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: 83
215
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
As you refuse to respond to links and information provided pretending they're not there - and supply no information - you are treated accordingly.

Casual readers, this must be mmiichael's way of finally conceding that he has no way to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

He must be asking all of us to believe it on the faith of Lloyde's word.

mmiichael has not supported his claim that thousands (hundreds?) of people saw the plane depart. Throughout this thread, he has constantly claimed that there is so much evidence online, but he has not dared to supply a link to support his claims.

In future, mmiichael, it would be prudent of you to have the facts, links and proof at hand to support the claims that you make, instead of eroding your credibility by making unsupported claims.




posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Casual readers will note this troll infested thread has yet to provide it's own subject title's claim:

"Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"


The positive aspect of this absurdity is that young people may come to this site and check out this intriguing sounding thread.

It will then be very clear to them how ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt the Truth Movement actually is.



[edit on 21-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Michael, why are you saying that this is a "troll infested thread"? Perhaps if we got to specifics, we could work things out here.

Secondly, I think that tezza has a point; I haven't seen you present any evidence, other than Lloyd's word, that the light pole actually hit his car. Lloyd himself now claims he wasn't even in the area where he, his car and the light pole were found shortly after the pentagon plane allegedly flew into the pole that he claims struck his car, as CIT's video Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab - The Eye Of The Storm demonstrates. Were you aware of this? He also made some other very interesting statements in that video. Have you seen it?

[edit on 21-11-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Originally posted by Scott 3x




The clean cuts of the light poles at their bases suggests to me that they were severed with something like a blow torch.


Are you seriously proposing that 5 light poles were cut down with a blow torch in front of the largest office building in the world, with some 25,000 employees, and nobody saw a thing ?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


So tezza, rather than troll on and on about how there is no proof the lamp post (in your mind) ever hit the windshield, hows about providing an alternate version which would A) explain the hole in the windshield; B) explain the lamp post smashed next to it; C) explain how the lamp posts were knocked over; and D) why do witnesses state they saw the aircraft knocking over the lamp posts with at least two actually seeing the lamp post smash said windshield.

You can't stick your head in the sand and ignore the facts, by constantly "demanding" proof, and when it is presented to you, you automatically ignore it and demand MORE proof. Tezza, this is nothing more than trolling, and now I see that its infecting others.
Usually if you are going to argue there is no proof of the lamp post ever smashing the windshield, then you must have an alternate idea as to how it happened. So stop trolling and give us YOUR idea of what else would explain the events. Because, if you dont, all you are doing is trolling along, and nothing else.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Why does he have to "prove" a light pole hit the taxi? Speak up.

Because he claimed it happened, jthomas!


No, he reported what was already known to have happened on the morning of 9/11


Should mmiichael wish to retain some sense of credibility on ATS, then he will need to learn that making claims, stated as fact, will require proof.


He doesn't have to 'prove" a thing. You have to refute the evidence.



Originally posted by jthomas
Why have you failed to do your investigation, tezz, to support your claims?

When was I given the resources, payment and power to subpoena witnesses to conduct a proper investigation? Please list all of the claims that I have made, jthomas? Your failure to do so will be your admission that you are inflating a false argument against me.


CIT didn't need any funds, did they?


Your ludicrous suggestion that I should be able to conduct a proper investigation shows the shortfall in your logical process.


So you would agree that it is ludicrous that CIT did any type of proper investigation.

ALL you have to do now is denounce CIT. Let's see you denounce CIT in writing instead of dancing around, ok?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus

JThomas you are pathetic in saying that tezza has FAILED to do his investigation.


He just claimed he couldn't do an investigation. You'd better catch up.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Michael, why are you saying that this is a "troll infested thread"? Perhaps if we got to specifics, we could work things out here.

Secondly, I think that tezza has a point; I haven't seen you present any evidence, other than Lloyd's word, that the light pole actually hit his car. Lloyd himself now claims he wasn't even in the area where he, his car and the light pole were found shortly after the pentagon plane allegedly flew into the pole that he claims struck his car, as CIT's video
Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab - The Eye Of The Storm demonstrates. Were you aware of this? He also made some other very interesting statements in that video. Have you seen it?


Seen the video.

Maybe there's more than one troll here Scott. What ya think?

Lloyde England is well into his 70s. No longer in his full faculties, being poked and prodded by CIT, maybe even fooling around with them.

CIT co-director, Aldo Marquis himself said here


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."


It's obvious what Citizen's Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California is up to, manipulating and rearranging ambiguous confused misremembered testimony from a tiny handful of witnesses. They completely ignore conflicting testimony from hundreds of others, and the overwhelming proponderance of solid evidence and witness statements clearly showing how Flight 77 hit the Pentagon incidentally knocking down light poles in it's path.

