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: 34
215
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


So you feel I missed the spirit of "Truthers are weird"? Perhaps rather than sucking up website real estate with long quoting and zero attempt at making it look clean you could choose to make yourself more clear instead?

I see no straw man on my part. I did not create a false argument to beat upon. I made an analogous reference to prove what I feel is hypocritical. A straw man would be if I were to state that your belief that aliens were behind 9-11 and then argue why that is not so.




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
Well Jthomas, you admit you have no evidence to prove us wrong. Yet, you assume that you don't need to back your claims. Surely there is an official list of stuff collected at the scene, allong with photos of the debris collected. That would be step one in a crime scene investigation.

And don't write some BS about how it wasn't a crime scene, because at this point it should have been since no one and taken the credit yet.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by TheAntiHero420]


Boy, you can't stop with the strawman arguments.

Try again: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Get back to us when you decide to be intellectually honest.


"Inconceivable!"
"You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


They are not making "straw men". A straw man is if they create an argument for you and beat it up.

Just thought you might want to know since you use the word quite often.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

1. There are NO NOC witnesses who ever saw a flyover, which is what CIT claims "must have happen. There is NO credible positive evidence that AA77 flew any such NOC flight path.


"Credible" is subjective. There are people in the DC Metro area that do claim that this is the case. I can't say if they are credible or not because "who" they are and their "credibility" is a subjective study in personalities. It has no place in a debate.


2. There is NO impossible dive ever demonstrated factually.


I assume you are placing yourself as a subject matter expert in aerial maneuvers and physics? Excellent! What are your credentials?


It is simply a claim based of P4T's faulty calculations arrived discussed extensively and debunked on JREF 9/11 Conspiracy Forum and elsewhere.


I would hate to think that forums like this are where something is authoritatively "debunked".

What you are doing is what is called an Appeal to Ridicule and Appeal to Popularity when you say that a "forum debunked" something already. Moreover, you are drizzling the argument with vague references to an unestablished event at this JREF place. How do we know this "forum" debunked anything? Was it a judged debate? Who were the SME's weighing in? What modeling did they use?


3. Bodies routinely survive burning completely in plane crashes and house fires. DNA easily survives. No one has demonstrated otherwise.


I'm late to this. Did anyone try to?


4. The "official story" canard is all it is. It is the evidence that counts and you have already misstated it 3 times above.



I realize that I am guilty of exacerbating this thread with snark. I will apologize for making it worse, but I have some questions that I hope you can answer.

With the understanding that you do believe the official story...

1) Do you think the government handled the investigation appropriately? If not, do you feel that this contributed to the "Truther" movement in any way?
2) If you feel that they did and that there is no question in your mind that this happened exactly like the government describes then why argue with people so angrily? I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I wouldn't argue with a child over his existence.
3) Can you explain the attitude of OS people like Anne Coulter towards the 9-11 widows who just want the story investigated further? If you can't, for example, you feel she was out of line then you can skip this one. I was honestly being curious and trying to figure out where the anger comes from. If my child was killed in an event like this I would certainly have questions upon questions and should be allowed to ask them.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by jthomas
 



Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by scott3x
AA 77 not crashing into the pentagon doesn't mean that those who were allegedly on the pentagon didn't die. On the other hand, it doesn't mean they're necessarily still alive either. But we don't need to know these things in order to realize that the official story is full of credibility gaps, such as all those north of the citgo gas station witnesses, what happens to DNA when exposed to heat and even a downright impossibility, such as the impossible dive the plane would have had to have made, as explained by Pilots for 9/11 Truth.


1. There are NO NOC witnesses who ever saw a flyover, which is what CIT claims "must have happen.


[Quote]It has been suggested that many were blinded by the explosion.


ALL of CIT's hand-picked "eyewitnesses" were on the approach side of the Pentagon and the claim is that the explosion hid the plane form the view of those particular "eyewitnesses." That's is one reason I created the bottom two images in my avatar to demonstrate that people all around the Pentagon were in a position to see a flyover - there were hundreds - andf that the came of temporary blindness is just an unsupported claim.


There is also at least 1 witness on record who saw a plane fly over the pentagon just after the explosion; given the fact that no other plane was that close to the pentagon, the logical conclusion is that it was the same plane. Apparently it was even banking the same way it had been before it began its flyover.


