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.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The fact here is that NoC is irreconcilable with the physical damage.
I didn't say it discredited them... I said it makes them misleading, inaccurate and, with that response from the P4T'er, intellectually dishonest. If you find one misleading or inaccurate statement, one must ask how many more are there?
Let me put it another way... Do you think piloting a plane makes you an expert at terrorism, accident analysis, accident reconstruction, or architectural engineering?
They are trying to sell videos. They don't want to hear that one small easily correctable error in their information is misleading.
As to your question, the only way to prove the Government wrong is to prove their facts incorrect or inconsistent or miscalculated. The only other thing you can do is provide an opposing theory that is equally likely to be born out by the facts.
Let's do it this way. What government distortions are you talking about?
I've pointed this out before so I will point it out again. Nobody is interested in playing these dumb games with you where you deny all evidence presented. It's painfully obvious that you cannot be convinced by any theory, and so you must remain ambivalent. Oddly enough this is not how you behave though.
So, here's a direct question to you. You claim the government is lying, and that there was no plane crashed at The Pentagon, however you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. Can you show me anything that meets your standard of proof to show that a plane did not impact the Pentagon? I suspect any evidence you can provide would easily be countered by stronger "official" evidence. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
Originally posted by cashlink
I am not using any theories in my statements I am presenting “facts” the Government story *is* the Theory. I am ‘NOT’ looking at opposing new theories I am looking for bare FACTS!
I don't need to remind you that there is no "government story", do I? How often do we all have to remind you that there is only the evidence, massive, independent evidence, from thousands of different sources, none of it ever originating from the government.
no "government story
evidence, from thousands of different sources, none of it ever originating from the government.
Why is it that you insist on repeating your canard that is so obviously false?
If you want to have any rational conversation on the actual evidence you are going to have to give up making the premiseyour argument as the conclusion you are trying to PROVE .
You cannot continue to go around in arguing in circles as you all have for the last seven years.
So TRY to refute the massive evidence.
Originally posted by cogburn
This video is from the Double Tree across the highway from the Pentagon. I'm sure you've seen it.
I don't see a plane fly into or out of that video in any way inconsistent with the 9/11 report and there is no evidence of alterations (missing, misplaced pixels, bad coloration, etc).
posted by cogburn
This video is from the Double Tree across the highway from the Pentagon. I'm sure you've seen it.
I don't see a plane fly into or out of that video in any way inconsistent with the 9/11 report and there is no evidence of alterations (missing, misplaced pixels, bad coloration, etc).
posted by djeminy
Just prior to the explosion, you see the 'white' plane heading toward the pentagon.
Look carefully, and it becomes quite clear it IS the 'white' plane in question.
The cars passing at that moment in the near vicinity, seems to be at the same level as the roof-line of the pentagon.
The 'white' plane cannot possible be at this level a second prior to impact, and at the same time be flying one or two feet over the lawn!
The video clearly shows the fly-over.
Thanks cogburn.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by djeminy
Logically, it's invalid evidence.
There is no way around this and I feel it is not valid to source it as proof of anything.
posted by djeminy
Yes Preston, good on you. You spotted it! Thanks a million!
Craig, look again, carefully, closely. You see the light 'thing' just to the left of the explosion, just ahead of the oncoming car, but of course a second or so before the explosion takes place.
I think they overlooked this, because you really have to take a good look to spot it!
Now that it's in the public domain for all to see, they have to swallow the camel. This cannot be undone.
It conclusively proves a fly-over, as far as I see it!
Ps!
Preston, for the sake of accuracy, I think the object you point to in the last (4th) still frame from the video as the 'plane', seem to me to be stationary, as I think this object is present before the explosion takes place!
Is it possible you could double-check this for me, with your better skills? Thanks!
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) a security camera recording taken from the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, Virginia that shows the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. This new video evidence, obtained in relation to a Judicial Watch lawsuit against the FBI, seemingly contradicts a sworn FBI affidavit in a related case claiming that the Doubletree security recordings “did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.”
www.judicialwatch.org...
Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by jthomas
I don't need to remind you that there is no "government story", do I? How often do we all have to remind you that there is only the evidence, massive, independent evidence, from thousands of different sources, none of it ever originating from the government.
no "government story
Really! Then what is the 911 commission report?
evidence, from thousands of different sources, none of it ever originating from the government.
So far all the Official story evidence does come from the Government, prove me wrong?
Why is it that you insist on repeating your canard that is so obviously false?
Please show where I am making false statements “with” proof?
We have come together with a unity of purpose because our nation demands it. September 11, 2001, was a day of unprecedented shock and suffering in the history of the United States. The nation was unprepared. How did this happen, and how can we avoid such tragedy again?
To answer these questions, the Congress and the President created the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Public Law 107-306, November 27, 2002).
Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate "facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001," including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission.
In pursuing our mandate, we have reviewed more than 2.5 million pages of documents and interviewed more than 1,200 individuals in ten countries. This included nearly every senior official from the current and previous administrations who had responsibility for topics covered in our mandate.
govinfo.library.unt.edu...
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by djeminy
I completely disagree.
The video shows nothing and is invalid evidence anyway because it has been confiscated, sequestered, controlled, and provided for by the suspect.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Within the context of an investigation into government involvement of 9/11, all evidence controlled and provided for by the suspect is not valid evidence in support of the suspect's story.
Begging-the-question fallacies
"It is not uncommon to encounter an argument that smuggles the arguer's position on the claim at issue into the wording of one of the premises. Such an argument may be said to beg the question."
- T. Edward Damer, "Attacking Faulty Reasoning", ISBN 0-534-21750-8
Originally posted by djeminy
What is your take on this white 'thing' then?? What is your explanation?