Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 136
213
<< 133  134  135    137  138  139 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
A routine passenger flight left a busy airport one morning

One of your claims, earlier in this thread, was that thousands of people saw the plane depart.

I asked you to supply the list of names for those thousands of people. You never responded with one single name to support your statement.

You also claimed that hundreds of people saw Flight 77 flying low in the sky and knocking down light poles. I have not seen you supply the list of hundreds of names.

Show me the hundreds of witnesses who were able to identify the plane in the sky as the alleged Flight AA77, N644AA.

These are your claims, mmiichael. When will you prove them, retract them or alter them to suit what you are able to prove?




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

I can use classical conditioning to make someone believe or do something in less than 10 seconds. It does not require days, months or years . . . Only seconds are necessary.


Some sort of Jedi mind trick?

An extravagant claim but don't worry - I won't need you to prove your talents unless you actually 'worked' on the witnesses in question.


The vast majority of the witnesses presented do not even claim that they saw the plane go into the building. I’m pretty sure that Mike Walter is the only one who distinctly makes that claim. Also . . . Most of their accounts have VERY significant discrepancies.


There's also Frank Probst, Stephen McGraw , Penny Elgas who were specific about witnessing an impact. As for 'conditioning' via media, Stephen McGraw did also state that he wasn't aware of the 9/11 events at all prior to the Pentagon attack (no radio switched on in the car or prior TV watching).

I have no issue with the variability of witness statements as it's to be expected and, in fact, statements that are 100% aligned to each other in every respect do more to arouse suspicions of 'coaching'.

However, let's just suppose for a moment that you're correct about the 'conditioning'. Did CIT have some magic antidote to remove the 'conditioning' or, in line with your assertions, are their interviews just as suspect as the original ones, possibly even more so considering the elapsed time?
Or did the 'conditoning' wear off after a specific time just in the case of supposed NOC witnesses?

If you manage to throw out all witness testimony, what are you left with apart from physical evidence which pretty much trashes the whole 'flyover' and/or NOC theory?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There's also ... Stephen McGraw ... who were specific about witnessing an impact.

As for 'conditioning' via media, Stephen McGraw did also state that he wasn't aware of the 9/11 events at all prior to the Pentagon attack (no radio switched on in the car or prior TV watching).


Is this the same Stephen McGraw who had a 'revived memory' where he thought that the plane bounced before it struck and that he only recalled this after hearing other witness testimony?

Could he have been conditioned by the chatter of other witnesses? He has admitted that his memory was revived 'after the fact'.

McGraw's testimony is certainly interesting to listen to.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by mmiichael
A routine passenger flight left a busy airport one morning

One of your claims, earlier in this thread, was that thousands of people saw the plane depart.

I asked you to supply the list of names for those thousands of people. You never responded with one single name to support your statement.

You also claimed that hundreds of people saw Flight 77 flying low in the sky and knocking down light poles. I have not seen you supply the list of hundreds of names.

Show me the hundreds of witnesses who were able to identify the plane in the sky as the alleged Flight AA77, N644AA.

These are your claims, mmiichael. When will you prove them, retract them or alter them to suit what you are able to prove?



Will you please explain why anything I have said, a choice of words, whatever - is relevant to the subject at hand "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

It is fully documented and corroborated on multiple levels including the actual Flight Data Recorder data that Flight A77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 AM Sept 11, 2001.

We've seen some confusion in responses from a handful of witnesses years later but absolutely nothing to refute the existence of tons of plane debris, passenger remains, etc - all of which have precluded any conclusion other than Flight A77 crashing into the Pentagon.

I fail to see the how the words chosen by me or any other uninvolved party affects the hard evidence and data gathered.

Where is the "Alarming Information"? Does it exist? Is this just part of the con being perpetrated by the same self-stlyed "Investigators" who have tried to create doubt but not offered anything resembling evidence for the strange "flyover" notions?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
tezzajw

You have accused me of cherrypicking in relation to Sean Boger but I don't accept that as an accurate description.

I think cherrypicking is what CIT is notorious for. Take part of someone's testimony and ignore or suppress the rest.

I haven't tried to cover up that Sean has said two incompatible things but I have given my reasons for thinking he is much more likely to be right over the plane nearly killing him.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Will you please explain why anything I have said, a choice of words, whatever - is relevant to the subject at hand "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

Perhaps you may not be familiar with the concept of public forums, mmiichael.

