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: 27
215
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by jthomas
 



Still waiting...

so far you cannot explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene.


Demonstrate that you know no passenger bodies were at the scene.


Demonstrate that you know passenger bodies were at the scene.


See how this works?

1. You ask, "...explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

2. I ask you to demonstrate the validity of YOUR claim that there were no passenger bodies at the scene.

3. Then you want me to prove your UNPROVEN claim is wrong.

What a great illustration of my point you given everyone, Lilydale!


Ummmmm NO. You could not be more wrong. Perhaps you need some sleep. I merely asked you to back up your claim. That is all. I do not need you to prove anything having to do with anything I think or say. You claimed that AA77 flew into the pentagon. Prove your claim. You keep trying to pretend it is my job to prove something but you just explained it.

You made a claim.

I doubt your claim because of a lack of evidence.

I make no claims, I just do not believe yours.

Since you made the claim, you need to prove it.

Stop babbling and trying so hard to twist all this into something it will never be. You can keep arguing that I need to prove my case even though I do not have a case but it will not change the facts. The fact is you claim AA77 crashed into the pentagon and yet you cannot present any evidence of that happening.

What is it you want me to prove, exactly? I do not believe your story. Why is it that you cannot back it up with anything? Why do you need to play this game by trying to put the burden of proof on me? Just back up your story. Look around you.

How many of you other "OS" believers are willing to stand behind this logic where the person making the claim does not need to prove their claim but the person who doubts it does need to prove it. I am really curious to see if anyone else is willing to try and explain how logic in the real world works.




posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
That's an appeal to incredulity.

The question is still on the table: why "should" those (or any) video cameras have caught a jet crashing into the Pentagon?

WHY can't any of you answer the question?




What is your damage???????

They are cameras. That is what they do. It is that simple. Cameras capture images. What kind of demonstration do you need? Look up "camera" in the dictionary. There is nothing to demonstrate to you. You are just playing now because there is no way anyone could truly be like this.

The cameras are on the roof, facing the lawn. What do you think those cameras were doing?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

But you refuse to accept the burden of proof for your claims. I just showed you.


I never made any claims. I have repeated this how many times now???? I have no claim to back up. You do.



Now, stop evading your responsibilities, Lilydale, and give us those statements from the over 1,000 people who saw, handled, removed, and sorted the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.

Or tell us why you are so afraid of the evidence.



What evidence?


The evidence that you pretend doesn't exist so won't refute.


You mean the evidence you cannot provide? Why would I have those statements? If there are over 1000 people that saw what I am looking for, then you should have no trouble providing many of those people's statements. See how easy your job is and yet, you still cannot do it.



I am still waiting for this evidence but you just got done writing that diatribe about how you do not need to provide any evidence so I think that pretty much sums out how things work in your head.


How many times do I have to tell you WHERE to get the evidence YOU have to refute? Can't you read?

So far, better than you. I guess you have to tell me once more because you have not shown me any evidence of passenger bodies, wreckage from AA77, or the wings. These are what I keep asking about and you have not providing a damn thing that answers any of that.


So Lilydale gives us a prime example of the illogical thinking and actions of 9/11 "Truthers."

He makes claims then, instead of demonstrating those claims when asked, immediately tries to shift the burden of proof and denies ever making any claims.


Ok, what claims did I make exactly and use actual quotes to back it up.


When pointed to the evidence repeatedly he has to refute, Lilydale then asserts there is NO evidence.


No wings. No passenger bodies. No wreckage from AA77. Thomas just says that he provided proof and expects his followers to just believe that he did. He has not provided any of the proof I am asking for.


See how that works, everyone?

So, do you all NOW understand why NO one listens to you and never will?


LOL. No one listens to me? You sure do. You respond to me every time. Also, take a gander at the stars being handed out here. If no one is listening to me, even less are listening to you.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
But you REFUSE to demonstrate that any of the cameras WERE aimed in such a manner that they would capture AA77 hitting the Pentagon. YOU have NO evidence that they were, or "should have."


There is a very nice picture just a few pages back that shows the cameras and which way they were aimed. What more do you need?


