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: 127
215
<< 124  125  126    128  129  130 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
Answer the question.

I've already answered it a few times, but in case you missed it I'll provide you the same answer again.


Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

Nope, I'm saying that eyewitness testimony gathered some 7 years after an event by a bunch of amateur investigators with no credentials is notoriously unreliable.

If you keep asking me the same question over and over you'll get the same response... over and over.




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
If you keep asking me the same question over and over you'll get the same response... over and over.


Isn't there a definition of insanity - constantly repeating the same action and expecting a different result the next time.

Like someone saying over and over "where's proof the light pole broke the windshield?" Being given an answer they don't like, and asking it again.

This thread is less a discussion and more a trip into surrealism.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
At this point in the thread it's worth nothing that mmiichael has not proven his following claims:

1 - the light pole hit the taxi.
2 - thousands of people saw the plane depart.
3 - hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon, knocking down light poles.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
At this point in the thread it's worth nothing that mmiichael has not proven his following claims:

1 - the light pole hit the taxi.
2 - thousands of people saw the plane depart.
3 - hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon, knocking down light poles.



At this point in the thread it's worth noting the response I have made are routinely ignored in favour of repititous inanities.

What about the messages I posted on CIT and their tracked fraudulent activities. Zip. Nada. It does not compute.

Instead we get increasingly inflated claims like I said "hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon, knocking down light poles"

The actual fact being I said hundreds of people saw the plane coming in over Washington, and that the light poles being knocked down was also observed - not necessarily by all.

Instead of reposting dozens of pages of eyewitness testimonies and other validated information I summarized points but offered links to sources where there are people and organizations who can provide specifics.

Notably so-called Truth seekers display no interest in knowing what happened on 9/11. Instead they think if they can somehow disprove something someone online has said it's some sort of accomplishment.
Some other deluded person will give them a star and when they reach a million they can buy a bicycle.

So keep denying away you lonesome souls. Believe what fantasies you want. Accept anything any group of clowns present you with that conforms to your fantasies.

The rest of us can use a laugh watching honestly, logic and reason getting beaten and mauled.


[edit on 15-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Instead we get increasingly inflated claims like I said "hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon, knocking down light poles"

The actual fact being I said hundreds of people saw the plane coming in over Washington, and that the light poles being knocked down was also observed - not necessarily by all.



Casual readers, this is what mmiichael stated earlier in the thread:

Originally posted by mmiichael
There are hundreds if not thousands of ordinary people who witnessed Flight 77 flying extremely low and knocking down light poles in it's path.


mmiichael has a history of not remembering what he has typed within the thread.

He clearly stated that hundreds of people saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles. Any other twist that mmiichael puts on this is pointless. Unless he wishes to retract his statement?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezzajw

You have been going on for pages that the lightpole hitting Lloyde's cab has not been proved.

I really think it is incumbent upon you to define the standard of proof you are requiring. As you know, the civil standard of proof is that a matter is proved on a balance of probabilities. Certainly Lloyde satisfies that. Then there is criminal; beyond a reasonable doubt. If I was on a jury I would be satisfied, considering all the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt.

You seem to be seeking some mythical proof that doesn't exist in the real world. Can you define it ?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
the civil standard of proof is that a matter is proved on a balance of probabilities. Certainly Lloyde satisfies that. Then there is criminal; beyond a reasonable doubt. If I was on a jury I would be satisfied, considering all the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt.


In Conspiracy Land the rules are different. If there are no videos of something happening, or a thousand eyewitnesses with fully consistent statements - you then set your requirement for proof to be clear videos and a thousand consistent statements.

Note how DNA identification for 55 passengers is not accepted as proof there were passenger remains in the Pentagon destruction.

One must also prove it wasn't planted by the FBI, that DNA labs didn't falsify results, etc.

We are required by the rules of the forum not to characterize the type of people who believe these things.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
As you know, the civil standard of proof is that a matter is proved on a balance of probabilities. Certainly Lloyde satisfies that.

I can't believe that you think an unreliable witness, who has contradicted himself, can be used to prove anything.

This isn't a matter of probability. Either you can prove that the light pole hit the taxi or you can't. Do or do not, there is no try.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I can't believe that you think an unreliable witness, who has contradicted himself, can be used to prove anything.

This isn't a matter of probability. Either you can prove that the light pole hit the taxi or you can't. Do or do not, there is no try.


Too bad the Truther video market has bottomed out. Loose Change and others once had brisk sales at $19.95 a crack. CIT sells theirs for $5 - and who knows if there are buyers.

Still the guest speaker and low level media appearance must be good for the odd cheap hotel perk.

