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: 40
215
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Why, indeed? Apparently they didn't ask you for targeting information when they decided to show DoD that they were not immune from attack either. Don't let your own reasoning cloud the issues.


My own reasoning also comes from a precedence set by "terrorists" thus far.




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


A Fortior, I like your Option B.

However, in a reply to my post, you wrote this:



Also you mentioned Columbia Pike. The Pike runs fairly close to parallel to the river, the path they flew is perpendicular.


I currently live here.


As do I. I used to "slug" to the Pentagon daily. We would take the Pike into Arlington. It follows the river in that area, meaning parallel, curving slightly south then dipping into Arlington.

EDIT: I should have been more specific--where the Pike and 27 run together, so excuse my sloppiness.


I'm not talking about the geography here out of my posterior. Anyone with "Google Map" capability will see the error there. It's not a big deal, EXCEPT it kinda-sorta is, because it is these kinds of small 'mistakes' that grow and fester into larger ones, and cloud the issue.


From your post, and I may have read it wrong because it was late, it sounded as though you were saying that the Pike ran perpendicular in the fore. If it were perpendicular than that road is "395" or route 1, yes?

EDIT: I'm still not sure why you mentioned Columbia pike as a path so that is why I made mention of the river. That section of the Interstate would be more of a "path" as it is a straight line out of the Capital.



This confused me too:


According to the 9-11 transcripts they were supposedly terrible pilots. If you're not Maverick, then why hit the Pentagon with the Capital building is in full range?



Please re-read my post.


DC really has no 'skyline', per se. The Capitol Building is easily spotted, at the end of the Mall. The WH has the Ellipse, and of course the Washington Monument nearby, but still, from an altitude of even a few thousand feet, the WH is extremely tiny in comparison.


The only skyline DC has is the Capital Building. It is mandated to be the tallest building in DC, hence my confusion why you wouldn't take out the largest object, the most sacred object in the entire city--especially if they are terrible pilots, which according to their flight instructor, they were.

Imagine being a pilot who flew training jets but are now behind the controls of a passenger plane with people just a door away and have to take out something big in the name of Allah and you decide to sharp turn so as not to miss it, but you choose not to hit the Capital building? How can you miss the Capital building?

I'm actually asking a serious question of a pilot, a pilot that knows the city. That building sticks out. It's the only thing that does. So you change angles to careen into the Pentagon, not knowing if your buddies succeeded at all...

Well, you know what...it doesn't have to make sense to me, right? As long as it made sense to them. It was their plan, after all.


The Pentagon is quite large. Low profile, yes, but a familiarity with the river, the bridges, the proximity to national Airport --- and of course Columbia Pike (accurately, Virginia State Route 244).


Yes, large, quite agreed, but not exactly the heart of America.


Originally posted by A Fortiori

If you had to hit something in DC to inspire fear and terror then why not hit the Mall, the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial...


The Mall is a big, open expanse of grass. Lincoln, and Jefferson Memorials are small. The Washington Monument? Capitol is FAR better 'blow' to America than any of those.....



....and take out some school children while you're at it?



I'm sorry, but that's just vile.


Yes, it is. This whole thing is vile. I do know there were five children on that plane. Obviously they did not care about killing children. Why are we giving them more morals than they have? We are discussing people that supposedly are willing to hit us with a dirty bomb. Supposedly they mean to kill children as you cannot disseminate between children and adults in terror attacks.

EDIT: Please don't get me wrong, sometimes I say shocking things because I get tired of side-stepping. You see, I think they knew before the attacks that it was going to happen. Maybe not planned, but knew and I find it incredibly evil that nothing was done about it. That anger in me is coming out here, because you see I have little people that I want to see grow up and how can I assure them of a safe happy place in this climate.
[edit on 20-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 20-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 20-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 20-9-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 



We would take the Pike into Arlington. It follows the river in that area, meaning parallel, curving slightly south then dipping into Arlington.


Sorry, dear, it's just not....though it may seem so, when driving along at ground level.

Look again at the map, and start from Bailey's Crossroads --- it's a straight line to the Pentagon. UNTIL Arlington, and where it approaches the Pentagon. I-395 is a very poor guide INTO the Pentagon, from the air.