By your own free will, you chose to participate in this thread. You have taken a negative view of the OP and you have made it clear that you don't agree with CIT's investigation.

You have used your claims to argue against the OP. However, when I have asked you to prove those claims, you have fallen short each and every single time.

Again, mmiichael, why would you state that thousands of people saw the plane depart if you are not prepared to provide the names? Why would you state that hundreds of people saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking over light poles if you are not prepared to provide the names?

The words and claims that you use to refute the OP are as much a part of this thread as the OP. You raised these issues but you cry foul when you have been challenged to prove them.

That shows a weakness in your judgment, if you think that you can arbitrarily make claims against the OP, without being prepared to support those claims.

This is from the ATS Terms and Conditions

By becoming a member of these domains, you agree to the following:
1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.


If you are not prepared to retract your claims that;
- thousands of people saw the plane depart
- hundreds of people saw Flight AA77 flying low and knocking over light poles;
then it is your duty to prove those claims.

Your failure to prove those claims could be construed as an attempt by you to knowingly spread false information.

All that you have to do, mmiichael, is supply the thread with the list of the thousands of names who saw the plane depart and the list of the hundreds of names who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles. Once you do that, your claims will be valid.

Until then, you are in a precarious position where you have made inflated claims that have yet to be substantiated. Those claims could possibly be in breach of the posting rules for ATS.

If you can't validate those claims, then admit your errors and retract them. From there, we can file your admitted mistakes and move on.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
tezzajw
You have accused me of cherrypicking in relation to Sean Boger but I don't accept that as an accurate description.

You've used a method of selection to determine the parts of Boger's statement that you claim to be true. By deciding that part of Boger's statement must be false, you're picking which part you want to believe.

Whether or not 'cherry picking' is the best turn of phrase doesn't bother me, as the end result is the same. Discounting part of the testimony that doesn't suit, is selective.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Alfie1
tezzajw
You have accused me of cherrypicking in relation to Sean Boger but I don't accept that as an accurate description.

You've used a method of selection to determine the parts of Boger's statement that you claim to be true. By deciding that part of Boger's statement must be false, you're picking which part you want to believe.

Whether or not 'cherry picking' is the best turn of phrase doesn't bother me, as the end result is the same. Discounting part of the testimony that doesn't suit, is selective.


tezzajw

How about sticking your neck out and telling us what you think is correct and/or mistaken from what Sean has said ? Plus your reasons.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by JPhish

I can use classical conditioning to make someone believe or do something in less than 10 seconds. It does not require days, months or years . . . Only seconds are necessary.


Some sort of Jedi mind trick?

It’s actually a form of NLP that employs respondent conditioning.


An extravagant claim but don't worry - I won't need you to prove your talents unless you actually 'worked' on the witnesses in question.
Not amazing at all. Anyone can do it. It is not particularly relevant so I won’t go into details, but if you are interested PM me.


There's also Frank Probst, Stephen McGraw , Penny Elgas who were specific about witnessing an impact. As for 'conditioning' via media, Stephen McGraw did also state that he wasn't aware of the 9/11 events at all prior to the Pentagon attack (no radio switched on in the car or prior TV watching). .
Please provide your references for these claims so I can properly scrutinize them.


I have no issue with the variability of witness statements as it's to be expected and, in fact, statements that are 100% aligned to each other in every respect do more to arouse suspicions of 'coaching'.
I said a similar thing in a previous post, I agree.


However, let's just suppose for a moment that you're correct about the 'conditioning'. Did CIT have some magic antidote to remove the 'conditioning' or, in line with your assertions, are their interviews just as suspect as the original ones, possibly even more so considering the elapsed time?
No . . . no one was conditioned to believe a particular flight path prior to the actual explosion, so no magic antidote was necessary.


Or did the 'conditoning' wear off after a specific time just in the case of supposed NOC witnesses?

There was no respondent conditioning concerning the flight path prior to the explosion. There’s nothing to wear off, because it never existed.


If you manage to throw out all witness testimony, what are you left with apart from physical evidence which pretty much trashes the whole 'flyover' and/or NOC theory?
Who’s throwing out eyewitness testimony???

[edit on 12/22/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 

So, now you have decided that it's a non-dabatable fact.


No, I haven’t decided that respondent conditioning occurring on 9-11 is a non debatable fact. It IS a non debatable fact.