CIT implies that unseen by thousands who drove by, lived or had offices adjacent to the stretch of highway, the lamp poles were pulled downed, tree branches shaved off, a generator and concrete barrier were smashed by operatives. That they also planted aircraft wreckage and created a 757 wreck-size damage path inside the Pentagon. All done within minutes. All at tremendous risk of discover. All just to make it appear a 757 hit the Pentagon.

For all this CIT supplies no tangible material evidence.

There's a good reason CIT has been boycotted even by the majority of Truthers. They are considered an embarrassment for the Movement.

If you are gullible enough to be taken in by a blatant con operation - well, best of luck to you.


M




[edit on 21-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
He doesn't have to 'prove" a thing. You have to refute the evidence.




I cannot even believe Thomas is not sick of this line himself yet.

What evidence?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
He doesn't have to 'prove" a thing. You have to refute the evidence.




I cannot even believe Thomas is not sick of this line himself yet.

What evidence?


Why should I be sick of reminding you that you actually have to REFUTE the evidence to support your silly claims? I am trying to help you out of your present difficulties, after all.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Something needs to be gotten straight. Multiple sourced information on 9/11 is readily available to anyone who wants it. No one has to reproduce it here to prove anything. Either go to the links provided or Google it.

I can say a city has a population of 3 million without having to supply all 3 million names and addresses to verify the claim.

Most relevant to this discussion and repeatedly asked for is the claimed "Alarming Information" from the "Independent Investigation Into the Pentagon Attack"

Where is the CIT evidence that counters the thousands of pieces of physical evidence, pictures, eyewitness testimony shoving Flight 77 was flown into the Pentagon?

Without it forthcoming it can only be assumed there is none.









[edit on 21-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas


Why should I be sick of reminding you that you actually have to REFUTE the evidence to support your silly claims? I am trying to help you out of your present difficulties, after all.


WHAT EVIDENCE???????????????????????????

CAN YOU READ??????????

ARE YOU MENTALLY DEFICICIENT???????????

I ASKED WHAT EVIDENCE. STOP TALKING IN CIRCLES AND EITHER PRESENT THIS EVIDENCE ONCE AND FOR ALL OR SHUT UP.

edit to add: WHAT EVIDENCE???????????????????????????

[edit on 11/21/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Something needs to be gotten straight. Multiple sourced information on 9/11 is readily available to anyone who wants it. No one has to reproduce it here to prove anything. Either go to the links provided or Google it.



AND ALL OF IT PROVES THAT THERE ARE NO REPORTS OF ANY BODIES FOUND STILL STRAPPED INTO SEATS. IT IS ALL THERE FOR ANYONE WILLING TO LOOK AT OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE CRASH SCENE.

Now I remember why I stopped coming here. People are so caught up in their own bs, they do not even see how incredibly stupid their defenses of them are getting to be.









MICHAEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have now wasted 3 posts responding so it must matter.

Just answer the question, where is there any verification of this quote?

Why can it not be found anyhwhere on anything officiall documented that day?????

Please, take yet another post to tell me you will not answer because you do not care to but will take the time to tell me so.

You quote is a lie and anyone that wants to look at the multiple sources of info can and have seen that.

Take a tip from your friend thomas and see if you can find any EVIDENCE.

I can refute your statement since the evidence shows it not to be true. Are you going to help me understand why something that has NO EVIDENCE is more believable than actual records of the evidence?????????

Have you seen sunlight?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


When you behave as you do, why should anyone help you to understand anything? The information available to the general public is incomplete and we can only report what we can find. We found statements about first responders seeing bodies strapped in seats. We do not have any more than that. We do not know who was found that way, as some voyeurs demand, nor do we know the SSN's and blood types of those seeing those victims.
Since you pretend to be clever and have a reference library of snappy patter and glib statements, what do you propose happened? Are you like the other mindless, unimaginative trolls who "don't have enough information" to propose a theory or have only questions for those who do? Is that where you're coming from, Binky? If you do have a brain, propose a theory. Of course, you will have a complete theory. No handwaving about unknown groups planting unknown demolitions that leave no trace and whose effects can only be seen on youtube videos with colored lines and arrows pointing them out. We need to hear who did it, what they used, how it was done, when it was prepared, etc. If you ever get that far, we can decide what evidence you need to support it.
It's your turn to propose a theory. Don't be shy. I promise not to laugh.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by scott3x
The clean cuts of the light poles at their bases suggests to me that they were severed with something like a blow torch.


