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: 95
215
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

I don't make what you call claims. Just restate facts. It's November, it 2009, the Sun comes up in the East. I don't have to prove these things. They're not claims. Except for the odd nut bar, everybody accepts them.






Instead of just repeating things that are not true, could you back up your claims. Yes, this is a claim. You claim everybody but a few nuts accept this. That is your claim. What is it based on? Polls show half the people in this country do not believe the OS.

Let me ask you, are you interested in truth at all? How many people accept this? Back it up with something. Otherwise, you are just one more liar trolling this thread.




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't make what you call claims. Just restate facts.

At this point you need to be reminded that you have made three claims, you have stated them as being factual but you have not proven them.

You have not proven that the light pole hit the taxi. If you don't think that it is relevant to anything, then why do you claim that the light pole hit the taxi?

You have not substantiated your claim that thousands of people saw the plane depart.

You have not substantiated your claim that hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon knocking over light poles.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   


Polls show half the people in this country do not believe the OS.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 


So the bottom line is that you don't have anything and won't postulate any theory.
not at all; when did i say i "had nothing"??? I just told you that my interviews yielded reliable information. As a result, I have plenty of data that casts doubt upon the OS.

However, all of my interviews relate to the Twin Towers and WTC7; not the pentagon; so they are not relevant to this particular thread.

However, Craig's witnesses in collaboration with PilotsFor9-11Truth and the Flight Data Recorder have proven beyond reasonable doubt, that the plane which approached the Pentagon North of the citgo gas-station, did not knock down any light poles.

This is what the thread is about.

I'm not obligated to postulate a new theory. Disproving the OS's theory is sufficient.

[edit on 11/27/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

I went to the house listed for him on switchboard; 1923 S Monroe St.
Arlington, VA 22204-5401; (703) 920-5981. Alas, no one answered the door.
I had meetings elsewhere and did not have time to return. Maybe next time. I have listed his phone number so that you can call and confirm his reliability status. I expect that you will do so before I return to DC so I don't waste any time interviewing him if he is unreliable, as many are saying.
Get back to me when you have an answer.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


When do you plan to start disproving the so called "OS theory?" Disproving doesn't mean questioning its completeness or conclusions. It means having evidence of another set of events.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Truzzyx
 


What polls show this? Are they polls from some neutral body and not polls from a "something-for-truth" organization?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I have listed his phone number so that you can call and confirm his reliability status.

pteridine, I don't need to interview Lloyde. I've seen CIT interview him and I have seen him contradict himself. His interiews have demonstrated that he is unreliable.


Originally posted by pteridine
I expect that you will do so before I return to DC so I don't waste any time interviewing him if he is unreliable, as many are saying.
Get back to me when you have an answer.

Huh?

You were the one trying to claim that Lloyde is reliable - not me. I've seen Lloyde contradict himself in interviews. You wanted to verify this for yourself, not me.

You can call him and set up an appointment with him the next time that you plan to be there. Perhaps you should have called him before you went to the house and made sure he was home?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


It would seem that interviewing Lloyde would not make any difference to those who support CIT. Apparently, Lloyde does not wish to be interviewed further.
When do you plan to support your statement that the light pole and the taxi is a puzzle and it has massive implications? What massive implications? Could this be related to the alarming information?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
When do you plan to support your statement that the light pole and the taxi is a puzzle and it has massive implications?

I already have supported it in this thread, pteridine. You need to carefully read each post and understand them.

The light pole/taxi is a puzzle, as no one has yet proven that it happened. This is demonstrably true, by your failure to prove it in this thread.

If it is ever proven, then it will no longer be a puzzle. Thus far, more than eight years later, no one has proven that it ever happened. You perpetuating this thread is evidence to the handwaving and avoidance to prove that it happened.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Wow Pterry. I really need to thank you and offer accolades. Such a smart person as yourself who believes the OS and only cares about the truth should have had some reply to my argument against you by now. I guess you are checking with you writers, trying to find an actual fact, or you just realized that the evidence I have asked you to provide does not and will not ever see the light of day, let along your eyes, so you put me on ignore.

Whatever the reason is. It would be nice if one of you OSers that so arrogantly troll these boards just to tell people they suck, could provide us with this amazing evidence you all have that we do not. Are you interested in the truth or just arguing on the internet from mom's basement? Which is it?



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You have not shown "massive implications" at all.

