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: 66
215
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
We haven't seen anything from you disproving the 500 hundred things you attempt to question.

Please show where I have questioned 500 'things'?

Your failure to do so will be your admission that you made up that number to try and bolster some kind of weak argument you have, against me.

If people like you and pteridine actually proved your claims, when you make them, then there would be little for me to question.

While the pair of you continue to fail to prove your claims, then I am entitled to question you both for your proof.

When will you learn, mmiichael, that you can't just type anything on a public forum and have other people believe it, unless you prove it?

I should add that you retracted your claims and admitted that you lied about them (your words). That only leaves pteridine who has failed to do the same with his unproven claims about passengers being found strapped to airline seats and the light pole hitting the taxi.




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
We haven't seen anything from you [tezza] disproving the 500 hundred things you attempt to question.


michael, there are many people who fully admit they don't feel they have enough evidence to know what happened on 9/11. I'm not one of them, but my point is this; truthers don't have to prove that the official story is false, although I think they can, if official story believers would only confront the many points they've already made. But in truth all that's necessary is that official story believers admit that they have no proof for many of -their- assertions. How about we try something- do you claim that the official story has proven anything that truthers generally disagree with, such as the failure of NORAD, etc. to stop the 9/11 planes or perhaps how the towers and/or WTC 7 were brought down?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x

michael, there are many people who fully admit they don't feel they have enough evidence to know what happened on 9/11. I'm not one of them, but my point is this; truthers don't have to prove that the official story is false, although I think they can, if official story believers would only confront the many points they've already made. But in truth all that's necessary is that official story believers admit that they have no proof for many of -their- assertions. How about we try something- do you claim that the official story has proven anything that truthers generally disagree with, such as the failure of NORAD, etc. to stop the 9/11 planes or perhaps how the towers and/or WTC 7 were brought down?


Scott,

I am the first to admit there are a vast number of questions about what went on in the background of 9/11. If you've kept up with what investigative journalists have uncovered it's astonishing. The Bush admin was negligent and members of the intelligence agencies, possibly to the point of criminally negligence, in not maintaining the security of the nation.

We know that there were agreements and collusion with governments and intelligence services in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan before and after regarding certain terrorist funding and planning.

My impression is the military largely was incapable of responding to the circumstances that morning as proper immediate procedures were either not in place or not acted upon quickly enough.

It is known many governments and agencies had varying levels of advance knowledge of the attack. It is well documented the warning provided by countries like Israel, Egypt, even Russia. But how much, how specific, and who knowlingly ignored this information is still being unravelled. It's pretty clear the FBI is the worst offender.

But here's what we do know and have verified beyond question. The basics of the attacks, the hijacked planes, the property destruction and loss of lives, happened as reported and clarified later. Military and intelligence were caught with their pants down. Whether they could have stopped any of the planes in an effective safe manner, we can only speculate on.

There is much uncovered about the back story and culpability is a major issue. I hate to see the concern and resources diverted to what I consider trivia and the exploitation we see with trying to peddle patently false scenarios of controlled demolition, flyovers and missiles, as well as other repeatedly disproven nonsense. It reflects badly on the people who buy into all this, and in it's way provides license to those who want to do further harm with more terrorist attacks.


Mike


[edit on 3-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Tezza,
There are witnesses to the plane striking the Pentagon. People are gone from the earth. There were funerals. DNA evidence identified the remains as passengers on an American Airlines flight that struck the Pentagon.
You wish to deny this evidence because what is publically available is not rigorous enough for you. I suggested that you prove Melbourne existed using those same standards. It should be easy because there is an entire city that has been there for years and not merely an individual event. You "failed to prove" its existence or to even make a case for it. Maybe some things are not worth the effort. You have also not made an argument for any 911 theory that I have seen; you seem to enjoy demanding evidence relating to trivial minutae yet you fear taking a position. If your rhetorical abilities are as superior as you portray, you should be able to do more than heckle from the sidelines. Certainly, by this time you should have formed a vague idea of some alternative explanations.
Post your theories and I'll concede that Melbourne exists and that all those airline schedules and Melbourne telephone books are not fakes printed by the NWO in league with the Kangaroo Prince. You don't even have to show the certified pictures of downtown Melbourne signed by Queen Elizabeth.

[edit on 11/3/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I suggested that you prove Melbourne existed using those same standards. It should be easy because there is an entire city that has been there for years and not merely an individual event. You "failed to prove" its existence or to even make a case for it.

