Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 137
213
<< 134  135  136    138  139  140 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
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.

You clearly stated that there were hundreds of people who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking over light poles. You have not supported this with hundreds of witness names or statements.

Why did you allude to these 'hundreds' of witnesses existing, when you have clearly failed to produce the evidence to support your claim?

You have just admitted that you don't carry the list of witness names, so how do you know that there were hundreds of witnesses who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles?

You appear to be fabricating this claim without any factual basis. I'll continue to call you out on it until you either prove it or retract it, mmiichael.




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

You clearly stated that there were hundreds of people who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking over light poles. You have not supported this with hundreds of witness names or statements.

Why did you allude to these 'hundreds' of witnesses existing, when you have clearly failed to produce the evidence to support your claim?

You have just admitted that you don't carry the list of witness names, so how do you know that there were hundreds of witnesses who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles?

You appear to be fabricating this claim without any factual basis. I'll continue to call you out on it until you either prove it or retract it, mmiichael.


There were hundreds of witnesses. If you are incapable of reading what has already been written on this - you have a problem. It is against the rules to characterize contributors.

A theory of a plane flying over the Pentagon and the Flight AA77 crash being faked is under discussion here.

Substantiation in material form is required, not inconsistencies and critiques of eyewitness testimonies and online contributors.

You have avoided providing any evidence for this claim for months. Assumed is that it is non-existent.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
There were hundreds of witnesses. If you are incapable of reading what has already been written on this - you have a problem. It is against the rules to characterize contributors.

You have not provided the hundreds of witnesses who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles. How can I read what you have not written?





Originally posted by mmiichael
A theory of a plane flying over the Pentagon and the Flight AA77 crash being faked is under discussion here.

Exactly. It is CIT's formal position that the damage to the light poles must have been staged. This is mentioned in the video embedded in the OP.

To refute this, you claimed that there were hundreds of witnesses who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles. But you have not supported your statement with complete evidence. You have not provided a complete list of names, and in your previous post, you admitted to not having a list of names.

You appear to have fabricated a claim to counter the OP, as you have made no attempt to provide your evidence to support your claim.




Originally posted by mmiichael
You have avoided providing any evidence for this claim for months.

I invite you to read through this thread and quote me on the claims that I have made and not supported.

Your failure to do this will be your admission that you are mistaken - again - and that you admit that I have not made any unsupported claims about the Pentagon investigation.

The thread is only 137 pages long, so it shouldn't take you too long to quote me.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
It is CIT's formal position that the damage to the light poles must have been staged. This is mentioned in the video embedded in the OP.

To refute this, you claimed that there were hundreds of witnesses who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles. But you have not supported your statement with complete evidence. You have not provided a complete list of names, and in your previous post, you admitted to not having a list of names.

You appear to have fabricated a claim to counter the OP, as you have made no attempt to provide your evidence to support your claim.


Evidence has been stated, restated, restated. Flight AA77 leaves Dulles 8:20 AM, is tracked minute by minute on multiple levels. Crashes into the Pentagon 9:37 AM. Overwhelming evidence found at the crash site - plane parts, passenger body parts, etc, etc. DNA verifies all but one passenger.

CIT tries to create ambiguity with manipulated testimonies, prompted responses, creative editing. Only a small handful of hardcore Truthers are unable to see through the obvious deception.

As realized in a legal cases, testimonies can sometimes be inconsistent. Material evidence is hard evidence.

Hard evidence shows beyond question Flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon 9:37 AM Sept 11, 2001.

Substantial reliable corroborating testimony exists.

Case was closed over 8 years ago.

Still videos trying to cash in on the dying Truther sub-culture.










[edit on 22-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

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."

No it’s not, because I already proved that respondent conditioning took place in this post

Perhaps you should learn to read before you post.

The fact that I even had to explain what respondent conditioning was, and that you seriously even entertained the notion that it did not occur, speaks worlds of your ignorance.


Give yourself another logical fallacy point or show how it is a non-debatable fact.
You are so inane it is unbelievable. I already proved it was a non debatable fact. Without me having to say a word you should have known that it was a non debatable fact, but you are simply that ignorant I suppose.


Try not to use other logical fallacies to support it.

You should try to take your own advice, because I have committed no logical fallacies while you have committed so many I have lost count.


Please state your testable theory of the 911 attack on the Pentagon or take another fallacy point for "failure to state."
demanding negative proof again


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

Excellent! If I’m not doing well then I suppose this is your opportunity to stop trolling, accept my challenge and debate me?!

