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: 86
215
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 11:06 AM
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.

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.


Amen.

CIT knows it has nothing. So does Cap'n Robby Balsamo.




posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x

You can claim that various people 'demolish' CIT's theories, but saying it's been done isn't the same thing as demonstrating that it's so.



Not has it only been done repeatedly, many of us have quite clearly demonstrated that CIT has never been able to support it's own claims about nor answer any of our questions about those claims.

CIT thrives only because there are gullible people that will never question CIT's claims or look at the implications of those claims.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezzajw

You told me earlier that I was incorrect in assuming you supported a flyover at the Pentagon. OK, if you say so, but it seems strange that you are so hung up on Lloyde's taxi and the lightpole.

It seems to me that there are only two alternatives :-

(a) The plane knocked down the poles and one punctured his windscreen.

(b) All the collateral damage leading to the Pentagon wall, including Lloyde's cab was faked.

In support of (a) there is evidence :-

(1) Physical damage to cab ( which still exists )

(2) Driver's statement as to what happened.

(3) Photographic evidence that Lloyde and his damaged cab were in the area of the downed poles at the right time.

(4) Eyewitness evidence that he and his damaged cab were there.

In support of (b) I am not aware of any evidence at all.

So, you can say, and no doubt will, that the evidence does not convince you but you can't say there isn't any evidence in support of a light pole spearing Lloyde's cab.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
"Patently ridiculous" fits CIT's theory quite nicely. There is no evidence of anything they claim but they continue to claim it.


I disagree. Can you provide an example where you feel they do this?


We already have. You fully understand that CIT has provided not one stitch of positive evidence to support its claim that any "jet flew over and away from the Pentagon."

You know that and you know you cannot do so either.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
Scott,
Here are some easy questions for you.
How many people saw a flyover?


The question may be easy to ask, but not easy to answer. I have mentioned the only 2 witnesses that I know of that would seem to confirm that the plane flew over the pentagon instead of into the building; but one of those witnesses mentions that 'others' claimed that the plane flew over. Who were those others? I believe that part of the reason for this is that the government financed investigations have never -looked- for flyover witnesses, for one.

Another issue that can't be ignored is that all the video tapes that -should- have documented whether the plane that approached the pentagon were almost immediately confiscated. I believe that most if not all of those tapes are still under wraps. Of the tapes that have been officially confiscated, it has been said by the FBI that none of them show the plane. As an official story believer, you may be prone to believe them. I'm not, however, and would like to see all of the tapes in question myself. Speaking of more anonymous witnesses, some of the employees at the Sheridan hotel apparently saw one (or more?) of the videotapes from one of their videocameras before they were confiscated; I think it would be interesting to find out what they have to say on the matter; one hopes that they weren't sworn to secrecy, but at present we simply don't know.

Even if the confiscated tapes are eventually shown, ofcourse, they could still have doctored them; but it's quite possible that even if they did so, they might have made mistakes in the doctoring, and mistakes can be discovered. I have found it rather interesting that no official story believer has ever commented on the fact that the only official tape of the pentagon explosion has the date set at September 12; do OSTers even -have- an explanation for this event? Don't they care? Perhaps they're afraid that by delving into this, they might be forced to admit that perhaps the tape wasn't filmed on the day of the event? I believe there's a continuation of the tape, where that smudge that doesn't look like an airplane to me, moves backwards after the explosion; as in, it wasn't a plane, but a vehicle (thus explaining how it could be so "low and level" without damaging the pentalawn).


Originally posted by pteridine
Where did all the jet fuel come from in the initial fire?


If memory serves, there was a diesel generator adjacent to where the pentagon was hit; I know there were -claims- that it was jet fuel, but diesel and jet fuel aren't -that- different; did anyone ever do an analysis of the fumes to determine whether it was one or the other?


Originally posted by pteridine
Why are the support columns pushed in along the track of the plane if explosives were used?


I have heard of support columns pushed out as well. I have never claimed to have an answer to every question, but I think you might agree that the easy thing is to ask questions; the hard thing is to answer them. I believe that the theory that has the most probable answers is the plane flyover theory.



Originally posted by pteridine
What proposed explosives were used and where were they placed?


I have heard that atleast one of the pentagon employees smelled cordite, so perhaps that was used. Perhaps more were used as well; I'm not a demolition expert, and considering the fact that the military has exotic explosive materials as well, it may be that even a demolition expert might be hard pressed to guess as to what they used. I'm also not an engineer, so knowing where the explosives might have been placed is also a bit beyond me; perhaps some might have been placed where the columns bent outwards, but that's about as much as I think I'll hazard.