If you are talking about Roosevelt Roberts I demonstrated awhile back why his statements to CIT were useless. I showed how CIT's own phone conversation could be interpreted completely different than Ranke claims.


You are mistaken. CIT videotaped about 20 NOC flight path witnesses; their estimated flight paths corroborate each other fairly well.


No. ALL of them were on the approach side, they were hand-picked, none claimed to see a flyover, most saw the impact, and a NOC flight path is totally inconsistent with, and contradicts, all of the other evidence.


Originally posted by jthomas
3. Bodies routinely survive burning completely in plane crashes and house fires.


Agreed; and yet there is no evidence, other then the alleged DNA, that any of the alleged passengers on board AA 77 were ever recovered from the pentagon.


How do you know there is no evidence that AA77's passengers' bodies weren't recovered? What is the source for your assertion?


Are we to believe that heat that effectively vaporized an aluminum, steel, and titanium Boeing 757 airframe and impact that pentrated into the middle brick/mortar "C-ring" wall will leave enough mitochondrial DNA intact to conclusively identify the number of AA77 victims claimed?


Show me that no passenger bodies were recovered.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
Well Jthomas, you admit you have no evidence to prove us wrong. Yet, you assume that you don't need to back your claims. Surely there is an official list of stuff collected at the scene, allong with photos of the debris collected. That would be step one in a crime scene investigation.

And don't write some BS about how it wasn't a crime scene, because at this point it should have been since no one and taken the credit yet.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by TheAntiHero420]


Boy, you can't stop with the strawman arguments.

Try again: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Get back to us when you decide to be intellectually honest.


Don't call me boy, do not speak down to me.


Man, you can't stop with the strawman arguments.

Try again: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Get back to us when you decide to be intellectually honest.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Where did I get it?

I got it from you.

You repeat the same two points OVER and OVER again...

1. The majority believe the official story!

Argumentum ad populum

"If many believe so, it is so."

en.wikipedia.org...


2. You can't prove I have no evidence!

Negative Proof

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

en.wikipedia.org...


More strawman arguments.

Thanks for illustrating my point for me.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

I realize that I am guilty of exacerbating this thread with snark. I will apologize for making it worse, but I have some questions that I hope you can answer.

With the understanding that you do believe the official story...


I guess you're new at this. I accept the multiple lines of evidence from hundreds of different, independent and disconnected sources and thousands of eyewitnesses that converge on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Hiding behind the canard of the "official story" so you don't have to deal with the actual evidence is a 9/11 "Truth" Movement tactic we exposed 8 years ago.

Now, just WHAT is the purpose of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement? Do you know?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I accept the multiple lines of evidence from hundreds of different, independent and disconnected sources and thousands of eyewitnesses that converge on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.




"I don't just believe the official story...I believe all the true stuff that people said happened...because it was true..."



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
More strawman arguments.

Thanks for illustrating my point for me.




en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by jthomas
How do you know there is no evidence that AA77's passengers' bodies weren't recovered? What is the source for your assertion?

Show me that no passenger bodies were recovered.


You can't prove I have no evidence!

Negative Proof

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

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
Well Jthomas, you admit you have no evidence to prove us wrong. Yet, you assume that you don't need to back your claims. Surely there is an official list of stuff collected at the scene, allong with photos of the debris collected. That would be step one in a crime scene investigation.

And don't write some BS about how it wasn't a crime scene, because at this point it should have been since no one and taken the credit yet.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by TheAntiHero420]


Boy, you can't stop with the strawman arguments.

Try again: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Get back to us when you decide to be intellectually honest.


Don't call me boy, do not speak down to me.


Man, you can't stop with the strawman arguments.

Try again: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Get back to us when you decide to be intellectually honest.




