Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Actually the notion of fuel laden hijacked planes as virtual missiles or giant bombs wasn't that fresh in the terrorist circuit.

en.wikipedia.org...

"The Bojinka plot (Arabic: بجنكة‎; Tagalog: Oplan Bojinka) was a planned large-scale terrorist attack by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to blow up twelve airliners and their approximately 4,000 passengers as they flew from Asia to the United States.

The term can also refer to a combination of plots by Yousef and Mohammed to take place in January 1995, including a plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II and crash a plane into the CIA headquarters in Fairfax County, Virginia, as well as the airline bombing plot.

Despite careful planning and the skill of Ramzi Yousef, the Bojinka plot was disrupted after a chemical fire drew Filipino police attention on January 6, 1995. One person was killed in the course of the plot — a passenger seated near a nitroglycerin bomb on Philippine Airlines Flight 434.

Some lessons learned by the organisers of this plot were apparently used by the planners of the September 11 attacks. The money handed down to the plotters originated from Al-Qaeda, the international Islamic jihadi organization then based in Sudan."

From memory what eventually happened on 9/11 was a scaled down resuscitation of the Bojinka plot. Originally envisioned was something like 10-12 attacks. On the list, the White House, Congress, CIA HQ, somewhere in LA or Chicago, targets in Britain and continental Europe.

It was decided the risk of discovery would be magnified if there were too many sub-operations. Synchronization with Europe and the time zone difference convinced them to scale down to a more manageable 4 planes in the US - all hitting their targets within minutes of each other.

3 out of 4 isn't a bad score.


[edit on 25-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Actually the notion of fuel laden hijacked planes as virtual missiles or giant bombs wasn't that fresh in the terrorist circuit.

en.wikipedia.org...
The term can also refer to a combination of plots by Yousef and Mohammed to take place in January 1995, including a plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II and crash a plane into the CIA headquarters in Fairfax County, Virginia, as well as the airline bombing plot.

Condaliar Rice could never have imagined planes being used as weapons, could she?

The very notion that the truth has been told about 9/11 is utterly ridiculous, when politicians have been caught telling tales and contradicting each other.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

Witnesses? See for example, the statement of Penny Elgas americanhistory.si.edu...
"The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke."
There are more, should you bother to look. As to Newton, neither he nor you know much about modern aircraft. Your misinformation is absolutely encyclopedic in scope.

you seem to have a selective memory.

You've already shown me this link.

I've already responded to it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

When are you going to stop using this ridiculous “witness”.

Here is another reason the testimony is garbage . . .

The website is a joke and requires nothing more than an e-mail for someone to post. ANYONE can post a story on here. I could go on that site right now and make up some bull$#!^ about seeing Lloyd Engelmann’s cab getting impaled by a light pole.

Joke and a half.

Unreliable witness, unprofessional website.

[edit on 11/25/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by tezzajw
Condaliar Rice could never have imagined planes being used as weapons, could she?

The very notion that the truth has been told about 9/11 is utterly ridiculous, when politicians have been caught telling tales and contradicting each other.

We must rid ourselves of those people telling tales and contradicting themselves. Give them WARNINGS. Remove their posts. Penalize them points. Have them BANNED if they don't stop.

Note the lying US politician's concealment of Lloyde England's involvement. He was "In it."

We need a good "Independent Investigation." For sure it would yield "Alarming Information."

Where's Craig?

[edit on 25-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by jthomas
Then there's no "official fairy tale."

Really? So your claim that a plane downed a light pole that later impaled itself in Lloyd Engelmann’s taxi cab is what? An “unofficial fairy tale”? What is this story jthom? What would you call it if not a 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?

Originally posted by jthomas
I want you to support your claims and refute all of the evidence.

