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: 77
215
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Now we know what you look like!


And we know you can't provide any evidence of a so-called "flyover." Which is what you'll have to do.



[edit on 14-11-2009 by jthomas]




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

When are you going to support your statements as you demand of others?

Are you so insecure that you avoid making any sort of declaration for fear of having to support it? Maybe you aren't as skilled a debater as you think you are.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
If a plane that large was flying that low, throwing cars around and knocking lights over SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TAKEN VIDEO/PHOTOS!!!

hmm. interesting.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Tormentations
 

How many cameras do you commute to work with? Are they always on? How long does it take to find a target and focus on it? If you were near an airport, would you video every plane arriving and departing on the off-hand chance that they were going to attack nearby buildings?



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 




Now we know what you look like!

And we know you can't provide any evidence of a so-called "flyover." Which is what you'll have to do.



[edit on 14-11-2009 by jthomas]



And we know you cannot provide any evidences of your so- call “Official Story” which is what you’ll have to do.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



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.


What I find amusing is the light pole didn’t even scratch the paint on the hood.

The OS believers can’t even prove their OS is true. Yet when we ask them why do they believe in the OS they will not answer you.
I wonder why?



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Questions:
How did those light poles fall down where they did?

How easy is it to "fake" those light poles being struck by the plane?

How many workers and what equipment would you estimate would be needed to make the "light pole set up", if the poles were never hit by the plane?

And finally, how come nobody saw any of this going on?


Edited to take out accidental quote that was not by impressme.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by rush969]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 





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.


I never posted that.





[edit on 14-11-2009 by impressme]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
Questions:
How did those light poles fall down where they did?

I don't know. Thus far, pteridine has utterly failed to prove that one of them was hit by a plane, subsequently hitting the taxi.

pteridine tried to use McGraw as a witness but he was completely exposed for his lack of research. McGraw did not state that he saw a light pole hit the taxi, showing how pteridine failed to correctly use McGraw's testimony.


Originally posted by rush969
How easy is it to "fake" those light poles being struck by the plane?

I don't know. Maybe someone who thinks that the scene was staged can answer this for you.


Originally posted by rush969
How many workers and what equipment would you estimate would be needed to make the "light pole set up", if the poles were never hit by the plane?

Refer to above answer.


Originally posted by rush969
And finally, how come nobody saw any of this going on?

You certainly have a valid point here. How come nobody saw the taxi allegedly skidding to a halt, with the light pole allegedly hanging from the window. Lloyde being allegedly helped by a silent stranger to remove the pole, all within a couple of minutes until the Ingersoll pictures were taken.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't know. Thus far, pteridine has utterly failed to prove that one of them was hit by a plane, subsequently hitting the taxi.

When will you back up your previous statements as you demand of others? You have failed to do so and failed to meet your own standards. Why are you afraid to do so? Are you unsure of yourself and your abilty to debate?



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Noted...However the questions I think remain valid.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
Noted...However the questions I think remain valid.

I agree. Particularly these two questions and answers:



Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by rush969
How did those light poles fall down where they did?

I don't know. Thus far, pteridine has utterly failed to prove that one of them was hit by a plane, subsequently hitting the taxi.




Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by rush969
And finally, how come nobody saw any of this going on?

You certainly have a valid point here. How come nobody saw the taxi allegedly skidding to a halt, with the light pole allegedly hanging from the window. Lloyde being allegedly helped by a silent stranger to remove the pole, all within a couple of minutes until the Ingersoll pictures were taken.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I see you are still ignoring your failure to support your previous statements. This does not bode well for your credibility.
Troll on.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Here are some eyewitnesses reports from 9/11 at the Pentagon. This clearly shows it is true that the plane hit the light poles, or at the very least, that it is the most likely scenario.

D. S. Khavkin “The plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon.”

Mark Bright, "I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down."

Kirk Milburn “I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles,"

Father Stephen McGraw "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.”

(I know you have downplayed the McGraw statement so you can save the comment. I think we can agree that anybody could think the driver was injured if we see a piece of a light pole go into his windshield. Turns out Lloyd wasn´t injured. OK, we know he assumed that.)

