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: 64
215
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm afraid you are only one of 160,000 members on this forum and not in any position of authority to dictate to anyone what they can or cannot do.

You're certainly correct there. I can't dictate what you do and I don't try to.

Your actions dictate what you do. You have selected option 4, where you are doing nothing and willingly spreading disinformation about the number of people who witnessed the plane depart.

Remember, mmiichael the claim that you have made is that there were thousands of people who saw the plane depart. I'm quite happy for you to do nothing to prove it, therefore meaning that it is purely disinformation.




posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Your actions dictate what you do. You have selected option 4, where you are doing nothing and willingly spreading disinformation about the number of people who witnessed the plane depart.

Remember, mmiichael the claim that you have made is that there were thousands of people who saw the plane depart. I'm quite happy for you to do nothing to prove it, therefore meaning that it is purely disinformation.


As any flight leaving Dulles airport is seen by passengers relatives, people watching out the windows at observation decks and restaurants, airport personnel, traffic controllers, even those living nearby. How was this one different?

Are you actually implying the flight airline documented as boarded in Dulles airport, with security cameras recording, did not take off?

If so, what took off in it's place, what happened to the original plane, crew, and passengers?

You've said there's no proof of thousands seeing the plane take off. What is your countering claim and what proof do you have of it?


M

[edit on 1-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
As any flight leaving Dulles airport is seen by passengers relatives, people watching out the windows at observation decks and restaurants, airport personnel, traffic controllers, even those living nearby. How was this one different?

You claimed that thousands of people saw this flight depart. That was your claim.


Originally posted by mmiichael
You've said there's no proof of thousands seeing the plane take off.

Your failure to quote me here will be your admission that this is incorrect. I didn't make any claims about how many people might have seen the alleged flight depart.

mmiichael, you made the specific claim that there were thousands of people sho saw the plane depart.

I presented you with four possible options.

You have chosen option 4, where you are doing nothing to prove your claim. Your claim is effectively unproven, disinformation.

You have the power to change this by listing the names of all the people who observed the flight depart. If you don't number in the thousands, then your claim has not been proven, so you will need to select another option.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Your failure to quote me here will be your admission that this is incorrect. I didn't make any claims about how many people might have seen the alleged flight depart.

mmiichael, you made the specific claim that there were thousands of people sho saw the plane depart.

I presented you with four possible options.

You have chosen option 4, where you are doing nothing to prove your claim. Your claim is effectively unproven, disinformation.

You have the power to change this by listing the names of all the people who observed the flight depart. If you don't number in the thousands, then your claim has not been proven, so you will need to select another option.



Like on many occasions I have said information is readily available. A quick Google check with names in a time period.Bercuase I don't spent half an hour supplying you with links does not mean something is disinformation.

You keep on giving commands and stating I have failed at something by not complying.

This will stop now.

One more incident and I will report your incessant trollish behaviour to the Moderators.

Is that clear?

Do not reply.


M



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Like on many occasions I have said information is readily available. A quick Google check with names in a time period.Bercuase I don't spent half an hour supplying you with links does not mean something is disinformation.

mmiichael, you made the distinct claim that thousands of people saw the plane depart.

It is your burden to prove this claim, not mine.


Originally posted by mmiichael
You keep on giving commands and stating I have failed at something by not complying.

I gave you a list of four options that you could consider. Thus far, you have not done anything to support your claim, so by default, you have chosen option 4. Your claim is unsubstantiated.


Originally posted by mmiichael
This will stop now.
One more incident and I will report your incessant trollish behaviour to the Moderators.
Is that clear?
Do not reply.

mmiichael, a recent survey of the past few dozen pages will see that you have made claims that you retracted and admitted were lies. You have also insulted me personally, on numerous occasions, and have been warned by a Moderator.

You promised to leave the thread, broke that promise and then returned to make another claim that you refuse to substantiate.

Where is your proof that thousands of people saw the plane depart? So far, none has been offered, so your claim is unsubstantiated and can be treated as disinformation, unless you realise that the burden of proof is upon you.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Thousands of people did witness the plane crash at the Pentagon and were involved in the cleanup aftermath days and weeks later.


UNTRUE. The witnesses are but a handful. Also, just because there was a big mess does not mean that it was caused by a plane impacting. Furthermore, most witnesses witnessed the plane fly over, but some state that this did not result in impact or that the flight path was different.