I can’t refute evidence that doesn’t exist. You’re demanding negative proof (10) again. This means you’ve hit double digits with logical fallacy #10! Not a good sign that you’re being logical.

bare assertion(11) as well, I have supported all of my claims and you can review the entirety of thread for proof of that. If you believe I have made any particular claim and have not supported it, point it out. Point out one claim that I have made that I have not supported and I will gladly address it. Unless you point out an unsupported claim I have made, we will have to assume that I am correct and your claims are groundless.

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?

I can’t refute evidence that doesn’t exist. You’re demanding negative proof (11) again.

It doesn’t work that way; you can not demand that I prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist. YOU need to prove that the flying spaghetti monster exists. The burden of proof lies with you. Please consult a philosophy book because you are the one who seems terribly unlearned in the basic principles of logic. You’ve committed 11 logical fallacies.

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.

bare assertions (12) (13) you have provided no evidence that would suggest I am confused.
Your claim that I have not dealt with all of the evidence is also bare. What evidence have I not dealt with that is readily observable and testable? Name one thing that hasn’t been addressed that is relevant. If you are unable to identify an inference that I have missed or ignored, we will have to assume that I am correct and your claims are groundless.

Originally posted by JPhish
All of the evidence I mentioned is the only reliable evidence we have.

Originally posted by jthomas
Your unsupported assertion is duly noted and recorded

Doesn’t work that way Jthom, you need to show that there is alternative reliable evidence to invoke a declaration of a logical fallacy. My assertion is not unsupported and stands 100% true until such a time that you present alternative reliable evidence that I have not considered or found.

Originally posted by JPhish
Therefore, all of the evidence conflicts with the original story.

Originally posted by jthomas
Faulty premise, faulty conclusion. You haven't dealt with all of the evidence,

bare assertions (14)
AGAIN, Your claim that I have not dealt with all of the evidence is still bare. What evidence have I not dealt with that is readily observable and testable? Name one thing that hasn’t been addressed that is relevant. If you are unable to identify an inference that I have missed or ignored, we will have to assume that I am correct and your claims are groundless.

much less tell us what the original "story" is supposed to be.

bare assertion(15) I’ve stated several times in this thread that the Official/Original/Government/Media story is that a plane hit a light pole that subsequently impaled the taxi cab of a man named Lloyd Engelmann.

The burden is not upon me to create an argument for you. You masquerade and give everyone the impression that you support the Official/Original/Government/Media story.

If you are pleading ignorance as to what that story is. It’s not a problem of mine. What I stated herein is %100 true until such a time that you state what the Official/Original/Government/Media story is or is not.

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

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

Sheesh...

bare assertion (16) Several times in this thread I’ve articulated in many different ways that the Official/Original/Government/Media story is “that a plane hit a light pole that subsequently impaled the taxi cab of a man named Lloyd Engelmann.”

Sure I do. I don't make claims I cannot support.

You have not supported any of your claims in this thread. Show one instance where you supported what you said. Just one.

You've already admitted you haven't dealt with all of the evidence.

bare assertion(17) No where in this thread did I say I hadn’t dealt with all of the evidence.
You are either LYING or MISTAKEN.

Originally posted by jthomas
-You need to deal with ALL of the evidence. You won't.

bare assertion (18)
AGAIN, your claim that I have not dealt with all of the evidence is still bare. What evidence have I not dealt with that is readily observable and testable? Name one thing that hasn’t been addressed that is relevant. If you are unable to identify an inference that I have missed or ignored, we will have to assume that I am correct and your claims are groundless.

bare assertions (19) You have provided no evidence that I refuse to deal with all of the evidence. In fact, my numerous requests for you to show me the evidence you claim I have missed or overlooked is proof that I WANT to deal with all of the evidence. As a result, you’re claim is fallacious and illogical.

Originally posted by JPhish
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.

Originally posted by jthomas
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.

bare assertion (20) you’ve offered no evidence that I’m evading anything. In fact, this thread is evidence that I’m addressing everything while you choose to ignore that you’ve committed a plethora of logical fallacies.
bare assertion (21) You have provided no evidence that CIT has; as you put it; “categorically” refused to look at evidence.