BUT, the Potomac isn't parallel at all. Perhaps you're thinking of the shoreline from Old Town, up to the Airport, and then the bend around and under the 14th St. Bridge, and the Key Bridge??

(LOL!! Just noticed a typo in the 'Google' map!! They spelled it 'Patomic' Park!)

Anyway, no telling what was in their minds, but it's logical to assume that each was assigned a target, and planned for the one they were assigned, studying their approach and method.



[edit on 20 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 20 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


And since they set the precedence of attacking the Pentagon, how have you factored that in? Note also that the terrorists are adaptable and continuously change tactics.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by A Fortiori
 



We would take the Pike into Arlington. It follows the river in that area, meaning parallel, curving slightly south then dipping into Arlington.


Sorry, dear, it's just not....though it may seem so, when driving along at ground level.


True, I do not look at the area from the air. I just drive around it. I still think that 395 HOV that takes you past the Pentagon/Pentagon City/National Airport is a fairly straight shot between DC and the Pentagon, but again...I'm not a pilot and I don't see it from the air.

Again, though...if you're flying what does it matter what the roads look like? I am really curious this time. You don't follow roads, do you? (Serious question).



[edit on 20-9-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


And since they set the precedence of attacking the Pentagon, how have you factored that in? Note also that the terrorists are adaptable and continuously change tactics.


IF it was, indeed, a group of terror cells unaided by any other groups then I would cash this in their future repertoire.

It is a wonder that they have not tried anything alone these lines with Israel. There is far more support in that region, resources as well. Very peculiar.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There is no issue of "negative proof" involved here. Got that, finally?


I'm sorry but this still isn't debatable...


Originally posted by jthomas
All Lillydale has to do is show us how she knows that NO passenger bodies were found at the crash scene.


The above quote is the same exact illogical rhetoric as your earlier quote...


Originally posted by jthomas
You can provide no reason whatsoever why anyone should think the passengers' bodies did not exist. You can provide no reason to claim that the passenger bodies were not located and identified. None. Zero. Nada.



"show us..that NO passenger bodies were found"

Don't you see how ridiculous this statement is?

It is impossible to prove a negative.

Your entire point of view is a clear undeniable example of negative proof.

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



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

"show us..that NO passenger bodies were found"

Don't you see how ridiculous this statement is?


Then you will tell Lillydale to retract her claim that she knows there "were no passengers bodies at the crash?"

You'd better get to it, Jezus. Times a-wasting!



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
As to waiting to see all of the evidence; that may be fruitless. Can you name an event where "all the evidence" is available?

Off topic and pointless specualtion. I don't have all the evidence surrounding the Pentagon, therefore I am not silly enough to proclaim that I know what happened there.


Originally posted by pteridine
Politicians provide clear contradictions at a moment's notice. It is in their job descriptions to do so while angling for a bit of the spotlight.

Which proves my point that politicians are covering up evidence about the Pentagon attack.


Originally posted by pteridine
Based on what you have seen so far, what do you think is the most likely Pentagon scenario?

I don't know, pteridine. I don't go for 'most likely' and I won't be sucked in to guessing games. I can only hope, that some day, the truth is revealed.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


This is about the fourth or fifth time you posted this, it's starting to become a childlish annoyance, especially in light of the fact you are unable to provide evidence to the contrary. I honestly think we are able to read and comprehend what you're saying without your ceaseless, if not pointless repetition.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus

"show us..that NO passenger bodies were found"

Don't you see how ridiculous this statement is?


Then you will tell Lillydale to retract her claim that she knows there "were no passengers bodies at the crash?"

You'd better get to it, Jezus. Times a-wasting!





Nobody is my keeper, BOY.

I will retract nothing. Just because you are obviously too stupid or too damaged to understand a little simple logic, I will expect you to keep harping on this lame almost point. This makes 3 threads and about 20 posts, all about my claim that things are as they were because no one has proven otherwise to me. Prove, it, back something up, get a new line, stop enjoying these people's deaths, or take your argument to someone stupid enough to fall for any of your lame attempts.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 



You don't follow roads, do you? (Serious question).


