not care that he has been repeatedly misleading in regard to MANY quotes from other members, you at least applaud the fact that it took him little to no effort.

Don't forget,

Yes, many people on the truther side agree that he has misrepresented and distorted the viewpoints of many; I'm one of them.


Yes people agree that he misrepresented and distorted the viewpoints of many! How is that not misleading? Oh right, he did not try.

You sure do make friends like Ultima1



[edit on 11-12-2009 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JPhish

Was Lloyde England's cab impaled by a light-pole?



Answer in the form of:

"Yes/No, because (enter explanation here)"

Yes, because no credible evidence has been provided to support an alternative sequence of events that refutes Lloyde's testimony that his cab was impaled by a light pole. I would also suggest that the damage to his cab being consistent with his recollection of how it entered through his windshield also supports his case, along with the various photographs placing the cab, the light pole and Lloyde England himself alongside the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11.


So Lloyde’s testimony is the reason why you believe his cab was impaled by a light pole. You also believe the psychical evidence corroborates his story.

Do all of the other OS believers in the thread share the same position?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
So Lloyde’s testimony is the reason why you believe his cab was impaled by a light pole. You also believe the psychical evidence corroborates his story.

That's more or less correct, however you left out the part that there is also zero credible evidence, physical or otherwise, that supports an alternative sequence of events. That's fairly compelling in itself.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by discombobulator]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

That's more or less correct, however you left out the part that there is also zero credible evidence, physical or otherwise, that supports an alternative sequence of events. That's fairly compelling in itself.



and that is exactly how our legal system works! I cannot tell you how many people I have sent to jail. I accuse them of something outrageous and then explain how they did it with magic or pixie dust and when the defense does not have a competing theory to my magic ones...voila! Guilty!



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by discombobulator

That's more or less correct, however you left out the part that there is also zero credible evidence, physical or otherwise, that supports an alternative sequence of events. That's fairly compelling in itself.



and that is exactly how our legal system works! I cannot tell you how many people I have sent to jail. I accuse them of something outrageous and then explain how they did it with magic or pixie dust and when the defense does not have a competing theory to my magic ones...voila! Guilty!

You've pretty much described how the 9/11 truth bowel movement operates.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

You've pretty much described how the 9/11 truth bowel movement operates.


Huh? Did you read what I was replying to? That was you claiming this is why your OS is true. See it? Scroll up a bit. How can you tell me that your OS is true until there is a good competing theory and then tell me that is why the truth movement is crap? It is a good standard for the OS but a crap standard for the truth movement to want evidence and proof?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Quite clearly you two believe light poles had wings and attacked the Pentagon.

Quite clearly you have no idea what you're typing about, jthomas.


You've always shown me you are a 9/11 Denier. No mystery there.


You infer your own silly assumptions about people based on what you think they type, instead of what they actually type.


Quite the contrary.


You will not be able to quote me where I believe that 'light poles had wings and attacked the Pentagon'.


I didn't write that you "said" it, but that you "believe" it.


Why have you not been able to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, jthomas?


This thread is about AA77 being used to attack the Pentagon. Rational people are not obsessed with light poles hitting taxi cabs nor with light poles with wings hitting the Pentagon.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas


I already know you believe in "stories." But who cares?


I did not ask if you cared. It is your official story. You are the one that believes it.


I don't have any "official story" to believe, whatever that is supposed to mean. On the other hand, you have to make up "stories" so you don't have to deal with the evidence you cannot refute.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Yes - CIT
Amateur 'investigators' and just my take on it but I believe Lloyd was having some fun with them - after all that wasn't his first encounter with them and he obviously knew what they were on about. He didn't confess to any active involvement in or any knowledge of a conspiracy though.

What I ask is what physical evidence is there of anything other than the suggestion that a large plane hit the building as reported by the witnesses in a position to see it happen. Physical evidence like the damaged poles, damage to a tree, damaged vehicles, damaged building, plane parts in and around the building, CVR & FDR located and data extracted for analysis and so on IE tangible physical things to indicate where the plane was and what it did.