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

Originally posted by JPhish
You’re demanding negative proof (5). That’s completely illogical.

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

bare assertion (22) You have provided no evidence that am evading anything
You’ve committed a logical fallacy. There is no reason for me to respond in any other way than to point out that you are being illogical and your statement is invalid.

bare assertion (23) AGAIN, your claim that I “refuse to look at” all of the evidence is still bare. What evidence have I not dealt with that is readily observable and testable?

Name one thing that hasn’t been addressed that is relevant. If you are unable to identify an inference that I have missed or ignored, we will have to assume that I am correct and you are mistaken and or lying.

Duh.

Yeah, that’s 23 logical fallacies that you have yet to refute.

Originally posted by jthomas
or even bothered to interview the thousands of people who know what happened.

Originally posted by JPhish
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.

Originally posted by jthomas
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

bare assertion (24) You have provided no evidence that am evading anything
All that you’ve done is commit a logical fallacy. There is no reason for me to respond in any other way than to point out that you are being illogical and your statement is invalid.


bare assertion (25) It’s impossible to find witnesses for an event that did not happen. The same way it is impossible to find evidence for the flying spaghetti monster because it does not exist. Show me ONE reliable witness that claims to have seen a plane impact the pentagon. I want their full name, video testimony, and signed signature. I’m ready to accept statements from ANY witness you find me, at which time I will listen to them and weigh the veracity of their story scientifically.

I’ve personally interviewed well over 30 people and none of them claim to have seen a plane impact the pentagon or the trade centers. If there is anyone that did, the burden of proof lies with you to find them. Not me. You are the one claiming they exist. You are the one claiming that something happened.

You are completely illogical

wishful thinking (26) At this point you’ve committed 25 logical fallacies which are indicative of logically poor rhetoric. I have committed no logical fallacies to my knowledge. Quantitatively, I have not only been very logical, but you have been incredibly illogical.

Originally posted by jthomas
But that's nothing new for you 9/11 Deniers.

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

Originally posted by jthomas
Then you cannot deny the evidence, but you willfully choose to.

bare assertion (27)Your claim that I am denying evidence is bare. What evidence have I denied that is readily observable and testable? Name one thing that hasn’t been addressed that is relevant. If you are unable to identify an inference that I have missed or ignored, we will have to assume that I am correct and you are mistaken and or lying.

You are a 9/11 Denier.

I do not deny that 9-11 happened and labeling me or my argument in such a way is an appeal to ridicule (28).

Originally posted by jthomas
You avoid supporting your claims as a necessary survival mechanism.

Originally posted by JPhishWhat 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.

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

?* (I’m going to assume you meant to put a question mark at the end of that.)

Are you incapable of following two tracts of thought simultaneously?

You said that I was “denying” evidence as a defense mechanism. Within that one claim are TWO bare assertions. The first bare assertion is that I am ignoring evidence; the second is that I am doing so as a defense mechanism.

Hence I needed to show that you committed TWO logical fallacies, not just one.

I showed that there is no proof that “denying evidence” is a defense mechanism because it is not listed in any psychology book as one. Then I also stated “your claim is particularly baseless in light of the myriad of evidence I have highlighted in this thread.”; which refutes your claim that I am denying evidence to begin with.

TWO logical fallacies committed by you. TWO proof positive refutations by me.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

wishful thinking (29) You surely have a cognitive bias if you believe that me pointing out 28 times where you’ve committed logical fallacies is illustrating your point. Unless your point is that you are illogical. In which case, you’re welcome.

[edit on 11/25/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas
-You need to deal with ALL of the evidence. You won't.

bare assertion (18)
What evidence have I not dealt with that is readily observable and testable? Name one thing that hasn’t been addressed that is relevant. If you are unable to identify an inference that I have missed or ignored, we will have to assume that I am correct and your claims are groundless.

You still refuse to interview any of these people. You have not a clue what they saw, what wreckage they handled, removed, and sorted. We've waited 8 years for you to get off your butts and you still refuse to interview them and present their statements.

