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: 90
215
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

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


Actually no it is not, it is a conspiracy fact that has been definitively proven by the witnesses who were really there.







Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the light poles and building?




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Spamming your "witnesses" pictures playing with toy planes does nothing to add relevance to your outlandish theory. Save the bandwidth.

I was on your webpage. The report tab is still under construction. Any update on when we will get to see what action has been taken?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
I was on your webpage. The report tab is still under construction. Any update on when we will get to see what action has been taken?


In due time.

Keep checking back!



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

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

That's the whole point that you are avoiding, jthomas! The government appears to have sold you out with the light pole hitting the taxi. You have not provided a report for me to show me that it happened.

You have not provided any proof that it happened!



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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

That's the whole point that you are avoiding, jthomas! The government appears to have sold you out with the light pole hitting the taxi. You have not provided a report for me to show me that it happened.

You have not provided any proof that it happened!


tezzajw

You have been given evidence to support the light pole impacting Lloyde's taxi.

Now, if you were being honest, you might say the evidence doesn't convince you.

But, to say no-one has provided any proof is just trolling and gets no-one anywhere.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
You have not provided a report for me to show me that it happened.



By your seemingly illogical definition of "proof", then a report is not proof that it happened either.

Nothing is. Nothing ever will be.

And the troll train keeps on trolling...



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
By your seemingly illogical definition of "proof", then a report is not proof that it happened either.

It might help his case to prove that the government was interested in the incident.

Instead, lots of people in this thread have been relying on media driven stories to prove that the light pole hit the taxi. Ah-huh.

Take a look at the previous page, mmiichael contradicted himself, first stating that there was forensic evidence, etc, until finally claiming that a government report does not exist.

Will any official government story believer be able to prove that the light pole hit the taxi?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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.


Too bad you can't provide any positive evidence of, or find a single eyewitness to, any jet "flying over and away from the Pentagon."

You never will.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
But, to say no-one has provided any proof is just trolling and gets no-one anywhere.

Where is the proof that it happened, Alfie1?

One member has stated that all he has is circumstantial speculation and a discredited eyewitness. That does not constitute proof.

I'm still waiting for anyone to prove that a light pole hit the taxi, was imbedded in it, stayed inside it during a 40mph sideways skid, without scratching the bonnet, then lifted out, within a couple of minutes before the Ingersoll pictures were taken.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Alfie1
But, to say no-one has provided any proof is just trolling and gets no-one anywhere.

Where is the proof that it happened, Alfie1?

One member has stated that all he has is circumstantial speculation and a discredited eyewitness. That does not constitute proof.

I'm still waiting for anyone to prove that a light pole hit the taxi, was imbedded in it, stayed inside it during a 40mph sideways skid, without scratching the bonnet, then lifted out, within a couple of minutes before the Ingersoll pictures were taken.


tezzajw

And so we go around and around. You are aware that there is evidence to support a light pole striking Lloyde's cab and that no evidence has been produced to support the idea that it was all faked. But, you still go on and on like a scratched record. I would appeal to the readers you so often refer to to consider whether you are truly debating or just being obstructive.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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.


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!


Craig Ranke,

Only a brief note for now. On a deadline.

There are rules of decorum which do not allow personal criticism.
I wish I could say what I really think.

I have seen what Citizen's Investigation tries to do. There is no doubt in my mind and I think it's apparent to most that there is a willful intention to deceive an audience of gullible people into thinking Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon.

A small number of witnesses have been selected, leading questions and suggestion techniques engaged to prime responses which were edited together to give the impression that there was what some call a 'flyover'. These techniques of manipulating information and testimony are neither sophisticated nor innovative.

A proper context is never provided for your audience. There are hundreds if not thousands of ordinary people who witnessed Flight 77 flying extremely low and knocking down light poles in it's path. The plane crashed into the Pentagon. Remains of people who had boarded the flight not much more than an hour before were found. DNA testing identified them. All this can be independently verified by phone calls, email, or personal visits.