The CIT theory has to negate/discredit every bit of that physical stuff as well as witness testimony that goes against them in order to survive and that's exactly what I've been observing over the years - unsuccessful attempts at least. I don't see them as ever being any threat to the real truth of what happened.

Just my opinion as always



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay. I'll try to summarise for you, in as monosyllabic a fashion as possible.


-- You seem to think that I was suggesting that the latest theory about something must always be correct.



No. You told me I needed to have a theory in order to be taken seriously. I simply pointed out to you that having a theory only means you are a person who can imagine and nothing more. Having theories has no effect on the truth. Sorry this got so over your head.


Now who's interested in mere point scoring? I thought you had only the high-minded pursuit of truth as a goal?


I said that I was sorry for you, not happy for me.

[edit on 12/10/09 by Lillydale]



Woosh!

The sound of a plane passing over the Pentagon?

Nope. The sound of my post whizzing over your head.



Keep asking the questions. It's going to be a long haul.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




Yes, this is a totally new tactic. You spoke out of turn and said something that was actually kind of stupid. I showed you how stupid so instead of defend it or try to actually make whatever point you thought you were making, you pretend I missed your point. Whatever makes you feel better.

p.s. that means I got your point and it was wrong. I corrected it. You tried to simplify and alter it. It is still wrong. Thanks for playing. I am sorry that instead of make a solid point you have to resort to claiming you did instead of doing it.

[edit on 12/11/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




Yes, this is a totally new tactic. You spoke out of turn and said something that was actually kind of stupid. I showed you how stupid so instead of defend it or try to actually make whatever point you thought you were making, you pretend I missed your point. Whatever makes you feel better.

p.s. that means I got your point and it was wrong. I corrected it. You tried to simplify and alter it. It is still wrong. Thanks for playing. I am sorry that instead of make a solid point you have to resort to claiming you did instead of doing it.

[edit on 12/11/09 by Lillydale]



Says someone who hasn't even responded to the bulk of my post, either because they didn't understand it or because they realise that they've been a bit silly. Certainly you completely misunderstood what I wrote initially, so I wouldn't be that surprised if it's just continued - or perhaps terminal - confusion.

I've tried, patiently, to explain it to you. I've pointed out where you idiotic analogies fall down. And now you're sticking your fingers in your ears and screwing your eyes up real tight in the hope that it'll just go away.

Carry on with your approach. Just ask questions. And watch as the Truth Movement grows ever more marginalised.

Just as a matter of interest, how much further forward do you think the TM is since 2006? And why?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Says someone who hasn't even responded to the bulk of my post, either because they didn't understand it or because they realise that they've been a bit silly. Certainly you completely misunderstood what I wrote initially, so I wouldn't be that surprised if it's just continued - or perhaps terminal - confusion.




I did not reply to the bulk of your post because it is a pointless exercise. You told me that I need to have a competing theory and not just questions or else magically the theory you have is true. I gave an example of a time when the only competing theories were wrong and you did not like my example. I offered up another example (post-enlightenment) just for you and you ignored it in order to tell me I did not understand. Now what did I miss again?

You do not like me asking questions. I am still confused as to how you think investigations are supposed to go but other than that, I am all up to speed. If you do not like my examples, that is just too bad but it does not make your theory true still just because I am not offering one to compete.

You are obviously just hard up for some kind of argument based on nothing and that is fine. Go do that with someone else.

You said I needed a competing theory. I asked why. Your answer was stupid. What did I miss?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Says someone who hasn't even responded to the bulk of my post, either because they didn't understand it or because they realise that they've been a bit silly. Certainly you completely misunderstood what I wrote initially, so I wouldn't be that surprised if it's just continued - or perhaps terminal - confusion.




I did not reply to the bulk of your post because it is a pointless exercise. You told me that I need to have a competing theory and not just questions or else magically the theory you have is true.


AAAAAAAAAAAARGH! Are you really this dense? I've just spent several posts correcting this misapprehension. And you KEEP REPEATING IT.





I gave an example of a time when the only competing theories were wrong and you did not like my example. I offered up another example (post-enlightenment) just for you and you ignored it in order to tell me I did not understand. Now what did I miss again?