Since it's serious, and despite risking off-topic, I think it's important to answer - since it relates.

In the sense of commercial passenger transportation? No. There are far better more sophisticated means of navigating.

However, being able to navigate via landmarks or various ground structures, in visual conditions (VFR), is one of the most basic of flying skills. It is taught to students from the very beginning. And, it's perfectly natural, isn't it? We are a visual species.

Everything in flying relates to visual references...whether they be outside, or in the case of inclement weather conditions (IFR), inside using the instrumentation. (An acquired skill of its own, and requires certain prerequisites of experience - here's a link with info: www.risingup.com...)

(Very old joke...'IFR'='I Follow Roads'. As I said, old...and not really funny after all these years...)

Even to get a Private Pilot's certificate in most syllabi is very basic training in insturment flying, if only for emergency situations for unintentional encounters of low visibility.

Point is, these guys had plenty of hours' experience -- not sure if it was Hanjour who had the equivalent of a US Commercial license. Foreign pilot's licenses that meet FAA standards are acceptable, and the FAA will issue a US Certificate under FAR Part 61, section 61.75

For instance, here's what a facility in Florida puts up as helpful info:

Sun State Aviation.

(I imagine the scrutiny is MUCH more strict nowadays, eh??)

Being able to locate, and successfully hit the Pentagon (or any of the targets that day) relied on good visibility, and some familarity with the surrounding terrain (except for the Towers, of course).

I can only guess whether the Columbia Pike approach route was chosen because of a main lack of tall structures along the way. (Or, as a 'channel' between structures). I assume they thought ahead about a certain distance needed for lining up, and also to descend and increase the speeds above what is normally possible in level flight at low altitude.

When you look at the ground track of AA 77, it shows a logical fly over to verify WHERE the Pentagon was, then the turn-around to double-back and descend on target. The Pike would also be useful, there, for orientation.

ONE thing that I've wondered about is --- the RIGHT turn, instead of LEFT turn. Certainly, flying from either seat is possible. Getting accustomed to the right seat after learning in the left isn't too difficult. Reason I bring it up is, in the turn around it's easier to re-acquire your target if you turn toward it on the same side you're sitting. BUT, it is not essential. The B757 has very good visibility out the cockpit windows. Even from the left seat, he could have made that turn easily.

I'm looking at the Flight Recorder data. It shows take-off began at about 0819 EDT. The R autopilot was engaged @ 0826, passing through about 15,000 feet.

This tells me that the First Officer (co-pilot) David Charlesbois was probably flying that leg. (We commonly use the A/P associated with the Pilot Flying). He hand-flew for the first several minutes, likely because it was such a nice morning. We like to fly, when workload permits.

The SSFDR data also show everything perfectly normal, the airspeed was 250 knots in the climb, until passing 10,000 feet (because of an FAA speed limit imposed on all civilian airplanes). The point on the chart where airspeed begins to increase jives with the altitude increasing above 10,000 feet. Airspeed stabilized at 320 KT, a typical indicated airspeed for climb.

AA 77 levelled briefly at FL290 @0833. ALL of the various modes on the Autothrottle and Autopilot annunciations match up, as expected. Looks like they climbed to FL330, levelled again briefly. (about 5 minutes).

Then, up to final cruise of FL350 @ 0845.

The first unauthorized descent began at 0901. This tells me that the hijackers had control by then.

They (he) knew what to do...the vertical mode of the A/P changed from 'VNAV' (Vertical Nav) to 'LVL CH' (Level Change). The A/P remained engaged. Level off was at FL250.

A/P was turned OFF at 0908. (Along with the autothrottles). Airspeed and altitude fluctuate for a while....these guys weren't smooth pilots. Also, may have been getting a 'feel' for the control responses.

A/P briefly engaged (the L this time) for less than one minute. OFF again for about 30 seconds, then ON again until 0929. The A/P and A/T are easy to engage/disengage. A button to engage, another button to disengage. Actually, several ways to disengage....


It's interesting to note that the Captain's Flight Director remained on the entire flight, whilst the F/O's was turned OFF concurrent with the first A/P disconnect. (The Flt Dir is a display on the Attitude Indicator that provides pitch and roll cues for pilots to assist in instrument flying. For someone not trained to use it, it can be distracting). Hence, Hanjour was likely in the Right seat....for some reason.

