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: 87
215
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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.


You purposely neglected the context and key points of the message.

There is an attempt to make an easily explained broken windshield seem important while neglecting crucial aspects of the 9/11 attacks?

For what reason is this being done?


[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]




posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
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

See, that's part of the puzzle, jthomas.

You believe the official government story. You defend it almost daily on multiple threads.

Yet, you can't produce an official government story document that describes the light pole hitting the taxi. Why is that, jthomas?



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

mmiichael, you claim that the taxi was hit by a light pole. But you have failed to prove it.

You can not supply me with official government story documents that describe the light pole hitting the taxi. Why is that, mmiichael?



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
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?


The date is September 12 because that's when the tape was edited, hence the words "plane" and "impact" in the same color and font on the frames.

Seriously, think about it, you have a melon so use it.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
The date is September 12 because that's when the tape was edited,

Where is the proof to support this?

If the tape was edited on Sept 12, why was it not released on Sept 12 or Sept 13?

Was the unedited, original tape ever released?

Why was there a pressing need to edit the tape?

Your explanation raises more questions than it answers.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
mmiichael, you claim that the taxi was hit by a light pole. But you have failed to prove it.

You can not supply me with official government story documents that describe the light pole hitting the taxi. Why is that, mmiichael?



This is getting disturbing. You repeatedly rephrase and reask the same question despite being supplied answers by myself and others.

Of course when the US was attacked and thousands died there was no concern with documenting a broke windshield on a highway. It verges on insanity to suggest a photographed broken windshield with a fallen light pole beside it, knocked down by a multi-witnessed low flying plane, and the driver describing how it happened, required further documentation.

For something like 80 pages this has been the focus of a thread stating "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

I will again posit that the emphasis on this non-issue that has an obvious and demonstrable answer is suspicious.

Are people employed to focus on this irrelevancy to the exclusion of more important aspects and outstanding questions related to the attack on the Pentagon?



[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
This is getting disturbing. You repeatedly rephrase and reask the same question despite being supplied answers by myself and others.

You are free to leave the thread - again - if you feel that you're fallng behind and can't keep up. Especially since you have failed to prove your claim that the light pole hit the taxi.


Originally posted by mmiichael
It verges on insanity to suggest a photographed broken windshield with a fallen light pole beside it, knocked down by a multi-witnessed low flying plane, and the driver describing how it happened, neede further documentation.

Is that your admission that the crime scene was not properly investigated? Earlier in the thread you claimed that there were forensic investigations done... which is it, mmiichael - was a proper forensic investigation done, or not?



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
you have failed to prove your claim that the light pole hit the taxi.



This statement with variant phrasing has been made dozens of times on this thread. The words 'failed' or 'failure' constantly used.

Logical answers and explanations have been provided.

The light pole or a piece of it hitting the windshield is the only explanation considering all the evidence. The driver clearly stated that is what happened.

Nothing else makes sense or is even within the realm of possibility given the timing and circumstance.

No other plausible explanation with any substantiation has been put forward in 8 years.

Barring an unknown miracle or magic explanation, I would consider that proof the light pole hit the windshield. So would anyone considering all the information.

I seriously question why this same claim of lack of proof is being repeated over and over again.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Soloist
The date is September 12 because that's when the tape was edited,

Where is the proof to support this?

If the tape was edited on Sept 12, why was it not released on Sept 12 or Sept 13?

Was the unedited, original tape ever released?

Why was there a pressing need to edit the tape?

Your explanation raises more questions than it answers.



The time stamp(AVID?) and words "plane" and "impact" are the proof. They would not have been on the frames when the actual plane and impact was captured.

If you believe that is possible then please provide proof.

As far as why it was not released on those dates I do not know, if that is for some reason a concern you have maybe you can submit a FOIA request.

A pointless question IMO.

There would be a need to edit the tape because only a couple of frames are what show the event. Anything else is not needed.

If that simple explanation has you so flustered with questions that don't really matter and in reality are meant to steer people away from the simple truth, then have fun with them! lol



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
This statement with variant phrasing has been made dozens of times on this thread. The words 'failed' or 'failure' constantly used.

They apply to you, when you have failed to prove your theory that a light pole hit the taxi. It is appropriate phrasing.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Logical answers and explanations have been provided.

No they have not. Look up a few posts ago... you claimed that they were logical assumptions, not answers.