Your organization intentionally magnifies minor discrepancies, selectively edits statements, utilizes informational manipulation methods to present a distorted picture that conform to your ‘flyover’ theory.

As I’ve noted, you have not made available the outtakes of your conversations with Lloyde England. I was not there, but surmise that an atmosphere was generated encouraging him to make new statements that conflict with his previous ones. Reasons why people are made to say unusual and inconsistent things are numerous. Loss of faculties due to advanced age, the influence of alcohol or drugs, legal or prescribed, sometimes just for amusement. Overall, I think this unfortunate old man has been mercilessly exploited to forward a commercial venture.

I don’t like to retype the same things, but there has never been anything to even remotely suggesting something other than a falling light pole or part of it striking that taxi’s windshield just after 9:30 AM Sept 11, 2001. I have never seen a plausible even possible explanation of how the taxi was in full operation at 9:30 and with a broken windshield at 9:40 and with a light pole a few feet away.

I’ll pursue this further if I have time later today.

In the meantime all of us would like to hear your explanation of how that windshield was smashed. And we’d like to see some form of testimony, photographic or forensic substantiation for this.

The implications made by your so-called investigations are obvious.

But as I’ve noted before. There’s as much proof government agents were involved in faking a jetliner crash and smashing that windshield as there is for it being an act of Divine Retribution by the Virgin Mary.


M

[edit on 23-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
There are hundreds if not thousands of ordinary people who witnessed Flight 77 flying extremely low and knocking down light poles in it's path.

Casual readers, earlier in this thread, mmiichael was guilty of using inflated estimates to help his cause. He claimed that there were thousands of people who saw the plane depart. He has not been able to supply any names of people to support this statement.

Now, take a look at the above quote from mmiichael. He is using the same tactic of inflating estimates, but to what end?

mmiichael, you have been specifically quoted where you claim that hundreds of people saw the plane knocking down light poles.

You will need to support this claim to maintain your credibility on ATS.

If you can not support this claim, you should withdraw it.

Please, in your next post, list the hundreds of witnesses who saw the plane knocking down light poles.

Your credibility is at stake with this claim that you have made. Think about it very carefully before you respond.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
There are rules of decorum which do not allow personal criticism.
I wish I could say what I really think.


I virtually always say what I really think; I suppose my views of people are just less.. harsh then that of many.


Originally posted by mmiichael
I have seen what Citizen's Investigation tries to do. There is no doubt in my mind and I think it's apparent to most that there is a willful intention to deceive an audience of gullible people into thinking Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon.


Which would, ironically, considering the way CIT views me, into this "gullible" category. I suppose I could say that you have it all wrong, that you, in fact, are the one who has been duped; by the mass media and many elements of the government that propagate the official story. But trading these types of words probably won't help either of us; they're not getting to the heart of the issue, you see. It's one thing to claim that someone is "gullible"; it's another thing to demonstrate that this is in fact the case. This is why, 8 years after the event, we're still arguing about what really happened that day.


Originally posted by mmiichael
A small number of witnesses have been selected,


From what I understand, there was no 'selection'. They tried to get a hold of as many witnesses as possible; the ones on tape are simply the witnesses who were available to tape. In the interest of being fair to CIT, I ask that you demonstrate that they 'selected' certain people and discarded others, or to admit that you have no evidence that CIT has done this.



Originally posted by mmiichael
leading questions and suggestion techniques engaged to prime responses which were edited together to give the impression that there was what some call a 'flyover'.


Can you be specific as to particular parts in one or more of their documentaries where you feel that they have used these alleged "leading questions" and "suggestion techniques"? Failure to do this would suggest that you're high on accusations but low on evidence to back them up.


Originally posted by mmiichael
No proper context is provided for the your audience. There are hundreds if not thousands of ordinary people who witnessed Flight 77 flying extremely low and knocking down light poles in it's path.