That is what we call a "bare assertion." Give yourself another logical fallacy point or show how it is a non-debatable fact. Try not to use other logical fallacies to support it. Please state your testable theory of the 911 attack on the Pentagon or take another fallacy point for "failure to state."

You aren't doing very well at this, JPhish.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

You've used a method of selection to determine the parts of Boger's statement that you claim to be true. By deciding that part of Boger's statement must be false, you're picking which part you want to believe.


Thank you for reinforcing the point that the CIT claims, and the claims of CIT acolytes on this board, are based on selective acceptance of part of a witness statement. They say that Sean was "expert" about the flight path and speed but was somehow tricked, along with many others, into believing that the plane crashed. According to the Fly Over Proponents, Sean is reliable when it comes to the flight path but was in error when it came to the collision. All the people who witnessed the events were also somehow 'conditioned' not to see the purported flyover.
Maybe what has really happened is that the Fly Over Proponents have been conditioned by CIT to see only the evidence that confirms their preconceived notions.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Perhaps you may not be familiar with the concept of public forums, mmiichael.

By your own free will, you chose to participate in this thread. You have taken a negative view of the OP and you have made it clear that you don't agree with CIT's investigation.

You have used your claims to argue against the OP. However, when I have asked you to prove those claims, you have fallen short each and every single time.

Again, mmiichael, why would you state that thousands of people saw the plane depart if you are not prepared to provide the names? Why would you state that hundreds of people saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking over light poles if you are not prepared to provide the names?


Let’s dispense with this type of absurdity right now. No one has to be defensive of what they think and say on an open forum. This is not historical record or affidavit sworn legal testimony.

There were maybe a million people close to the Pentagon in Washington and Arlington the morning of Sept 11, 2001. On can only guess how many in and out of the airport, under the path of Flight AA77, or seeing the moment of impact.

The event was newsworthy so many were subsequently questioned about what they observed. We now have a permanent record of sample testimonies also representing the observations of those that were not recorded.

How can we make that assumption? In the subsequent 8 years we haven’t had people coming forward with conflicting testimony saying what was reported is wrong. Were there anything significantly different observed it would be huge news. The press, the conspiracists, independent journalists would pick up on it instantly. But not a word.

No Dulles Airport employee or family member has said Flight AA77 did not actually take off at 8:20 AM or that there was even a hint of something odd like another plane being substituted. No one of potentailly hundreds of thousands on the streets and highways saw anything unusual in the skies until those last couple minutes as AA&& came close to the ground.
No observed planes being shot down, surprise take offs, forced landings etc. Just as no one saw light poles being uprooted seconds before the crash.

We have assembled a wealth of corroborating evidence and testimony as to what happened. Air traffic controllers and data show us the positioning of every plane within miles.

We have multiple consistent testimonies of those on record. They are not the final record, just a cross-section sampling corroborating the hard evidence.

I don't need to provide all the names of the people who watched an A-Bomb being dropped on Hiroshima to state that thousands watched the event. How many actually saw the plane drop the payload, or the first shockwave formation, no one knows. We don't have their names or a statement from each. It doesn't matter. All testimony, with only minor variants, is consistent.

Similarly we know minute by minute what happened to Flight AA77 from it leaving Dulles Airport at 8:20 AM to it ending up crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 AM.

We can infer thousands observed the plane at various points in it's 77 minute journey. Having or not having the names of every single one of these witnesses will not alter what we know for certain from hard data evidence.

Were there no witness testimony it would make no difference to indisputable facts. AA77 took off form Dulles Airport and ended up inside the Pentagon.
No testimony, twisted, manipulated, taken out of context, to the contrary can changes that.




[edit on 22-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
No one has to be defensive of what they think and say on an open forum.

That does not necessarily give you the right to try and refute the OP by spreading information that you are clearly not prepared to support. I posted the ATS terms and conditions for you to read. Spreading knowingly false information, is a breach of those T&Cs. When you sign up at ATS, you do so knowing that there are posting rules that you must follow. You do not have unconditional rights to type whatever you like.



Originally posted by mmiichael
On can only guess how many in and out of the airport,

You specifically stated that there were thousands of people who saw the plane depart. You have not supplied the names of the thousands of people who can verify your statement.

You specifically stated that there were hundreds of people who saw the plane flying low and knocking down light poles. You have not supplied the names of the hundreds of people who can verify your statement.

