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: 91
215
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Oh. Well. I should just go home since the ATS member "tezzajw" says I am wrong.

Either go home, or get back to work, trebor. Are you posting from your office desk, where you claim that you've worked for 25 years as a 'civil servant' veteran government DoD employee? Either way, you need to think about your errors before you make them again.

I'll explain it to you again, seeing that you've failed to understand it the first two times.


Originally posted by trebor451
Of course there is nothing contradictory about someone saying they saw the aircraft fly north of the service station and then hit the building.

That's right. Boger did not contradict himself by stating what he saw. At face value, that's his witness report.

Lloyde, when interviewed at different times, gave conflicting descriptions of his account. That is a contradictory witness, trebor.


Originally posted by trebor451
Craig ... One of your acolytes needs some remedial CIT training in "Maintaining the Message".

You still need to cling to a belief that I am a CIT drone, trebor. Why is that? Your persistance with spreading disinformation and making false claims about me has been documented many times over. Your credibility is in tatters as it is, when you have been documented and quoted making false claims about me, that you have not tried to defend, retract or apologise for.

There is no problem with a witness reporting what he saw. There is a problem when a witness reports what he sees, then at a later date, changes his testimony.

Your complete failure to comprehend this is telling, as it is clearly affecting your ability to type a logical post.



Originally posted by trebor451
And, by the ATS member "tezzajw's" own standards, contradictory statements make a witness unreliable.

Yes, Lloyde is unreliable. He has given contradictory interviews on different occasions. Wanda Ramey is unreliable. She's given contradictory statements on different occasions. McGraw is unreliable, he's contradicted his printed testimony when he was interviewed on camera.

When it finally dawns on you that a witness reporting what they saw, at face value, is not contradictory, you might wish to apologise for wasting time and space in this thread. Unless you intended your errors to serve as a lesson for casual readers?

Witnesses who change, alter and provide different testimony on different occasions, are contradictory.




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You should be able to point to the so-called "official fairy tale." Cat got your tongue?
what ever are you talking about jthom? I just said what the official story was in the form of a rhetorical question.


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


Do you understand what a rhetorical question is? Do you want me to hold your hand?


Originally posted by jthomas
But AA77 hit the Pentagon so why do you possibly care?

Bare assertion (1) ad hominem (2) You’ve offered no evidence to support this claim. Insinuating I do not care is attacking my character not my argument.


Originally posted by jthomas
Actually, as you well know, you are completely incapable of claiming all of the evidence is conflicting.
all of the evidence I mentioned conflicts with the original story. All of the evidence I mentioned is the only reliable evidence we have. Therefore, all of the evidence conflicts with the original story. I challenge you to show me even one piece of reliable evidence that coincides with the Official Story.


You haven't even done the most fundamental research to be able to make that claim.

bare assertion fallacy(3) you’ve offered no evidence to support this 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.

Poisoning the Well(4) The speed at which we are gathering our information is not indicative of incompetence as you illogically suggest; but a testament to our need for thoroughness in lieu of the ineptitude of the 9/11 Commission and it’s supporters.


You haven't presented a single piece of data that refutes all of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon

You’re demanding negative proof (5). That’s completely illogical.


or even bothered to interview the thousands of people who know what happened.
bare assertion fallacy (6) you have offered no proof that anyone knows what happened, let alone thousands of people. You’re logic is failing miserably.


But that's nothing new for you 9/11 Deniers.

straw man (7) That’s not my argument at all, I never denied 9-11. You sir, need a lesson in logic 101.


You avoid supporting your claims as a necessary survival mechanism.


bare assertions (8 + 9)

What you said is completely fabricated; avoiding supporting claims is not listed in any psychology book as being a defense mechanism and your claim is particularly baseless in light of the myriad of evidence I have highlighted in this thread.

However LAUGHING, also known as humor IS considered a defense mechanism.


Originally posted by jthomas
It's known as EPIC FAIL


quite ironic.

Here’s all the evidence that you falsely accused me of not supporting

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Courtesy of CIT.

Watch the videos.

[edit on 11/24/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


I got one question, what happened to all the seats ??



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SirPatrickHenry
 


what seats?

I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

You'll have to elucidate.



[edit on 11/24/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
wow, I do not think I've ever seen such an effective dismantling of an argument before as I just witnessed by JPhish of Jthomas. It is really nice to see someone pick apart the common tactics of bare assertion/ad hominem that most debunking attempts employ. Nicely done.

Almost as entertaining as watching the video of the 'debunking director' fidget and wring his hands and whine and scratch himself raw while Richard Gage filleted him with the evidence of CD.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by superleadoverdrive]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:06 AM
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!