When the A/P was turned off at 0929, altitude was about 8,000 feet, and airspeed 320KT. The airplane had been descending in 'LVL CH', which is a programmed mode that, in descents, maintains a selected airpeed that is 'dialed' in on the mode control panel by holding the proper pitch attitude, and the A/T retard to idle. When the selected (on the MCP) altitude is reached, the system automatically levels off, and throttles switch to 'IAS' mode (indicated airspeed), and when level the vertical mode switches to 'ALT HOLD'.

So, it's obvious to me he used the automation until 0929, then hand-flew the remainder, including the wide turn past, and back to, the Pentagon.

His heading was 090 until time 0929, then showed a left turn to about 060 for a couple of minutes, then right back to 090...until at 0934 the right turn began, airspeed was about 300....+/- (he wasn't very good at airpeed control, he got as slow as about 264 KT, but that's still safe lfying speed...like I said, not real smooth). Last recorded heading looks like about 070-075. These are all magnetic, and the chart I'm looking at online is small, hence I am not very accurate as I interpolate.

Last recorded IAS was just over 450KT at time recording stopped.

There is a handy video made by the NTSB, and put up by a 'hostile' guy from P4T on YouTube ('johndoeXLC') that is peppered with his inane text comments.

IF he is actually a pilot, then when he asks, in a text frame "The Pentagon straight ahead. Why start this turn? Why not push the nose straight down into the Pentagon?" he first displays his ignorance.

The jet is at 8,000 feet, well less than one mile from the Pentagon. There is NO WAY in a B757 to just push over, and expect to hit that close, from that altitude and airspeed. ANY pilot should understand this!

Here it is: (Note the control wheel movements, and how erratic they are. Airplane response to control inputs is NOT instantaneous, as you can see. Remember, not a smooth dude..... ALSO, note that his angle of bank never exceeds 45 degrees. This is only slightly steeper than normal for a passenger jet, for the comfort of passengers. BUT, well within the capability of the airplane). ALSO, on the left is a bar meter showing elevator position info. Note, also, the 'L C R' autopilot buttons, showing all three are disengaged.



Whew! If this was TMI, let me know.

PS...the time reference is in UTC (also called GMT, and in aviation parlance 'Zulu' time).



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Weed,
Thanks for the video and your insights. It looks as though the flight path is not NOC and the only anomaly is the 180' altitude on the barometric altimeter "above the light poles." What is the response time and accuracy for such an instrument? Could the rapid descent and forward velocity of the aircraft cause a delay or error in the reading?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thank you.

Did you get the transcripts from the 9-11 documents? Do you have a link?

The reason that I ask is that I have a friend who is a bush pilot in Alaska. I would say where but he is an odd sort of person and might read and think I'm "squealing"...said that he felt that the individual flew like he was military or an "expert" and from what his instructors said should not have been able to fly that well.

I have a...er, um, friend who is a former military pilot who also says that Hanjour's flight instructors said he wasn't a very good student and that there was some turn that was made that this guy says you would have had to have been to make and that the plane came close to a "landing". He doesn't think Hanjour was flying because of the maneuvers and something dealing with the weight of the plane on landing.

Can you comment or explain what they are talking about? They both mention that turn and feel based on the instructors that something isn't right. What turn?

Also, where are you guys getting this flight info from, if you don't mind me asking. I wrote and requested information and none of the documents I received have any of this stuff.

Now if you know DC...Pentagon City, those DEA and old MCI buildings...my friend was out in front with some others smoking when the plane hit. She thought it was a military plane that hit, thinking that something had gone wrong. Working close to National Airport she sees planes all day long. Living in PG and the AFB + PAX she also saw military craft.

Can you comment on the size proportionately?

I ask because it is possible that she saw "Pentagon" and thought "military". She's not a 9-11 Truther. She's says there are some things she doesn't want to know.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Tezza, you made a few comments that I am responding to:

"Off topic and pointless specualtion. I don't have all the evidence surrounding the Pentagon, therefore I am not silly enough to proclaim that
I know what happened there."
-----Actually on topic. You want all the evidence to determine what happened at the Pentagon and have no working hypothesis. Since all the evidence will never be available, you must expect to never come to a conclusion about the events. Is this the position that a troll would take?