You are just engaging in a classic appeal to incredulity and cannot support your claims.

But that's the nature of the beast, 9/11 "Truth".


Ahhhh. I see why you are suddenly so loquacious. You got a new word. So, we traded canard for incredulity did we? How many times can you use that word today. 2 so far.


Now, either demonstrate factually that any of the cameras "should have" caught AA77 hitting the Pentagon. If you can't, then withdraw your claim.


LOL. OK so then you are going to withdraw your claim that AA77 hit the pentagon then right? You have not been able to demonstrate that factually so why is it any more valid than what I said? Oh right, it is less valid because there is a picture.


How about you tell us which way the camera in the middle could be pointing in order to not capture the plane.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by Lillydale]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



Originally posted by SPreston




The videos taken from the Pentagon area after the 9/11 attacks were mentioned in the Maguire declaration, where FBI Special Agent, Jacqueline Maguire responded (see below) to a request from Scott Bingham.
In Summary:

* She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
* Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
* Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
* The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
* No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.

source




Notice that none of the security videos from the Pentagon rooftop cameras which were stored on hard drives in the basement security office are on Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire's list are they? These three were facing the Naval Annex and might have shown the real aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex.



Nor are the camera videos which were facing the Pentagon from the Naval Annex on the Maguire list. Therefore the Defense Department possesses videos which would prove their 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY if an aircraft actually flew into the Pentagon. But they are censored aren't they? National Security must mean protect the 9-11 perps wouldn't it?

Unfortunately for the bad guys, they dare not release and show those videos because they would show the actual aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and nowhere near the downed light poles. They might also show somebody staging the light poles and the taxi and dragging them around across the ground and setting pieces on guardrails.



Photoshopping the Pentagon area videos in a convincing manner would be much much too difficult. Look how badly they screwed up the parking lot security videos.



All very good points. I've been meticulously following this thread since I got into it back on page 16, and I notice that none of the detractors replied to this post of yours, laugh :-). From other posts, I imagine that they'd say that there is no proof that the pentagon cameras would have recorded the plane. I imagine that the only way one could persuade them is to literally draw the area that each camera was recording. Those cameras look like they're the fish eye type; as in, they'd record something like 180 degrees of view. But until the pentagon up and admits that's the case, I imagine 9/11 OS supporters/alternate theory deniers will cling to the possibility that they didn't see the plane. I wonder if they can atleast admit that it's -possible- that the video cameras could have seen the plane?

I also found your point concerning Jacqueline Maguire's failing to mention the pentagon security cameras to be quite interesting. I'm curious to know what theory OS supporters will come up to explain that one ;-).

Finally, I think your point of the only alleged video of the event has its time stamp for September 12 to be quite good as well. I believe I saw something from Aldo Marquis where it shows that some frames were "frozen" for a few seconds, meaning that what was in the original footage was edited out as well.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

posted by Lillydale

They are cameras. That is what they do. It is that simple. Cameras capture images. What kind of demonstration do you need? Look up "camera" in the dictionary. There is nothing to demonstrate to you. You are just playing now because there is no way anyone could truly be like this.

The cameras are on the roof, facing the lawn. What do you think those cameras were doing?



Top-notch video cameras hard-wired into a top-notch basement security office for a multi-trillion dollar defense establishment. Saving the video-data directly to the secure hard drives in the basement. Wide-angle lenses which would surely capture the skies a few hundred feet above the ground to the west.



Does anybody think the Pentagon, which wastes billions each year on high-tech gadgets, would scrimp on the cameras protecting the helipad where the President and Secretary of Defense and 4-star Generals arrive and depart by secure helicopter?

And the cameras on the Naval Annex facing the Pentagon would also guard the helipad with the Presidential arrivals and departures.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 

You post such crap sometimes. I can't figure out why. They had run of the mill cameras just like most places do. A couple thousand each at the most. The attack happened in 2001 , camers were 8 years behind then. 8 years in electronics is multiple generations. They were set to record at 1 frame per second.

