Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

reply to post by mmiichael

Originally posted by mmiichael
Scientific people are pretty anal. They know what's going on around them especially if theres is something of high profile and interest. The faked evidence would also have to fly past them as well.

As I mentioned in my last post, the DNA may well have actually been from the alleged flight 77 passengers; the real issue may well be, where they really obtained from the pentagon? All we know is that an FBI team allegedly recovered them. What's interesting is that they were allegedly discovered in 2 contradictory places; both at the entrance whole and at the exit hole. Do you know the identity of the agents that allegedly recovered them? Furthermore, why did they put the area near the exit hole as off limits? As you may know, the exit hole was fairly round in shape; while the official story postulates that a fireball created the hole, without providing any evidence that a fireball could actually have done it (to my knowledge), I personally think it's far more likely that a wall breaking kit did the damage.

As to scientists, I think it would be good at this point in time to reference David Ray Griffin's book Debunking 9/11 Debunking once more, for his take on scientists and their work for the Bush administration, from page 144:

Already in 2003, the editor of Science spoke of growing evidence that the Bush administration has undermined the scientific integrity at federal agencies by "invad[ing] areas once immune to this kind of manipulation."(6) Later that year, the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform published a document entitled "Politics and Science in the Bush Administration". It described "numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings". In 2004, a statement accusing the Bush administration of engaging in "distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends" was signed by 62 renowned scientists; by December 2006, this statement had been signed by over 10,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.(8) If agencies of the Bush administration would produce flawed scientific analyses to promote the administration's agenda on issues such as the environment and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, as these studies show, then it would hardly be surprising that a Bush administration agency would produce a scientifically flawed report to rebut evidence that this administration was responsible for treason and mass murder.

We do not, of course, like to think that scientists would prostitute themselves to support immoral and illegal causes. However, the record- from scientists who denied a link between smoking and cancer to scientists who have denied the reality of human-caused global warming- shows otherwise. Becoming a scientist does not, unfortunately, immunize people from common human motives and emotions, such as greed, ambition, and cowardice, that sometimes lead normally decent human beings to do indecent things.

reply to post by mmiichael

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
KJ's insistence that Michael was lying concerning certain things got to me, but we -do- agree that Michael was mistaken concerning said things, so I'm hoping we can just leave it at that.

I don't follow every jot and titty you guys throw around. Not sure what I was wrong about. I don't claim to be right or remember everything correctly.

Thanks. I certainly agree that a lot of things are brought up, and when you mix that in with emotions, things can certainly be missed. I'll try to get you up to speed on this. The meat of the matter can actually be seen in this post of yours, I believe. Specifically, the following part:

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You can quote me ever saying what you claim I said

Your years ago disproven fruit loops theory of the Big Bad Government blowing up the Pentagon just might still be proven if you find a discrepancy in an account of what happened to airplane wings that were blown to smithereens in half a second.

You said it was MY FRUIT LOOP THEORY. OK. Prove I ever put that theory forward or you are apparently a liar. What do you call it?

As nothing else plausible can explain the demonstrable sequence of Flight 77 leaving Dulles and ending up in pieces with passenger bodies in the Pentagon
- by may accounting, any explanation that preclude it crashing into the Pentagon is a Fruit Loop Theory. Whether you came up with your own or subscribe to one of the many, semantics notwithstanding, I'll call it's yours.

What you didn't seem to understand is that KJ vehemently disagreed that the theory you ascribed to him was his. And I don't just mean that he didn't come up with it; I mean that he has categorically stated that he doesn't agree with it.

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Originally posted by mmiichael
Scientific people are pretty anal. They know what's going on around them especially if theres is something of high profile and interest. The faked evidence would also have to fly past them as well.

Can you please supply something, ANYTHING that proves that anyone at any DNA lab did anything to follow the chain of posession of samples brought to them? Are you claiming that when the FBI dropped off the samples, the people at the lab made the FBI prove to them where they found it?

It seems like you are just saying what you hope is true and not what actually is but I would be happy to be corrected.




[edit on 7-12-2009 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Can you please supply something, ANYTHING that proves that anyone at any DNA lab did anything to follow the chain of posession of samples brought to them? Are you claiming that when the FBI dropped off the samples, the people at the lab made the FBI prove to them where they found it?

The names of the labs and some of the administrators have been supplied on this thread.

If you feel you need specifics and elaboration you can contact them.