[edit on 12/23/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



Please provide your references for these claims so I can properly scrutinize them.


To avoid cluttering this forum up unnecessarily, there's a wealth of info at this site including video interviews with witnesses within an hour of the event, pictures and, as far as I can tell, original statements from witnesses claiming to have seen the event or part of it.

flight 77 info

No 'flyovers' there unless you can ID them for me.


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


We can absolutely agree there - it never existed (the 'conditioning' that is)


Who’s throwing out eyewitness testimony???


Well actually, you are.
If you make a good enough case against the veracity of witness testimony then you can't logically exclude CIT evidence which is totally dependant on witness testimony whereas the 'official' version has physical evidence to support it and CIT has no such physical evidence. So you're shooting yourself in the foot if you try to use this tactic of supposed 'conditioning' to support the CIT agenda.

You are in support of the CIT 'theory' I think or perhaps you're pushing another novel theory of your own here that's somewhat separate to the 'alarming information' but loosely affiliated.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


You have not proved respondent conditioning, you have postulated respondent conditioning so that you may selectively discard witness testimony. You are unaware of the difference between a postulate and a proof. The arguments you make so that you may bias the outcome are overlaid with bombast and empty rhetoric.
Your logical fallacies are piling up and you don't even know it. My request that you state a testable theory is not "demanding negative proof." Your refusal to do so is a "failure to state" fallacy.
You have no idea what you are talking about and yet you want people to waste their time debating you.
Merry Christmas.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Could we all just take a moment, and reflect on PAGE ONE of this thread???

In essence, Craig Ranke, and his "buddies" who abet within his nefarious group, and the "Citizen's Investigation Team" are just flash-in-the-pan wannabes who aren't worth the time involved, nor the electrons devoted, to this discussion.

It is, also, important to note that the "CIT" is closely involved with the "P4T ('Pilots for 9/11 truth') which is just another fringe and nutcase element to this travesty.

Oh. lest we leave anyone out...the OTHER even nuttier component to this whole mess is the "Loose Change" group......

Really, what we have is a very vocal set of an EXTREMELY small minority of people...all males, BTW, not sure if that is important....but what IS important is, they are YOUNG and inexperienced in the real world and its affairs, BUT are very adept at the INTERNET and COMPUTER skills, so they have a web-voice that drowns out all reason and logical discourse, unless we take the time to explain, on sites such as this, the reality of what is being blasted by these know-nothings.....



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
As realized in a legal cases, testimonies can sometimes be inconsistent. Material evidence is hard evidence.


This should be really good.


Hard evidence shows beyond question Flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon 9:37 AM Sept 11, 2001.


What hard evidence is that exactly? Can you point me to the list of this hard evidence?


Substantial reliable corroborating testimony exists.

Case was closed over 8 years ago.

Still videos trying to cash in on the dying Truther sub-culture.


So the case was closed? Then why are they claiming they are holding onto evidence for upcoming trials? Why are they bringing anyone to NY to try them if the case was closed 8 years ago? You are not making sense.

I know this thread is long and, apparently confusing to some, so I offered you a place to put all those witnesses that saw the plane hitting all those light poles. right here

You do a great job of wandering threads and asserting claims as if anyone doubting them is just sooooo uninformed and stupid. You fail to back many of these claims up. I am offering you a nice clear shot at me. Go there and just make me look stupid in my own thread. Maybe you can finally shame me into going away or being ignored by everyone.

If I were a betting man, I can guess I will get no list of hundreds of people but I will get some sort of insulting retort explaining why people like me are not worth the effort. Either way, I am doubtful anyone will ever see the proof of your claim.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Yes, CIT's proposal, the supposed "alarming information" of this thread is that AA 77 flew over the Pentagon and the passengers were murdered elsewhere.

Whoever you believe the perps were it has to be common ground that they had control of AA 77.

You are therefore forced to the conclusion, are you not, that the perps, at a planning meeting and with their lives and liberty on the line, decided a flyover was the optimum plan.

To fly AA 77 into the Pentagon would have settled every issue about radar, fdr, physical damage, dna of passengers and crew, eyewitnesses but no, that was rejected by otherwise very smart perps.

