Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by ImAPepper

So, 6 months. Any leads? Will you be holding Ba Ba Booey accountable? Seriously, can you share any of the correspondence you have had in the past 6 months?

Thanks in advance.

It will be an ongoing process and we have no inclination to work on the timetable of anonymous detractors who obsess over our every move while misrepresenting specific details to their advantage.

You're welcome in advance.

Anyway thanks guys.

I've had enough fun exposing the lies and fallacious arguments of the dedicated pseudo-skeptics who typically prefer to lob personal insults from the comfort of forums that are too chicken to allow me to post.

But I've had my fill attending to these fallacious circular arguments and false claims for tonight.

However I REALLY appreciate all of your efforts to keep this discussion alive and visible for over 100 pages!

Amazing work fellas.

Thanks to all of you and to ATS for providing the venue and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

reply to post by pteridine

Huh?

More wishful thinking from you, pteridine?

I don't know/care if Lagasse is reliable or unreliable. It has no bearing to me.

It doesn't change the fact that you have failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi. It doesn't change the fact that you exposed your weak research by trying to use McGraw as a witness. It doesn't change the fact that you want to interview Lloyde's corpse to prove some crazy notion of your's.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Anyway thanks guys.

I've had enough fun exposing the lies and fallacious arguments of the dedicated pseudo-skeptics who typically prefer to lob personal insults from the comfort of forums that are too chicken to allow me to post.

cough cough..YOU"VE exposed fallacious argument? Wait a minute, in this thread alone you've used:
Argument from popularity
Argument from false authority
Special Pleading
Ad Hom
Personal incredulity
and
LIED


the only one spinning circular arguments are you and your ilk.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by jthomas


Yeah, right, Ranke, like when you claimed Robert Turcios was pointing to your fantasy NOC flight path when he was actually pointing to the correct SOC flightpath.

It's amazing watching you drone on with your blatant lies knowing full well anyone who views the interview will quite easily be able to tell he is referencing the NORTH side throughout the entire interview INCLUDING the part from which you have taken an out of context deceptive freeze frame.

Actually, you know I've told the truth about all of your claims for all the time you've been sprouting them. Turcios clearly motions how AA77 passed on HIS left, motioning with his hand and arm how AA77 passed on the south side of the CITGO from his front to behind him, the exact path AA77 took before hitting the Pentagon.

But that is only one of your screw-ups since I've shown for years that you cannot provide ANY eyewitnesses or positive evidence of any jet "flying over and away from the Pentagon.

I can't wait for the day you, Aldo, and Rob Balsam, are on your knees apologizing for lying to the families of the victims of 9/11 and to all of us who have exposed your irrational and sorry claims all these years.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I've had enough fun exposing the lies and fallacious arguments of the dedicated pseudo-skeptics who typically prefer to lob personal insults from the comfort of forums that are too chicken to allow me to post.

But I've had my fill attending to these fallacious circular arguments and false claims for tonight.

We're all sure you're a a fine, honourable, forthright gentleman Craig.

But the manipulated videos you've produce have knowingly misled the gullible and incidentally insulted people's intelligences.

You've deceptively avoided using the testimony of the hundreds who clearly confirm that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, that DNA of passengers retrieved from the wreckage, and countless type confirming forensic evidence.

Yuo attempt to create doubt on what is know but supply no tangible evidence for your unsupported counter claims,

More to the point you've in essence accused innumerable working Americans of treason and willful complicity in the commitment of premeditated mass murder.

A serious issue you may some day regret.

This isn't personal skepticism or an unsubstantiated claim on my part. All is a matter of public record.


M

[edit on 29-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by RipCurl

 

Stop lying about me.

We're not lying about you.

You have provided no quotes to back up your wild accusations and they are off topic anyway.

I just caught you lying about Robert Turcios - again. Have you no shame, Ranke?

Originally posted by RipCurl

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
words..

One of your witnesses has spoken out. He assures that he saw an AMerican Airlines 757 plane hit the pentagon.

Care to apologize to Lagasse?

www.apfn.net...

AND apologize to Robert Turcios, too?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by RipCurl
no it only proves that since 2001 people like you and the CIT have continued to twist Lagasse's claims.

RipCurl, three years ago you made two posts on ATS, then disappeared.

Now, three years later, you have started to post again on ATS and on your first day back you've made a false claim about me.

You've joined a growing list of people who enjoy making false claims about me. You will need to search my 4400+ posts and quote me where I twisted Lagasse's claims.

Tezz, fess up. Do us all a favor and support all of your various claims with evidence, ok? Remember, no one has provided a stitch of evidence in all these 8 years that refutes the evidence - the evidence you've already admitted you refuse to investigate - that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Anyway thanks guys.

Running away, again.

NO eyewitnesses to any "flyover".

Lying about your own "eyewitnesses".

Same old CIT nonsense.

Originally posted by jthomas
Tezz, fess up. Do us all a favor and support all of your various claims with evidence, ok?

jthomas your continual failure to read has been noted. State that claims that I have not supported.

Your failure to do this will be your admission that you are making more fake allegations about me.

Originally posted by jthomas
Remember, no one has provided a stitch of evidence in all these 8 years that refutes the evidence - the evidence you've already admitted you refuse to investigate - that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Where have I been concerned about the alleged Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon?