No, there aren't. The fact that you can even say this demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject.


Originally posted by mmiichael
The plane crashed into the Pentagon.


I have never seen you posit any solid evidence for this assertion of yours. Repeating your claim won't change that.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Remains of people who had boarded the flight not much more than an hour before were found. DNA testing identified them.


The DNA was apparently located in more than one area; in one of these areas, apparently there was a fireball that broke through a wall, according to the official story; i however, the DNA somehow survived fairly intact?


Originally posted by mmiichael
All this can be independently verified by phone calls, email, or personal visits in most cases.


Can you post an excerpt or atleast a link to any of these phone calls, email or personal visits?


Originally posted by mmiichael
Your organization intentionally magnifies minor discrepancies,


Or so you claim; can you atleast provide an example wherein you believe they do this so that others can judge whether your assertion has merit?



Originally posted by mmiichael
selectively edits statements,


Documentaries can't go on forever, so yes, some statements must be edited, and one must certainly select what one should edit. The question is whether the selections were done in such a way as to bias the documentary in such a way that one may be prone to false conclusions. I haven't seen this done in their documentaries, but if you feel that this has been done, by all means, give us an example.



Originally posted by mmiichael
As I’ve noted, you have not made available the outtakes of your conversations with Lloyde England. I was not there, but surmise that an atmosphere was created in which he made new statements that conflicted with his previous ones on the light pole smashing his windshield. Reasons why people are made to say unusual and inconsistent things are numerous. Loss of faculties due to advanced age, the influence of alcohol or drugs, legal or prescribed, sometimes just for amusement.


Yes, and you might be a secret agent, etc., etc. Look, we can go on and on about what -might- be true. I think, however, that we should focus on what is most likely true. Honestly, Lloyd's making statements that contradicted earlier statements of his in regards to where he allegedly took the light pole out of his car seem to me like a man who simply wants to get his feet out of hot water but seems unable to do so; he sees that CIT has lined up a bunch of witnesses stating that the plane came in on a north of citgo flight path, and perhaps he thought that CIT wouldn't realize that they knew full well that he wouldn't have been able to see the plane if it took a north of citgo flight path; when caught with this inconvenient truth, he decides to save himself in such a way that in fact only further messes things up; he places himself in a place that everyone who's been paying attention -knows- he wasn't and that, crucially, wouldn't help the official story even if he was; that is, in a part of the road that would be able to see the north of citgo flight path. See, this is the problem with lies; you tell what at first seems like a small lie; yes, a light pole hit my car; see, the light pole on the ground, see the damage to my car, all these spooks back me up to. Perhaps he even got someone who'd help him out if he ever had to answer any more questions; that guy he took CIT to.

And for a while it was enough; but CIT asked more questions and soon enough he had to tell a few more lies, until they caught him in a lie so obvious that even official story supporters with a moderate emount of knowledge concerning the event have to admit that it's false. And so it goes...

[edit on 23-11-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Actually no it is not, it is a conspiracy fact that has been definitively proven by the witnesses who were really there.


You mean the fact that you have a bunch of unreliable witnesses?"

Craig,

I'm sorry, but you are going to have to come up with new witnesses. It has been established here on ATS that any witness who contradicts their own testimony with their own....well....testimony are deemed "unreliable witnesses".

The initial example given was Lloyd England and his "contradictory statements" on what happened on 9/11.

Using this precedent, anyone who claims NOC as well as the aircraft hitting the building and/or changing their location and/or simply getting their location wrong and/or forgetting where they were and/or placing the aircraft in radically different locations, by default now, is an "unreliable witness".

Specifically, the members who have set this precedent of "contradictory statements equal unreliable witness" are "jphish" and the ATS member "tezzajw", who, by the way, also claims that:


there is nothing contradictory about a witness reporting that they saw a plane fly NOC and hitting the Pentagon.


Nope....nothing contradictory about that!

