Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by pteridine
You want evidence? People in Hell want ice water. My job is not evidence producer.

Lillydale, it looks like this is the closest that we'll get to a retraction from pteridine today.

He made the claim that the light pole hit the taxi but he has not proven it.

Casual readers, please peruse the previous page of this thread and note the hit-run disinfo tactics of pteridine.

Furthermore, when you next type in a thread with pteridine, make sure that you remind him to prove his claim that a light pole hit the taxi, or ask for his retraction. You'll see him back away, avoid and deflect, exactly as he has done so in this thread over the past couple of hours.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw

 

McGraw didn't state that he saw the plane hit the light pole. He said it hit the light pole. How would he know if he didn't see it, tezza?

Is this the new "OS" logic? It could be what he thinks happened, assumes, was told, was told to say... If does not say that he actually saw it, why do you need to assume that he actually did? You have already taken it back and put it forth again. I think it is over for this one.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

You want evidence? People in Hell want ice water. My job is not evidence producer.

Then what makes you think you are in any position to tell me what happened? If you have no evidence and cannot produce evidence and are not even interested in evidence...then stop trying to explain what happened in lack of that evidence. It is pretty simple. If you make a claim, you will be asked to back it up.

If you don't think Flt 77 struck the Pentagon, search for evidence that it didn't.

Search for evidence that something did not happen?

Jthomas, is that you? You, myself, and everyone reading this thread understand that you do not prove negatives.

Let's go with your logic. I say that a giant turtle from outerspace hit the Pentagon and set some pentagon workers on fire inside. Prove to me that is NOT what happened.

Find an aircraft that matches the Flight 77 aircraft that is still flying. Check parts returned for refabs to the factory that were on the flight 77 craft. Find the location that the real Flt 77 was flown to. Find passengers taht are still alive. When you have all of this evidence, you'll get to post it and tell all of us "I told you so."

Ummmm....wouldn't it be even easier for you to prove that AA77 hit the Pentagon? It is what really happened right? Why are you having such a hard time providing any evidence of the truth?

Let me ask you this, what makes you think that I could prove my wild fantasy when you cannot prove what you believe is the truth?

P.S. I also have a hard time believing that you have any kind of evidence that there are any people in hell and what they would like to drink.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by tezzajw[

McGraw's companion stated that within 45 seconds he ran down to help the injured people at the Pentagon. You think that if McGraw saw Lloyde, who was injured and only a few feet away, that McGraw would have ran to Lloyde first - right?

I didn't reject McGraw's testimony, you claimed I did. You should stop making those unsupported claims, Tezza. Why don't you interview McGraw and ask him why he ran past Lloyde? Maybe he checked on Lloyde and found him unhurt.
McGraw saw the airplane go overhead and hit the Pentagon. He said it hit the light poles which were right overhead. He must have seen it. The pieces hit the taxicab. He must have seen that, too. Maybe Craig can explain how the plane hit the light poles and then hit the Pentagon in light of the CIT theories. Can you explain it?

reply to post by Lillydale


Searching for evidence of the airplane is not "proving a negative;" it is searching for evidence of an airplane.


What would you like to drink?

Originally posted by Lillydale
Let me ask you this, what makes you think that I could prove my wild fantasy when you cannot prove what you believe is the truth?

Hey, I didn't think that a giant turtle was such a wild fantasy!

You're right though, the similarity between pteridine and jthomas, both wanting others to prove negatives, shows the levels that they need to plunge to score some credibilty with their failed logic.

Perhaps if they enrol as a pair, they might score a discount on tuition at the school of logic?

Clearly, after pteridine's self destruction today, he needs a lesson on how to prove his light pole story.

Lillydale, you better watch that giant light pole doesn't fall over and hurt your giant turtle.

reply to post by tezzajw


When you get to college Tezza, you should take a course in logic, yourself. Searching for evidence of an airplane is not proving a negative.

Originally posted by pteridine
I didn't reject McGraw's testimony, you claimed I did. You should stop making those unsupported claims, Tezza.

tezza supports his claim that pteridine rejected McGraw:

Originally posted by pteridine
We don't really know if he saw the plane hit the light pole or not.

pteridine, you posted McGraw's testimony to support your light pole story. Then, bolded above by me, you claimed that you can't be certain if McGraw saw it or not! You've rejected McGraw and I have supported my claim.

Originally posted by pteridine
Why don't you interview McGraw and ask him why he ran past Lloyde? Maybe he checked on Lloyde and found him unhurt.

Why McGraw ran past Lloyde is not a concern for me. You're using McGraw as your witness to the light pole so you better check what McGraw really saw. Get going, the whole ATS 9/11 forum is waiting...

Originally posted by pteridine
He said it hit the light poles which were right overhead. He must have seen it.

Oh, dear... the plea to miraculous help can be heard from pteridine.

Casual reader, at this point, pteridine's desperation can be obviously deduced when he states that McGraw must have seen it!!! pteridine has no idea what McGraw saw, yet he must have seen it!

Research and proof by pteridine: If I want something bad enough and I really believe in it, then it must have happened.

