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: 89
215
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Please list the names of these witnesses and confirm their statements with independently verified interviews.

Your failure to do so will be your admission that you have handwaved this claim to be true.


There is no trial here. The case for the light pole hitting the windshield has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

You and others refuse to or are incapable of supplying any conflicting information. The lack of an alternative explanation inherently confirms the original conclusion.

The actual subject of this thread is "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

The point has been raised that "Citizen's Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California" may be part of a government agency backed program to intentionally misdirect questions on the 9/11 attacks to non-issues such as the taxi windshield incident.

Can you please explain your persistent and intense focusing on this incident and attribution of significance to it?

Thanks in advance.


M




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
There is no trial here. The case for the light pole hitting the windshield has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Only in your mind, mmiichael. Well, there's a few others who agree with your delusion about what constitutes a proof.



Originally posted by mmiichael
You and others refuse to or are incapable of supplying any conflicting information. The lack of an alternative explanation inherently confirms the original conclusion.

This extreme abuse of logic only makes your claim look weaker, as you can't defend it or support it.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Can you please explain your persistent and intense focusing on this incident and attribution of significance to it?

Sure, I can explain it. I've seen people in this thread inform all of the casual readers that a light pole hit the taxi.

I've asked those people, you included, to prove that it happened and I've watched them dodge, avoid, spin, deflect and stumble about, not being able to prove their claim.

You're better than TV, mmiichael. I get more entertainment watching official government story believers fail to prove the media driven claim that they believe.

As a footnote for you: You still have not supplied me with the names of the thousands (hundreds?) of people who you claim saw the plane depart. Why would you make that claim if you were not prepared to support it? Do you think that people will believe your claims at face value? It doesn't work like that in the real world, or an online conspiracy discussion forum.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I'm gonna take a look at the video, thanks



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

I've asked those people, you included, to prove that it happened and I've watched them dodge, avoid, spin, deflect and stumble about, not being able to prove their claim.


I'm going to say outright this is abusive trolling in the extreme lengths. Incessant criticism for non-compliance to your absurd demands.

As a jetliner struck the Pentagon exploding and causing hundreds of deaths, no one paid attention to a broken windshield on the highway.

You attempt to use this to cast doubt on the plane hitting the Pentagon. It was not investigated because it is irrelevant.

Constant belittling of members because they do not provide non-existent documentation of this trivial incident, or because they cannot point to online pictures of dead passengers in their seats, and endless provoking and claiming people are failures.

This thread has become a very bad representation for ATS and discouraged participation with these non-stop attempts to control direction while you contribute no information or analysis.

The topic is "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

Tell us about this "Alarming Information"







[edit on 23-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
As a jetliner struck the Pentagon exploding and causing hundreds of deaths, no one recorded or paid attention to a broken windshield on the highway.

So are you admitting that the investigation was flawed, as there was no attention paid to it?
Earlier you claimed that forensic investigations were conducted.

Earlier you stated that the incident was recorded on websites world wide and you encouraged people to use Google to find them. Now, you're stating that no one recorded or paid attention to it?

mmiichael, you contradict yourself so often, it appears to be an ingrained form of 'debate' for you.



Originally posted by mmiichael
It was not documented and investigated because it is irrelevant.

Right. Casual readers, we can now note that mmiichael has changed his mind. He is now stating that it is not documented or investigated. Earlier in the thread he tried to claim that it was documented world wide on lots of internet websites and that forensic investigations were carried out.

Casual readers, note the contradictions that mmiichael is using.



Originally posted by mmiichael
This thread has become a very bad representation for ATS and discouraged participation with these non-stop attempts to control direction and focus while contributing no information or analysis.

I disagree. I think it is good that ATS has allowed this thread to expose the people who make unsupported claims.

Ask yourself why you haven't contributed any information to support your claim that a light pole hit the taxi?

Ask yourself why you haven't managed to produce the names of the thousands (hundreds?) of witnesses that you claimed saw the plane depart?

It's more than a puzzle. It's alarming that some people assert as a fact, that a light pole hit the taxi and then spend close to forty pages avoiding, dodging and deflecting their responsibility to prove their claim!



