Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

reply to post by tezzajw


Repitition is certainly your major strength. I expected more after I gave you the space to respond and you just sat there, hulking.
My theory is that the event happened as the evidence shows. A plane full of passengers was flown into the Pentagon. That plane was seen to hit the light posts before it struck the Pentagon.

What is your theory, tezza.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Tell us what happened in one succinct paragraph in your next post.
Failing to do that you concede you haven't a clue,

Of course I don't have a clue about what happened to the taxi! I don't have a clue what happened to the light pole!

When did that ray of revelation suddenly dawn upon you, mmiichael???

Why do you think that I constantly keep asking you to prove your claim? It's because I don't know what happened there! I want to believe you, it would be easier to believe you - but I can't believe you until you prove it to me!

You've consistently failed, in every post you make, to prove that the light pole hit the taxi!

You really need to take a course on logic and the nature of proof.

Originally posted by pteridine
My theory is that the event happened as the evidence shows.

Are you stating your theory as fact, or as your opinion?

If you're stating it as your opinion, that's fine. No one has to believe you.

If you're stating it as a fact, then the burden of proof is upon you to support it.

Opinion or fact, pteridine? Your call. If it's your opinion, then I'll be happy with that and cease requesting you to prove your opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however, stating an opinion as a fact is an entirely different matter.

Originally posted by pteridine
What is your theory, tezza.

I don't have a theory. How many times do you want me to answer the same question the same way? I'm not making claims about what happened to the taxi or the light pole. You are.

All I need to know is if your theory that the light pole hit the taxi is being stated as an opinion or as a fact.

reply to post by tezzajw


Look up the definition of a theory. You can also back up your previous statement or admit that you cannot. My theory is as stated, previously. There is no evidence for anything else.
As to you being completely unable to think of anything, I can understand that. Try a little harder and come up with a theory.

Originally posted by pteridine
My theory is as stated, previously.

Stating the light pole hit the taxi, as a theory, needs proof for it to be vaild.

You've failed to prove your theory, pteridine. You were also caught out being woefully uninformed and poorly researched about your theory when you made a critical error with McGraw's testimony.

That was rather unfortunate for you and didn't help you gain any credibility for your theory.

Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't have a theory. How many times do you want me to answer the same question the same way? I'm not making claims about what happened to the taxi or the light pole. You are.

All I need to know is if your theory that the light pole hit the taxi is being stated as an opinion or as a fact.

How can you even make any comments on what others say if you don't have a clue about the event. Admission of ignorance and then telling others they are wrong.

Here's what I know to be factual: the passenger plane came in at 50 ft as it approached the Pentagon, some lamp poles were knocked down, one hit the taxi. It's windshield was smashed. The driver said that's what happened. Totally consistent with multiple sources of confirmation from unaffiliated people.

There are whacko theories being floated by video salesmen. Like how the poles were knocked down by secret crews, the windshield was smashed by other spooks.

Zero evidence of this being done. Doesn't make sense. Dismissed along with other wild theories like futuristic technologies, missiles substituted and passengers murdered by spooks, magical beings involved, other nuttiness.

This all happened in broad daylight in front of ordinary people, many of them trained professionals. Investigated and reported right on the scene. Forensic evidence corroborates.

No mangling of data, manipulation of witness testimony, creative video editing can change that.



[edit on 5-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
How can you even make any comments on what others say if you don't have a clue about the event. Admission of ignorance and then telling others they are wrong.

mmiichael, do you want to retract that question and save yourself some credibility? A person can research facts, opinions, statements, conjecture and be aware of what is claimed about an event. It does not mean that person has to have a theory about what happened.

I'll state it again for you: I don't know how the taxi was damaged. You claim that it was hit by a light pole. You have failed to prove this.

I know enough about the event to have caught you out with your blatant error regarding McGraw. You tried to claim that McGraw saw the light pole hit the taxi, which he absolutely did not state.

You were wrong and I showed you how you were wrong.

Originally posted by mmiichael
some lamp poles were knocked down, one hit the taxi.

Unproven. You have not demonstrated that this happened.

Originally posted by mmiichael
It's windshield was smashed. The driver said that's what happened.

Yes, a taxi was present with damage to the windshield. Yes, the driver claimed that a light pole hit him. The same driver also had the rest of his testimony ripped apart by CIT, showing that he is an unreliable witness.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Totally consistent with multiple sources of confirmation from unaffiliated people.

Yet you have not shown any other source of information. You have not shown a single piece of official government script that describes the light pole hitting the taxi.