"Which proves my point that politicians are covering up evidence about the Pentagon attack."
-----It proves nothing of the sort. It shows only that politicians talk before they think. The casual reader will note that Tezza has come to an illogical conclusion and is not the unbiased, disinterested party that he claims to be.

"I can only hope, that some day, the truth is revealed."
-----Ah, hope. I can only hope, that some day, you provide some positive content to ATS threads.

[edit on 9/20/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
"Off topic and pointless specualtion. I don't have all the evidence surrounding the Pentagon, therefore I am not silly enough to proclaim that
I know what happened there."
-----Actually on topic. You want all the evidence to determine what happened at the Pentagon and have no working hypothesis.

No, pteridine. It was off topic. You asked me if there were other events that had all the evidence available. This thread is not about other events, it's about the Pentagon situation.

Politicians have told conflicting stories about the Pentagon situation, so that's enough for me to know that not all of the evidence has been revealed.


Originally posted by pteridine
-----It proves nothing of the sort. It shows only that politicians talk before they think. The casual reader will note that Tezza has come to an illogical conclusion and is not the unbiased, disinterested party that he claims to be.

It proves that there are conflicting reports from politicians. Something's being hidden. It's a logical conclusion and your inability not to follow it is your loss, not mine.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



It looks as though the flight path is not NOC...


Actually, the P4T have been using this (or versions of it) for their NOC case. HOWEVER, the video is only a best estimate of the airplane's lateral position relative to the ground. I thnk the P4T are claiming that this, or another simulation shows the NOC, or that THIS one is altered...it's hard to keep track.

Point is, the inertial reference systems aren't that accurate, not to within the few hundred feet difference from SOC to NOC. The ground track IS based on physical evidence of damage at the scene, and eyewitnesses (MOST of them, anyway!!). I did somewhere see an extensive discussion into the damage pattern inside the Pentagon itself, thus determining the trajectory. Working bakwards from that fits over Rte 27 and lightpole strikes.


...and the only anomaly is the 180' altitude on the barometric altimeter "above the light poles."


Yes. We are told that the recording stopped before impact at the Pentagon(mere fractions of a second before).

The 'baro' altimeter (Captain's in the data) was likely still set to 29.92, as is standard for Flight Levels above 18,000 feet. The prevailing altimeter setting that morning, according to the KDCA (National Airport) METAR and ATIS was 30.22

That there is a 300 foot discrepancy.

The Pentagon helipad is at a 40 foot MSL elevation:


Pentagon Ahp Heliport

General Type: Heliport, Status: Operational, Ownership: Army ovned, Facility Use: Private, Site Number: 03006.4*H, Location ID: JPN, Region: Eastern, District Office: DCA, Aeronautical sectional chart: Washington, Tie-In FSS: No, Tie-In FSS ID: DCA, Tie-In FSS Name: Leesburg, Tie-In FSS Toll-Free Number: 1-800-WX-BRIEF, Elevation: 40 ft, Elevation determination method: Estimated, Elevation Source: MILITARY (2003-08-22)...

[url=http://www.city-data.com/airports/Pentagon-Ahp-Heliport-Washington-District-of-Columbia.html]Link.


Something else to consider:


...The terrain beneath the estimated flight path takes the aircraft slopes down, with Washington Boulevard situated 10+ feet higher than the Pentagon.

[url=http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon/2006-0903]Source.

40' MSL at the helipad. Ten more feet at Washington Blvd (Rte 27). The poles were how tall again?

Minor lag time, again in fractions of seconds, in the recorded barometric altimeter readings??

There was a discussion I was involved in, on ATS, about the Radar Altimeters....that was with a NOC/"flyover" advocate. I can't verify, nor remember, where he/she got their data on RA.



What is the response time and accuracy for such an instrument?