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajwSo are you admitting that the investigation was flawed, as there was no attention paid to it?
Earlier you claimed that forensic investigations were conducted.


It's tough to remember a lie, and therefore form a consistent theory.

P.S. Check your U2u

[edit on 23-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezzajw

Just as a matter of interest, do you consider that no-one should ever be convicted of a crime unless someone saw them do it ?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

That's got nothing to do with this thread, Alfie1.

I don't like to indulge in off-topic speculations. Doing so in the past has sometimes caused my post to be removed with the Off-Topic flag plastered over it.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
reply to post by Alfie1
 

That's got nothing to do with this thread, Alfie1.

I don't like to indulge in off-topic speculations. Doing so in the past has sometimes caused my post to be removed with the Off-Topic flag plastered over it.


tezzajw

Your ducking the issue is noted.

It is obviously relevant because you keep demanding a level of proof in relation to Lloyde's cab and the lightpole which, if it had to be adhered to in courts of law, would make justice systems around the world largely impotent.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
So are you admitting that the investigation was flawed, as there was no attention paid to it?

Earlier you claimed that forensic investigations were conducted.

Earlier you stated that the incident was recorded on websites world wide and you encouraged people to use Google to find them. Now, you're stating that no one recorded or paid attention to it?

mmiichael, you contradict yourself so often, it appears to be an ingrained form of 'debate' for you.

Casual readers, we can now note that mmiichael has changed his mind. He is now stating that it is not documented or investigated. Earlier in the thread he tried to claim that it was documented world wide on lots of internet websites and that forensic investigations were carried out.

Casual readers, note the contradictions that mmiichael is using.

Ask yourself why you haven't contributed any information to support your claim that a light pole hit the taxi?

Ask yourself why you haven't managed to produce the names of the thousands (hundreds?) of witnesses that you claimed saw the plane depart?

It's alarming that some people assert as a fact, that a light pole hit the taxi and then spend close to forty pages avoiding, dodging and deflecting their responsibility to prove their claim!


This is totally disingenuous and basically dishonest. Many conversational assertions are made here. Wording, emphasis, certain changes are made after fact checking and the input of others.

This is a discussion list, not a final exam or subpoenaed testimony. Everything I have said I know to be true, or believe to be so if when independent verification is lacking.

You try to play a game of forwarding nothing, waiting for opportunities for entrapment, finding semantic inconsistencies, details not clearly recalled, minor alterations in statements, etc.

You the state that a person is lying because they said one thing at one point, and something somewhat different elsewhere.

This is not communication working towards greater knowledge or understanding. It is an abuse of the principles of shared information. Facile attempting to escalate ones self by inflating perceived inconsistencies of others.

For this reason many serious contributors on this list become irritated, annoyed, reactively angry. I feel this practice scares off people browsing the thread. It is overrun with petty accusations and emphasis on trivial points.

Still unaddressed by you is the subject of this thread, "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information."

Instead you have turned it into an opportunity to constantly demand things which you know are unavailable. Pictures of dead passengers strapped into seats, unreleased Pentagon footage, a non-existent government study of a broken taxi windshield.

We argue these are unnecessary given the massive supporting evidence and testimony leading to obvious conclusions about many events.

A video of Flight 77 flying 50 ft over Washington and knocking down light poles is unneeded to prove it happened. Innumerable pieces of forensic evidence and testimony prove it happened beyond a shadow of doubt. With no alternative explanation offered, it is a given fact.

Attempts to disparage those who accept what is now established as facts of the 9/11 attacks, done in the malicious manner repeatedly displayed here benefit no one. Pushing a flyover theory, dismissing the fallen light pole smashing the windshield as some fabrication, the inference there were no passenger bodies in the Pentagon, and other attempts to deny what has been verified is an insult to the people who died, the people who dealt with the aftermath, and those of us who consider it a devastating chapter in recent history.

No picking away at the scabs of imperfect reporting, minor errors in scientific analysis, the lack of photographs of certain events, hasty comments made on discussion threads, will change what thousands have pieced together from all the testimony, pictures and forensic evidence. A typo does not negate a report, a discovered detail inconsistency does not alter history.

Accusing directly or by inference that those who disprove an embraced theory are lying only works as a deceptive practice, it does not negate the truth.