Do you have any information that indicates they falsified their reports or that there was any obstruction? If so supply it to this forum.







[edit on 7-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael


The names of the labs and some of the administrators have been supplied on this thread.

I am not the one making the claim that they did the due dilligence to ensure the samples they were testing came from the place we have been told and they were most likely told they came from.

YOU MADE THAT ASSERTION, DID YOU JUST MAKE IT UP OR IS IT BASED ON SOMETHING?

If you feel you need specifics and elaboration you can contact them.

I would ask them, but they have not made this claim. YOU HAVE.

Do you have any information that indicates they falsified their reports or that there was any obstruction?

If you do not start reading the things you respond to, I will have to put you on ignore and I hate to do that. Try to follow along.

I NEVER SAID THEY FALISIFIED ANYTHING. YOU CLAIMED THE LABS MADE SURE THE DNA CAME FROM THE CRASH SCENE AT THE PENTAGON.

EITHER YOU ARE JUST MAKING THAT UP OR YOU CAN PROVE IT.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I NEVER SAID THEY FALISIFIED ANYTHING. YOU CLAIMED THE LABS MADE SURE THE DNA CAME FROM THE CRASH SCENE AT THE PENTAGON.

EITHER YOU ARE JUST MAKING THAT UP OR YOU CAN PROVE IT.

I conveyed the information made publicly available. You'll have to contact the people involved for specifics, security measures, other details.

You have not supplied any information that conflicts with or brings into question the assumption of standard procedures.


[edit on 7-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

KJ

You even seem to have p****d off the good natured Scott who is supposed to be on your side. That ought to be telling you something.

It most certainly does. It tells me that you think this is some fun little game with sides to be taken. I am not on anyone's side and if someone here wants to make excuses for someone who makes 'mistakes' regarding the truth over and over again, that is his problem.

Anyways, that is by the by, but I would appreciate an answer to my query of a couple of days ago. You will recall I posted a sad picture given in evidence at the Moussaoui trial :-

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

You said in relation to it : " That picture is not a passenger. It was DNA tested and identified. "

If what you said is true I would like to know the identity of that body and that it was not an A 77 passenger please ? On receipt of that information I want to make further enquiries.

Ah, well let me most sincerely appologize for not seeing you ask me for this before. It raises a very interesting question though.

Are you telling me that you went into trial evidence and dug up two pictures to present as the bodies of passengers from AA77 and you did not even bother to check if that was true first? See, since they were used in the trial, they were ID'd. That is the only reason they could be used.

You are honestly admitting that you have no problem digging through evidence for pictures but cannot be bothered to check what they are actually pictures of? You admit that you presented them as passenger bodies even though you really just never bothered to check?

Now you want me to go back to your evidence and explain where it was identified to you?


Is that how it works now? So if I publish a picture of a UFO over NYC and claim that is what really took down the towers, I am right until you go and prove where the UFO really came from?



I will be more than happy to make you look bad but the least I can do is offer you enough time to go back and do even the most basic research about the items you are trying to pass off as evidence of something.

This is how the real world works. You showed us two bodies. Those photos were evidence in court. They were identified so they could be used as evidence in court. You dug them up to prove that passenger bodies were found. Why can you not prove that those are passenger bodies?

See how honesty works? Want to call me wrong or a liar? Cool. I will be happy to correct you or appologize but you first. Can you prove the pictures you showed us were the bodies of passengers as you claimed they were?

Originally posted by mmiichael



I conveyed the information made publicly available. You'll have to contact the people involved for specifics, security measures, other details.

You have not supplied any information that conflicts with or brings into question the assumption of standard procedures.

Scott really defended this?

You made a claim. You need to back it up.

I know that the people working at labs have names. I also know that labs have phones and addresses. That is not what I am asking you to prove.

Prove your claim or even just point out where you have already done that.

Here it is...

Either you are LYING about the people at the lab having any knowledge about where the samples actually came from or you can prove it.

I do not need to supply any info. I have not made any crazy claims.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

You must be an old banned member because...

...quoth the member who 'joined' in September, 2009 whilst speaking to a member who dates back to 2007....

An incalcitrant stance, and refusal to accept valid evidence when presented repeatedly, over and over, is a refuge of the devout.

You guys really do get proud of yourselves for repeating lies such as 'proof has been given.' Thanks WW for showing everyone that you have the ability to repeat unproven claims as well.

Why is it that you debunkers keep saying things but refuse to offer this proof or link to it or describe where it can be found?