In the meantime, not one has ever come forward to contradict that AA77 hit the Pentagon, not one of these 8,000 people. Duh.

Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Turkeys that sit around and go "gobble, gobble" get served for Thanksgiving dinner. You'd better get out of your roost and get to work.

Originally posted by JPhish
I’ve personally interviewed well over 30 people and none of them claim to have seen a plane impact the pentagon or the trade centers.

30? Really? 30 people. Wow.

I could probably interview 6 billion (if I had the time) and none of them would claim to have seen a plane impact the Pentagon or the Trade Centers.

30 people? What is the significance of that? Were they in Manhattan? Standing on Vesey Street or some other location near to the towers? Were they standing in South parking at the Pentagon or in a car on Route 27 west of the building?? Were they in a 7-11 in Topeka? or a Sears in Atlanta? or a pub in London?

30 people? Is that supposed to make a point or infer some logic?

Originally posted by JPhish

you seem to have a selective memory.

You've already shown me this link.

I've already responded to it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

When are you going to stop using this ridiculous “witness”.

Here is another reason the testimony is garbage . . .

The website is a joke and requires nothing more than an e-mail for someone to post. ANYONE can post a story on here. I could go on that site right now and make up some bull$#!^ about seeing Lloyd Engelmann’s cab getting impaled by a light pole.

Joke and a half.

Unreliable witness, unprofessional website.

[edit on 11/25/2009 by JPhish]

Of course everyone is in on it and lying and you, because you are a genius, can make the determination of which witnesses are real and which are agents of the plotters.
Surely, you can tell us what solid evidence you have that is the basis for your position. Please don't trot out the mindless "questions unanswered" or subjective inconsistencies in witness statements. Those are for people who seek an easy way to rouse the masses without evidence. A person of your skills understands human psychology and eyewitness accounts and does not need something-for-truth websites to do his thinking for him. You understand that thousands of gallons of hydrocarbon were burned and have a theory, substantiated by evidence, of how it got to the Pentagon and how it was ignited. You understand who planted evidence and how and when they did it. You have the knowledge of Newton when it comes to understanding modern aircraft and will not repeat misinformation spouted by the technically incompetent.

reply to post by JPhish


Oh dear. You've read an article or two about "logical fallacies" and you think it's turned you into Kavanagh QC. And you can't even get the guy's name correct.

And you're structuring your argument in the most extraordinary manner, making it almost impossible to prove wrong.

First you claim that any correct reading of events would have to include an account of this man Lloyd England and his taxi. You posit that something called the "Official Story" - presumably a leather-bound tome in the Library of Congress - does not contain this account, and is therefore flawed at core. You go further: there is no evidence at all for AA77's crash into the Pentagon.

Let's deal with these one at a time. First, it is not incumbent upon someone wishing to prove that a plane hit the Pentagon to satisfy every existing ambiguity about what happened. It's not even remotely possible. So if you demand such a level of proof you will be continuously (and contentedly, I should imagine) frustrated. You are setting a standard which - unless you're imbecilic - you must know can't be met.

Next, there is apparently no evidence at all for AA77 crashing into the Pentagon. You can only make this claim if you set your bar for "evidence" at a ludicrously high level, and then don't apply it to your own findings. You must slavishly believe any witness who agrees with you and discount any that doesn't on the slightest pretext (For a good demo of how to do this check out Craig Ranke). How, for example, would you circumscribe the DNA evidence? Or the eyewitnesses?

Here's an exercise. Imagine that it was generally accepted that a missile had hit the Pentagon, that this is what the govt claimed. Could you find holes in the theory? Could you at least find fault with witnesses who claimed such a thing? Could you begin to formulate a conspiracy that involved a plane?

