Originally posted by tezzajw

you have failed

You failed

you claimed

You have also shown much confusion

you claimed

you claimed

you revised

you told

You were asked many times to tell what happened at the Pentagon

You only try to find inconsistencies in messages and refuse to provide information

You failed

Originally posted by mmiichael
You were asked many times to tell what happened at the Pentagon

mmiichael, how many times do you need it explicitly stated to you that I don't know what happened at the Pentagon? I've typed that numerous times through this thread and yet you still repeat the question - why?

I am trying to piece it together but it's a tough puzzle.

It's particularly tough when people like you, make a claim that the light pole hit the taxi and don't try to prove that claim. It's even worse when you completely stuffed up McGraw's testimony and falsely attributed claims to him that he did not make.

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

Originally posted by tezzajw
I am trying to piece it together but it's a tough puzzle.

It's particularly tough when people like you, make a claim that the light pole hit the taxi and don't try to prove that claim. It's even worse when you completely stuffed up McGraw's testimony and falsely attributed claims to him that he did not make.

So I misremembered what McGraw said. This is a minor 9/11 thread on an conspiracy site. Not a court of law with sworn in affidavits.

The word relies on what was observed, recorded or accounted by witnesses on the scene. Which was later backed up by tangible forensic investigations. Among a million details, the taxi's broken winnshield is trivial of incidents considering about 200 people died in flames a minute later.

As the plane knocked over poles and the operating taxi immediatley had a broken windshield, verified by the driver, there isn't a credible alternative explanation of it being broken outside of whack job theories.

Unless any of thise whacky theories can be substantiated, they are dismissed. No magic, no aliens, no hypnosis, no CIA switcheroos.

That the plane went from the airport to the Pentagon with the same 64 people onboards is indisputable. Whether 20, 200, 2000, 2 Million witnessed it is irrelevant.

It would take a mountain of evidence to outweigh what has been established. There is no credible counter evidence.

The taxi being hit by the windshield, passenger eyeballs being friend, people screaming in pain, are among the thousands of details for which there are no pictures online. They happend, it's outdside the realm of possibility they didn't.

Unless you can prove otherwise, you are just trying to undermine bits of data and info exchanged by others.

That is petty persistently trolling

The absurdity of having to communicate the same points repeatedly without them registering is the only reason anyone continues to read your posts.

It's both entertaining and insightful the length some will go to deny basic facts and reality.

Originally posted by mmiichael
So I misremembered what McGraw said.

Yes, you got it completely wrong. You claimed that McGraw stated he saw the light pole hit the taxi. He never said he saw it happen.

Originally posted by mmiichael
The word relies on what was observed, recorded or accounted by witnesses on the scene.

You have tried to use two witnesses.
1 - McGraw, where you admitted that you stuffed it up.
2 - Lloyde, where he systematically self destructed by contradicting himself in the CIT interviews.

You have not presented other witnesses.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Which was later backed up by tangible forensic investigations.

I have asked you earlier in this thread to show me the forensic report for the light pole. You have failed to do so.

I have asked you earlier in this thread to show me the forensic report for the taxi. You have failed to do so.

I have asked you earlier in this thread to show me any official government story report about the incident. You have failed to do so.

You have failed to show your alleged forensic evidence.

Originally posted by mmiichael
As the plane knocked over poles

You have not shown that the plane knocked over the light pole that hit Lloyde's taxi.

Originally posted by mmiichael
That the plane went from the airport to the Pentagon with the same 64 people onboards is indisputable. Whether 20, 200, 2000, 2 Million witnessed it is irrelevant.

You claimed there were thousands (hundreds?) who witnessed it depart but you failed to supply names. By default you have chosen option four, where you do nothing and admit that what you stated is pointless speculation.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Unless you can prove otherwise, you are just trying to undermine bits of data and info exchanged by others.

You haven't presented any data or information about your claim that the light pole hit the taxi.

Well, you tried to present McGraw as a witness, but that failed.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by tezzajw]

A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

You guys keep saying the same thing over and over again.

You claim because Tezzajw can't prove something ELSE happened...the official story MUST have happened...

This is absurdly illogical...

Originally posted by mmiichael
The taxi being hit by the windshield, passenger eyeballs being friend, people screaming in pain, are among the thousands of details for which there are no pictures online. They happend, it's outdside the realm of possibility they didn't.

So you are actually spending this much time in a debate that you claim is "outside the realm of possibility" that you are wrong?

Originally posted by mmiichael
You are a revolting troll

Originally posted by pteridine
Is this how all Australians view the events of the day or just the trolls?

Originally posted by GenRadek
This trolling is really getting old and I am surprised the mods have not noticed it yet.

Awww come on guys, don't give up so easily...