These were your statements, mmiichael. You appear to have distanced yourself from trying to prove them.



Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't need to provide all the names of the people who watched an A-Bomb being dropped on Hiroshima to state that thousands watched the event.

That's a false analogy and a handwaving attempt to justify your failure to support your claims. Pointless and off topic.




Originally posted by mmiichael
We can infer thousands observed the plane at various points in it's 77 minute journey. Having or not having the names of every single one of these witnesses will not alter what we know for certain from hard data evidence.

No, we can not infer this. You have been trying to convince everyone that this is true. Yet, you have failed to provide the list of names, for each of your two claims.

It would be wise for you to withdraw those inflated claims of your's, especially since you have had ample time to provide evidence for them. You have failed to provide the evidence, which means that your claims are suspect.

Arbitrarily declaring 'thousands' and 'hundreds' of witnesses for certain events is disingenuous and misleading.

Please explain to the thread why you have made these claims, against the OP, that you have not supported and why you will not retract them?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
That does not necessarily give you the right to try and refute the OP by spreading information that you are clearly not prepared to support. I posted the ATS terms and conditions for you to read. Spreading knowingly false information, is a breach of those T&Cs. When you sign up at ATS, you do so knowing that there are posting rules that you must follow. You do not have unconditional rights to type whatever you like.


I post what I think or know to be true. occasionally I misremember, have relied on an inaccurate or unreliable source, not used the ideal phraseology.

That is the case for 90% of what's on this forum. Were everything required full validation from minimum of two reliable independent sources, as is needed for print journalism on important issues, there would be no ATS. Most of the commentary would have to be remove, there would only be postings of hard data with no interpretation or speculation.

I would appreciate not having a rule book thrown at me considering what I try to accomplish here is to prevent the dissemination of deception and information manipulation coming from either delusional or opportunistic sources such as our self declared "Independent Investigators"

A plane was hijacked on Sept 11, 2001 and flown into the Pentagon. Even without witness testimony this has been solidly substantiated by forensic hard evidence, plane tracking data, DNA of passengers.

To try to deceive young people, impressionable people, naive people, that this did not occur is morally wrong. In the process witnesses from the general public have been branded liars and by implication facilitators of a preplanned scheme of mass murder by the US government and it's agents.

This issue that may have serious future legal ramifications.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I post what I think or know to be true. occasionally I misremember, have relied on an inaccurate or unreliable source, not used the ideal phraseology.

Yes, you have been shown to be wrong in the past. All of us have been wrong about many things during our lives.

This does not exempt you now from continuing to claim that there were thousands of people who saw the plane depart, and that hundreds of people saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles.

Why would you expect anyone to believe you, when you have had a long time to prove these claims? Your inflationary tactic to debate the OP is not valid. You have been called out on it and you have failed to support your own claims.




Originally posted by mmiichael
I would appreciate not having a rule book thrown at me considering what I try to accomplish here is to prevent the dissemination of deception and information manipulation coming from either delusional or opportunistic sources such as our self declared "Independent Investigators"

I would appreciate you not making such wild, speculative claims that you are not prepared to support. You appear to run the risk of breaching the ATS T&C's, as you stand by those claims as though they are fact.

By doing this, you are showing a weakness in your argument against the OP, as you can't justify the claims that you are making.

You are spreading this information, as though it is fact, without providing the evidence to validate it.

Why won't you either supply the list of names, or retract the claims, mmiichael? Your claims can not be believed just because you think they are true.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Yes, you have been shown to be wrong in the past. All of us have been wrong about many things during our lives.

This does not exempt you now from continuing to claim that there were thousands of people who saw the plane depart, and that hundreds of people saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles.

Why would you expect anyone to believe you, when you have had a long time to prove these claims? Your inflationary tactic to debate the OP is not valid. You have been called out on it and you have failed to support your own claims.

I would appreciate you not making such wild, speculative claims that you are not prepared to support. You appear to run the risk of breaching the ATS T&C's, as you stand by those claims as though they are fact.

By doing this, you are showing a weakness in your argument against the OP, as you can't justify the claims that you are making.

You are spreading this information, as though it is fact, without providing the evidence to validate it.

Why won't you either supply the list of names, or retract the claims, mmiichael? Your claims can not be believed just because you think they are true.



I post here what I consider to be established facts or opinions and analysis.