The entire point?

One more time, I will explain it.

The reason that you are encouraged to offer an alternative theory as to what happened is because picking holes in the existing one is only half the battle. At some point you must offer a viable alternative. If you don't then your remarks, while potentially useful, are ultimately just chipping away at the edifice of the existing model. You might be able to alter it, but you'll find yourself completely unable to dismantle it. Remember the analogy of the policeman that you brought up? Without the competing theory you're never getting near court.

Deep down of course you know this, and there are powerful reasons for you to keep doing it. You're much more comfortable banging on about discrepancies in witness statements than producing your own model because it's so much easier and removes any onus from yourself to do anything except believe in some enormous, unfocused conspiracy. That belief must be maintained at all costs, so of course you don't want an alternative theory that might get tested and critiqued.

Dip into any of the longer threads and you will find Truthers tying themselves in knots (most recently over the FDR decode) trying desperately to justify things that don't even fit with other pieces of "evidence" that they themselves were shouting about moment earlier. When this is pointed out, they are, of course, Just Asking Questions.



If you do not like my examples, that is just too bad but it does not make your theory true still just because I am not offering one to compete.


Yes. You're absolutely correct. But my theory is going to become generally accepted. Indeed it is generally accepted. Yours is... oh. You haven't got one.



You said I needed a competing theory. I asked why. Your answer was stupid. What did I miss?


Whoosh.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


Yes. You're absolutely correct. But my theory is going to become generally accepted. Indeed it is generally accepted. Yours is... oh. You haven't got one.



You said I needed a competing theory. I asked why. Your answer was stupid. What did I miss?


Whoosh.



Ah, now I get it. Because I am not offering a competing theory, yours will eventually be true and that is exactly why they stopped investigating cancer once they figured out that it was a virus right?

Blather on all day long. You want a competing theory and you claim yours either is or will be true unless I have one. That is wrong. Sorry.

p.s. what exactly is "generally accepted" to you. According to many polls, half the country does not believe in your theory so how exactly do you decide what is generally accepted and what...you know what, never mind. You have not said anything useful yet and I doubt it will start now.

p.p.s. and thank you for backing up my point. the generally accepted theory once was that the world was flat. That was a theory whether you want to call it one or not. Apparently you need to grab a dictionary. According to your logic, since it was the generally accepted theory, it was true?

[edit on 12/11/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JPhish
So Lloyde’s testimony is the reason why you believe his cab was impaled by a light pole. You also believe the psychical evidence corroborates his story.

That's more or less correct, however you left out the part that there is also zero credible evidence, physical or otherwise, that supports an alternative sequence of events. That's fairly compelling in itself.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by discombobulator]


Yes, I would agree with that. I would just add another element, we are of course all viewing these events in hindsight but, if the scene at the Pentagon was faked it had to be planned beforehand. I find it ludicrous beyond ludicrous that any evil planners could have envisaged, beforehand, that faking Lloyde's cab, faking the lightpoles, faking the impact, faking the plane debris, planting the body parts, faking the peripheral damage i.e generator trailer, wall, fencing, cable reels, tree, covering up the flyover, could have been accomplished in seconds without a single person seeing anything.

This tired thread is really just regurgitating old debunked stuff from years ago. The really interesting fresh stuff is in the new FDR decode thread. Final radio altitude 4' ( plus or minus 1' ) accompanied by off the scale deceleration. How does that gell with the flyover rubbish ?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
This tired thread is really just regurgitating old debunked stuff from years ago.



Good points all. We're already getting into Truther nostalgia rehearing all the same wonky theories that disproven half a decade ago.

So we enter 2010 with people still not being able to accept a hijacked passenger plane crashed into the Pentagon. Even though one of the key 9/11 Muslim extremist co-ordinators confessed years ago and is going on trial right in New York City. But why let actual facts interfere with your fantasies.

It's like in the early 50s when they found Japanese soldiers holed up on tiny islands in the Pacific who wouldn't believe that WWII was over and Japan had lost.



[edit on 11-12-2009 by mmiichael]



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join