You have not proven that the light pole hit the taxi, mmiichael.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
The time stamp(AVID?) and words "plane" and "impact" are the proof. They would not have been on the frames when the actual plane and impact was captured.

Yet you have not proven that the tape was edited on the 12th of September. Why is that, Soloist?

You need to prove your claim that the tape was edited on the 12th of September. I don't know when it was edited, so if you can prove it to me, that will be appreciated.



Originally posted by Soloist
As far as why it was not released on those dates I do not know, if that is for some reason a concern you have maybe you can submit a FOIA request.

An honest answer, which I can appreciate. Stating that you don't know is better than making claims you can't prove.

Although you need to prove that the tape was edited on the 12th of September.


Originally posted by Soloist
There would be a need to edit the tape because only a couple of frames are what show the event. Anything else is not needed.

Why was there a need to insert the words 'plane' 'impact' and to also overlay the 12th of September date?

The original, unedited frames could have been shown without the added graphics.

Get back to us, when you can prove that the tape was edited on the 12th of September.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
you have failed to prove your theory that a light pole hit the taxi.

You have not proven that the light pole hit the taxi


The light pole hit the taxi windshield. Proven with material evidence, supporting photography, eyewitness testimony of the driver.

Nothing conflicts, all confirms. No evidence or testimony of anything different after 8 years, 2 months, 11 days.

We know how it happened.

Cases closed - as it has been since Sept 11, 2001.

What is the purpose of repeatedly asking the same question and continually disparaging contributors responses?


M



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The light pole hit the taxi windshield.

Should you wish this to be published as fact, then you'll need to prove it.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Proven with material evidence, supporting photography, eyewitness testimony of the driver.

No material evidence has been shown to support the light pole hitting the taxi. You claimed that forensic investigations took place, then you claimed that there was no need to document the scene. Your contradictory claims can hardly be believed, mmiichael.

The photography shows a damaged taxi, with a damaged light pole next to it on the road. This does not prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

The driver has contradicted himself and discredited himself in video taped interviews.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
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


Yet, you can't produce an official government story document that describes the light pole hitting the taxi. Why is that, jthomas?


What "government story?" And you haven't made any case why we need to be concerned with the light poles and Lloyd's taxi. That is why I asked you the question you haven't answered. Try again, good buddy:

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? Why?



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
No material evidence has been shown to support the light pole hitting the taxi.

The photography shows a damaged taxi, with a damaged light pole next to it on the road. This does not prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

The driver has contradicted himself and discredited himself in video taped interviews.


The light pole or a part of it hit the windshield. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt since Sept 11, 2001.

Years later, edited badgered testimony from a senile old man, does not change the facts and his initial testimony which supported by all circumstantial evidence.

First hand testimony backed by a preponderance of circumstantial evidence is considered more than sufficient 'proof' in a court of law.

IF you cannot supply evidence or testimony seriously contradicting this proof, there is nothing further to discuss.

But there still remains the question of why there is so much emphasis put on an incidental matter that has no relevance to the plane crash.



[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
What "government story?"

Exactly, you're finally catching on! All of these official government story supporters have been entering this thread, trying to convince the casual readers that the light pole hit the taxi... yet they fail to produce a shred of government evidence to prove that it ever happened!

Well done, jthomas. You're finally starting to see it for what it is... media driven...


Originally posted by jthomas
And you haven't made any case why we need to be concerned with the light poles and Lloyd's taxi.

Yes I have. You must have missed reading the past thirty-odd pages.

mmiichael has claimed that a light pole hit the taxi. He has not proven it. pteridine has claimed that a light pole hit the taxi. He has not proven it. Others have made the claim that a light pole hit the taxi. They have not proven it.

Those people have been concerned enough to try and convince the casual readers that it happened - yet they neglect to prove it.

If they were not so concerned about the light pole hitting the taxi, then why are they trying to convince everyone that it happened?


Originally posted by jthomas
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

Yes. Because all of 'you' have been claiming that it happened, without the support of your official government story documents to prove it.

jthomas, you of all people should know that when on ATS, claims stated as fact, need to be proven. You've been around longer than some of the other official government story supporters in this thread. None of them, or you, have been able to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

By the way, how is your homework going? You made a false claim about me that you still have not supported. You have neither quoted me or retracted it. You can't escape your old habits, no matter how much you try.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The light pole or a part of it hit the windshield.