Originally posted by mmiichael
This can be verified by any news publication of the period.


UNTRUE. Some ofthe media at the time reported it to be a "small plane" etc..


Originally posted by mmiichael
I have no requirement to verify something widely reportedt. in all media including the Internet.


But you DO REQUIRE IT OF US.


Originally posted by mmiichael
I have supplied summary information


But you required DETAILED information from us.


Originally posted by mmiichael
as well as linked to credible sources.


DEFINITELY UNTRUE. "credible" means believable. If these sources cold be believed by all, the Truth Movement would instantly disappear, hence your sources are NOT ENTIRELY CREDIBLE.


Originally posted by mmiichael
I can't help


We are well aware that your are severely handicapped in reasoning and logic. There is no reason to tell us that you just :can't help" yourself. Maybe a trip to a specialist, like a grade one class for infants wold help you.


Originally posted by mmiichael
you ignore all this information and repeatedly claim there is proof required - while not providing any substantiation of counter claims.


That is called "SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT", a concept that seems utterly lost on you. A premise is not accepted until something better comes along. It is simply not accepted until proven. The argument that we don't really know what happened is technically true, but to argue that we do know as this unproven theory that you spout was the first one in the press, even though it is utterly unsound is raw garbage. I accept that the "Bush did it" is likewise unproven and cannot be take as a certainty, but your nonsense is utterly unsound.


Originally posted by mmiichael
More I could say - but any thinking person will already see this pattern.


Yes, its a simple pattern. You spout homespun hokum as if its fact with nothing to back it and insist that we take it as fact as it was the first crud out of some news commentator's mouth and there is nothing better to replace it. Say, isn't that the same way they used to judge witches beofre burning them? The logic that caused religious minorities to flee Europe and found a new nation called the United States of America?



Originally posted by mmiichael
Where is your proof a plane did not hit the Pentagon?


It is PRIMA FACIA drawn from simple physics, but regardless, even if you do not accept this, your own theory of a plane hitting it remains just that, a theory, and NOT FACT simply because you repeat it enough times.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Either reply with specifics or concede you have nothing to offer that disproves what is known to have happened.


No who is telling people what to do? Sir, you hypocrusy is exceeded only by your stupidity and your arrogance and conceit.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Is that clear?



Yes, that's clear. And just fine.

I'll reply for him instead.


Originally posted by mmiichael

Do not reply.



Is that right Mein Fuhrer? We are not allowed to reply? So, just why come on here if you loathe free speech so much?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by aristocrat2

Originally posted by mmiichael
Thousands of people did witness the plane crash at the Pentagon and were involved in the cleanup aftermath days and weeks later.


UNTRUE. The witnesses are but a handful. Also, just because there was a big mess does not mean that it was caused by a plane impacting. Furthermore, most witnesses witnessed the plane fly over, but some state that this did not result in impact or that the flight path was different.


I'm sorry, I deal with facts but not Truther denial.

FACT. 8000 people were on the scene within minute and/or assisted in the cleanup of the plane crash at the Pentagon.

Among them:



wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

Truthers scrupulously avoid checking out any of these sources. Because the people they might contact them will just tell them they're full of it.

Those in trapped denial choose to live there. No data supplied will change that.

Maybe age and increasing self-awareness can help.

Good luck.


M



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm sorry, I deal with facts but not Truther denial.

So when will you be showing us the facts to substantiate your claim that thousands of people saw the plane depart?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
FACT. 8000 people were on the scene within minute and/or assisted in the cleanup of the plane crash at the Pentagon.


My living room is a mess. If I employ 8000 peopleto clean it up,will you accept that my house in Quebec was hit by a plane hijacked by Al Qaeda?

This is laughably irrelevent! The number witnessing IMPACT are tiny. All that this proves is that something big happened at the Pentagon.


Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm sorry, I deal with facts


UNTRUE, indeed, your baldest lie yet.


Originally posted by mmiichael
but not Truther denial.


T?RUE, at last. You indeed lack the ability to deal with Truther denial of your claptrap.


Originally posted by mmiichael

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.


WOW! A stunning example of, if all you hve is a lie, backed up with irrelevence, then if you can repeat it enough, it becomes true.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Truthers scrupulously avoid checking out any of these sources.