Originally posted by JPhish
bare assertion (25) It’s impossible to find witnesses for an event that did not happen. The same way it is impossible to find evidence for the flying spaghetti monster because it does not exist. Show me ONE reliable witness that claims to have seen a plane impact the pentagon. I want their full name, video testimony, and signed signature. I’m ready to accept statements from ANY witness you find me, at which time I will listen to them and weigh the veracity of their story scientifically.

I’ve personally interviewed well over 30 people and none of them claim to have seen a plane impact the pentagon or the trade centers.

The Logic 101 textbook jargon combined with Darth Vader attitude is entertaining. I gather you have in actual fact never looked at anything on 9/11 other than online whacko Conspiracy sites and videos.


M



[edit on 25-11-2009 by mmiichael]

I haven't read all the 90 plus pages of this thread, but would like to ask a question or two.
Having watched the video it would appear that the official version leaves a bit to be desired
I would like to ask, if the plane didn't hit the building, what did?
Did the plane that flew over the building drop a bomb or was a rocket fired from it?
One other thing, WTC6 is never mentioned on any forums re-911. Yet there are photos of it being blown out of the ground prior to the two towers collapsing?

Originally posted by eddiebelfast
WTC6 is never mentioned on any forums re-911. Yet there are photos of it being blown out of the ground prior to the two towers collapsing?

You should check stuff out with the Search function provided by ATS.

Don't believe everything you read. The Internet is overwhelmed with false 9/11 information. A once thought to be important "Independent Investigator", Christopher Bollyn, working for a White Supremacist mag, spread a ton of disinformation about WTC6 - later proven to be pure invention. He's been convicted of various offenses and apparently in hiding now. But his disinformation is still online to fool people like you.

Exposure and commentary here.

www.davidicke.com...

This exposes Christopher Bollyn who has been recently described as "..possibly the seminal 9/11 truth investigative journalist," as an active disseminator of misinformation only!

This infrared satellite shot shows the tremendous damage to WTC 6.

Check this pic... The South Tower is gone and Bldgs 5 & 6 remain undamaged.

Bollyn has made no effort to set the record straight and refuses to publish the shot above, despite numerous requests that he do so.

Maybe tough to accept - there are many fraudulent Truther "Investigators".
Faking and manipulating information to push people's buttons and sell more videos.

Watch for phrases like "Alarming Information"


[edit on 25-11-2009 by mmiichael]

why cant this information ever make it to the MSM?!?! we need to keep making this a big deal so that it does get news coverage somehow!

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by eddiebelfast
WTC6 is never mentioned on any forums re-911. Yet there are photos of it being blown out of the ground prior to the two towers collapsing?

You should check stuff out with the Search function provided by ATS.

Don't believe everything you read. The Internet is overwhelmed with false 9/11 information. A once thought to be important "Independent Investigator", Christopher Bollyn, working for a White Supremacist mag, spread a ton of disinformation about WTC6 - later proven to be pure invention. He's been convicted of various offenses and apparently in hiding now. But his disinformation is still online to fool people like you.

Exposure and commentary here.

www.davidicke.com...

This exposes Christopher Bollyn who has been recently described as "..possibly the seminal 9/11 truth investigative journalist," as an active disseminator of misinformation only!

This infrared satellite shot shows the tremendous damage to WTC 6.

Check this pic... The South Tower is gone and Bldgs 5 & 6 remain undamaged.

Bollyn has made no effort to set the record straight and refuses to publish the shot above, despite numerous requests that he do so.

Maybe tough to accept - there are many fraudulent Truther "Investigators".
Faking and manipulating information to push people's buttons and sell more videos.

Watch for phrases like "Alarming Information"


[edit on 25-11-2009 by mmiichael]

I do check out info . This is where I get my fact re WTC6 being blown out of the ground.
www.911studies.com...

Originally posted by eddiebelfast
I do check out info . This is where I get my fact re WTC6 being blown out of the ground.

I don't even look at Truther sites except for laughs. You don't know how many years ago it was assembled, if the pictures used are for real, how true anything claimed really is. Amateurish junk for the most part. Anything on the net without a credible citation is meaningless.