In this thread, many people have stated that the light pole hit the taxi. It has been more than eight years and no one has been able to prove it, jthomas.

Originally posted by tezzajw
In this thread, many people have stated that the light pole hit the taxi. It has been more than eight years and no one has been able to prove it, jthomas.

Taxi intact 9:36. With a smashed windshield 9:37. Airliner had just passed over knocking down light poles. One pole on the road a few feet away from the taxi. Photographed. Driver supplied corroborating testimony.

Eyewitness testimony, abundance of circumstantial evidence, no conflicting evidence, no plausible alternative explanation.

Proof that would stand up in any court of law.

Where's the flyover proof?


[edit on 29-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Taxi intact 9:30.

Prove it?

Originally posted by mmiichael
One was a few feet away from the taxi. Photographed.

It means nothing other than there was a damaged light pole on the road next to a damaged taxi.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Driver supplied corroboration.

Driver discredited himself in follow-up interviews and demonstrated that he is an unreliable witness.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Eyewitness testimony,

Yet you have supplied none.

Originally posted by mmiichael
abundance of circumstantial evidence,

You're serious are you? Trying to claim that circunstantial evidence is proof? Please, mmiichael, you don't fool anyone with that claim.

Originally posted by tezzajw
You're serious are you? Trying to claim that circunstantial evidence is proof? Please, mmiichael, you don't fool anyone with that claim.

This is getting more and more ridiculous as page 100 is reached. You've learned well from Craig Ranke how to not talk about what will embarrass you.
Avoid the primary issues and hammer away at trivia, semantics, minor inconsistencies.

Whether the windshield was broken by the light pole or the Wrath of the Virgin Mary is irrelevant to what was stated in the OP article. That Citizen Investing Trauma or whatever's claim they can prove no actual plane hit the Pentagon.

This is patently false information. No one should get to this point and think anything resembling substantiation of this absurd claim has been presented.

Anyone with an open-mind not tainted by circulated false information can sample the massive amounts of information on what happened at the Pentagon that day. There is no ambiguity about the plane's path and final destination.

Not because this is some Official Story put out by the US govt but because it is hard fact.

Those who doubt will always doubt. Those who make a career out of feeding this doubt will continue as long as people choose to avoid the truth.

Nothing typed by anyone in any message on any list can change that.






[edit on 29-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Whether the windshield was broken by the light pole or the Wrath of the Virgin Mary is irrelevant to what was stated in the OP article.

But you have claimed that a light pole hit the taxi. How the windscreen was broken is relevant to your claim, mmiichael.

You still have not been able to prove that the light pole ever hit the taxi.

Originally posted by tezzajw


You still have not been able to prove that the light pole ever hit the taxi.

It did. or do you not believe what Lloyd Englund said?
web.archive.org...://www.surviv
orsfundproject.org/SFPFinal/survivors_fund_project_clients/l
loyd.asp

Lloyd, 69, began the morning of September 11, 2001 like most days, driving his taxi cab. A passenger in Rosslyn told him what had happened at the World Trade Center so he turned on his radio and headed home. As he approached the Navy Annex, he saw a plane flying dangerously low overhead. Simultaneously, the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy pole off Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by RipCurl]

Originally posted by RipCurl
It did. or do you not believe what Lloyd Englund said?

Do you mean the same Lloyde England who discredited himself in his interviews with CIT and showed that he is an unreliable witness?

If you believe that what he said was the truth, then you should have no problem proving it.

Go right ahead... you're free to try and prove his story.

Originally posted by RipCurl

As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened.

By the way, which boom did they hear and which explosion did they see?

Also, you have failed to quote me where you claimed that I twisted Lagasse's testimony. That doesn't bode well for your first day back on ATS in a while, RipCurl. You have proven that your prepared to make false claims about a fellow member... poor form.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by RipCurl
It did. or do you not believe what Lloyd Englund said?

Do you mean the same Lloyde England who discredited himself in his interviews with CIT and showed that he is an unreliable witness?

Seeing that CIT badgered the poor man. and USED him and his hospitality. I trust Lloyd's claims (as recorded back in 2005, before HE met the CIT) than I do the likes of ranke, who twisted the very statements Lloyd gave them into something other than the truth.

If you believe that what he said was the truth, then you should have no problem proving it.

Go right ahead... you're free to try and prove his story.

There are tons of pictures where his cab is shown as being hit (there is a nice circular HOLE in his windshield where , with the LIGHT pole next to his cab that have been available online since 2002.


Why should I do your homework? We are not in high school.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by RipCurl

As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened.

By the way, which boom did they hear and which explosion did they see?

why dont you talk to Lloyd Englund and find out? otherwise it clear by his account:
1) saw a low flying plane over the road he was traveling heading toward the pentagon.
2) a light pole then hits his car
3) as he stops and gets out to pull the light pole out from his car, he heard a loud boom from the pentagon.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened, and where that explosion came from


I said your "ilk' by the way has twisted and continue to twist Lagasse's claims.

Please read carefully. though keep trying tezz. you're grasping at straws is extremely entertaining.

remember, WE are not making the extraordinary claims. You and your ilk are. If you dont believe the light pole didn't hit Lloyd's cab, then its up to you to provide proof what exactly did, and make sure it lines up with testimony by Lloyd Englund and the news reports on t hat day that even stated that the light pole hit a taxi cab.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by RipCurl]