Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information, page 76

privacy

Pages: << 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 212 times

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 10:53 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by pteridine
Postulate the source of the hole. What could have done it, Tezza?

There's no requirement for me to do so, pteridine.

Are you that unsure about your own theory, that you need me to offer you alternatives?

Remember, pteridine, it is your claim that the light pole hit the taxi. You have the burden to prove this. I have no requirement to offer anything, do anything or say anything.

I am more than willing to accept that the light pole hit the taxi, if you can prove it. Thus far, you have completely failed to do so.

Originally posted by pteridine
What projectiles were flying about at that moment?

You are assuming that the taxi was being driven through projectiles. Again, your predisposition to believe the incident, without offering proof for the incident, highlights your faith in Lloyde's testimony.

I'll be looking forward to your interview with Lloyde. Be sure to post it as soon as you are able to.

It might also be worth your while tracking down McGraw, so you can clarify what he allegedly saw. Remember that you utterly screwed up his testimony when you tried to claim that he witnessed the light pole striking the taxi. Of course, McGraw never stated this, completely exposing the lack of research that you did for your own theory.

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 11:03 PM by pteridine

reply to post by tezzajw

Maybe you could back up your previous statements now and show everyone that you do not have a double standard.

reply posted on 13-11-2009 @ 11:05 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
reply to post by impressme

Care to provide your aunt's contact details to the Citizens Investigation Team so they can add her account to the public record? I'm sure they would be interested in speaking with her to verify her account rather than relying on an anonymous poster.

Like the Maytag repairman, we keep waiting for you to finally provide us with your supposed "flyover" eyewitnesses, SwingDangler. You'll recall that CIT categorically refuses to do so.

reply posted on 13-11-2009 @ 08:31 PM by vehemes terra eternus

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
reply to post by logistix111

We know a plane hit the Pentagon and many people were killed. We know that the plane struck light poles on the way to the Pentagon and those light poles were then secondary projectiles. We know that those projectiles had indeterminate trajectories. We know that a taxi with a hole in the windshield is merely an anomaly used by those with personal motives to promote improbable theories to the gullible.
If you have evidence of any other explanation for the hole in the windshield, sans "bonnet scratches," come forward now. You are invited to impress all of us with your evidence, should it be an airplane part, meteor, tree branch, or tezza's head. Front up.

You know do you? How do you know all these things? Because the mainstream media told you?

Since you KNOW that a plane hit the Pentagon you should be able to explain to me why only one engine was found.

Since you KNOW that a plane knocked the light pole out of the ground and through the cab windscreen then you should be able to provide some PROOF that this happened. Got any links or Govt docs???

I have NOT claimed to KNOW what happened at the Pentagon. YOU are the one making the claims Pteridine and every time you are asked to support them you try to weasel your way out of it.

A meteor? Tezza's head? What are you getting at Pteridine

I don't know what made the hole in the windscreen but at this stage I do not think that it was a light pole. I base this on my observation of the cab's bonnet and the interview with Lloyd when he didn't know the camera was rolling. Remember, this is just what I THINK happened. I am not claiming that I KNOW.

If you could offer me something a little more solid than the OS as a source I would be more than happy to take a look at the information.

Do you KNOW what I mean?

[edit on 13/11/09 by vehemes terra eternus]

reply posted on 13-11-2009 @ 08:43 PM by vehemes terra eternus

Sorry guys, I used the quote tool and separated the two posts but it didn't work? What am I doing wrong?

Anyways, I was wondering why Pteridine and JThomas are getting that many stars for their average (IMO) posts?

There must be a few OS believers lurking. What are your opinions guys???

Pteridine, also curious as to what you think about the 80+ tapes that have been confiscated? Why do you think they aren't showing them? Peace

reply posted on 13-11-2009 @ 09:49 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
Sorry guys, I used the quote tool and separated the two posts but it didn't work? What am I doing wrong?

Don't worry, it doesn't matter. You just cut and pasted the same erroneous questions that were debunked on Usenet around 2002.

Anyways, I was wondering why Pteridine and JThomas are getting that many stars for their average (IMO) posts?

It's clear that you don't know what you don't know and we do. Don't fall for all this 9/11 Denial nonsense to which you are clinging.

reply posted on 13-11-2009 @ 11:22 PM by pteridine

reply to post by vehemes terra eternus

Here is a site with witness statements for you to peruse in your spare time. 911research.wtc7.net...

I think it is a truther site because certain comments are bolded for easy out of context quoting. Not everyone saw the same thing, but the common thread is that the AA 757, with passengers on it, struck the Pentagon after plowing through the light posts. So we have multiple witnesses that saw the plane hit the lightposts and then hit the building. All the flyover-missile-explosive charges-fake plane theories are unsupported and have been relegated to the profiteers living off of those who really need a conspiracy.

I understand that in your philosopher guise, you must appear not to "know" anything and that proofs must be absolute. This is, of course, not likely to happen, especially since much of the detailed evidence is not publically available.

As to my comment about the hole in the windshield of the cab, I was inviting you to postulate an alternate scenario that did not include pieces of highway lights and provided a short list of possible projectiles for you to consider. The comment about tezza's head relates to his avatar that shows a nameless fantasy game being holding a human head, presumably tezza's.

reply posted on 13-11-2009 @ 11:30 PM by Swing Dangler

reply to post by pteridine

Please do us a favor and confirm in person and on video each of those accounts located in the press. There have been numerous 'eyewitnesses' in the press that turned out not to be eyewitnesses at all. Thanks for your help with this issue.

reply posted on 13-11-2009 @ 11:40 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by pteridine
So we have multiple witnesses that saw the plane hit the lightposts and then hit the building.