Are you being serious with this, pteridine? I don't indulge in off-topic rubbish. Stick to the topic. Your credibilty is taking a dive wasting server space with such junk.


Originally posted by pteridine
you seem to enjoy demanding evidence relating to trivial minutae

What you consider to be trivial, might not be trivial to others.

Casual readers, let's examine some claims made in this thread and keep it on topic - the Pentagon Investigation.

mmiichael:
1 - passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats.
mmiichael retracted this and admitted he lied about it (his words).
2 - rear seated passenger bodies were found relatively intact.
mmiichael retracted this and admitted he lied about it (his words).
3 - a picture showing a passenger body in a seat was shown at the trial.
mmiichael retracted this and admitted he lied about it (his words).
4 - the light pole hit the taxi.
mmiichael has not retracted this and he has not proven it.

pteridine:
1 - passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats.
pteridine has not retracted this and he has not proven it.
2 - the light pole hit the taxi.
pteridine has not retracted this and he has not proven it.

Now consider pteridine's rant about Melbourne and ask yourself why he is spinning, avoiding, deflecting and dodging the responsibility to prove his own claims. Better yet, ask pteridine why he refuses to either prove or retract his own claims???



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Casual readers, let's examine some claims made in this thread and keep it on topic - the Pentagon Investigation.

mmiichael:
1 - passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats.
mmiichael retracted this and admitted he lied about it (his words).
2 - rear seated passenger bodies were found relatively intact.
mmiichael retracted this and admitted he lied about it (his words).
3 - a picture showing a passenger body in a seat was shown at the trial.
mmiichael retracted this and admitted he lied about it (his words).
4 - the light pole hit the taxi.
mmiichael has not retracted this and he has not proven it.


I don't read old messages. It reminds me of looking into a toilet bowl after you're finished.

you obviously do.

My retractions, if I recall correctly, were done in some attempt to get you to stop your incessant ranting. You have no comprehension of context. I think I said I worked for the CIA. Anything to shut you up.

But you persist with this incessant spewing. Not smart enough to know when to stop.

I genuinely think you're mentally ill.




[edit on 3-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
My retractions, if I recall correctly, were done in some attempt to get you to stop your incessant ranting.

You clearly made those retractions, mmiichael. They are quiet clearly stored on the ATS server for all to read.


Originally posted by mmiichael
I genuinely think you're mentally ill.

Off topic and probably insulting, therefore breaking the terms and conditions of this forum.

The claims that you have made and retracted have been summarised in my previous post. It would be pointless for you to argue them, as they're all part of the public record on ATS. Anyone will be able to see through your attempts to dispute the accuracy of my summary.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You have somehow assumed that you can dictate the standards of evidence and debate. This is a bad assumption. I recommend that you stop trolling and contribute to the discussions.
The OP's alarming information is nonsense. A plane full of people hit the Pentagon. The conspiracy was a conspiracy of hijackers and not the US government. Use your imaginary debating skill to make arguments for or against or at least start proving that Melbourne exists. Get working on it. I'll be sure to tell you the required standards of evidence and debate at some point.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by mmiichael
My retractions, if I recall correctly, were done in some attempt to get you to stop your incessant ranting.

You clearly made those retractions, mmiichael. They are quiet clearly stored on the ATS server for all to read.


Originally posted by mmiichael
I genuinely think you're mentally ill.

Off topic and probably insulting, therefore breaking the terms and conditions of this forum.

The claims that you have made and retracted have been summarised in my previous post. It would be pointless for you to argue them, as they're all part of the public record on ATS. Anyone will be able to see through your attempts to dispute the accuracy of my summary.


You have contributed no information or indpendent analysis. Your posts are simply attempts to criticize the contributions of others.

Where is your outline of the events at the Pentagon - requested a dozen times. If you have no idea what happened it's impossible to say the evidence and testimony on record is wrong.

You are countering independently verified information with Hot Air.

There's a word for this.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You have somehow assumed that you can dictate the standards of evidence and debate.

No. Hundreds of years of sound philosophy has shown that people who make claims need to support them - if they wish to be taken seriously.

You and mmiichael have made claims in this thread, that you have not supported. Casual readers can not be expected to believe anything you state, when you don't even dare to try and prove what you claim.


Originally posted by mmiichael
You have contributed no information or indpendent analysis. Your posts are simply attempts to criticize the contributions of others.