Nor have you shown alarming information, alarming implications, massive alarms, massive information, massive alarming information or any other combination or permutation on this thread. You have failed, again.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You have not shown "massive implications" at all.

You appear to have failed to understand the thread and the resulting implications. You don't even realise that your own posts demonstrate the implications, as you have failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

The implications are obvious to those who think about them - why would the media drive a story that has never be proven? Where is the accountability with respect to 'truth' on 9/11, when the media has never verified the story to be true?

mmiichael finally realised that he could not supply any government documents detailing the light pole hitting the taxi, so at least he now understands that it was a media reported event.

Of course, if all that is too difficult for you to understand, then you're probably in the wrong thread, wrong forum and possibly even the wrong website.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Actually, Lillydale, I wasn't taking you seriously. I don't put people on ignore but I sometimes ignore them. You and tezzajw don't seem to care about the theories, so I don't care about your evidentiary requirements. It appears that it is merely the troll game that you like to play.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Actually, Lillydale, I wasn't taking you seriously. I don't put people on ignore but I sometimes ignore them. You and tezzajw don't seem to care about the theories, so I don't care about your evidentiary requirements. It appears that it is merely the troll game that you like to play.





Did you really write that? Did I really read it??????????????

I claim that you are not at all interested in the truth. I claim that you only want to troll forums.

Now you tell me you do not take me seriously because I am more interested in evidence than theories??????????????????????????


What????


Wow. So you are interested in theories, yours, mine, tezzas, etc. but no evidence?

Sorry pal but I did not come here to join some circle jerk where people try to outsmart each other postulating things they will never prove.

I am actually interested in evidence, proof, you know...the truth.

Sorry you are not but thanks for pointing out exactly why EVERYONE here should ignore you.


Wow! Maybe you want to rephrase that post while the edit window is still open or you really just ended any reason to take you seriously.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Wow! Maybe you want to rephrase that post while the edit window is still open or you really just ended any reason to take you seriously.

pteridine lost the opportunity to be taken seriously when he tried to use McGraw as a witness to the light pole hitting the taxi.

He exposed his poor research about his own theory. He also showed that he appears to have no integrity by never admitting to his error.

At the very least, mmiichael did admit that he made a mistake when he tried to use McGraw.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
The implications are obvious to those who think about them - why would the media drive a story that has never be proven? Where is the accountability with respect to 'truth' on 9/11, when the media has never verified the story to be true?


It is apparent that you completely fail to understand the media. You believe that all stories driven by them are proved and verified by them. Do you believe that the media would only drive a story that has never been proven as part of an enormous conspiracy and not for any other reason? Do you believe that they never make mistakes in their reporting?
Do you believe that all aspects of 911 have equal importance?



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You believe that all stories driven by them are proved and verified by them.

I don't care about other stories. Your statement is false. I'm specifically discussing the media driven story that a light pole hit the taxi.


Originally posted by pteridine
Do you believe that the media would only drive a story that has never been proven as part of an enormous conspiracy and not for any other reason?

I don't know why the media chose to report that the light pole hit the taxi, when it has never been proven to have happened.



Originally posted by pteridine
Do you believe that they never make mistakes in their reporting?

Have you thought through the implications of this question, pteridine? Are you now admitting that there was a possbility that the media erroneously reported the light pole hitting the taxi?


Originally posted by pteridine
Do you believe that all aspects of 911 have equal importance?

Only the truth should be important, pteridine.

The truth in this thread has revealed that you've failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi. No doubt, with your difficulty surrounding McGraw, you are not well enough researched to manage your responsibility to prove your claim.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 

You are not interested in evidence, you are interested in demanding evidence from others.
I don't respond well to feigned incredulity or impetuous demands.

What is your evidence that AA77 did not strike the Pentagon? Prove a conspiracy, if you can.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You are saying that we must look at the lightpole-winshield story in isolation. You suggest that the media either didn't check the story other than taking Lloyde's word for it at the time or they are part of a conspiracy that needs lightpoles to impinge on a windshield for some unknown reason. You reject the idea that the media might publish a curiousity without having it verified by high definition video.
Are you further suggesting that any media inconsistencies are suspect and likely a conspiracy?
Should any statements made more than a year after the event be discounted as a result of the witnesses having false memories?


[edit on 11/27/2009 by pteridine]



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join