I also sincerely doubt that any effort was made into determining whether explosives were used at the pentagon; NIST has already admitted that it never looked for explosive residues at ground zero. As far as I know, they still have the capability of testing samples of steel and possibly other debris that might hold traces of explosives, but they still haven't done so. The same may be the case for the pentagon. There are many questions, you see. And this is why I believe that a new, government financed investigation with subpoena power would be a step in the right direction.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x

Another issue that can't be ignored is that all the video tapes that -should- have documented whether the plane that approached the pentagon were almost immediately confiscated. I believe that most if not all of those tapes are still under wraps. Of the tapes that have been officially confiscated, it has been said by the FBI that none of them show the plane. As an official story believer, you may be prone to believe them.


It should be very obvious that after 3 successful attacks on major targets in one day, the US prudently does not want to release footage to show potential enemies or saboteurs their vulnerabilities. There is nothing to be gained by giving away a blueprint on how to successfully attack the Pentagon.

As there never has been any question Flight 77 went from Dulles airport directly into the Pentagon, the military and US government has seen no need to respond to doubts raised by a fringe sub-culture.

Thousands of independent writers, journalists, investigators from a dozen countries have done first hand research - not just Google and Youtube. They've gone to the sites, read primary documentation, questioned witnesses, correlated information.

Some minor discrepancies and errors, but it all adds up to the same thing. Muslim terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into their targets. There are perpetrators from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, elsewhere, who have confessed to direct involvement. One of the key planners, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has given enormous details and goes on trial soon.

I'm afraid, Scott, you are a conspiracy junkie. You will continue to dismiss facts in favour of wild speculation and innuendo created by con-artists like CIT. You have no real interest in finding out what happened. You only want confirmation of a belief that 9/11 was some massive conspiracy carried out by the US govt, Mossad, whoever.

Though nothing credible has ever indicated this, and all solid evidence and testimony shows overwhelmingly that it was a foreign attack, you will continue to believe otherwise - burying your head in the sand.

There is a small community who share your willful self-deception, and there are snake oil salesmen who feed it. You will continue to look for questions in the hope that somehow avoiding what is in front of your nose will keep the shared fantasies alive.

Craig Ranke is on this list. Seek him out. He will give you the kind of answers you want to hear.


M

[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 

The answer is that there were no witnesses to any flyover and that there were many witnesses to the impact.
"Smelling Cordite" means smelling nitrogen oxides. No evidence of explosives.
Jet or diesel is inconsequential; the amount involved was much greater than any diesel-gen set would have had onboard. There didn't seem to be a tanker truck involved, so there is even a problem for CIT with the fuel for the fires.

Back to the drawing board for CIT.

[edit on 11/22/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
double post - sorry!

[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
A 'concerned citizen' just sent me a U2U with a link to a site exposing the CIT fraud:


citwatch.blogspot.com...

Exposing CIT's Magic Show

A magic show depends on misdirection - getting the audience to focus their attention on something unimportant so the performer can "con" them into thinking he has achieved something he hasn't. CIT operates by distracting truth seekers from the myriad crimes and actionable issues surrounding the Pentagon attack and training their focus on essentially irrelevant details and a bogus flyover theory. By this method, CIT's followers are duped into asking the wrong questions about the Pentagon attack so the perpetrators will never have to worry about the answers.


Maybe that's the "Alarming Information"

CIT works for the CIA.



[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
tezzajw
You told me earlier that I was incorrect in assuming you supported a flyover at the Pentagon. OK, if you say so, but it seems strange that you are so hung up on Lloyde's taxi and the lightpole.

At least you admit when you fail to quote me and that you made a false claim about me. jthomas and trebor never manage to own up to their false claims.


Originally posted by Alfie1
It seems to me that there are only two alternatives :-
(a) The plane knocked down the poles and one punctured his windscreen.

Great. If you think this happened, for a fact, you need to prove it!


Originally posted by Alfie1
(1) Physical damage to cab ( which still exists )

How was the damage caused? Prove it.


Originally posted by Alfie1
(2) Driver's statement as to what happened.

Lloyde has contradicted himself to CIT and shown that he is an unreliable witness.


Originally posted by Alfie1
(3) Photographic evidence that Lloyde and his damaged cab were in the area of the downed poles at the right time.

So? Photographic evidence shows a damaged taxi on the road with a damaged light pole on the road.


Originally posted by Alfie1
(4) Eyewitness evidence that he and his damaged cab were there.

Please list all of the eyewitnesses who saw the light pole hit the taxi.
Please list all of the eyewitnesses who saw the light pole in the taxi, while it was driving and skidding to a stop, blocking the lanes, from a speed of around 40mph.
Please list all of the eyewitnesses who saw the silent stranger stop and help Lloyde remove the light pole, without scratching the bonnet, all within a couple of minutes before Ingersoll took his pictures.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezzajw

You seem to have deliberately gone out of your way to misunderstand my post.

I didn't claim any witness has been identified who saw the pole hit. I just pointed out that there is evidence to support a downed pole hitting Lloyde's cab but there is none to support that the scene was faked.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

If you claim that a light pole hit the taxi, for a fact, then you need to prove that it happened.