Given your limited understanding about the nature of claims and proof, I can see why you would think that, mmiichael.

However, what I have done in this thread, is to expose the shortcomings of you and pteridine with regards to some of the claims that you have made.

Your blatant lack of proof has helped the casual readers understand that the claims you're making shouldn't be taken too seriously.


Originally posted by mmiichael
You are countering independently verified information with Hot Air.

Please show your independently verified evidence which proves that:
1 - passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats.
2 - rear seated passenger bodies were found relatively intact.
3 - a trial picture showed a passenger body in a seat.
4 - the light pole hit the taxi.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You stated "Hundreds of years of sound philosophy has shown that people who make claims need to support them - if they wish to be taken seriously."

Please provide evidence to support this statement.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You stated "Hundreds of years of sound philosophy has shown that people who make claims need to support them - if they wish to be taken seriously."
Please provide evidence to support this statement.

I have in this very thread, pteridine.

You have made a couple of claims that you can't support. You can not be taken seriously with respect to those claims.

mmichael has made a few claims that he could not support. He could not be taken seriously with respect to those claims.

When you make claims, the burden of proof is upon you to support them.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
We know that there were agreements and collusion with governments and intelligence services in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan before and after regarding certain terrorist funding and planning.


And what of Israel's Mossad? I notice that you walked away from my 9/11: The Mossad Connection thread. Why is that?



Originally posted by mmiichael
My impression is the military largely was incapable of responding to the circumstances that morning as proper immediate procedures were either not in place or not acted upon quickly enough.


Michael, as Able Danger clearly illustrates, there were elements in the military that wanted to go after Mohammed Atta way before 9/11. Yet they were prevented. Allegedly, it was because Atta had a "green card", but seriously, if an -american- were plotting to take down the twin towers, I don't think that would stop security forces to go after him; if simply having a stake in being american were the issue, U.S. prisons, currently filled with americans, would be a lot less full. Personally, I'm interested in seeing the Able Danger movie; apparently it's already been out in film fests.


Originally posted by mmiichael
It is known many governments and agencies had varying levels of advance knowledge of the attack. It is well documented the warning provided by countries like Israel, Egypt, even Russia.


Definitely regarding Israel. Perhaps you'd care to join me again over in the Mossad thread someday...


Originally posted by mmiichael
But how much, how specific, and who knowlingly ignored this information is still being unravelled. It's pretty clear the FBI is the worst offender.


Why do you believe the FBI is the worst offender?


Originally posted by mmiichael
But here's what we do know and have verified beyond question. The basics of the attacks, the hijacked planes, the property destruction and loss of lives, happened as reported and clarified later.


No we don't. In fact, I'd argue that there's proof that some of the events did -not- happen as reported. By some events I'm mainly referring to things such as the fact that the WTC buildings that completely collapsed couldn't have done so due to plane crashes and ensuing fires, or in the case of WTC 7, a bit of debris from the Twin Towers and fires that were allegedly started by the debris that. Or the official story's version of why the military didn't stop 3 of the planes (many within the truth movement believe that the 4th plane, flight 93, -was- stopped, and not by any onboard passenger). Or all the eye witnesses contradicting the official story concerning the flight path of the plane that hit the pentagon and what that does to the official story's idea that the plane actually crashed -into- the pentagon, instead of flying over it. But feel free to try to offer proofs that these events actually happened the way the official story says they did.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Military and intelligence were caught with their pants down. Whether they could have stopped any of the planes in an effective safe manner, we can only speculate on.


No need for speculation, once you know enough; there's clear evidence that higher ups blocked the investigation of many of the alleged hijackers, for reasons that just don't wash. There's also evidence that many individuals who were almost undoubtedly involved in 9/11 fled the country shortly thereafter (Bin Laden's relatives and the owner of Urban Moving Systems come to mind). Heck, I remember reading or seeing evidence that there was a certain high placed individual that warned people of this nature that they had to leave before the investigation found them.


Originally posted by mmiichael
There is much uncovered about the back story and culpability is a major issue. I hate to see the concern and resources diverted to what I consider trivia and the exploitation we see with trying to peddle patently false scenarios of controlled demolition, flyovers and missiles, as well as other repeatedly disproven nonsense.