Originally posted by Jezus
A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

You guys keep saying the same thing over and over again.

You claim because Tezzajw can't prove something ELSE happened...the official story MUST have happened...

A request for an alternative scenario is being made because it is being said that the plane + passengers > lamp pole > Pentagon scenario is unproven.

But it is demonstrably validated by thousands of pieces of hard data, testimony, photos, etc. Nothing conflicts. All confirms.

Finding inconsistencies in initial reporting and later commenting does not change that.

If there is a plausible alternative explanation it is welcomed. But there is none.

Choosing to deny something happened doesn't mean it didn't happen.

If 2 + 2 = 4 is said to be wrong, then what does 2 + 2 equal?

Repeatedly saying "you failed to prove it" is not an acceptable answer.

It's just a worn out troll tactic.


M



[edit on 7-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
But it is demonstrably validated by thousands of pieces of hard data, testimony, photos, etc. Nothing conflicts. All confirms.

NO IT IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep repeating things and let me know when that makes any of them true. Where are all these pieces of hard data? Investigators do not have any of it, the government does not have any of it, not one body of press has it.

You and your kind can continue to believe these things and repeat them all you like. Let me know when you decide to wake up and try to find any of it or confirm any of this or even be the least bit curious as to why your sentence is so empty and generic. You would think that with this mountain of hard evidence, people like you could at least dig a fact or two up and toss it in there.

It must be nice to be both so dellusional as well as so NOT curious enough to see if your completely empty repetition means anything in actual English words.

---

---

Originally posted by GenRadek
A plane knocks over lamp posts,

You have not proven that the plane knocked over the lamp pole that was alleged to have hit the taxi.

Please try and do so, GenRadek.

Originally posted by GenRadek
It happened. Get over it tezz.

Saying it happened is not a method of proof, GenRadek. Please supply your proof to show that it happened. Demonstrate how it all happened, as Lloyde claimed. Use any modelling that you deem to be sufficient to recreate the incident.

The rest of your post was off-topic and not worth responding to.

---

---

Originally posted by tezzajw
Here's a logical puzzle for you, mmiichael. I'll see if you can understand and solve it. Others here might, it's not that difficult. Tell me when 2 + 2 can equal 10.

When a couple losers decide they can sell a pile of videos by saying 2+2=4 is an Official Story government cover-up lie. But in fact it equals 10.

There are people gullible enough to buy into anything.

Originally posted by pteridine
"...other people want the truth?" You seem to fit neither category.

I stated that I want the truth, so your specualtion is false.

Originally posted by pteridine
You don't want anything but argument over inconsequential minutae and you are claiiming that these are "interesting puzzles."

The light pole and the taxi is a puzzle and it has massive implications.

However, you have failed to establish the legitimacy of the light pole hitting the taxi as being a fact. You had trouble when you misrepresented what McGraw said, getting his testimony completely wrong. That proved that you were poorly researched on your own theory.

Originally posted by pteridine
Is this how all Australians view the events of the day or just the trolls?

Pointless and off-topic name-calling.

You would be better advised to use the server space to show proof for your claims, rather than indulge in off-topic nonsense.

Originally posted by tezzajw

I stated that I want the truth

your specualtion is false

you have failed

You had trouble

you were poorly researched

You would be better advised

This isn't about your attempts to badmouth people and control information here.

Within the space of a couple hours on Sept 11, 2001, close to 3000 people died horrible in a massive attack on the US. There was much frantic reporting in the midst of putting out fires and trying to save lives went on.

Subsequently massive documentation has been gathered by professional investigators and amateur enthusiasts. Fully corroborated in methodical detail, AA Flight 77 took off from Dulles airport and crashed into the Pentagon with 64 people on board. Despite efforts to cast doubt on it happening as reported, no one in 8 years has been able to show anything substantially different occurring. And many have tried.

The broken taxi windshield incident was a light piece of human interest fluff the media reported on . The driver was lucky to escape injury. Charming bit totally irrelevant in the scale of the monumental events.

Alternate theories have been implied trying to utilize minor discrepancies in the incomplete record. Pushed by opportunists trying to show some huge behind the scenes treason plot, some actually believe a never seen secret crew with cranes were pulling up the poles in co-ordination with the city power board. And supposedly the smashed windshield was faked to give the impression an non-existent plane flying over.

But there have been absolutely no witnesses and no forensic evidence to support this bizarre theory. For starters it would be impossible to execute unnoticed in a brief span of time as hundreds of cars passed the spot. No one has ever come forward who participated or has knowledge of this collusion. There is no logical reason why people planning and executing the mass murder of thousands would risk discovery with such a pointless exercise.

It happened as reported.

Not because I choose to accept it or even care. There is nothing else that fits the facts. No evidence of anything different. Not even any contradictory theories that makes any sense.