I have worked for a company that sells and installs video surveillance equipment. As recently as last year systems that cost several thousand dollars produced similar (if not inferior) video compared to the pentagon video. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Yes, you know 911 was an inside job. And when you start trying to make every single point about 911 a conspiracy, you discredit yourself and others by association.

Please truthers, leave the video camera argument alone, it is futile, and makes you look stupid. The "missing frame" argument is as stupid as the no planes theory. Guess what? It was set to record 1fps and was not precise down to the second. If you think there is a conspiracy in that put your tin foil hat on, the debunkers have won.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Response to pteridine's post #335, Part 1

reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x
 


All of this is lock-step with the various truther sites.


I would contend that the truth has a tendency of being consistent ;-). As I've mentioned before, there is a bit of a schism within the truth movement as to what happened at the pentagon, but I do believe that as more knowledge is being disseminated regarding it, this schism is healing.



Originally posted by pteridine
I have read much of it and it makes no sense. Someone does some calculations based on an assumption and concludes that some part of the story can't be true based on those calculations.


My guess is that you question the validity of the calculations, am I right?



Originally posted by pteridine
That then leads to the most contrived, unbelievable series of events that strain the credulity of even the most hard core believer.


I contend that you just need to examine the evidence more thoroughly. Originally, I didn't know what to believe myself. But as I went through the evidence more carefully, I came to the conclusion that the flyover theory was the most credible of them all.



Originally posted by pteridine
Of course, no one noticed the demolition charges in the Pentagon, the thousands of gallons of jet fuel in hermetically sealed containers,


If anyone noticed explosives in the Pentagon, I have not heard of it as of yet. But a lack of evidence in one particular area does not mean there is evidence of its lack. To the contrary, due to all the -other- evidence that points towards the plane that approached the pentagon flying over it, and the lack of evidence of a missile hitting it, the most logical conclusion is that explosives would have had to have been set within the building itself. There is even evidence of this, such as the fact that certain girders appear to have been pushed outwards, signifying that the force that pushed them was coming from the inside.

As to the gallons of jet fuel, I have never contended that jet fuel was present in the aftermath of the attack. However, there -is- evidence that a generator tank was present at the pentagon. Here are some photographs of it:

s1.zetaboards.com...



Originally posted by pteridine
the people trooping about with bent light poles,


The area was cordoned off by security people. How would anyone but those same security people have been able to see this? Even so, I remember hearing, I believe from CIT, that there is evidence that Lloyd's light pole was moved into place after the pentagon explosion(s).



Originally posted by pteridine
a plane that flew over the building just as a blinding flash obscured it,


From the explosion(s), yes.



Originally posted by pteridine
aircraft parts being delivered on fork lifts and cranes to be placed in predetermined locations,


Have you not noticed that most of the pieces were small enough to carry away by hand? Also, have you considered why the wings were never found? I can imagine that -those- babies would indeed have needed a forklift to put on the scene.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Response to pteridine's post #335, Part 2 (last part)

reply to post by pteridine
 




Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x
 


bodies being delivered,


No need; real people died at the pentagon. There is absolutely no photographic evidence that even 1 of the bodies belonged to one of the people who were allegedly on the AA 77 flight.


Originally posted by pteridine
How many people would it take to do this? How much time to set it up?


I'm not sure; I'm guessing that your angle is that it would have taken too long to do it; do you have any evidence that this would be the case?



Originally posted by pteridine
Do you honestly believe that any group of people could have orchestrated the events... and left no traces and no witnesses?


Left no traces? We've been discussing their traces for quite a long time now.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by SPreston
 

You post such crap sometimes. I can't figure out why. They had run of the mill cameras just like most places do. A couple thousand each at the most. The attack happened in 2001 , cameras were 8 years behind then. 8 years in electronics is multiple generations. They were set to record at 1 frame per second.

I have worked for a company that sells and installs video surveillance equipment. As recently as last year systems that cost several thousand dollars produced similar (if not inferior) video compared to the pentagon video. You are barking up the wrong tree.


I don't see it that way. Even if what you say is true, I believe that 1 frame a second would have been plenty to determine if a plane had actually hit the pentagon or not.