You can claim it as your opinion, which is ok. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, whether they are right or wrong.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

you need to prove it!
How was the damage caused? Prove it.
Lloyde has contradicted himself to CIT and shown that he is an unreliable witness.
Please list all of the eyewitnesses who saw the light pole hit the taxi.
Please list all of the eyewitnesses who saw the light pole in the taxi,
Please list all of the eyewitnesses who saw the silent stranger stop



With all due respect. It's been noted dozens of times that the broken taxi windshield happened at the same time Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There was a huge explosion, fires, people were being burned alive.

No normal person would have taken much notice of a minor incident on the road given the shock and severity of this surprise attack of a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

But you keep on harping on this inconsequential issue as if it had any relevance to the massive attack on the country in the same minute.

As I just posted it has been surmised by the people at this site exposing the CIT fraud that there may be a malign motive for emphasizing insignificant details and promoting wild theories about the attacks:


citwatch.blogspot.com...

A magic show depends on misdirection - getting the audience to focus their attention on something unimportant so the performer can "con" them into thinking he has achieved something he hasn't. CIT operates by distracting truth seekers from the myriad crimes and actionable issues surrounding the Pentagon attack and training their focus on essentially irrelevant details and a bogus flyover theory. By this method, CIT's followers are duped into asking the wrong questions about the Pentagon attack so the perpetrators will never have to worry about the answers.


I suggest the possibility that you and others have been misled into attaching importance to this broken windshield when there are so many vital concerns and questions about the 9/11 attacks.

Who planned and co-ordinated, how they managed to get away with it, etc

A broken windshield, one of thousands of pieces of broken glass that resulted from the plane attacks has no bearing on the massive crime, deaths and destruction.

I suggest the most "Alarming Information" on this thread is that there may be agents willfully deflecting from the primary issues of 9/11 by focusing on trivia and impossible theories to divert attention from the actual perpetrators of this heinous crime.


M

[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
With all due respect. It's been noted dozens of times that the broken taxi windshield happened at the same time Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

No, that has not been proven. You have assumed this and tried to get everyone to believe you.

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



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


It is possible that many of the more outrageous "theories" are devised to attract the maximum amount of attention and deflect focus away from the actual conspiracy. Holographic planes, death rays from space and the CIT flyover all fit the bill.
Are the disinformation agents being paid or were they duped by others? CIT seems eminently dupable.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

At least you admit when you fail to quote me and that you made a false claim about me. jthomas and trebor never manage to own up to their false claims.


So, you've renounced being a 9/11 "Truther", tezz?



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
So, you've renounced being a 9/11 "Truther", tezz?

Ummmm, nope. Where did I ever claim not to be a 9/11 truther, jthomas?

I don't believe that the official government story about 9/11 is the entire truth - therefore I am a truther.

At what point will you admit that you have been making false claims about me for close to two years, jthomas? Your failure to quote me, is quite telling, as you need to assume things to suit your fantasy.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
You've failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, mmiichael.


It has been explained dozens of times that the only logical assumption with all the testimony, photographs, material evidence - that Flight 77 coming in at 50 ft above ground knocked over the light pole which hit the taxi's windshield. Nothing else makes any sense.

After a lightning storm, when a tree is fallen in a forest with scorch marks and a shattered trunk, it is assumed it was hit by lightning. No photographs or eyewitness testimony are necessary.

There is no significance to this broken windshield. It is a side incident to the hijacked airliner being flown into the Pentagon in the same minute.

I am starting to believe the attachment of great importance to a non-event are an attempt to either deflect from more serious concerns regarding the 9/11 attacks or discredit the entire Truth Movement.

Imagine detectives investigating a horrific shootout and someone focusing on how a glass got broken when there is a bullet hole in a wall inches away.

There is something going on here. A forced fixation on the most trivial aspect of the 9/11 attacks.

Why is this being done? What is being concealed? Who benefits from diverting attention from the serious questions on the most massive crime in American history? Are people being employed to misdirect attention from the the people responsible?

I'd call that very Alarming Information.


M


[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
...the only logical assumption... is that Flight 77 ... knocked over the light pole which hit the taxi's windshield.

There we have it, casual readers. mmiichael can't prove it, so he has to assume it.

He's revealed his true thoughts, in light of his failure to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
So, you've renounced being a 9/11 "Truther", tezz?

Ummmm, nope. Where did I ever claim not to be a 9/11 truther, jthomas?

I don't believe that the official government story about 9/11 is the entire truth - therefore I am a truther.

At what point will you admit that you have been making false claims about me for close to two years, jthomas? Your failure to quote me, is quite telling, as you need to assume things to suit your fantasy.


So, let's put this all together. You just confirmed that you are a "Truther" and, by your your own statements, you claim I and others are some "official story" believers. Not only that, you have been demanding, for some very odd reason, that all of us "prove" Lloyd England's taxi actually was hit by a light pole felled when AA77 hit the light pole before it crashed into the Pentagon, correct?



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join