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Alfie1
KJ

You even seem to have p****d off the good natured Scott who is supposed to be on your side. That ought to be telling you something.

It most certainly does. It tells me that you think this is some fun little game with sides to be taken. I am not on anyone's side and if someone here wants to make excuses for someone who makes 'mistakes' regarding the truth over and over again, that is his problem.

What you call excuses, I call probable explanations. But perhaps we can agree to disagree on that part.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by mmiichael
I conveyed the information made publicly available. You'll have to contact the people involved for specifics, security measures, other details.

You have not supplied any information that conflicts with or brings into question the assumption of standard procedures.

Scott really defended this?

This? I defended the possibility that Michael hasn't lied, but has merely been mistaken.. several times.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You made a claim. You need to back it up.

Actually, he doesn't, but it doesn't help his credibility.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I know that the people working at labs have names. I also know that labs have phones and addresses. That is not what I am asking you to prove.

Prove your claim or even just point out where you have already done that.

Here it is...

Either you are LYING about the people at the lab having any knowledge about where the samples actually came from or you can prove it.

There is a third option, which I think is the most probable one- he has assumed that they have knowledge about where the samples came from.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I do not need to supply any info. I have not made any crazy claims.

I don't think his claim is crazy. I think his claim is rather normal; so many people place faith in various institutions, be they religiuos, governmental, or the mass media. This faith is often misplaced. I recently watched the Wachowski brothers' rendition of "V for Vendetta" again. Quite educational, I think.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x

I don't think his claim is crazy. I think his claim is rather normal; so many people place faith in various institutions, be they religiuos, governmental, of the mass media. This faith is often misplaced. I recently watched the Wachowski brothers' rendition of "V for Vendetta" again. Quite educational, I think.

Let me try something Scott.

I'm going to claim that CIT is willfully acting as a disinformation source to discredit the Truth Movement.

Can you prove to me that didn't get various witnesses, drunk, stoned, paid off to put their testimonies on tape? How do we know there weren't two or three takes taken of them pointing into the sky? That the ones in the edited version were selected to present a certain case and others were ignored?

Do we really know anything about a couple of guys who come out of nowhere and make outlandish claims that conflict with masses of other reported data and testimony?

Is there any reason to believe anything they tell us more than the analysis and information supplied by hundreds of career professionals with reputations to protect who have been providing information for decades?

What's easier, to bamboozle a dozen confused or uncertain secondary witnesses or hundreds of people who saw the same thing and have demonstrated levels of credibility elsewhere?

What's cheaper and easier to pull off - a CIT con job or the US government faking a plane crash which would involved a co-ordinated effort of hundreds and risk discovery.

You won't get this for sure. You've taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker. But someone with some level of objectivity might be reading and understand logic and probability.

M

reply to post by mmiichael

Wow... mmiichael, do you realise that Craig is a member of ATS and that your claims against him may be violating the terms and conditions?

You've made a lot of accusations against CIT in that post. How about some proof to back them up? You might find that you'll need to retract those claims, apologise to Craig or possibly explain why you're trashing another member.

Remember that you have not proven your specific claims that:
- the light pole hit the taxi.
- thousands of people saw the plane depart.
- hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon, knocking over light poles.

Originally posted by tezzajw
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Wow... mmiichael, do you realise that Craig is a member of ATS and that your claims against him may be violating the terms and conditions?

Craig Ranke runs a website whose information I consider false and misleading.

He is welcome to debate his findings and analysis here at any time.

I'm not interested in the unsolicited opinions of anyone incapable of forming their own conclusions on the subject of this thread.

reply to post by mmiichael

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
I don't think his claim is crazy. I think his claim is rather normal; so many people place faith in various institutions, be they religiuos, governmental, of the mass media. This faith is often misplaced. I recently watched the Wachowski brothers' rendition of "V for Vendetta" again. Quite educational, I think.

Let me try something Scott.

I'm going to claim that CIT is willfully acting as a disinformation source to discredit the Truth Movement.

Can you prove to me that [they] didn't get various witnesses, drunk, stoned, paid off to put their testimonies on tape? How do we know there weren't two or three takes taken of them pointing into the sky? That the ones in the edited version were selected to present a certain case and others were ignored?

As to that last point, all you have to do is look at the non-edited version. As to your other points, I think the probability is rather low. Most importantly, I can't imagine what -motive- they'd have for doing this.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Do we really know anything about a couple of guys who come out of nowhere and make outlandish claims that conflict with masses of other reported data and testimony?