Originally posted by mmiichael
This all happened in broad daylight in front of ordinary people, many of them trained professionals. Investigated and reported right on the scene. Forensic evidence corroborates.

Please provide the forensic reports for the light pole. Please provide the forensic reports for the taxi. Please provide the official investigation reports. You've just claimed that all of this took place, so please provide them.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw
Yet you have not shown any other source of information. You have not shown a single piece of official government script that describes the light pole hitting the taxi.

Yadda yadda yadda.

The information is there for you and anyone to look at online. Extensively reported on in every part of the world.

Or you can pay a clipping service. They'll deliver a truckload of clipping to your doorstep. If you're too lazy to search it out or terrified it will conflict with your fantasies - that's just your problem.

Bottom line, we have a sequence of events composed of testimony, photographs, forensic evidence. It holds together, makes sense, completely conforms to other events in the time frame.

By default you have accepted it. Confirmed by your inability to provide an alternative explanation of how the taxi windshield got smashed on a public thoroughfare in front of the Pentagon.




[edit on 5-11-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by tezzajw


Once again you have failed, tezza. You have provided no support for your statement yet that is what you demand of others.
You have spent years watching others postulate theories yet you cannot come up with one yourself. You cannot even decide which one to support. Please do not disturb those of us with the fortitude to theorize and discuss the possibilties. You are not contributing to anything.

Originally posted by mmiichael
The information is there for you and anyone to look at online. Extensively reported on in every part of the world.

So link it for me.

You have failed to link one official government report about the light pole hitting the taxi.

You have failed to give me one witness name who saw the light pole hit the taxi.

If it was extensively reported in every part of the world, then why have you utterly failed to prove it?

Originally posted by mmiichael
Bottom line, we have a sequence of events composed of testimony, photographs, forensic evidence.

The only testimony you have is that of Lloyde and he has contradicted himself with his CIT interviews. He is not a reliable witness.

You don't have photographs that show the light pole hitting the taxi.

You have not shown any forensic evidence.

You have failed to support your claim that a light pole hit the taxi.

Originally posted by pteridine
You have spent years watching others postulate theories yet you cannot come up with one yourself.

I don't need to. There is no burden on me to postulate a theory.

Originally posted by pteridine
You cannot even decide which one to support.

This isn't a popularity contest where I need to choose a theory and support it, pteridine.

It's a search for the truth about what happened.

Thus far, I have not seen the situation explained to me in a conclusive manner.

You have utterly failed to prove your theory that the light pole hit the taxi. You made a critical error and lost credibility when you tried to claim that McGraw saw the light pole hit the taxi. It highlighted how poorly researched you are about the finer details of your own theory.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Only one failure here. You.

No explanation offered for how a taxi driving by the Pentagon suddenly has it's windshield smashed coincidentally as a low flying plane passes over and knocks down light poles.

You refuse to accept it but offer no counter claim.

Admission you have no idea how it happened.

Yet you persistently tell people they are failing.

This is pure trolling behaviour, disrupting discussion, criticizing members, contributing nothing.

Originally posted by mmiichael
No explanation offered for how a taxi driving by the Pentagon

You have not proven that the taxi was driving past the Pentagon.

Originally posted by mmiichael
as a low flying plane passes over and knocks down light poles.

You have not proven that the light pole was knocked down by the plane.

Like, pteridine, you tried to offer McGraw as a witness to the event. Your utter failure was more unfortunate for you, as it had already been pointed out to pteridine that McGraw did not witness the event.

You have failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, mmiichael.

reply to post by tezzajw

There is no burden on anyone to do anything, tezzal. You have failed to back up your previous statement and yet that is without penalty. I see that your standards are randomly applied and that you consider yourself an exception even though you have never displayed your self proclaimed debating skills. Get back to me if you ever decide to actually discuss the theories or support your statements.
The taxi-light pole collision was an incidental result of the aircraft striking the light poles immediately in front of the Pentagon. There is no other rational explanation.

Originally posted by tezzajw
You have not proven

you tried to offer ...

Your utter failure ...

You have failed to ...

Stop lying, stop telling people what they have to do, stop saying people have failed, stop trolling.

Pointed out many times, the information is out there with a quick Google search. You don't want to or are incapable of doing it.

You refuse to provide any information that conflicts with an independently confirmed story. Yet say those accepting it are wrong. There has been no indication you know anything or even have an opinion on what happened.

This is about you seeking attention not furthering a discussion.

If you were smart you'd just stop all this right now.

But I expect you will continue.




[edit on 5-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no burden on anyone to do anything, tezzal.