Wonder if it would be worth it to round up a couple 'ladies of the night' who would say on tape they were coming home from work and saw the 'flyover' or govt spooks smashing the windshield?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


How did any of that post help you to prove that the light pole hit the taxi?

How did any of that post help you to prove that thousands of people saw the plane depart?

How did any of that post help you to prove that hundreds of people saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking over light poles?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
reply to post by mmiichael
 


How did any of that post help you to prove that the light pole hit the taxi?

How did any of that post help you to prove that thousands of people saw the plane depart?

How did any of that post help you to prove that hundreds of people saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking over light poles?


It helped show the inability of some people to read or think. Though they have been responded to they will ask the same question over and over again.

The focus of this thread long ago moved to the tactics people will use to deny information.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Alfie1
As you know, the civil standard of proof is that a matter is proved on a balance of probabilities. Certainly Lloyde satisfies that.

I can't believe that you think an unreliable witness, who has contradicted himself, can be used to prove anything.

This isn't a matter of probability. Either you can prove that the light pole hit the taxi or you can't. Do or do not, there is no try.


Of course it is a matter of probabilities. How else would any legal system work ?

You still have not defined what would constitute proof for you.

Am I right in thinking you also throw out Sgt Lagasse on the basis of contradicting himself ?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Am I right in thinking you also throw out Sgt Lagasse on the basis of contradicting himself ?

It's pointless trying to make assumptions about what people might be thinking, Alfie1. In one of your earlier posts to me, you made a false assumption about me needing to provide flyover witnesses. I had to call you out on it and you failed to quote me where I ever stated that there was a flyover.

I don't see how Lagasse can be used to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, so what point are you trying to make?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Alfie1
Am I right in thinking you also throw out Sgt Lagasse on the basis of contradicting himself ?

It's pointless trying to make assumptions about what people might be thinking, Alfie1. In one of your earlier posts to me, you made a false assumption about me needing to provide flyover witnesses. I had to call you out on it and you failed to quote me where I ever stated that there was a flyover.

I don't see how Lagasse can be used to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, so what point are you trying to make?


tezzajw

I wasn't saying anything about a flyover or your support or not for it.

I was just asking if you apply the same criteria to Sgt Lagasse as you do to Lloyde England and reject both those Pentagon witnesses as unreliable ?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I wasn't saying anything about a flyover or your support or not for it.

Then why did you pose this to me, as your first post in this thread?

Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps, in return, you would give us a couple of independent verifiable interviews with witnesses who saw the plane approach the Pentagon and then fly over it.

Clearly, you are interested in my support (or not) of a fly over. I don't know why you want to retract your interest, by claiming that you were not 'saying anything about a flyover' when you have already asked me to provide witnesses for one. Make up your mind, Alfie1. You're either interested or not, you can't claim both.




Originally posted by Alfie1
I was just asking if you apply the same criteria to Sgt Lagasse as you do to Lloyde England and reject both those Pentagon witnesses as unreliable ?

I don't see how Lagasse can support the light pole hitting the taxi. I'm not sure why you're trying to persist with this. To my knowledge, Lagasse never claimed to have seen the light pole hit Lloyde's taxi.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by discombobulator
If you keep asking me the same question over and over you'll get the same response... over and over.


Isn't there a definition of insanity


LOL, yes. Amazingly enough there is a definition for an English word. You are a good guesser.

- constantly repeating the same action and expecting a different result the next time.


Ohhh and then you fall right off the tracks. Sorry but that is not the definition of insanity. I see the problem now. You have gotten your education from television sitcoms and commercials. I think I understand a little better now just why you are the way you are.


Like someone saying over and over "where's proof the light pole broke the windshield?" Being given an answer they don't like, and asking it again.

This thread is less a discussion and more a trip into surrealism.


Cute but it is not the definition of insanity. What other words are you having a hard time with because you learned them watching bad tv? I would be happy to help. Maybe if we all get speaking the same language we would realize that we have a lot more in common.

Just trying to help keep you up to speed here. Not the definition of insanity.

There is a good reason people need to ask the same question more than once around here. It seems that fans of the OS have a really hard time with simple yes or no questions. They pick one and then go on to explain how it is not really that though. In the last two days I have had two responses to yes or no questions that started "Yes but no...." So maybe if people stopped playing games and just learned to answer, you would not see the same question over and over and over again.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JPhish
 


I'm late to this party, so I'm catching up...

No problem.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Was he anywhere near the intersection of Route 27 and Route 244, where they meet near the pentagon?
at some point I’m sure he was.


By they I was referring to the objects known as Route 27 and Route 244. Indefinite article, not pronoun.
My mistake.


I asked because I've seen 'a' photo of the damaged cab, not sure when it was taken. I assumed that the cab had not been moved, at the time the photo was snapped.
Well the light pole was certainly moved; it stands to reason that the car may have been moved as well.