Again, mentioned above. At normal rates of descent, such as in an instrument approach (Category I) where you use the baro altitude as your 'Decision Height', it's reasonably accurate to a few feet. Of course, even though a Cat I approach is a 'precision' approach in the parlance, there are built-in allowances for the fact that an airplane descending at a normal 700-800 fpm will reach DH, and if sufficient visual references aren't available to continue to a landing, a go-around will be initiated. The airplane may descend as much as 100 feet during this time, but it's planned for in the clearway area of the approach to the runway.

Most airline's procedure is for the Pilot Monitoring (non-flying) to call out "Approaching minimums" at 100 feet prior to DH. This does two things: It's a tacit verification between both pilots of matching altimeter readings at a critical point, and cues both again to the imminent decision.

At a descent rate of 750 fpm it is not all that precise. Like I said, within a few feet, but just in the time it takes you to utter the words, the altitude is constantly changing.

NOW, for AA 77.....high-speed (that can also have affected the static ports, and the altimeter readings....just thought of that) ...anyway, high-speed AND a very rapid descent rate? I wouldn't be surprised to see altimeter lag.

In other words, it's not 'proof positive' as has been claimed. The majority of real airline pilots will understand that.

Consider one more thing -- there are certain differences allowed between the three barometric altimeters (Captain's, First Officer's and the STBY). That is in the 'Limitations' section of the Airplane Flight Manual (which I don't have handy atm) but from memory, it varies depending on altitude, from 20-40 feet at sea level, to values slightly higher (80-120??) at cruise altitudes. BUT, that only relates to comparing altimeters to one another onboard, both for dispatch purposes, and for possible maintenance write-ups if observed in flight.


JREF has a lot of discussion on this very topic:
forums.randi.org...

I tend to ramble.....



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
No, pteridine. It was off topic. You asked me if there were other events that had all the evidence available. This thread is not about other events, it's about the Pentagon situation.

Politicians have told conflicting stories about the Pentagon situation, so that's enough for me to know that not all of the evidence has been revealed.

It proves that there are conflicting reports from politicians. Something's being hidden. It's a logical conclusion and your inability not to follow it is your loss, not mine.


You choose to miss the point that there will never be an event with all the evidence available. Yet you are waiting for that to happen for the Pentagon strike. You have no inkling of what happened, yet you defend CIT and PfT at every turn. Why is that? Do you have a bias? Maybe it has to do with the working hypothesis that you say you don't have.

It is illogical to conclude that there is a coverup based on inconsistencies in political press conferences. If this were the diagnostic for conspiracies, ATS would be much busier. This shows your lack of logical thought and bias when it comes to 911 topics. The casual reader will note that Tezzajw continues to argue illogically and refuses to admit his error.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You have no inkling of what happened, yet you defend CIT and PfT at every turn. Why is that? Do you have a bias?

Please demonstrate where I defend CIT and P4T at every turn.

Your completely false comment can be rectified by you with a retraction, as I know that you will not be able to prove it.

Your willingness and eagerness to label me as a CIT/P4T drone won't work, pteridine. I've had other official goverment story believers try to accuse me of being a CIT/P4T drone in the past - none have ever been able to quote me or support their accusation.

It's poor form that you would spread these rumours about me, pteridine. Your apology will suffice. Not that I expect you to either support your claim or apologise. It's much easier for you to make baseless accusations against me.


Originally posted by pteridine
It is illogical to conclude that there is a coverup based on inconsistencies in political press conferences.

Well, you're wrong. It is logical and pertinent to conclude that the entire story is not being truthfully told, when there have been so many contradictory statements from officials.

Casual readers to the thread will note that in pteridine's world, it's ok for politicians to contradict each other and that we're supposed to believe what they say.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Politicians have told conflicting stories about the Pentagon situation, so that's enough for me to know that not all of the evidence has been revealed.

It proves that there are conflicting reports from politicians. Something's being hidden. It's a logical conclusion and your inability not to follow it is your loss, not mine.


Truthers have told conflicting stories about the Pentagon situation.
Can you spell flyover.

Any they alll claim they're telling the Truth. So there's something hidden.

Are trying to point fingers away from the people who attacked the US trying to pin it on the admin, intelligence, Mossad, Col Sanders?

There should be an investigation, right?

M



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join