One Truther video producer was recently sued for altering an eyewitness supplied tape.

Don't know how recently it was updated but this site has a lot of info and links
dispelling a lot of the online disinformation out there.

www.debunking911.com...

And this one discusses the sleazy sub-culture and tears apart the clowns spreading the "Alarming Information" BS.

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

ATS member Craig Ranke is an expert on that subject.


M




[edit on 26-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by JPhish
bare assertion (25) It’s impossible to find witnesses for an event that did not happen. The same way it is impossible to find evidence for the flying spaghetti monster because it does not exist. Show me ONE reliable witness that claims to have seen a plane impact the pentagon. I want their full name, video testimony, and signed signature. I’m ready to accept statements from ANY witness you find me, at which time I will listen to them and weigh the veracity of their story scientifically.

I’ve personally interviewed well over 30 people and none of them claim to have seen a plane impact the pentagon or the trade centers.

The Logic 101 textbook jargon combined with Darth Vader attitude is entertaining.

If you’re familiar with logic, I suggest you start employing it. I’m not here for your entertainment; I’m here to spread the truth, which I seem to be doing quite efficiently since illogical comments are all my opponents can seem to retort with.

I gather you have in actual fact never looked at anything on 9/11 other than online whacko Conspiracy sites and videos.

bare assertion(1) appeal to ridicule (2)

What you “gather” is incorrect and you should know that it is incorrect considering the fact, that in the very post you responded to, I mention personally interviewing well over 30 people who live in NewYork city who witnessed the event. None of them say they saw a plane impact the buildings. Most of them believe that it did however.

For instance . . . one of my witnesses is a welder who was working repairs and upkeep on the Verrazano Bridge that day. He was on top of one of the crests of the bridge and claims to have seen the “second plane” come in and head towards the building. Said he had a great view of the entire event but did not see it hit the building because the impact occurred on his blindside of the building. However he was convinced a plane impacted the building.

“So you saw "the plane" actually go into the building?”- JPhish

“Well technically I didn’t see it hit the building; but I saw the plane come in; I was in a great spot! Right on top of the (Verrazano) bridge! The plane passed behind the Towers where I couldn’t see it, cause remember, both The Towers were still up when the second plane hit; then there was the explosion. Didn’t see the plane after that and planes don’t just disappear. The plane hit the building.” – G. M. K.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
If you’re familiar with logic, I suggest you start employing it. I’m not here for your entertainment; I’m here to spread the truth, which I seem to be doing quite efficiently since illogical comments are all my opponents can seem to retort with.

Everything you say is entertaining.

You know bugger all about what took place on 9/11 and show it with every ridiculous post you make on the subject.

There has never been a question that 3 planes hit 3 targets on Sept 11, 2001. Too many eyewitnesses, pictures, warehouses full of evidence.

A fringe subculture of paranoids and mental defective likes to play with the reports and testimony re-editing and twisting it into some US govt mega-conspiracy. Witness this "no plane hit the Pentagon" lunacy.

8 years later none of this BS pans out to a shred of solid evidence. But they desperately keep on trying. Like with the fixation on some nearby taxi's broken windshield. What kind of retarded person thinks it's relevant to anything?

You've very obviously have never read a single thing by someone with a two eyes and more than half a brain on 9/11 - restricting your diet to all the junk food lies, speculation and disinformation which you swallow down whole.

You show zero display of critical faculties.

Don't respond with the usual Philosophy 101 and use of Latinate 3 syllable word you don't understand.

It won't get read.


[edit on 26-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by JPhish
I’ve personally interviewed well over 30 people and none of them claim to have seen a plane impact the pentagon or the trade centers.

30? Really? 30 people. Wow.

I could probably interview 6 billion (if I had the time) and none of them would claim to have seen a plane impact the Pentagon or the Trade Centers.