LAUGHABLY UNTRUE, although I do accept that 99% of those in the "truth Movement' work on shoddy logic and assumptions that are not watertight, but as I pointed out repeatedly, the basis of scientific thinking it only to reach a conclusion when there is fact an proof, not grab the first made up story and assume it to be true until something else comes along.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Because the people they might contact them will just tell them they're full of it.


Full of what?


Originally posted by mmiichael
Those in trapped denial choose to live there. No data supplied will change that.


Those trapped in denial of a lie are trapped there? Technically true. As a Christian, I must keep to the truth which means denying you nonsense not matter how hard you try to peddle it and repeat it.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Maybe age and increasing self-awareness can help.


Well, it certainly hasn't in your case.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Good luck.


These last two words truly sum up your concepts of logical thinking... a belief that some quasi-religious force that does not exist, namely "luck" is behind everything. Not logic or reasoning but some bizarre non-existent force.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm sorry, I deal with facts but not Truther denial.

So when will you be showing us the facts to substantiate your claim that thousands of people saw the plane depart?


Your inability to read and comprehend what is repeatedly posted or even do the most simple Google search is self-evident.

Classic Truther strategy is claiming they don't see anything.

Reason being they have their eyes closed.

But carry on. It's amusing.


M



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Your inability to read and comprehend what is repeatedly posted or even do the most simple Google search is self-evident.

I take it that by that comment, you're not prepared to substantiate your own claim that thousands of people saw the plane depart?

Why did you make that claim if you don't have any intention of trying to prove it true, mmiichael?



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
****TRANSPONDERS****

IN 1982, the United Kingdom went to fight the Argentinians over the Falklands.

A large amount of normal munitions were dropped on ships without any success, largely because they were dropped from a height that was too low. However, one weapon proved devastating against the Royal Navy - the Exocet missile which sank The Atlantic Conveyer, HMS Sheffield, HMS Antelope etc.

The reason for its success was not its immense explosive power, but because it was, in effect, invisible to all electronic warfare systems and hence Sea Wolf and Sea Dart anti-missile systems were useless. To defend against it, the Royal Navy had to line the decks with crew with binoculars in a chance to obtain at least some few split seconds of warning of an inbound Argentinian Exocet.

So, why was the Exocet so invisible. The answer which ws in the Press at the time is ludicrous but true, because it was French-made.

When NATO planners originally developed a coordinated electronic warfare system, they had set a common standard. In any West- Warsaw pact sea battle, it was viewed that radar and systems wold have only split seconds to respond before being destroyed. There was not time to deal with cluttered screens, so the NATO systems, including NORAD only show 4 types of flying missiles/aircraft on screens:-

- Your own country's missiles and aircraft
- Warsaw Pact and possible allies missiles and aircraft.
- Civilian aircraft
- Neutral country's aircraft and missiles.

Hence to unclutter the screens, one particular group of flying objects were coded so that they just do not appear on STANDARD NATO screens... missiles and aircraft belonging to YOUR CLOSE ALLIES. Hence the Royal Navy could not see Exocet missiles because their transponders do not show up on their radar.

Likewise, the transponders for missiles and aircraft belonging to the Royal Navy wold not have shown up on NORAD screens. If the US Navy had fired at the Pentagon, it wold have appeared on numerous radar screens, but if the Royal Navy had, it would be as if the transponders had been turned off.

So, did the Royal Navy have any ships near the eastern seaboard of the USA on 9/11?
The answer is YES, I have already checked. The was a nuclear submarine which left port about a week earlier which was on its way to the Far East. That would have put it just off the eastern seaboard of the USA on 9/11. Did she have any missiles missing on arrival in the Far East? Actually, yes. 6 Tomahawk missiles were unaccounted for onboard when she docked 3 weeks later.

So would no-one have seen if this submarine had launched the attack on the Pentagon? Actually yes. Langley's radar systems are old and non-standard. And here is a possibility that The Truth Movement will not consider. That Langle's launch of 3 fighters to Whiskey 386 was no accident nor them trying to get the aircraft "out of the way". but in actuality Langley correctly identified where the attack on the USA was coming from.