[edit on 23-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Alfie1, I don't indulge in your off topic hypotheticals.

Casual readers, consider this post by mmiichael, where I will sample some of the quotes below. Also consider this post by mmichael, where I will sample some other quotes from.

Let's break this down:

Originally posted by mmiichael
The information is there for you and anyone to look at online. Extensively reported on in every part of the world.


Originally posted by mmiichael
...no one paid attention to a broken windshield on the highway.
It was not investigated because it is irrelevant.

Note the contradiction.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Bottom line, we have a sequence of events composed of testimony, photographs, forensic evidence. It holds together, makes sense, completely conforms to other events in the time frame.


Originally posted by mmiichael
...no one paid attention to a broken windshield on the highway.
It was not investigated because it is irrelevant.

Note the contradiction.

Why do people make claims that they refuse to prove and then contradict themselves in the process?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


That's absolutely ridiculous alfie and a false analogy as well.

There is a big difference between not having enough evidence and finding conflicting evidence.

It should not be hard to prove a light-pole impaled Lloyds cab as a result of a plane hitting it if it actually happened.

If llyod wanted to prove it happened he could have started by actually confirming he was in his cab where the event purportedly took place.

Even that he couldn't get right. Even with Craig trying to help him.

If I wanted to prove my cab was penetrated I would have people inspect my cab ex post facto and you would find the damage is congruent with that of the light-pole impaling it.

Problem is, the physical evidence doesn't match in Lloyds case because there is not even a scratch or a dent on the hood of the car.

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

If you wanted to prove that a plane knocked down the light-pole, you should be able to review the flight data recorder of the plane to prove that the light-pole was in its flightpath.

Problem is, the flight data recorder positions the plane many hundreds of feet north of all the light-poles that were purportedly knocked down by it. It also says the plane would have been a few hundred feet too high to have hit the poles as well.

www.youtube.com...

Welcome to reality.

Enjoy your stay.

Come again.

[edit on 11/23/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
For this reason many serious contributors on this list become irritated, annoyed, reactively angry. I feel this practice scares off people browsing the thread. It is overrun with petty accusations and emphasis on trivial points.

If you feel that strongly, then you have a few options:

1 - Whinge to the Moderators about me.
2 - Leave the thread.
3 - Retract your claim.
4 - State that your claim is only your opinion and not fact.
5 - Prove your claim.

Instead, you choose to post in this thread, insisting that a light pole hit the taxi and not offering any proof for it.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Still unaddressed by you is the subject of this thread, "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information."

I've been addressing it for the past forty odd pages. The light pole striking the taxi is central to the thread. I have been wanting anyone to prove it, particularly the people who claim that it happened.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Instead you have turned it into an opportunity to constantly demand things which you know are unavailable.

I don't necessarily know that everything I want is unavailable. I'm not all that omnipotent.




Originally posted by mmiichael
Pictures of dead passengers strapped into seats,

Your failure to quote me here will be your admission that you got it wrong and that you have fabricated this quote against me. I have never demanded that pictures of dead bodies are the only form of proof, so I have never demanded to see pictures of dead bodies. I've been through this with either you or pteridine, earlier in the thread. You're confusing me with another member, mmiichael. Poor form.




Originally posted by mmiichael
a non-existent government study of a broken taxi windshield.

But wait on... how can you claim this...

Originally posted by mmiichael
The information is there for you and anyone to look at online. Extensively reported on in every part of the world.
Bottom line, we have a sequence of events composed of testimony, photographs, forensic evidence. It holds together, makes sense, completely conforms to other events in the time frame.

... about the light pole striking the taxi and then inform me that a government report does not exist?

Have you lost faith in your own convictions?
Do you now think that the whole incident was media driven without any official government support?





Originally posted by mmiichael
Innumerable pieces of forensic evidence and testimony prove it happened beyond a shadow of doubt.

Where are the forensic reports, mmiichael??




Originally posted by mmiichael
dismissing the fallen light pole smashing the windshield as some fabrication,

All you have to do is prove the light pole hit the taxi and I'll be happy to accept that it happened.