What government report, tezz? Cat got your tongue?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Yes, Lloyde is unreliable. He has given contradictory interviews on different occasions. Wanda Ramey is unreliable. She's given contradictory statements on different occasions. McGraw is unreliable, he's contradicted his printed testimony when he was interviewed on camera.


Yes, Lagasse is unreliable because he has given contradictory statements and interviews, to wit 1) didn't even know where he was standing when interviewed by CIT, 2) claims a different set (much farther north) of light poles were hit by the aircraft and 3) claims the aircraft hit the building.

Yes, Boger is unreliable because he has given contradictory statements regarding where he saw the aircraft and that he watched the aircraft hit the building.

Yes, Morin is unreliable because he has given contradictory statements and interviews regarding 1) where he was as he exited the Navy Annex ("Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5...), 2) where overhead the aircraft flew ("The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB) and 3) he stated he saw the "impact flash".

Yes, Turcios is unreliable because he has given contradictory statements, specifically saying in his interview with CIT and other statements that the aircraft "pulled up" over a highway sign and nobody else saw or reported such a thing. Further, Turcios stated the aircraft "collided" with the building.

Yes, Paik is unreliable because he has given contradictory statements, on video even, regarding where the flight path of the aircraft.

Ditto for every CIT "witness" who states they saw the aircraft hit the building.

So.....who does CIT have left who can be called "reliable?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Have you disregarded all witness testimony that a plane hit the Pentagon? Given the number of witnesses that saw the impact and that the damage is consistent with a plane strike, what is the basis for your claims?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
what seats?
I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
You'll have to elucidate.


I would recommend you read up on the events of 9/11 and the Pentagon then before you make a bigger fool out of yourself than you already have. Its not really that becoming to the Truther side of the argument when one of their footsoldiers shows up here unprepared and ignorant of the issues and facts in question - even though that happens more often than one would think in a debate/discussion fora.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
"when one of their footsoldiers shows up here unprepared and ignorant of the issues and facts in question - even though that happens more often than one would think in a debate/discussion fora."

he said unprepared and ignorant, which for some reason always reminds me of www.911blogger.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhishI challenge you to show me even one piece of reliable evidence that coincides with the Official Story


If I get you right, you think that there is not ONE SINGLE piece of evidence that suggests that AA77 hit the Pentagon? Are you seriously claiming that?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by JPhishI challenge you to show me even one piece of reliable evidence that coincides with the Official Story


If I get you right, you think that there is not ONE SINGLE piece of evidence that suggests that AA77 hit the Pentagon? Are you seriously claiming that?


I will make that claim. Seeing as how the closest anyone on this thread has come to proving the OS is to dish out insults, run from being asked for proof, and posting over and over again about how little you care about something...I will stand behind that claim.

Now the challenge here is this....

can you present that evidence or just follow the trend and take the time to write a paragraph explaining how you do not need to come up with any proof?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Can you come up with an alternate theory of what happened that is consistent with the evidence at hand? If you believe that a different plane struck the Pentagon, please hypothesize what happened to Flt 77, and its passengers, in some detail and provide a basis for your belief.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas
You should be able to point to the so-called "official fairy tale." Cat got your tongue?
what ever are you talking about jthom? I just said what the official story was in the form of a rhetorical question.


Then there's no "official fairy tale."


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

Do you understand what a rhetorical question is? Do you want me to hold your hand?


I want you to support your claims and refute all of the evidence.



Originally posted by jthomas
But AA77 hit the Pentagon so why do you possibly care?


Bare assertion (1) ad hominem (2) You’ve offered no evidence to support this claim. Insinuating I do not care is attacking my character not my argument.


You have no evidence to support your claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. You cannot refute the evidence that it did. Any questions? Are you that confused?


Originally posted by jthomas
Actually, as you well know, you are completely incapable of claiming all of the evidence is conflicting.

all of the evidence I mentioned conflicts with the original story.


You haven't dealt with all of the evidence, much less tell us what the original "story" is supposed to be. Gosh, you are so confused.


All of the evidence I mentioned is the only reliable evidence we have.

Your unsupported assertion is duly noted and recorded


Therefore, all of the evidence conflicts with the original story.

Faulty premise, faulty conclusion. You haven't dealt with all of the evidence, much less tell us what the original "story" is supposed to be.


I challenge you to show me even one piece of reliable evidence that coincides with the Official Story.

What "Official Story?" You cannot even articulate what you think you're talking about.


Sheesh...



You haven't even done the most fundamental research to be able to make that claim.

bare assertion fallacy(3) you’ve offered no evidence to support this claim.