I agree with you that there's no evidence for missiles, which is something that most of the truth movement has dismissed, but as to your claims that controlled demolition and what I can only assume is the pentagon flyover theory are "repeatedly disproven nonsense", put your money where your mouth is; show me the proof. If you can't do this, I'd suggest you retract those statements.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x[/i0
I'd argue that there's proof that some of the events did -not- happen as reported. By some events I'm mainly referring to things such as the fact that the WTC buildings that completely collapsed couldn't have done so do to plane crashes and ensuing fires, or in the case of WTC 7, a bit of debris from the Twin Towers and fires that were allegedly started by the debris that. Or the official story's version of why the military didn't stop 3 of the planes (many within the truth movement believe that the 4th plane, flight 93, -was- stopped, and not by any onboard passenger). Or all the eye witnesses contradicting the official story concerning the flight path of the plane that hit the pentagon and what that does to the official story's idea that the plane actually crashed -into- the pentagon, instead of flying over it. But feel free to try to offer proofs that these events actually happened the way the official story says they did.


We might as well stop there Scott. You haven't even read what was posted or any of the links provided. They would undoubtedly cause more cognitive dissonance than you can handle.

It's not a matter of there being an Official Story, some contrived collusion of government and media. We now know what occurred on the actual day of 9/11 because not only were there thousands of people watching or involved, but all the later analyzed material evidence and testimony is consistent. Thousands of unaligned professionals from dozens of countries have gone over it with a fine tooth comb. The behind the scenes funding, planning and execution details are now known. There have been reams of testimony, confessions, convictions to support it. On the plane attacks, there are only questions for those who won’t accept the answers.

Your favoured sub-culture with their websites and videos after 8 years is still peddling dot-connecting, manipulated data and aberrant testimony, theories and wild speculation. There has been no documented and cited Unofficial Story to counter the so-called Official Story, just piles of factoids and rumours.

Meanwhile thousands of investigators and reporters, with the help of ordinary people involved or witnessing, have put a comprehensive picture together that is backed by tangible evidence.

But you're obviously addicted to Truther Kool Aid. Like a Creationist, not even the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence of evolution will convince you. You'll continue to dismiss it as a theory in the belief you have some special knowledge.

Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your self-imposed denial. Believe Mossad did it, the WTC was bombed, there was no plane at the Pentagon. There are people around here who also believe in these fairy tales. And there is a marginal industry that will be more than happy to sell you books and videos to confirm these fantasies.


M

[edit on 4-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
It's not a matter of there being an Official Story, some contrived collusion of government and media.

Here, mmiichael. Read this thread about the media's role in helping to spread the government's story...

You might find it educational.

Here's a tasty quote from within that thread:

Originally posted by Reheat
I accept Lloyde's account, even tho' it is not conclusively proven as an established fact.

Reheat, the official government story supporter, stated that Lloyde's account has not been proven. That doesn't do much for the claim that you and pteridine make about Lloyde's account being true...

That's just a teaser for you. Read the rest of the thread and count how many times Reheat twisted himself in knots trying to come to terms with what is and isn't the official government story. He certainly stumbled a few times. You'll see how he left the thread without any support from any other official government story believer.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
We might as well stop there Scott. You haven't even read what was posted or any of the links provided. They would undoubtedly cause more cognitive dissonance than you can handle.


Michael, when you walk away from entire threads, wherein I don't force you to go to any links, I'm not about to go to yours at the drop of a hat. As I said before, put a little effort into it; you want me to read something, provide the relevant excerpt and I just might do it.


Originally posted by mmiichael
It's not a matter of there being an Official Story, some contrived collusion of government and media.


Or atleast that's the way it works in your mind...


Originally posted by mmiichael
We now know what occurred on the actual day of 9/11 because not only were there thousands of people watching or involved, but all the later analyzed material evidence and testimony is consistent.


More or less, yes. Unfortunately, you can't seem to get past the official story to -see- all the consistent evidence and testimony coming from the truther side.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Thousands of unaligned professionals from dozens of countries have gone over it with a fine tooth comb.


I believe you just might be right there. Unfortunately, once again, you've mistaken that side to be the official story side; architects and engineers for 9/11 truth is in fact approaching 1000 professionals who want a re-investigation of 9/11 and that's just the tip of the iceberg of the people who want a re-investigation.



Originally posted by mmiichael
The behind the scenes funding, planning and execution details are now known.


Why don't you elaborate on what you know concerning these matters?



Originally posted by mmiichael
There have been reams of testimony, confessions, convictions to support it.