Originally posted by mmiichael
the inference there were no passenger bodies in the Pentagon,

Your failure to quote me here will be your admission that you are fabricating this claim against me and that you have no idea about the subtelty of how words are used.

I have asked for proof that passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats. Note the bolded part of my question, mmiichael??? Don't make claims against me like jthomas and trebor try to do.





Originally posted by mmiichael
No picking away at the scabs of imperfect reporting, minor errors in scientific analysis,

Where is the scientific analysis of the light pole hitting the taxi? Please, supply me some so I can pick away at it.

You're starting to unravel at the seams with all of your contradictions. Take a break from the screen, re-read the past forty pages and try to work out where it all went wrong for you.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by tezzajw
What "government" story? Speak up, man. Let's see it. Give us a link to this so-called "government story."

You know . . . the official fairy tale where a lightpole was knocked down by a commercial airliner and impaled a taxi cab?


You should be able to point to the so-called "official fairy tale." Cat got your tongue?


Originally posted by jthomas
You should be capable of explaining it in one short paragraph. I have seen nothing from you in 30 posts that remotely explains why we should care.


I’ll explain it in two sentences. If a commercial airliner didn’t knock down a light pole which subsequently impaled llyods cab. Then there is no reason to assume that a commercial airliner knocked down a light pole.


But AA77 hit the Pentagon so why do you possibly care?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by tezzajw
You have failed to prove your claim that a light pole hit the taxi,


It's proven by first hand testimony, photographs taken immediately after, an overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence.


circumstantial evidence is not good evidence. ever.



Further, there is a complete lack of conflicting evidence, reliable testimony, or credible alternative explanation.


all of the evidence is conflicting.

The flight data recorder, the employees at the citgo gas station, the two cops that were there that day, the employees at arlington cemetery, sean booger who was on the control tower that day, and lloyd himself all conflict with the original story.


Actually, as you well know, you are completely incapable of claiming all of the evidence is conflicting. You haven't even done the most fundamental research to be able to make that claim. We've all been waiting 8 years for your to get off your butts and support your claims and all you do is cry and hand-wave. You haven't presented a single piece of data that refutes all of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon or even bothered to interview the thousands of people who know what happened.

But that's nothing new for you 9/11 Deniers. You avoid supporting your claims as a necessary survival mechanism. It's known as EPIC FAIL.




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
What "government" story? Speak up, man. Let's see it. Give us a link to this so-called "government story."

Exactly, you're finally catching on!


What "government" story? Speak up, man. Point to it. A link. What's taking you so long, tezz?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
GENTLE REIMINDER

Please discuss the topic---Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information---and not each other.
We're all here to learn and debate, not to point fingers or disparage.

Thank you



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

The actual subject of this thread is "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

The point has been raised that "Citizen's Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California" may be part of a government agency backed program to intentionally misdirect questions on the 9/11 attacks to non-issues such as the taxi windshield incident.


Sorry but that alleged "point" (baseless accusation) has only been raised by YOU and has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

But that didn't stop you from going even further with the wild innuendo:


Originally posted by mmiichael

Maybe that's the "Alarming Information"

CIT works for the CIA.

post here


Gotta love it when official story defenders are so desperate to cast doubt on us personally that they resort to embellishing a wild conspiracy theory from a stalker blog!



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Gotta love it when official story defenders are so desperate to cast doubt on us personally that they resort to embellishing a wild conspiracy theory from a stalker blog!



Pot... meet kettle! Pretending to crash a 757 over the Pentagon in the middle of the day is not a wild conspiracy theory? hehehe



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

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."

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.



I already answered this way back on page 68 here. You are desperately grasping at straws. Accepting Aldo's "informal diagnosis of senility" from over 3 years ago BEFORE we had the north side evidence or had spent several hours with Lloyde on a road trip to go see the cab while dismissing our analysis after we have all this additional data is beyond illogical.

Lloyde did not draw the light pole in the cab in 2001 either. He drew that during our interview with him in 2006.

Lloyde is not senile. Now that we have spent so much time with him it is clear that he turns the "old man" act on and off at will.

He is well aware of what he did on 9/11.

A more up to date synopsis/discussion regarding our CURRENT stance on Lloyde based on an incredible amount of progress in our investigation since 2006 is available here.



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join