Afework Hagos “It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."

Driving on a highway adjacent to the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her, and then crash into the Pentagon.

Richard Benedetto “The jet knocked over several light posts before it smashed into the Pentagon.”



[edit on 15-11-2009 by rush969]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
Here are some eyewitnesses reports from 9/11 at the Pentagon.

D. S. Khavkin ...did not see the light pole hit the taxi.

Mark Bright ...did not see the light pole hit the taxi.

Kirk Milburn ...did not see the light pole hit the taxi.

Father Stephen McGraw ...please, you're kidding me right? Have you read any of my posts in this thread about McGraw? Look at how pteridine utterly failed when he tried to use McGraw as a witness.

Afework Hagos ...did not see the light pole hit the taxi.

Penny Elgas ...did not see the light pole hit the taxi.

Richard Benedetto ...did not see the light pole hit the taxi.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with those unverified witness statements? None of them claimed to have seen the light pole hit the taxi. It doesn't bode well for trying to prove that the taxi was hit by a light pole.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Your statement was "Thus far, pteridine has utterly failed to prove that one of them was hit by a plane, subsequently hitting the taxi." It would seem that more than one was hit by a plane. As to your standards of evidence and claims of knowing nothing, when will you meet that standard yourself? You have failed. Your double standard is evident to all and your comments are superfluous.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Your statement was "Thus far, pteridine has utterly failed to prove that one of them was hit by a plane, subsequently hitting the taxi."

pteridine, I have been asking you to prove your theory that a light pole hit the taxi.

You have spent roughly 20 pages avoiding it, dodging it, deflecting it and getting it all wrong. You tried to use McGraw and utterly failed when it exposed your lack of research about what McGraw really claimed.

You can not quote me on a statement about the Pentagon, that I have not supported, in this thread. Your noise is only made to disguise your own failings to support your theory. Your spin, deflection, avoidance and dodging are plain for all to see.

How many more pages will you spend trying to claim a fact that you won't prove?



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


This thread may help you understand why it is important to independently verify witness statements.

It's easy for journalists to print whatever they like about what a witness may have seen or said. We've seen how pteridine utterly failed when he tried to use McGraw as a witness to the light pole hitting the taxi. McGraw did not state that he saw it happen, but pteridine was fooled by the media quote to think that it happened.

Take a read through it, rush969 and see how vague some of those witness statements are.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I can see that have again failed to support your statements. You consider an inconsequential anomaly an "interesting puzzle" but provide no rationale for its importance. I conclude that it is not important at all.
You have no theory of your own. You claim "insufficient evidence" and behave like a troll.
Get back to me when you have something to say worth reading.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I can see that have again failed to support your statements.

Provide a list for the casual readers of statements about the Pentagon that I have not supported in this thread.

Your failure to do so will be your admission that you are just making noise to deflect from the burden of proof that you have, trying to prove the light pole hit the taxi.

You bleat on about me not supporting claims, but you have failed to quote me. You have failed to list my claims, about the Pentagon incident, that you allege I have not supported. Your noise is obvious, pteridine. It does not disguise that you have failed to prove your theory and you need a distraction to take the spotlight off your own shortcomings.


Originally posted by pteridine
You consider an inconsequential anomaly an "interesting puzzle" but provide no rationale for its importance.

I have provided reasons. You failed to either read them or understand them. The fact that you admit that it is an anomaly further supports my claim about the incident being a puzzle.

Reason 1: No one has proven the light pole hit the taxi.
Reason 2: No one has produced official government story documentation that states the incident happened.


Originally posted by pteridine
You have no theory of your own.

pteridine, you must have failed to read where I have stated numerous times in this thread that I don't need to provide a theory.

You have claimed that a light pole hit the taxi. You have consistently failed to prove this. You tried to use McGraw as a witness, which highlighted your weak research, as you got it completely wrong.

Make as much noise as you like. Your obvious failures will still be pointed out to you. You can't hide the fact that you have failed to prove your theory.



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join