Meaning, I infer that the cab was driving along, sustained damage, and skidded to a stop. Is that a fair assessment?
Not really . . . What evidence are you using to deduce that the car sustained damage while in motion?


Hence....

“Did he drive his car away from the scene where it sustained damage?

No I don’t believe so. Lloyde claims that when the FBI arrived on the scene the car would not start.


Was it towed later?”
According to Lloyde and his wife, the car was towed and then confiscated as evidence by the FBI for two days.


Hope that answers your 'relevancy?' query.
It did somewhat, much appreciated.


I think you mentioned that Lloyd mentioned something about being "North" of the Citgo gas station (since renamed, you are aware?).
Yes I’m aware; we’re using its former name for users who may be unfamiliar with the situation, so that it can easily be recognized as the same gas station featured in the videos presented in the thread


I live here, so I am quite familiar with the roadways, and the orientation of the terrain.

So you live in Washington AND you’re a pilot. This should be your forte.


Is everyone aware that Route 244 (Columbia Pike) loops around, North of the former Citgo gas station, (becoming S. Columbia Pike) before entering the exchange where it meets Route 27? That interchange is a three-leaf 'cloverleaf'...that is where the poles were (are).
Based on the satellite images I have, the clover is not north of the gas station, it is adjacent to it. According to my satellite photos it’s a “four leaf clover”, not a three.


ISurely it is plausible that Lloyd was driving, might have been North of Citgo at one time...then encountered the lightpole???

He must have been north of the citgo at one point since he was traveling south. That’s not the problem.

The problem is him claiming that he was much farther North of where he needs to be if the event took place as described.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Alfie1
the civil standard of proof is that a matter is proved on a balance of probabilities. Certainly Lloyde satisfies that. Then there is criminal; beyond a reasonable doubt. If I was on a jury I would be satisfied, considering all the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt.


In Conspiracy Land the rules are different. If there are no videos of something happening, or a thousand eyewitnesses with fully consistent statements - you then set your requirement for proof to be clear videos and a thousand consistent statements.


So what kind of rules allow you to make a claim and then claim you did not make that claim when asked to back it up? Apparently in OS land, you can just say anything you want and if proof is needed, you can just say you never said it. Nice.


Note how DNA identification for 55 passengers is not accepted as proof there were passenger remains in the Pentagon destruction.

One must also prove it wasn't planted by the FBI, that DNA labs didn't falsify results, etc.


Let me volunteer. Explain to me how to prove to you that something did NOT happen and I will be happy to get right on it for you. It would be nice if someone could just prove the OS but instead, since you cannot, you want proof it did not happen. OK. Just let me know how.


We are required by the rules of the forum not to characterize the type of people who believe these things.



And yet you do. You called them insane just a few posts up.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezzajw

You know that I assumed your support for the flyover initially but that I subsequently accepted your statement that you hadn't expressed support for it.

I am not asking you anything about a flyover and I never suggested that Lagasse could see Lloyde's cab get hit.

What I am trying to find out, and you are twisting and turning every which way to avoid addressing it, is whether you are being fair and unbiased in the way you regard Pentagon witnesses. Lagasse and England were both interviewed by CIT years after the event. They both couldn't remember where they were on 9/11. You keep saying England is unreliable on account of that but haven't, so far as I am aware, said the same about Lagasse.

It is relevant to the question you keep asking about proof in relation to Lloyde's story because some readers may think you are being biased in respect of him and unlikely to accept any level of proof. ( which you have still failed to define btw )



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I know you love your little logic nuggets Jphish, but can you explain to me why asking for proof that the Pentagon scene was tampered with is "demanding negative proof"?
When did you ask for proof that the Pentagon scene was tampered with?

You asked me to supply you with an alternative theory.

You falsely assume that an alternative theory would require the tampering of evidence . .

Regardless . . .

An alternative theory is not necessary to disprove a current one.

If there was a theory that cancer was caused by star gazing.

You would not need an alternative theory for what causes cancer to prove that it is not caused by star gazing.

All that you would need to do is prove that it is not caused by star gazing. No alternative theory is necessary.

You are the one claiming something happened. I am demanding you provide evidence for YOUR claim.

If I claimed to have a magically invisible dragon that drinks cool-aid and sleeps on my couch; the burden of proof would be on me to prove its existence.

You’re claiming that a 757 hit a light pole which subsequently impaled a taxi cab. I’m asking for proof.


You're claiming that shadowy forces faked an aeroplane's descent towards the Pentagon.
I’m not claiming that at all. Have you even read that thread???


According to you it actually happened, so it shouldn't be too hard to provide evidence for it.
According to me what happened???



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 124  125  126    128  129  130 >>

log in

join