Originally posted by jprophet420
Yes, you know 911 was an inside job. And when you start trying to make every single point about 911 a conspiracy, you discredit yourself and others by association.

Please truthers, leave the video camera argument alone, it is futile, and makes you look stupid. The "missing frame" argument is as stupid as the no planes theory. Guess what? It was set to record 1fps and was not precise down to the second. If you think there is a conspiracy in that put your tin foil hat on, the debunkers have won.


Even assuming that you're right, I don't assume, as you apparently do, that a lack of knowledge means that one is a tin foil hatter. At present, I don't have Aldo's work regarding the frames with me, and I believe that Aldo himself may not be sure as to whether it's conclusive evidence of tampering. However, there's also the time stamp of September 12, and at the wrong time as well. Sure, you may say that the camera had just been set with the wrong time and date; but why was this never mentioned by the official story?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by jthomas
 



Still waiting...

so far you cannot explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene.


Demonstrate that you know no passenger bodies were at the scene.


Demonstrate that you know passenger bodies were at the scene.


See how this works?

1. You ask, "...explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

2. I ask you to demonstrate the validity of YOUR claim that there were no passenger bodies at the scene.

3. Then you want me to prove your UNPROVEN claim is wrong.

What a great illustration of my point you given everyone, Lilydale!


Ummmmm NO. You could not be more wrong. Perhaps you need some sleep. I merely asked you to back up your claim.


You made this claim: "...explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

Demonstrate that there were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon or withdraw your claim. It's as simple and straightforward as that.

Enough of your evasions, Lilydale. You're making a fool of yourself.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by jthomas
 



Still waiting...

so far you cannot explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene.


Demonstrate that you know no passenger bodies were at the scene.


Demonstrate that you know passenger bodies were at the scene.


See how this works?

1. You ask, "...explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

2. I ask you to demonstrate the validity of YOUR claim that there were no passenger bodies at the scene.

3. Then you want me to prove your UNPROVEN claim is wrong.

What a great illustration of my point you given everyone, Lilydale!


Ummmmm NO. You could not be more wrong. Perhaps you need some sleep. I merely asked you to back up your claim.


You made this claim: "...explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

Demonstrate that there were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon or withdraw your claim. It's as simple and straightforward as that.


jthomas, I believe you know what side of the debate that I'm on, but I agree with your assertion that what she said implies that she knows that no passenger bodies were found at the crash scene. I believe what she meant, however, was simply that there is no evidence that any passenger bodies were ever found. It is alleged that passenger DNA was found, but the thought that there is no evidence that the bodies themselves were found renders the claim that DNA of those same bodies was found to be highly questionable. Can you atleast agree to this?

[edit on 13-9-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
But you REFUSE to demonstrate that any of the cameras WERE aimed in such a manner that they would capture AA77 hitting the Pentagon. YOU have NO evidence that they were, or "should have."


There is a very nice picture just a few pages back that shows the cameras and which way they were aimed. What more do you need?


SPreston's pictures do not show which way they aim. He only claimed which way they aimed.


You are just engaging in a classic appeal to incredulity and cannot support your claims.

But that's the nature of the beast, 9/11 "Truth".


Ahhhh. I see why you are suddenly so loquacious. You got a new word. So, we traded canard for incredulity did we? How many times can you use that word today. 2 so far.


I'm sorry you are upset that I noted your fallacy.

I await your evidence that videos cameras "should have" caught the actual crash of AA77 into the Pentagon as I still wait for your refutation of the evidence that AA77 did hit the Pentagon.

Do you need another 8 years to do it?



By the way, when do we get to hear your evidence that lots of the hundreds of people all around the Pentagon ever saw a jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon?"



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by jthomas
 



Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by jthomas
 



Still waiting...

so far you cannot explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene.


Demonstrate that you know no passenger bodies were at the scene.


Demonstrate that you know passenger bodies were at the scene.


See how this works?

1. You ask, "...explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

2. I ask you to demonstrate the validity of YOUR claim that there were no passenger bodies at the scene.

3. Then you want me to prove your UNPROVEN claim is wrong.

What a great illustration of my point you given everyone, Lilydale!