You have claimed this for the past few pages, pteridine. Yet, you have consistently failed to prove that a light pole hit the taxi.

You tried to offer McGraw as a witness to the light pole hitting the taxi, which was utterly false. We all saw, on the CIT interview, that McGraw did not state that he saw a light pole hit the taxi.

You were wrong, pteridine and it highlighted the weakness in your research.

Originally posted by pteridine
As to my comment about the hole in the windshield of the cab, I was inviting you to postulate an alternate scenario that did not include pieces of highway lights and provided a short list of possible projectiles for you to consider.

Here you are operating upon the assumption that the taxi was struck by a projectile. You have not proven that it was.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by tezzajw]

reply posted on 13-11-2009 @ 11:52 PM by Swing Dangler

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by infinityoreilly

The wings did not really "fold back" and do no damage. This link shows what occurred.
911research.wtc7.net...
Perhaps another reader can answer your question on who released the videos.

[edit on 11/12/2009 by pteridine]

LOL! One of those eyewitnesses you point say that is EXACTLY what happened.

One says the wings came off!
Another says the wings flew forward!
One says the wings disappeared into the building!
One says the wings were drug along the ground!

Which one is it?

911research.wtc7.net...

Now you know why it is important to confirm in person and on video these alleged 'eyewitness' accounts as well as their exact position in relation to the Pentagon.

Perhaps you should go on a "Wing" investigation and interview those people to determine what exactly they witnessed....you know like CIT did.

reply posted on 13-11-2009 @ 11:55 PM by pteridine

reply to post by Swing Dangler

Is that what you want? People in Hell want icewater.

Why don't you check through the press and find a series of consistent quotes about the plane flying over the Pentagon and missing the light poles. It would be good to have people with different viewpoints so you could be sure of the flyover and state which direction the plane went after the flyover. You could then go and interview them to make sure the press didn't misquote them.

reply posted on 14-11-2009 @ 12:02 AM by pteridine

reply to post by tezzajw

You have not yet backed up your previous statements, as you demand of others.
You are still clinging to the schoolmarm tactic of demanding things in an attempt to take control of the discussion. Are you desperate for attention?

reply posted on 14-11-2009 @ 12:07 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Which one is it?
Perhaps you should go on a "Wing" investigation and interview those people to determine what exactly they witnessed....you know like CIT did.

CIT interviewed McGraw and he thought that the plane had bounced before it hit the Pentagon. He was only 'reminded' of this after he heard other people's testimony about the plane bouncing.

McGraw's interview is extremely enlightening. It showed that he did not see the light pole hitting the taxi, which puts to rest the media quote in pteridine's link.

reply posted on 14-11-2009 @ 12:45 AM by impressme

reply to post by Swing Dangler

Care to provide your aunt's contact details to the Citizens Investigation Team so they can add her account to the public record? I'm sure they would be interested in speaking with her to verify her account rather than relying on an anonymous poster.

Here we go again. Another crazy post. My Aunt, Susan Hurd, worked there when the plane hit. (Nothing to secret, just chemical engineering contract work) Anyway... yes, it was a plane. She was in the "E" ring on the other side and she told us all about it after it happened. It's on camera and thousands of people saw it. It wasn't some russian missle or whatever the spin is on it these days. If we are supposed to Deny Ignorance, then why are you people on here still debating about it?

Why don’t you ask this poster the same Question?

Oh, I know why because, her “hearsay” fits your fantasy.

reply posted on 14-11-2009 @ 12:46 AM by pteridine

reply to post by tezzajw

Are you ready to back up your statements yet?

reply posted on 14-11-2009 @ 12:55 AM by impressme

reply to post by jthomas

Now we know what you look like!

reply posted on 14-11-2009 @ 01:23 AM by impressme

Boy, oh boy I see the dissinfo tag team is in full operation today, all teaming up on one guy. We can see how desperate you people are by ridicule everything that tezzajw has posted. I thought it was against ATS rules to gang up on a poster.

Thats not right.

reply posted on 14-11-2009 @ 02:23 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by impressme
We can see how desperate you people are by ridicule everything that tezzajw has posted.

It's even more amusing, considering that I haven't made any claims about the Pentagon incident or CIT's investigation in this thread.

When they utterly fail to prove their own claims, it's clear to see that their next option is to invent nonsense to cover for their own insecurities.

It must really hurt some of them to believe that the light pole hit the taxi, yet not be able to prove it. Worse still, knowing that they can not prove it, while wanting others to believe them at face value.

We've seen who has the credibility issues in this thread.

reply posted on 14-11-2009 @ 04:35 AM by nitro624

Look at the Lockerbie plane crash photos,the fuselage is folded up like a deflated balloon, the Engines would have been the heaviest part of the plane and would have caused more damage. Where are the Engines did they turn to dust ?

reply posted on 14-11-2009 @ 05:42 AM by 911files

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Perhaps you should go on a "Wing" investigation and interview those people to determine what exactly they witnessed....you know like CIT did.

I did.