Sure I do. I don't make claims I cannot support. You've already admitted you haven't dealt with all of the evidence. You need to deal with ALL of the evidence. You won't.


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.


Poisoning the Well(4) The speed at which we are gathering our information is not indicative of incompetence as you illogically suggest; but a testament to our need for thoroughness in lieu of the ineptitude of the 9/11 Commission and it’s supporters.


Evasion noted. All of the evidence is right in front of you. It has been right in front of CIT. You've been pointed to what you have to do. CIT categorically refuses to do it. So do you. So get off your butts and get to work instead of bragging about your incompetence.


You haven't presented a single piece of data that refutes all of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You’re demanding negative proof (5). That’s completely illogical.


Evasion noted. When you continue refuse to deal with all of the evidence than you haven't demonstrated your claims.

Duh.


or even bothered to interview the thousands of people who know what happened.

bare assertion fallacy (6) you have offered no proof that anyone knows what happened, let alone thousands of people. You’re logic is failing miserably.


Evasion noted. You cannot claim what thousands of people know or do not know when you have consistently refused to get their statements. You are completely illogical



But that's nothing new for you 9/11 Deniers.

straw man (7) That’s not my argument at all, I never denied 9-11.


Then you cannot deny the evidence, but you willfully choose to. You are a 9/11 Denier.


You avoid supporting your claims as a necessary survival mechanism.


What you said is completely fabricated; avoiding supporting claims is not listed in any psychology book as being a defense mechanism and your claim is particularly baseless in light of the myriad of evidence I have highlighted in this thread.


So you admit what we already know: you are avoiding all of the evidence as well as avoiding supporting your claims.

Thanks for illustrating my point.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
wow, I do not think I've ever seen such an effective dismantling of an argument before as I just witnessed by JPhish of Jthomas.


Sorry, I just reminded JPHish of his completely irrational claims. One rarely sees even a 9/11 Denier like him make so many logical fallacies in one post.

DO catch up.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
What government report, tezz? Cat got your tongue?

See, you admit that you can't produce an official government report that states a light pole hit the taxi.

Well done, jthomas. You're finally showing some of the other official government story believers that they are relying on the Word of Lloyde and media driven propaganda.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
you admit that you can't produce an official government report that states a light pole hit the taxi.


There is no official government report that a light pole hit the taxi. In light of the fact that there were 3000 people murdered and hundreds of billions dollars in damage occurring at the same time, this totally irrelevant matter was too trivial to consider.

There also is no official government report on a Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California selling videos and disseminating on the internet repeated claims that a 77 year old Washington taxi driver named Lloyde England was a knowing co-conspirator and/or accomplice in the planned mass murder of American citizens in 2001.

Making unsubstantiated claims of such an egregious nature against a private citizen is an extremely serious offense. Federal authorities and the judicial system need to be made fully aware of this. All efforts must be made to prevent this type of abusive exploitation and convict perpetrators and their facilitators.

A civil attorney can advise Mr England of his rights and options in launching a civil suit for aggravated defamation of character and commercial exploitation thereof. Federal courts routinely award millions of dollars in punitive damages in similar cases.

We all share a goal in seeing justice prevail - right folks?


M



[edit on 24-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
There is no official government report that a light pole hit the taxi.

After nearly 40 pages of dodging and weaving, you're now admitting that you can't support your story with official government documentation. Wow.

What does that do for your claim that there is forensic evidence and lots of information online, all around the world, mmiichael?

Which claim will you be disregarding as an obvious contradiction?

Finally, you are on the same page with jthomas, as both of you know that you're flying solo, without your official government story documentation and that you are relying on the Word of Lloyde, as driven by the mainstream media.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
We all share a goal in seeing justice prevail - right folks?

Not you! All you do is regurgitate government propaganda and disinfo, even while writing stuff like this:

Weeks before 9/11 the US had a serious row with the Taliban who had made guarantees to provide security a new pipeline planned fo Afghanistan. Other factors but essentially the US said they'd come in if the Taliban did not comply.

Except the disagreement wasn't about "security", it was about financial compensation (what else?), so the neocons put their "New Pearl Harbor" plan into effect.

mmichael, any suggestion that you care about justice is a sick joke. If you did, you wouldn't spend your life tirelessly defending the U.S. government's ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theory.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by JPhishI challenge you to show me even one piece of reliable evidence that coincides with the Official Story

If I get you right, you think that there is not ONE SINGLE piece of evidence that suggests that AA77 hit the Pentagon? Are you seriously claiming that?

CNN's Jamie McIntyre said it best:




new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join