Originally posted by pteridine
The pieces hit the taxicab. He must have seen that, too.

pteridine falls further from the rails of sanity. He has not proven that anything hit the taxi and now he's pleading with us all to believe that McGraw must have seen it happen!!!

pteridine, take a walk. You really need to. You're so confused right now, that you're shaming the debunkers who actually think before they type.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by pteridine

I didn't reject McGraw's testimony, you claimed I did. You should stop making those unsupported claims, Tezza.

and then....

Originally posted by pteridine
We don't really know if he saw the plane hit the light pole or not. If he didn't see it, what struck the light pole?

So which part of the testimony are you not rejecting? You keep saying he must have seen it but you admit you do not know if he saw it. Which is it?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Searching for evidence of the airplane is not "proving a negative;" it is searching for evidence of an airplane.


What would you like to drink?

What? You told me to find evidence that it did not crash into the pentagon? I do not drink, what are you smoking?

reply to post by tezzajw


"pteridine falls further from the rails of sanity. He has not proven that anything hit the taxi and now he's pleading with us all to believe that McGraw must have seen it happen!!! "

McGraw said "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car." How would he know that if he hadn't seen it?
The third person references to yourself and exclamation points don't serve you well. Maybe it's junior high.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw

 

When you get to college Tezza, you should take a course in logic, yourself. Searching for evidence of an airplane is not proving a negative.

Pteridine, you did not ask me to search for evidence of a plane. You asked me to prove that it did not crash into the pentagon. How are you so confused by your own writing?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw

 

"pteridine falls further from the rails of sanity. He has not proven that anything hit the taxi and now he's pleading with us all to believe that McGraw must have seen it happen!!! "

McGraw said "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car." How would he know that if he hadn't seen it?
The third person references to yourself and exclamation points don't serve you well. Maybe it's junior high.

Then why did he not claim to see it? That would have been important to his testimony as to what really happened.

reply to post by Lillydale


It seems that an airplane crashed into the Pentagon. You believe that it was not flt 77. Find the airplane that was flt 77 and you will have your proof.
I don't smoke. Do you drink icewater?

Originally posted by pteridine
McGraw said "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car." How would he know that if he hadn't seen it?

I don't know. You ask him, he's your witness!

You've admitted that you don't know what McGraw saw. He's your star witness for the day, so you need to clarify your story with him and make sure that it also agrees with Lloyde's version of events as well.

pteridine, why are you having so much difficulty trying to prove your claim that a light pole hit the taxi?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

It seems that an airplane crashed into the Pentagon. You believe that it was not flt 77. Find the airplane that was flt 77 and you will have your proof.
I don't smoke. Do you drink icewater?

LOL. Ok, so you are not asking for negative proof, you are asking me to produce AA77.

Let me try this a little more slowly for you.

I did not claim AA77 is intact anywhere to be found. I have no need to prove it is.

I did not claim AA77 was hidden somewhere by people who know about. I have no need to prove it was and that there were.

I did not claim AA77 crashed into the pentagon. I have no reason to prove that it did.

You are really reaching here. Asking me to scour the globe for a plane just to prove that it did not crash into the pentagon is still asking me to prove a negative, you are just really trying to twist it.

There is a reason you avoided my other questions completely. You have no answer and now you are on the defensive. You can lie and make up rules all you like, that does not put AA77 inside the Pentagon.

You said it crashed there. Prove it.

I say it did not. Want me to prove that?

Which one do you say is true?

Why is it so hard for you to prove what you claim to know to be true?

Play your game on someone stupid enough to fall for it.

I never claimed there is still an AA77 anywhere to be found. You just plain made that part up to get out of answering to me. You and Jthomas appear to be getting desperate. I used to be able to expect a decent argument. Now all I get is cowardice. Sad.

Just out of curiosity, is that AA77 real world, or exercise? ATC couldn't even tell the difference that day and you expect people to produce proof this flight even exsisted to begin with?
Hard to say considering the plane vaporized itself into a hole barely large enough to drive a pick up truck through though isn't it? Like I said before, Rumsfeld eliminated the need for this argument when he used the word missile anyway.

Originally posted by pteridine
McGraw said "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car."

How would he know that if he hadn't seen it?

This is how we know that McGraw isn't certain of what he saw.

Please view the above link. It destroys pteridine's feeble attempt to use McGraw as a light-pole-hitting-the-taxi-witness.

You can find a very informative thread about supposed light pole witnesses here.

Thanks for playing, pteridine. Next time you might want to do your research before you make your proclomations.

Originally posted by pteridine
McGraw saw the airplane go overhead and hit the Pentagon.

Yeah, pteridine... McGraw also said that the plane bounced off the lawn as well... at least that's the impression that he got from other witnesses.

You better start looking for those bounce marks on that Pentagon lawn!

It seems that McGraw's impressions relied upon the strength of other people's recollections.

Anyway, he's your star witness, so you can do what you like with his words. CIT have already interviewed him. I suggest you watch the interview before you bother to reply.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by pteridine

He said it hit the light poles which were right overhead. He must have seen it. The pieces hit the taxicab. He must have seen that, too.

Is this what constitutes evidence to you pteridine? He must have seen it?

Could you please prove your claim that a light pole hit the taxi pteridine, or provide us with a complete retraction? Be forewarned that we require proof greater than the light pole must have hit the taxi.

A photo or video or eyewitness who has not already proved himself a liar would suffice. Perhaps one of those taxicab bodyguards would help you out.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/95a27a112554.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5e151507e888.jpg[/atsimg]