What are they supposed to have gone for ? Fly the plane over the Pentagon and trust that no-one on in broad daylight would see it. Set off an explosion, by way of explosives nobody saw installed, that almost but doesn't quite consume the plane. Plant body and plane parts in a fiery Pentagon. Hack trees and lightpoles and fencing and generator trailer and retaining wall. Sprinkle plane debris over a wide area so that someone like Penny Elgas can pick up a bit and donate it to the Smithsonian. And it was anticipated at the planning meeting that absolutely no-one would see a thing. Oh yeah, then Lloyde England and his cab was dragged in as the cherry on top. And, despite all the truther rubbish about people being silenced and afraid to talk, he is allowed to happily ramble on to CIT and anybody else who cares to knock at his door.

That some people can apparently believe this just beggars my imagination. And people like JPhish can waffle on about "logical fallacy" in the face of such absurdity.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##

Enhanced enforcement is underway.

All members are entitled to their own opinions on the topic and are welcome to express them.

Comments on anything else, especially personal commentary of any kind whatsoever directed toward other members, are subject to warnings or removal. Repeated behavior of this kind is subject to temporary post bans or permanent account bans.

Please stay focused on the topic, respect the rights of other members to express their own opinions, ALERT us to problems and do your best.


THIS IS A MODERATOR ADVISORY. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST. STAY ON TOPIC.



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 


You have not proved respondent conditioning, you have postulated respondent conditioning so that you may selectively discard witness testimony.
wishful thinking (56) You are incorrect.

"Prior to the Pentagon event;
They were told that 2 planes were hijacked by terrorists.
They were told those 2 planes were flown and crashed into important buildings.
They were told that other planes had been hijacked by terrorists.
They were told that all non hijacked planes were being grounded.

Whether they were told this “information” by friends, relatives, the tv, the radio, their boss, or even an enemy, it doesn’t matter.

This is classical conditioning, it definitely happened and it is non debatable."


This is proof that respondent conditioning occurred unless you are seriously denying that the news and radio were reporting such things.


You are unaware of the difference between a postulate and a proof. The arguments you make so that you may bias the outcome are overlaid with bombast and empty rhetoric.
bare assertion (57) I know perfectly well what proof is.
Sorry but you are wrong. What i mentioned before is proof that people were conditioned to believe the plane would hit the Pentagon.


Your logical fallacies are piling up and you don't even know it.

Well you have yet to point one out that is valid. So until you do, we'll have to assume that is wishful thinking (58) on your part considering you have committed FIFY EIGHT logical fallacies and I have committed none.


My request that you state a testable theory is not "demanding negative proof."
Yes it is actually, because you are the one making the claim that Lloyds cab was impaled by a light pole as a result of AA77 hitting into it.


Your refusal to do so is a "failure to state" fallacy.

There is no such thing as a "failure to state fallacy". You are resorting to inventing fallacies because I have yet to commit one . . .


You have no idea what you are talking about and yet you want people to waste their time debating you.
bare assertion (59) Based on the events of this thread, I know a great deal more about the subject than you do. You didn’t even realize that respondent conditioning had taken place. Unless of course you are playing dumb, which wouldn’t be surprising since it’s a common tactic of internet trolls.

You claiming that I have no idea what and refusing to debate me, because it would be a “waste of your time”, is completely illogical.

If I truly had no idea what I am talking about as you claim, it would not be a waste of time, because in no time at all you would win the debate and never have to deal with me on these forums again.

The stakes are whoever wins the debate leaves the 9-11 forums and stays out of them forever. Surely I’m wasting more of your time here than I ever could in a debate with you which you should easily win in a handful of posts if what you claim were true.

You sir are a troll. I know this to be a fact. If any moderator disagrees with me they can test the veracity of my claims by matching us up in a debate where I can prove it. Though, I’m sure looking at the history of this thread would suffice.

JPhish 0
Pterdine -59

[edit on 12/25/2009 by JPhish]
 

Mod note: Red flag warning applied in lieu of 9/11 Madness warning and post deletion. Do not call other members trolls. See the post immediately above this one. Further personal commentary will be subject to post deletions, post bans or account termination as necessary, so please stay on topic, post carefully and avoid any form of personal commentary whatsoever. -- Majic

[edit on 12/26/2009 by Majic]



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 

this site, www.don-lindsay-archive.org... among others, defines a "failure to state" fallacy as follows:
"Failure To State: if you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic."
Since I did not make this up as you claimed, you are guilty of a bare assertion. By claiming that my statement was wishful thinking when you did not prove that it was wishful thinking, you are guilty of yet another bare assertion.

As to your theory, are you claiming that you somehow know which of the witnesses were aware of the events of the day and that all witnesses who were aware of the events would then expect to see any low flying aircraft crash into a building? Can you prove that all witnesses were completely aware of the attacks and not one of those witnesses would wonder if the plane was coming in for a landing or was part of an emergency response until it struck the Pentagon? Can you prove that every witness would expect a crash and therefore see a crash?
Based on this theory, what would the witnesses see if there was a crash? Would they see the crash they expected or something else?