No one appointed you as spokesman for this website and I am not interested in your interpretations of it's rules or analysis of anything I have posted in the past.

We are here to further or knowledge and correct misapprehensions of the past.

If you continue to take up this thread's space and time with your incessant attempts to find what you consider faults in other members and constantly label members as "failures", I will request that you be reprimanded.

This subject here is some claimed "Alarming Information" - not the unsolicited grading of members' contributions. Either try to supply information and/or insightful analysis or spend you time on some other topic.






[edit on 22-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I post here what I consider to be established facts or opinions and analysis.

But you have not established that there were thousands of people who saw the plane depart. You have assumed this.

You have not established that there were hundreds of people who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles. You have assumed this.

You have not proven either of these claims that you insist should be taken as facts.




Originally posted by mmiichael
If you continue to take up this thread's space and time with your incessant attempts to find what you consider faults in other members and constantly label members as "failures", I will request that you be reprimanded.

I encourage you to do so. That way, there will also be similar scrutiny placed upon your failure to prove your specific claims.

You chose to use those claims to debate the OP, typing them as though they are fact. Therefore, your claims are also open to debate and scrutiny.




Originally posted by mmiichael
This subject here is some claimed "Alarming Information" - not the unsolicited grading of members' contributions.

You introduced your two claims to try and debate the OP. Your claims are part of the thread and relate to the topic of the Pentagon investigation that CIT performed. CIT discuss a 'light pole' witness (Lloyde) in the OP presentation. You have tried to refute their findings by stating that hundreds of people saw light poles being knocked down.

Why are you trying to distance your claims being relevant to the thread, mmiichael? If you don't want your claims to be scrutinised, then either prove them or retract them. You have retracted other claims in this thread and I immediately ceased discussing them when you did so.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
You have not established that there were hundreds of people who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles. You have assumed this.

You have not proven either of these claims that you insist should be taken as facts.


That is your interpretation. Your reading comprehension is apparently poor. So I'll reiterate once more.

Flight AA77 took off from Dulles Airport at 8:20 AM. It was tracked in mid-air minute by minute until it crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 AM. Analysis of the wreckage and DNA passengers confirms this. Case closed.

The testimony of on the scene witnesses helps supply details and human interest. But even if 20 people were to say they saw a giant gorilla punch a hole into the Pentagon, the indisputable fact remains that Flight AA77 crashed there.

What anyone on a discussion forum might opine years later, based on, has no directly bearing in an event that transpired over 8 years ago.

And finding inconsistencies in what eyewitnesses like Lloyde England, Sean Boger, say years after the fact will not in any way alter hard evidence.

If anyone can show with tangible evidence - not some collected verbal statements - that Flight AA77 did not crash into the Pentagon at 9:37 AM Sept 11, 2001 - the whole world will want to know.

Finding disparities in statements made years later does not contribute anything beyond providing examples of the fallibility of memory and reporting.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by tezzajw
You have not established that there were hundreds of people who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles. You have assumed this.
You have not proven either of these claims that you insist should be taken as facts.

That is your interpretation. Your reading comprehension is apparently poor. So I'll reiterate once more.

No, there's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, mmiichael.

I'm waiting to read the list of the hundreds of names of people, who you claim saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles.

You have handwaved in every other distractionary direction, all while trying to avoid supplying the thread with the list of names.

Why can't you supply the thread with the hundreds of witnesses who you claim saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles? Why is supporting your own claim causing you so many problems, mmiichael?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

No, there's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, mmiichael.

I'm waiting to read the list of the hundreds of names of people, who you claim saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles.



I'm afraid there is something wrong with your reading comprehension. I addressed this point at least half a dozen times.

I allude to an estimated number of people in some instances. This is in aid of making points. I do not carry lists of names for everything I mention.

I said there were something like a million people in the Washington-Arlington area that morning. If only 1% were looking at the sky at the time that would be 10,000 people.

We have seen sample testimony from a few people which we take as representative. No one would take down the names and statements of each possible witness. That's what sampling is about.

Just as we don't have the names and statements from every witness to the A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima. But we know it happened without question.

We also know a passenger plane flew into the Pentagon. A few ambiguous statements on an amateur video are only proof of how confused people can become.

If you provide indisputable physical proof of something different - we're all open to seeing it.






[edit on 22-12-2009 by mmiichael]





new topics
top topics
 
213
<< 133  134  135    137  138  139 >>

log in

join