Stated as your opinion, that's fine. In the mean time, you've spanned more than 30 pages failing to prove it for a fact.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Years later, edited badgered testimony from a senile old man, does not change the facts and his initial testimony which supported by all circumstantial evidence.

You have not produced the medical evidence to show that Lloyde is senile. Why is that, mmiichael?



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
jthomas, you of all people should know that when on ATS, claims stated as fact, need to be proven.


Unless it is the Truther people - then, it doesn't matter if anything is a "fact" or not. You can make up anything you want and claim it as "fact".



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
you've spanned more than 30 pages failing to prove it for a fact.

You have not produced the medical evidence to show that Lloyde is senile. Why is that, mmiichael?


Formal proof is only required when a legal matters is queried or in dispute.

We know Lloyde England is a cab driver and his vehicle was a Washington taxi. He could be a film actor driving a movie prop, a CIA agent, a foreign spy. But we have nothing to indicate that. So it is accepted he was a taxi driver.

An informal diagnosis of senility is based on the words of CIT investigator/partner Aldo Marquis who spent considerable time with England and stated over 3 years ago:

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."

Whatever the clinical diagnosis of England’s current condition, In 2001, he describe the incident in great detail and drew a picture of the pole penetrating his windshield.

Earliest testimony naturally has the most weight. We do not know the full context of his CIT camcorder interviews in later years.

Governments do not officially document every possible detail of an event it goes without saying. It would impossible and unnecessary. WTC debris was sampled, not every piece of rubble or building beam was lab tested. Burned to a cinder bodies were assumed to be dead people. Etc.

The broken windshield incident is undisputed by reasonable parties considering all evidence.

To restate something you fail to comprehend:

"The light pole or a part of it hit the windshield. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt since Sept 11, 2001.

Years later, badgered testimony from a senile old man, does not change the facts and his initial testimony which is fully supported by all circumstantial evidence. Videos testimonies are is often manipulated through unseen prompting, suggestion, editing, etc. CIT is a demonstrably unreliable source of information.

First hand testimony backed by a preponderance of circumstantial evidence is considered more than sufficient 'proof' in a court of law."

2+2+4. We are on the 3rd planet from the Sun. A light pole knocked down by a low flying Flight 77 hit Lloyde England’s taxi Sept 11, 2001.

There is more than ample evidence for all of these that would satisfy any court of law and any reasonable person. No government studies or photographs are being supplied as further proof. Nothing has ever been shown that disproves them.

Any further comments are irrelevant.


M

[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Formal proof is only required when a legal matters is queried or in dispute.

If that's the delusion that's sustaining you in this thread, then go ahead and keep on repeating that mantra to yourself.

You have failed to prove your claim that a light pole hit the taxi, mmiichael.



Originally posted by mmiichael
An informal diagnosis of senility is based on the words of CIT investigator/partner Aldo Marquis who spent considerable time with England and stated over 3 years ago:

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."

Show me where Aldo is fit to judge the mental state of another person? You have not supported your claim that you made about Lloyde being senile.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Whatever the clinical diagnosis of England’s current condition, In 2001, he describe the incident in great detail and drew a picture of the pole penetrating his windshield.

Then he completely contradicted himself when videotaped in later CIT interviews.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Earliest testimony naturally has the most weight. We do not know the full context of his CIT camcorder interviews in later years.

Prove that earlier testimony has the most weight. If you don't know the context of the CIT interviews, then you probably haven't watched them well enough. The cameras are rolling long enough for Lloyde to discredit himself.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Governments do not officially document every possible detail of an event it goes without saying.

Is this another admission of your's that the crime scene was not investigated and documented- depite you claiming earlier in this thread that a forensic investigation was conducted?



Originally posted by mmiichael
First hand testimony backed by a preponderance of circumstantial evidence is considered more than sufficient 'proof' in a court of law."

So you're admitting that your entire case rests upon the first-hand testimony of a discredited, unreliable testimony and a lot of unproven circumstantial evidence? That does not constitute proof, mmiichael. Not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.



Originally posted by mmiichael
A light pole knocked down by a low flying Flight 77 hit Lloyde England’s taxi Sept 11, 2001.

That's your unproven theory. You need to concentrate on trying to prove this, if you wish for it to be stated as fact.




top topics



 
215
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join