Further, respondent conditioning is another name for classical conditioning. This conditioning takes far longer than the ten seconds that you claimed. This means that the witnesses could not have been conditioned and that your claim has no basis.



[edit on 12/26/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 

this site, www.don-lindsay-archive.org... among others, defines a "failure to state" fallacy as follows:
"Failure To State: if you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic."
Since I did not make this up as you claimed, you are guilty of a bare assertion. By claiming that my statement was wishful thinking when you did not prove that it was wishful thinking, you are guilty of yet another bare assertion.
My mistake. Regardless, if you think i have committed this fallacy, you are incorrect.

"Failure to state fallacy".

As for what the person claims it means, I have not failed to state my position. My position is that Llyod England's cab was not impaled by a light-pole as the result of AA77 as the OS claims.

That should have been obvious . . . how you could have missed this post amongst others where i clearly state my position is beyond me.

It is still wishful thinking on your part that respondent conditioning did not take place because it is a fact that it did.


As to your theory, are you claiming that you somehow know which of the witnesses were aware of the events of the day and that all witnesses who were aware of the events would then expect to see any low flying aircraft crash into a building?

Not a theory, respondent conditioning took place. Your question is therefor invalid.

Are you denying that nearly all of the witnesses in this thread were aware of what happened in New York City? Are you serious?!


Can you prove that all witnesses were completely aware of the attacks and not one of those witnesses would wonder if the plane was coming in for a landing or was part of an emergency response until it struck the Pentagon?
Not all of them, but most of them. Regardless, you’re raising the bar (60) now. It’s a FACT that respondent conditioning happened that day. You can admit that you were wrong now.


Can you prove that every witness would expect a crash and therefore see a crash?
raising the bar (61) I never claimed to be able to prove this, nor do I need to. Respondent conditioning took place. This is a fact. You denied it. Admit that you were wrong.


Based on this theory, what would the witnesses see if there was a crash? Would they see the crash they expected or something else?
One of the few logical things you have typed in this thread . . . I applaud you. They would see the crash they expected to see.


Further, respondent conditioning is another name for classical conditioning. This conditioning takes far longer than the ten seconds that you claimed.
Incorrect. I use classical conditioning all of the time. It can take as little as 5 seconds or less depending on what it is you are trying to condition the person to do or believe.


This means that the witnesses could not have been conditioned and that your claim has no basis.
Sorry you are wrong. Classical conditioning can take mere moments. Watch a magic act.

[edit on 12/26/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

It is still wishful thinking on your part that respondent conditioning did not take place because it is a fact that it did.

Are you denying that nearly all of the witnesses in this thread were aware of what happened in New York City? Are you serious?!

Not all of them, but most of them. Regardless, you’re raising the bar (60) now. It’s a FACT that respondent conditioning happened that day. You can admit that you were wrong now.


Can you prove that every witness would expect a crash and therefore see a crash?
raising the bar (61) I never claimed to be able to prove this, nor do I need to. Respondent conditioning took place. This is a fact. You denied it. Admit that you were wrong.


Why do you claim that I am raising the bar when I ask you to show the respondent conditioning proof. Do two airplanes striking the WTC condition everyone to see any airplane striking any building? Would a flyover then be seen as a second aircraft trying to strike a second building? I claim that you have no way of knowing who expected what, yet you assume this as a fact. Isn't that some kind of circular argument fallacy?
Am I serious? Yes. Was asking me in that manner part of a logical fallacy, something about incredulity?
Since you do not know which witnesses, if any, were conditioned, should not all witness testimony then be discarded? Why would you select some witnesses over others?
Your last statement looks like another bare assertion.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Why do you claim that I am raising the bar when I ask you to show the respondent conditioning proof.

Already did prove that respondent conditioning took place. Your question is invalid.

Proof right here


Do two airplanes striking the WTC condition everyone to see any airplane striking any building?
straw man (62) I never claimed that.

I've already proved that Respondent conditioning took place which would predispose most people to believe a large low flying playing on 9-11 would crash into an important building such as the pentagon.

Proof right here


Would a flyover then be seen as a second aircraft trying to strike a second building?

Are you insinuating there were two airplanes at the pentagon?




I claim that you have no way of knowing who expected what, yet you assume this as a fact.
Well knowing what people think and expect is part of my trade and I’m very good at it. I’m not assuming anything. I know certain facts.