So who COULD have launched the Royal Navy's missiles at the Pentagon? Despite being the party of socialism, dead against contracting out, Tony Blair's Labour Party, bizarrely contracted out the maintenence of all the Royal Navy's missiles and electonic systems in 1999 I believe it was. The Contracctor now is free to rewire the missiles and control systems as they see fit. And since the missiles are housed in tiny silos onboard, they can even paint them to look like aircraft and no-one would even know.

How could they be launched? In the UK, the anit-nuclear lobby is huge, so any radiation leakage by missiles would be serious and the captain would have to launch and programme them to self-destruct which they would do IF not rewired by the contractor.

So, who is the Contractor that Tony Blair brought in to maintain all Britain's Tomahawk missiles and all the submarine control systems including radiation alert systems?

KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT - subsidiary of Halliburton, run by DIck Cheney



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw]
I take it that by that comment, you're not prepared to substantiate your own claim that thousands of people saw the plane depart?

Why did you make that claim if you don't have any intention of trying to prove it true, mmiichael?



This is embarrassing. A link was just provided. You can't read apparently.

I recommend you stop now. Or do you have a computer generated program that sends the same messages repeatedly?



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
This is embarrassing. A link was just provided. You can't read apparently.

I understand how you would be embarrassed, as you've been called out for not being able to substantiate your claim that thousands of people saw the flight depart.

You're also mistaken, mmiichael, you have not provided me with a link to the thousands of names of people who saw the flight depart. Perhaps you better verify this claim for yourself - properly.

It's fine, mmiichael. Casual readers of this thread have been able to witness how you fail to substantiate your claims.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
you have not provided me with a link to the thousands of names of people who saw the flight depart. Perhaps you better verify this claim

Casual readers of this thread have been able to witness how you fail to substantiate your claims.


Just as I thought. Computer generate messages. Yawn.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



According to AT&T, SOMEONE on Flight 77 called their operators and asked to be connected to (202)514-2201 so she could report her plane was being hijacked.

You might be wondering the significance of the phone number......its the direct line to the Solicitor General's office. Who, at the time, was Ted Olson. Which in turn makes one wonder, WHO would be calling his office to report a hijacking. It doesnt take much to figure out that it was Barbara Olson calling.

If you would like to read some of the documents...

911myths.com...


The call records do specify what airfone the calls came from. I will let those who are interested dig into airline records to confirm those particular phones were installed on N644AA (I will warn you that it will take some time to get to the right people at the airline, IF they will agree to help you)


BUSTED!!!

Swampfox46 you keep digging yourself in a deeper hole but that is what you get when you go to disinformation websites.Barbara Olson phone calls never took place according to the FBI
Ted Olson lied to the media and the Bush administration. Your still clinging to a fairytale.





Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones

United States v. Ted Olson
In the course of doing research for this article, we learned, to our amazement, that even if, contrary to our evidence, Flight 77 did have functioning onboard phones, the US government has now said, implicitly, that Ted Olson’s claim about receiving two calls from his wife that morning is untrue.

pilotsfor911truth.org...





BREAKING 9/11 NEWS: FBI Says Barbara Olsen Did Not Call Ted Olsen. Bush Solicitor General LIED !!

www.opednews.com...


Barbara Olson's call from Flight 77 never happened


portland.indymedia.org...



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by aristocrat2
 

The damage to the Pentagon was not consistent with Tomahawk cruise missiles. Witnesses did not report anything like Tomahawks in the air. Your theory is unsupported.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

pteridine, mmiichael has cleared up some of his misconceptions and admitted that he lied about some of his claims. He retracted them.

You made some specific claims earlier in this thread that you have still not supported or retracted.

You claimed that airline passenger bodies were found strapped to seats.
You claimed that the light pole hit the taxi and you tried to use McGraw as a witness to this.

When can we all expect proof or a retraction from you?



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
reply to post by pteridine
 

pteridine, mmiichael has cleared up some of his misconceptions and admitted that he lied about some of his claims. He retracted them.

You made some specific claims earlier in this thread that you have still not supported or retracted.

You claimed that airline passenger bodies were found strapped to seats.
You claimed that the light pole hit the taxi and you tried to use McGraw as a witness to this.

When can we all expect proof or a retraction from you?




Don't even know who McGraw is. This is getting stupid.

You're reported to the Mods.


M




top topics



 
215
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join