You may need to straighten him out - get him back in the fold - with a few days in the CIT re-education camp.

As a result of their contradictory statements rendering them unreliable witnesses, I figure you'll have to deep-six the following:

Officer Lagasse
Officer Brooks
Officer Roberts
Sean Boger
Levi Stephens
Terry Morin
Robert Turcois

Back to the drawing board.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
Overall, I think this unfortunate old man has been exploited terribly to move forward a commercial enterprise.


I couldn't agree more. I think we might disagree in regards to whose enterprise is doing the exploiting, however.


Originally posted by mmiichael
I don’t want to retype the same things for the nth time. But there is nothing to indicate anything other than a falling light pole or part of one hit that taxi’s windshield just after 9:30 AM Sept 11, 2001.


You can go on repeating this, even as CIT's documentaries clearly show a lot of evidence which suggests that no plane hit any light poles near Lloyd's taxi cab that day.



Originally posted by mmiichael
I have never seen a plausible even possible explanation of how the taxi was in operation fully intact at 9:30 and with a broken windshield at 9:40 and a light pole on the ground nearby a few feet away.


You think a light pole is the only thing that could make a hole in a windshield? You really think it'd take more than 10 minutes to make one using another method? As to the light poles themselves, I've gone over that issue, but I can go over it again if you wish.



Originally posted by mmiichael
In the meantime all of us would like to hear your explanation of how that windshield was smashed.


Honestly, why should he bother? He's already amassed masses of information discrediting the official story but you seem to ignore it all. So why should he put in the effort?


Originally posted by mmiichael
And we’d like to see some form of testimony, photographic or forensic substantiation for this.


I can imagine that Craig might simply say that he's already amassed enough evidence; no more is truly required for someone who has listened to what he has to say with an open mind. I myself would say that I don't mind working on minds that, while not exactly completely open, might be able to be swayed with some logical argument. Which is why I'm responding to your post.


Originally posted by mmiichael
The implications made by your so-called investigations are obvious.


Only to those, like you, who have done a bit of research.


Originally posted by mmiichael
But as I’ve noted before. There’s as much proof government agents were involved in smashing that windshield as there is for it being an act of Divine Retribution by the Virgin Mary.


Michael, I wish you'd quit making statements without corroborating evidence. I feel embarassed... for you.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Specifically, the members who have set this precedent of "contradictory statements equal unreliable witness" are "jphish" and the ATS member "tezzajw", who, by the way, also claims that:

there is nothing contradictory about a witness reporting that they saw a plane fly NOC and hitting the Pentagon.

Casual readers, we again witness trebor's inability to understand what contradictory witness statements are.

I have already instructed trebor, the self alleged 25 year career veteran 'civil servant' government DoD employee, that he is wrong, yet he continues to push his false claim - why?

Lloyde has made contradictory statements. He has given different testimonies in different interviews, regarding what he alleged happened to him.

Boger, for example, is not a contradictory witness, as he gave one statement to CIT about what he saw. He has not contradicted his statement to CIT by stating anything differently. At face value, Boger stated that he saw NoC and an impact. That's his statement, he did not contradict himself while making it, as he is reporting what he saw.

I'm surprised that trebor fails to comprehend his faults and errors and continues to try and propogate his false notion of what a contradictory witness really is.

trebor, you made a number of claims about me and I left you with your homework assignment to prove them or retract them. Casual readers can see that your failure to quote me is your admission that you are out of your depth, with your persistance in making false claims to support your cause.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by mmiichael
But as I’ve noted before. There’s as much proof government agents were involved in smashing that windshield as there is for it being an act of Divine Retribution by the Virgin Mary.


Michael, I wish you'd quit making statements without corroborating evidence. I feel embarassed... for you.


Thanks for the concern Scott.

I'm told I have been totally discredited and there is a U2U buzz that I am a government disinformation, possibly employed by Mossad, to suppress the REAL TRUTH about 9/11.