I don't like to see demonstrably false information and malignly concocted stories perpetuated.





[edit on 8-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
The broken taxi windshield incident was a light piece of human interest fluff the media reported on.

A few posts ago, mmiichael, you stated that forensic investigations took place. When challenged, you failed to produce forensic reports about the incident.

Why have you failed to show one official government story document about the incident?

Why are you now trying to claim that it was just a piece of 'human interest fluff'?

Originally posted by mmiichael
But there have been absolutely no witnesses and no forensic evidence to support this ... theory.

Yes, these are appropriate words to describe your theory that a light pole hit the taxi.

Originally posted by mmiichael
It happened as reported.

As reported by the government, mmiichael?
As reported by the media, mmiichael?

Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't like to see demonstrably false information and malignly concocted stories perpetuated.

Then why did you try and use McGraw as a witness to the light pole hitting the taxi? McGraw never stated that he saw the light pole hit the taxi. Yet, for some reason you tried to use him as a witness. It was demonstrably false.

At least you admitted your error and your failure to research your claim.

Originally posted by tezzajw

you stated

you failed t

Why have you failed

Why are you now trying

your failure to research your claim.

You have absorbed nothing. Each post is an attempt to deflect from the topic at hand.

Abundant verification is there. You've been told dozens of times and pointed to where you can find it. You can even phone or email some of the people who were in front of the Pentagon that day.

If you can't supply a plausible supportable alternative scenario with credible evidence you are by default conceding there is no other explanation. 2 + 2 has to equal something. If you don't believe that it's 4 give us a different number.

Typing "you failed" is not an alternate explanation of how the taxi's windshield got smashed on a busy highway at the same moment a low flying plane passed over it.



[edit on 8-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Abundant verification is there.

Yet you have failed to provide any. Why is that, mmiichael?

Originally posted by mmiichael
You've been told dozens of times and pointed to where you can find it.

Yet you have not told me where to find it, linked it or sourced it.

You've claimed that the light pole incident was reported and recorded world wide and that it is all over the internet. Yet you have failed to supply one official government story document about it. You have not been able to prove that it happened, as you claim.

Originally posted by mmiichael
You can even phone or email some of the people who were in front of the Pentagon that day.

Supply me with a list of the people who saw the light pole hit the taxi and I'll email them. I'm sure that Craig will also be interested in speaking with those people as well. You have claimed those people were there, so let's see you supply us with a list of their contact details.

You claimed those people were there, so the burden of proof is upon you to find them.

Originally posted by mmiichael
If you can't supply a plausible supportable alternative scenario with credible evidence you are by default conceding there is no other explanation.

That's where you fail to understand the nature of logic and proof. It is not encumbant upon me to present an alternate theory. I am permitted to question your theory and see you try to support it, which you have thus far failed to do.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Typing "you failed" is not an alternate explanation of how the taxi's windshield got smashed on a busy highway

I never claimed that typing "you failed" is an explanation for an alternative. Again, you fail to understand that I have already claimed I don't know what happened. This has been mentioned numerous times and you've failed to acknowledge it.

You still have not proven that the taxi's windscreen was smashed on the highway.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Supply me with a list of the people who saw the light pole hit the taxi and I'll email them.

You'll get get it as soon as you supply me with a list of people who observed crane operators pull the poles out of the ground.

I'm sure that Craig will also be interested in speaking with those people as well.

Preferably if they've lost their marbles.

If this shareholder in "Citizens Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California" wants to join this discussion he can. I don't discuss fine points with messenger boys.

I'm anxious to see the Corporation's names of road crews and staff at the Washington D.C. hydroelectric board who were in on this vast conspiracy to pull up light poles and smash that taxi windshield.



[edit on 8-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by tezzajw
Supply me with a list of the people who saw the light pole hit the taxi and I'll email them.

You'll get get it as soon as you supply me with a list of people who observed crane operators pull the poles out of the ground.

Casual readers, note once more, mmiichael's failure in logic.

He has tried to avoid, dodge and deflect his burden to supply me with names... by throwing out an irrelevant condition. Scroll back through the thread and note the complete lack of substance that mmiichael has, when he wants me to supply a list of people who saw a crane...? Huh? Where in any of my posts have I mentioned a crane? Where did that idea stem from?

mmiichael, you further dig yourself deeper into an illogical hole. I will contact the people who saw the light pole hit the taxi. Please, supply me with their names.

Why do you suddenly back out of proving another claim, the post after you made it???

You stated that there were people out the front of the Pentagon. I can accept that. Now, let's it get it straight... did any of them see the light pole hit the taxi?

If they didn't, then they are useless to your theory. If any of them did, then I expect that very shortly, you'll be supplying their contact details so I can email them.

It looks like you now have more research to do.