More name calling from pteridine.
pteridine's 1st instance calling me 'tezzalini'.
pteridine's 2nd instance calling me 'tezzalini'.
Now, pteridine has decided to call me 'tezzal' - a shortened form of 'tezzalini'.

It's quite telling that pteridine lacks the ability to prove his own claims, so he resorts to name calling.

Originally posted by pteridine
The taxi-light pole collision was an incidental result of the aircraft striking the light poles immediately in front of the Pentagon.

You have failed to prove this, pteridine.

You made a critical error and lost credibility when you tried to claim that McGraw saw the light pole hit the taxi. It highlighted how poorly researched you are about the finer details of your own theory.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Stop lying,

I went through all of this in another thread with trebor when he called me a liar a fewdays ago...

mmiichael, it is against ATS policy to call other members liars. Around two years ago, I was warned and fined by Moderator Masqua in the UFO threads when I called a Cult Greer supporter a liar. I've never called another ATS member a liar, or accused them of lying since then. As Moderator Masqua explained to me, members can be mistaken, which is fine. However, accusing that member of lying is an insult against that member.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Pointed out many times, the information is out there with a quick Google search. You don't want to or are incapable of doing it.

Casual readers, note the plea that mmiichael is expecting all of us to believe. He has stated a few times now that there is confirming proof that is all over the internet, as it was extensively reported and recorded worldwide.

Yet, he offers none of it. Not a shred.

mmiichael, provide a few links for us that prove the light pole hit the taxi.

mmiichael was also caught out blatantly misrepresenting McGraw's testimony. McGraw did not state that he saw the light pole hit the taxi. mmiichael claimed that McGraw did. He has failed to perform basic research about his claim.

reply to post by tezzajw


Actually, it was a typo incompletely corrected from lr instead of jw. Two keys to the right. Your oversensitivity borders on paranoia. Have you decided to show some leadership and actually back up your claims or are you still avoiding the issue? How is that going for you?
Get back to me when you wish to discuss something important like how you determined that the taxi issue is anything relating to a conspiracy.

Originally posted by tezzajw
it is against ATS policy to call other members liars. Around two years ago, I was warned and fined by Moderator Masqua in the UFO threads when I called a Cult Greer supporter a liar. I've never called another ATS member a liar, or accused them of lying since then. As Moderator Masqua explained to me, members can be mistaken, which is fine. However, accusing that member of lying is an insult against that member.

You keep attributing statements and claims to people that are demonstrably false. I call that lying.

Thinking you can keep under the wire of what is technically allowed, you launch a non-stop tirade of insults, telling members they've failed in some imaginary test of yours.

Endless claims that people stating what is easily verifiable does not exist. ie. there were no dead passengers in seats no one on this thread has provided an internet link to picture you consider satisfactory. Then you insult people, essentially calling them liars, because they can't give you a link.

You go out of your way to be offensive. You offer nothing, zip, and in the way of furthering the exchange of information. You use this forum as an opportunity to denigrate others.

And not a lick of wit, humor, self-effacement to at least make it bearable. You only know how to troll, and not even in an interesting way.

Originally posted by mmiichael
You keep attributing statements and claims to people that are demonstrably false. I call that lying.

Please point it out to a Moderator and be specific. It's not something to bring up on the screen, as you're probably close to being warned if you are deemed to be breaking the terms and conditions. Use the ALERT button below the post where you think that I told a lie. I can tell you from past experience that Moderators don't appreciate their time being wasted with frivilous claims.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Endless claims that people stating what is easily verifiable does not exist. ie. there were no dead passengers in seats no one on this thread has provided an internet link to picture you consider satisfactory. Then you insult people, essentially calling them liars, because they can't give you a link.

You'll need to substantiate that claim. I never required pictures as definitive proof. You can verify that by reading through the thread. You're probably confused, as other members have asked you for pictures. I've stated in other threads and probably this thread as well, that signed coroner's reports should be sufficient to record the manner in which a body was recovered.

By the way, you retracted your claim that passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats. Don't you remember? You admitted in your own words that you lied about it. Note clearly that you were specific when you stated that you lied. I never called you a liar, you called yourself a liar. I can link you again, if you can't remember where you stated so.

mmiichael, when you make a claim that McGraw saw the light pole hit the taxi, you shoud expect that your error will be pointed out to you.

mmiichael, when you make a claim that the light pole hitting the taxi was recorded everywhere across the internet and the world, you should expect that you will be asked for the links to prove the incident.

So far, you have offered nothing to prove your claim. You have failed to substantiate your claim that the light pole hit the taxi.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by tezzajw]