So what have I got to lose?

On my statement, well on October 13, 1917, near Cova da Iria in Portugal a crowd of 70,000 witnessed an appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the sky. Not that many cars in those days, not even sure if they had windshields back then. But I'm sure if they did a few were broken.

But how many witnesses are there of secret agents faking plane crashes, smashing windshields?


M

[edit on 23-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
Thanks for the concern Scott.


Np.


Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm told I have been totally discredited and there is a U2U buzz that I am a government disinformation, possibly employed by Mossad, to suppress the REAL TRUTH about 9/11.

So what have I got to lose?


Your credibility amoung people who aren't so prone to see shadows in every corner. Who knows, you -might- be some government agent, and CIT might have used nefarious means to get Lloyd to tell untruths. When we delve into the realm of possibility without taking into account -probability-, things can get pretty nebulous. This is why I suggest we focus on things that actually have evidence to suggest that they're true.



Originally posted by mmiichael
On my statement, well on October 13, 1917, near Cova da Iria in Portugal a crowd of 70,000 witnessed an appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the sky. Not that many cars in those days, not even sure if they had windshields back then. But I'm sure if they did a few were broken.


Indeed. More than one way to break a windshield, I'm sure you agree. As far as I know, 9/11 marks the first and only time that a plane allegedly knocked over -5- light poles, breaking off at the base, not the point of impact, in a manner that seems to fit that of a blow torch being used on them. One of these poles lodged itself into a vehicle, without a scratch to the hood, no less. And in case you're wondering, Lloyd claims it was the large part of the pole that got lodged in there, requiring the help of a silent, anonymous man who "never said a word" to get out.


Originally posted by mmiichael
But how many witnesses are there of secret agents faking plane crashes, smashing windshields?


I really don't know the answer to that, and I doubt you do either. I think what you should be asking is larger questions. Perhaps the most important question to ask is, could rogue agents within the U.S. government have done this, with some help from some high level officials such as Cheney and Rumsfeld, and a few more? I certainly think so. Ofcourse, just because they could be capable of such things, doesn't mean they did them. But then there's all that evidence which destroys the official story. I seriously suggest you give CIT's documentaries some more time. Perhaps check out a few from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, as well. Take your time; if you disagree with a specific point, feel free to bring it up here. Craig Ranke, one of the founding members of CIT, may just answer any polite points you make, and there are members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth as well. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely you'll find any authors of the official story here. I'm sure many truthers would -love- to ask them a host of questions, but alas. Failing this, we have to ask you and other OSTers questions, in the hope that you realize the paucity of evidence for the official story and the continual growth of evidence that the official story is more of a fairy tale than anything else.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I have already instructed trebor... that he is wrong...


Oh. Well. I should just go home since the ATS member "tezzajw" says I am wrong.

Of course there is nothing contradictory about someone saying they saw the aircraft fly north of the service station and then hit the building.


there is nothing contradictory about a witness reporting that they saw a plane fly NOC and hitting the Pentagon.


Nope...nothing contradictory about that.

Craig? Feel free to jump in here anytime. One of your acolytes needs some remedial CIT training in "Maintaining the Message". Could you please tell the ATS member "tezzajw" that if the aircraft flew north of the service station it could not have hit the Pentagon in the manner that caused the documented damage? He seems to think that there is no contradiction to Lagasse or Boger or Morin or someone saying they saw the aircraft fly north of the NEX service station and then hit the building.

Nope...no contradiction there.

That sort of statement kind of rips your whole thesis to pieces, wouldn't you agree? You can't have both. They are mutually exclusive. One of those statements is false. One of those statements cannot be true. The individual might have uttered those statements, but simply uttering those beliefs do absolve them of their contradictory elements regarding the event. And, by the ATS member "tezzajw's" own standards, contradictory statements make a witness unreliable.

We look forward to your public correction of the ATS member "tezzajw's" off-the-CIT-reservation message malfeasance.



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join