Ummmmm NO. You could not be more wrong. Perhaps you need some sleep. I merely asked you to back up your claim.


You made this claim: "...explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

Demonstrate that there were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon or withdraw your claim. It's as simple and straightforward as that.


jthomas, I believe you know what side of the debate that I'm on, but I agree with your assertion that what she said implies that she knows that no passenger bodies were found at the crash scene. I believe what she meant, however, was simply that there is no evidence that any passenger bodies were ever found. It is alleged that passenger DNA was found, but the thought that there is no evidence that the bodies themselves were found renders the claim that DNA of those same bodies was found to be highly questionable. Can you atleast agree to this?

[edit on 13-9-2009 by scott3x]


Scott3x, I can only go by what Lilydale claims directly.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Scott3x, I can only go by what Lilydale claims directly.


Fair enough. Guess we'll have to wait for her response on this one.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You made this claim: "...explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

Demonstrate that there were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon or withdraw your claim. It's as simple and straightforward as that.

Enough of your evasions, Lilydale. You're making a fool of yourself.


"Demonstrate that there no passenger bodies at the Pentagon"



- Negative Proof -

en.wikipedia.org...

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false.

---

There was a Unicorn at the pentagon...

I don't need photos or video evidence...



[edit on 13-9-2009 by Jezus]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
You made this claim: "...explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

Demonstrate that there were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon or withdraw your claim. It's as simple and straightforward as that.

Enough of your evasions, Lilydale. You're making a fool of yourself.


"Demonstrate that there no passenger bodies at the Pentagon"


- Negative Proof -

en.wikipedia.org...

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false.



In True Truther fashion a phrase in a reply to a dismissive claim is taken out of context for distortion purposes.

"Pull it"


M



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


The military is, by their own stated estimates, ten to fifteen years ahead of the civilian population in technology. They invented GPS and used it before we ever envisioned it. They invented cellular technology, then digital--woops! Before you pounce upon me, allow me to correct myself, the money supplied by the Department of Defense was used to invent these technologies for the purpose of the Department of Defense.

Basically, DOD has all the best stuff in the world--especially when it comes to surveillance, aerial, surface warfare, subsurface, etc.

The "no plane" theory I'll give you as ridiculous, cameras on the Pentagon is dead on in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



You made this claim: "...explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

Demonstrate that there were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon or withdraw your claim. It's as simple and straightforward as that.

Enough of your evasions, Lilydale. You're making a fool of yourself.


I'm not sure where she lives, but in the DC Metro area everyone knows someone who worked at the Pentagon site that day. Almost every fire, rescue, and emergency vehicle in the region was parked out front.

People talk and a lot of people have talked about what they saw that day. All I can say as I didn't battle the fires (just sent pizzas to the firefighters) is that there were a lot of unanswered questions on the part of people that were there.

Enough, in my opinion, to not tell people that they are making "fools" of themselves.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by jprophet420
 


The military is, by their own stated estimates, ten to fifteen years ahead of the civilian population in technology. They invented GPS and used it before we ever envisioned it. They invented cellular technology, then digital--woops! Before you pounce upon me, allow me to correct myself, the money supplied by the Department of Defense was used to invent these technologies for the purpose of the Department of Defense.

Basically, DOD has all the best stuff in the world--especially when it comes to surveillance, aerial, surface warfare, subsurface, etc.


I'm sure the Pentagon still serves bacon n' eggs in the cafeteria. They still drive 3 year old cars and have out of date equipment and technology hanging around in most areas. You can't keep replacing expensive hardware with the 2024 design model every few months.

More to the point, the 10-15 year advance is yet another exaggeration. Sure they keep ahead for military and warfare advantages. But the US military does not work in isolation. Hi-tech research companies, academics, consult on and implement most of their products with them or as sub-contractors.

Technology grows in a lot of places, the military's single advantage is the budget to research and implement working models. But they can't keep the theoretical basis of the technology to themselves.

Mike



[edit on 13-9-2009 by mmiichael]



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join