Michael, are you honestly suggesting that "confessions" extracted under torture are credible? As to convictions, military officers have quit upon finding out that the judgements were rigged.


Originally posted by mmiichael
On the plane attacks, there are only questions for those who won’t accept the answers.


I'd argue it's more that only those who blindly believe the official story would argue that many questions remain unresolved, and that many of the events regarding them strongly suggest high level U.S. officials' complicity in the attacks.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Your favoured sub-culture with their websites and videos after 8 years is still peddling dot-connecting, manipulated data and aberrant testimony, theories and wild speculation.


You can keep on saying that until you're blue in the face; the fact of the matter is that you're mostly talk; when it comes to providing evidence for your allegations, you have a strong tendency of walking away.



Originally posted by mmiichael
There has been no documented and cited Unofficial Story to counter the so-called Official Story, just piles of factoids and rumours.


As long as you continue to turn away from the compelling evidence that debunks the official story, I'm sure you can continue to believe that indefinitely.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Meanwhile thousands of investigators and reporters, with the help of ordinary people involved or witnessing, have put a comprehensive picture together that is backed by tangible evidence.


By all means, present this so called evidence, via excerpts, of the points I've brought up. If you can't do this, I will assume that you simply can't do it.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your self-imposed denial. Believe Mossad did it, the WTC was bombed, there was no plane at the Pentagon.


When did I say no plane approached the pentagon? The issue is whether it crashed into it or flew over it.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Easy to say, tezza, but you don't seem to like being held to your own standards. Based on your casual dismissal of your own standards, I have proved everything, too, in this very thread. All in all, your demands for "proofs" are just something for you to troll about and no one but the conspiracy faithful cares. The technique that you use, asking questions, demanding proof, and playing dumb is common troll behavior. You make your predictable statements to the "casual reader" and try to sound authoritative. You won't come up with a theory because you are afraid that someone will ask you to prove something, yourself, and you know that you will fall short.

When do you plan to contribute something positive?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Tezza said


Reheat, the official government story supporter, stated that Lloyde's account has not been proven. That doesn't do much for the claim that you and pteridine make about Lloyde's account being true...


Re: Lloyde England's accounts of his taxi being hit by a light pole, I think it's only fair ATS member "Reheat" have his comments represented in full:


Reheat said

To save time, my reply will be short. I don't give a flip about the light poles or Lloyde's taxi other than I hope Lloyde received compensation for loss of his lively hood for a while. There were hundreds of people who were interviewed in an attempt to piece together what happened in view of the physical evidence. There were also hundreds who were not interviewed perhaps because the information was not pertinent to whether or not the Pentagon was struck.

"Truthers" care about this issue because it's trivia and it apparently appears to be a "gotcha" for those who want to devise alternative theories, refuse to accept logical explanations, and continue with preconceived delusions.

If anyone has an alternative theory that can be proven with evidence have at it. I haven't seen one yet in almost 8 years and as you said everyone should prove their claims.

Before you chide me for a Burden of Proof fallacy, I know nothing that absolutely proves the light pole were struck by the aircraft or that one of them struck Lloyde's taxi. However, I have a multitude of ways to prove that AA 77 struck the Pentagon. That's all that's important.


Disgustingly this poor black ex-cab driver, Lloyde England, now at an advanced age and showing signs of senility, has been mercilessly manipulated by CIT's Ranke and Marquis to make absurd and conflicting remarks about himself and the incident. As Truthers compulsively do with eveything, his comments are isolated out of context in an attempt to prove the ongoing fiction of something other than a passenger plane hitting the Pentagon.

In a way he is another victim of 9/11.


M



[edit on 4-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Disgustingly this poor black ex-cab driver, Lloyde England, now at an advanced age and showing signs of senility, has been mercilessly manipulated by CIT's Ranke and Marquis to make absurd and conflicting remarks about himself and the incident. As Truthers compulsively do with eveything, his comments are isolated out of context in an attempt to prove the ongoing fiction of something other than a passenger plane hitting the Pentagon.


O isn't that convenient, NOW he is senile...




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
O isn't that convenient, NOW he is senile...


From his conflicting often fantastic stories it's hard not to conclude Lloyde England, now in his 70s, is senile.

Aldo Marquis, co-owner of CIT Inc, said the same thing 3 years ago.


pilotsfor911truth.org...

The one thing we couldn't get over is that this man is allowed to drive. He seemed to be too senile or old to be driving a cab.



M



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join