Are you seriously proposing that 5 light poles were cut down with a blow torch in front of the largest office building in the world, with some 25,000 employees, and nobody saw a thing ?


Clearly some saw what was going on; the person or people who did it, at the very least. As to when, precisely, the light poles were taken down, it has been suggested by CIT that it may actually have been taken down the night before. Instead of being incredulous that they might have been taken down before the event itself, can you prove that this wasn't done? Given all the evidence that the plane didn't fly over that area, I think it's much more probable that the light poles were taken down by a means that didn't involve a plane.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 

Scott,
There is evidence for a plane striking the Pentagon and no evidence for a flyover. Very few subscribe to CIT's theories.
The burden of proof is on you to show that the poles were cut and placed. You can't, of course.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
Clearly some saw what was going on; the person or people who did it, at the very least. As to when, precisely, the light poles were taken down, it has been suggested by CIT that it may actually have been taken down the night before. Instead of being incredulous that they might have been taken down before the event itself, can you prove that this wasn't done? Given all the evidence that the plane didn't fly over that area, I think it's much more probable that the light poles were taken down by a means that didn't involve a plane.


This is a real laugh. On Sept 11, 2001, before 8:45 AM, like any other day thousands of cars would have passed through the stretch of highway adjacent to the Pentagon. While it was still dark they would have been guided by the lights above them. There are apartment blocks nearby, and the road is visible to some working in the Pentagon complex.

It would take a full crew working flat out to remove 5 poles from cement and lay them on the ground. Cars were passing through normally up to 9:30. At 9:40 the poles were down.

Virtually every unusual event happening that day anywhere near the Pentagon was noted later by people who saw the plane coming along the ground, passersby, area residents.

Absolutely no one in 8 years has ever mentioned seeing crews taking down poles in minutes. If it were even possible. No drivers or passengers noted any traffic disruption or the lack of lighting.

This whole notion lacks any substantiation. Just as the thought of bad guys risking being observed taking poles down to make it look like a plane passed over lacks any credence.

CIT offers no material evidence or testimony for any of this.

There is as much proof as there is for the Virgin Mary knocking down those poles between 9:30 and 9:40. But no one saw Her. And no one saw busy road crews pulling down poles.

But CIT groupies cling to their fantasies. Despite the fact that all their surmises have been disproven repeatedly.

Why there is this desperation to deny something that happened I can only guess.










[edit on 21-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
Scott,
There is evidence for a plane striking the Pentagon


What evidence are you referring to? I know of no solid evidence of this nature.


Originally posted by pteridine
and no evidence for a flyover.


Have you seen Pilots for 9/11 Truth's videos, and CIT's videos on the subject? I think there is a lot of evidence from their videos which shows that the flyover theory is the most likely explanation.


Originally posted by pteridine
Very few subscribe to CIT's theories.


Perhaps this is true. But how many people who don't subscribe to their theories have seen their videos?


Originally posted by pteridine
The burden of proof is on you to show that the poles were cut and placed.


Please pteridine; this is an internet forum, not a court of law. I don't have to show that the poles were cut and placed where they were later photographed, just like you don't have to show that they weren't. I have merely pointed out that official story supporters have little if any solid evidence that places the plane on the south of the citgo gas station flight path.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
It would take a full crew working flat out to remove 5 poles from cement and lay them on the ground. Cars were passing through normally up to 9:30. At 9:40 the poles were down.

Virtually every unusual event happening that day anywhere near the Pentagon was noted later by people who saw the plane coming along the ground, passersby, area residents.

Absolutely no one in 8 years has ever mentioned seeing crews taking down poles in minutes. If it were even possible.


Didn't have to be taken down in minutes. But even if that were the case, I have heard that the place was sealed off shortly before the event, apparently because the president was scheduled to arrive nearby (the white house?) that day. Why was Lloyd England the only one on the road, besides the spooks (their identities are still unknown I believe) who were there to "document" what happened? When did the spooks arrive? Furthermore, there are other issues, which CIT documents:
Light pole on hwy goes unnoticed for years, planted poles wouldn't have been noticed

There is also the issue that the light pole simply couldn't have been lodged in Lloyd's taxi cab windshield and have caused so little damage, as pointed out in another CIT thread:
Recreation of Light Pole/Taxi Scenario



Originally posted by mmiichael
This whole notion lacks any substantiation. Just as the thought of bad guys risking being observed taking poles down to make it look like a plane passed over lacks any credence.


It has a lot of credence if you truly consider all the evidence against the plane taking the south of citgo flight path.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by scott3x]



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join