It is a fact that respondent conditioning took place.
It is a fact that nearly all of the people at the pentagon were subjected to it.
It’s a fact that the respondent conditioning would predispose a person to believe exactly what I have claimed.

I can prove all of these things and have on several occasions in this thread.


Isn't that some kind of circular argument fallacy?

No it's not; it's me having the intelligence and experience to grasp the situation.

You claim I don’t know? Well prove I don’t in a member debate!?

But I suppose you’d rather

Derail the thread,
Ask the same questions over and over again,
Demand proof that has already been presented,
And commit every logical fallacy under the sun;

As you have been for over 100 pages now.


Am I serious? Yes. Was asking me in that manner part of a logical fallacy, something about incredulity?
You are doubting that people on 9-11 knew what happened to the trade centers on 9-11 nearly an hour after it happened? Well i know for a fact that most of the witnesses on 9-11 presented in this thread knew what happened in new york and i have posted evidence to that claim


Since you do not know which witnesses, if any, were conditioned, should not all witness testimony then be discarded?
I never said that. straw man (63). I know that most of them were conditioned and proof has already been presented in this thread that they were.


Why would you select some witnesses over others?

loaded question (64) I didn’t


Your last statement looks like another bare assertion.

wishful thinking (65)

I gave you the benefit of doubt originally, but it’s obvious to me at this point you are exactly what I thought you were. The time of believing I could persuade you to be logical has passed.

[edit on 12/27/2009 by JPhish]

[edit on 12/27/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
You never responded to my post pages ago.

Obviously it was too difficult for you, but that doesn't matter now.

What I'm interested in is this:

You claim that "respondent conditioning" was responsible for eye witnesses error in thinking that a plane struck the Pentagon. Your evidence for this is that a plane did not strike the Pentagon, so respondent conditioning must be in evidence.

You can see what's wrong with this picture, right?



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


We have done this before. You make bare assertions and call it “proof.” This is your so-called "proof":
"Prior to the Pentagon event;
They were told that 2 planes were hijacked by terrorists.
They were told those 2 planes were flown and crashed into important buildings.
They were told that other planes had been hijacked by terrorists.
They were told that all non hijacked planes were being grounded.
Whether they were told this “information” by friends, relatives, the tv, the radio, their boss, or even an enemy, it doesn’t matter.
This is classical conditioning, it definitely happened and it is non debatable."
This is not proof. You have no way of knowing what people were told and what they thought. It is a bare assertion and it is definitely debatable.
You stated “Well i know for a fact that most of the witnesses on 9-11 presented in this thread knew what happened in new york and i have posted evidence to that claim” The link to the evidence was a reference to your hit and run analogy. Perhaps in your psychobabble world analogies are evidence. You have no idea what anyone thought or if they were conditioned by statements that they did or did not hear. You have no idea how any given individual would react. You are either bluffing or just plain wrong. I think you are wrong.
You stated “…considering you have committed FIFY EIGHT logical fallacies and I have committed none.”
Most humorous. Not only are you keeping score, you are neglecting your errors so as to stack the deck. What does that say about your motives? Your unsupported statement about conditioning continues to puzzle everyone but you. As the psychologists say, “you are fantasizing at your own level.”
Get back to me when you have any proof of respondent conditioning by witnesses to the event.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I've already provided proof that respondent conditioning took place in my previous post and in posts prior. I'm not going to spoon feed the information to you again only to have you ignore it and fall back on more logical fallacies.

At this point you are either delusional, not intelligent enough to comprehend the material, or purposely derailing/impeding the thread by playing dumb.

If you think the FACT that respondent conditioning occurred on 9-11 is debatable, then battle me in a member debate on the subject.

And don't hand me the "a member debate is a waste of time because you have no idea what you are talking about" cop-out.

If i have no idea what i'm talking about as you claim, then you should EASILY be able to dispatch me in no time at all. It would certainly take less time than you have spent derailing this thread for over a hundred pages.

Accept my challenge.

I'm through entertaining your inanity.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
I've already provided proof that respondent conditioning took place in my previous post and in posts prior.


You have not actually, that is just your opinion, and that opinion does not fit the known facts!


At this point you are either delusional, not intelligent enough to comprehend the material, or purposely derailing/impeding the thread by playing dumb.


And the same applies to you, you think as you have stated an opinion, that becomes fact!

[edit on 28/12/09 by dereks]





new topics
top topics
 
213
<< 134  135  136    138  139  140 >>

log in

join