30 people? What is the significance of that? Were they in Manhattan? Standing on Vesey Street or some other location near to the towers? Were they standing in South parking at the Pentagon or in a car on Route 27 west of the building?? Were they in a 7-11 in Topeka? or a Sears in Atlanta? or a pub in London?

30 people? Is that supposed to make a point or infer some logic?

Obviously the people I interviewed witnessed the event and i mentioned that detail in an earlier post; no logical person would interview random people. Obviously most of them live in New York. Most of them on Manhattan Island and Long Island. All of them witnessed the event.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by JPhish

 

Oh dear. You've read an article or two about "logical fallacies" and you think it's turned you into Kavanagh QC. And you can't even get the guy's name correct.

Oh I've read an article or two? That’s bare assertion (1) number one for you. You’re off to a great start.

Don’t know who the person you mentioned is, so there is no way I could think that I am him. bare assertion (2)

And you're structuring your argument in the most extraordinary manner, making it almost impossible to prove wrong.

Truths tend to be infallible. Thanks for the (inadvertent?) complement.

First you claim that any correct reading of events would have to include an account of this man Lloyd England and his taxi.

straw man (3) What you just said is so far from being what I’ve been advocating it’s mind boggling. I never claimed that the “correct reading” of accounts would have anything to do with a story that I believe to be contrived.

You posit that something called the "Official Story" - presumably a leather-bound tome in the Library of Congress - does not contain this account, and is therefore flawed at core.

straw man (4) I’m saying that the account IS part of the official story and THAT is the problem. Not that it is absent. You have it completely backward.

For anyone who has recently joined the thread, I never said anything about the Library of Congress.*

You go further: there is no evidence at all for AA77's crash into the Pentagon.

try quoting me in context, you’ll find that what you believe you read and what I actually said are two very different things.

Let's deal with these one at a time. First, it is not incumbent upon someone wishing to prove that a plane hit the Pentagon to satisfy every existing ambiguity about what happened. It's not even remotely possible. So if you demand such a level of proof you will be continuously (and contentedly, I should imagine) frustrated. You are setting a standard which - unless you're imbecilic - you must know can't be met.

No one is asking anyone to do that. MAJOR straw man (5)

Next, there is apparently no evidence at all for AA77 crashing into the Pentagon. You can only make this claim if you set your bar for "evidence" at a ludicrously high level, and then don't apply it to your own findings.

Really? Show me ONE piece of reliable evidence that shows AA77 crashed into the pentagon. Just ONE.

You must slavishly believe any witness who agrees with you and discount any that doesn't on the slightest pretext (For a good demo of how to do this check out Craig Ranke).

bare assertion (6) I just proved you 100% wrong because I recently posted an excerpt from an interview I did with a NYC welder who believes planes hit the buildings.

Originally posted by JPhish

“So you saw "the plane" actually go into the building?”- JPhish

“Well technically I didn’t see it hit the building; but I saw the plane come in; I was in a great spot! Right on top of the (Verrazano) bridge! The plane passed behind the Towers where I couldn’t see it, cause remember, both The Towers were still up when the second plane hit; then there was the explosion. Didn’t see the plane after that and planes don’t just disappear. The plane hit the building.” – G. M. K.

How, for example, would you circumscribe the DNA evidence? Or the eyewitnesses?

Your question is slightly ambiguous and to answer it properly I’ll need you to define your term “circumscribe” in the context of your sentence.

Here's an exercise. Imagine that it was generally accepted that a missile had hit the Pentagon, that this is what the govt claimed. Could you find holes in the theory?

If a missile didn’t hit the Pentagon, yes, I might be able to find valid holes in a theory that claimed one did. But if a missile did hit the pentagon, I would be unable to find valid holes in that "theory", because it wouldn't be a "theory", it would be a fact.*

Could you at least find fault with witnesses who claimed such a thing? Could you begin to formulate a conspiracy that involved a plane?

If I procured reliable evidence, and those inferences did not match what the “witnesses” were saying, I’d justly conclude they were lying or mistaken.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by JPhish]