I believe the word you are looking for is Sir. On the other hand, jthomas you are no longer arguing a point and I'm sure you aren't going to. You simply dismiss everything that any "truther"(hate that word) has said using a strawman arguement. You are the one being intellectually inhonest. If you post that same post a third time just changing one word i'll probably go insane, that craps annoying.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I guess you're new at this. I accept the multiple lines of evidence from hundreds of different, independent and disconnected sources


Where are these lines? I will keep asking you until you come up with some of this evidence that was so overwhelmingly convincing.

and thousands of eyewitnesses that converge on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.
I have a hard time believing that you have talked to and/or read thousands of eyewitness testimonies. Can you back any of that up? List them or something?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Hiding behind the canard of the "official story" so you don blah blah blah pointless empty words.



Tsk Tsk, I thought we went over this thomas. I have asked nicely and more than once but you have not answered. You will say you have and I ignored it but you cannot link to it, quote it, prove it. You just say things.

"Official Story" is out the window. We need something new.

I will ask, yet again....

what do you want to call the story that the president, vice president, and sod told us? They all told the same story so you cannot go there. That story about the 19 muslim extremists that we were sold. What did you want to call it? I will be sure to bring it up at the next meeting.


P.S. And another point for you. You just used "canard" for your 100th time YAYAYAYAYAYYAYAYAYAYAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Show me that no passenger bodies were recovered.



Show me that any passenger bodies were recovered.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Show me that any passenger bodies were recovered.


There were bodies of passengers at the site. The plane had 64 people on it embarking. It crashed an hour later. Whatever remains were unidentified were submitted for DNA tests. The information is available on file.

But not to YOU or anyone else just because they feel the have to have it. No company, organization, government is ever required to submit to constant information audits just because members of the general public doesn't believe something.

An enumeration of remains was made, almost certainly. We can only guess at the actual count of partial torsos, torn limbs, bones, teeth of the burned dead people. Publicly available information did not elaborate for obvious reasons.

You can try to convince someone in a position to request further details if you absolutely must have every recorded detail. A local politician, a professional journal, people dealing in medical forensics.


M



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
I guess you're new at this. I accept the multiple lines of evidence from hundreds of different, independent and disconnected sources


Where are these lines? I will keep asking you until you come up with some of this evidence that was so overwhelmingly convincing.


I already gave your sources. Your found them terribly inconvenient.

Let us know when you finally figure out what the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is all about. Apparently, no one here does.




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
Well Jthomas, you admit you have no evidence to prove us wrong. Yet, you assume that you don't need to back your claims. Surely there is an official list of stuff collected at the scene, allong with photos of the debris collected. That would be step one in a crime scene investigation.

And don't write some BS about how it wasn't a crime scene, because at this point it should have been since no one and taken the credit yet.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by TheAntiHero420]


Boy, you can't stop with the strawman arguments.

Try again: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Get back to us when you decide to be intellectually honest.


Don't call me boy, do not speak down to me.


Man, you can't stop with the strawman arguments.

Try again: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Get back to us when you decide to be intellectually honest.




I believe the word you are looking for is Sir.


No, bubba.

Let me know when you finally figure out what the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is supposed to be all about.

If you can figure that out....




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus


Originally posted by jthomas
How do you know there is no evidence that AA77's passengers' bodies weren't recovered? What is the source for your assertion?

Show me that no passenger bodies were recovered.


You can't prove I have no evidence!


I never said I could. Now, please show us how YOU know that AA77's passengers' bodies weren't recovered? What is your source?

Simple questions are really tough for you Twoofers, aren't they?




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I never said I could. Now, please show us how YOU know that AA77's passengers' bodies weren't recovered? What is your source?


I don't KNOW that...

I simply have no reason to believe otherwise...

Thus the issue of negative proof...

I don't have proof a Unicorn wasn't recovered at the pentagon...but I still have no reason to believe it was...

And if you want to talk about simplicity negative proof is probably the simplest logical fallacy...

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

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Jezus]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


So your implying that the "truth" movement is for a financial gain. So be it, but there was a huge gain because of 9/11. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Lillydale
Show me that any passenger bodies were recovered.


There were bodies of passengers at the site. The plane had 64 people on it embarking. It crashed an hour later. Whatever remains were unidentified were submitted for DNA tests. The information is available on file.




Which file? How were they recovered? From what part of the wreckage? How was the DNA gathered from bodies they did not find? Why are there no pictures of one tiny bit of this?

Before you answer, remember, there are pictures of bodies of people who were killed in the crash because they were inside the pentagon.




top topics



 
215
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join