They didn't come out of nowhere. They've been around for quite some time. Seecondly, I don't understand why you believe that their claims are outlandish. Thirdly, I have never seen that their north side flight path witnesses conflicts with any reliable data.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Is there any reason to believe anything they tell us more than the analysis and information supplied by hundreds of career professionals with reputations to protect who have been providing information for decades?

Michael, it's one thing to cavalierly state the above; it's another thing to offer evidence that it's true. But first:
1- What information are we talking about?
2- What career professionals are we talking about?

Originally posted by mmiichael
What's easier, to bamboozle a dozen confused or uncertain secondary witnesses

The Citgo gas station witnesses are primary witnesses; and they all concord that the plane's approached the pentagon from the north side, not the south side.

Originally posted by mmiichael
or hundreds of people who saw the same thing and have demonstrated levels of credibility elsewhere?

You need to get into names here. I believe that CIT has done an excellent job of demonstrating the unreliability of the south side witnesses.

Originally posted by mmiichael
What's cheaper and easier to pull off - a CIT con job or the US government faking a plane crash which would involve a co-ordinated effort of hundreds and risk discovery.

I have seen no evidence that it would involve a co-ordinated effort of hundreds. Perhaps a select team could have pulled it off. As to the risk of discovery, yes, there is that. But it's not like this is the first time that an inside job was committed. Or do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald actually killed Kennedy?

[edit on 8-12-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x
I have seen no evidence that it would involve a co-ordinated effort of hundreds. Perhaps a select team could have pulled it off. As to the risk of discovery, yes, there is that. But it's not like this is the first time that an inside job was committed. Or do you think that the Lee Harvey Oswald actually killed Kennedy?

Scott,

I think you are a genuinely sincere person and I thank you again for your interventions to maintain civility in this discussion.

Lee Harvey Oswald is as relevant to this discussion as the traitorous activities of Benedict Arnold.

A hijacked Boeing was flown into the Pentagon. This was clearly established by 10:00 AM, Sept 11, 2001. There was plane wreckage right there for anyone to see. Minutes before all had been normal. The plane itself was seen coming in. One could hardly miss it.

Let me ask you frankly, do you really think people right there at the crash site are stupid enough not to be able to tell what had happened? Cleaning up after did a single person say "There ain't no plane here?"

Forgot to mention, there were confirming phone calls made from the plane as it was happening. The woman or women who made the calls have never been seen again and their matching DNA was found in the wreckage.

So you can add to the list of your possible conspiracy collaborators in the mega cover-up scheme, the phone companies would also have to falsify their records to corroborate the 'theory' of Flight 77 not being flown into the Pentagon.


This discussion has been based on denial so thick it would embarrass a bunch of school kids. To avoid what is there questions are framed:

"How do we know sourced information is credible?" Which really means "I refuse to believe it because it will make me feel ridiculous."

The fact that solid independently confirmed evidence is summarily dismissed as "Official Story" and defacto unreliable, but a handful of recorded amateur video testimonies are accepted as legitimate - pretty much indicates the depth of this discussion and real life experience levels of the conspiracy advocates.

Under the pretense of examining evidence you and others are struggling to find affirmation of any kind for a conspiracy theory for which no proof whatsoever exists. A concocted theory that conflicts with solid facts and defies credibility and logic.

But you will persist because you want to believe something even when there is nothing to support it.

I could say a lot more, but I've wasted enough time here.

I hope you some day discover something called "common sense" and learn it's value.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by scott3x

What you call excuses, I call probable explanations. But perhaps we can agree to disagree on that part.

Do you mind terribly if I ask just how many "mistakes" and "probable explanations" are ok before it starts to look like someone is willfully being disingenuous? Will you also admit that basically all you have done is pointed out that mmichael is so terribly ignorant that he is barely qualified to form his own opinion?

Originally posted by scott3x
Thanks, spared me having to repeat myself on this. I suspect he may have missed me trying to get this across to him; I did make a lot of points, after all. Hopefully this time around...

With all due respect, Scott - I think you should give K a little more credit. See how many times you have to suspect that mmichael may have missed something or misquoted or accidentally attributed something to someone else or stated a 'fact' that turned out to be wrong, etc. I am just saying. You keep pointing out how he is making 'mistake' after mistake after mistake after mistake. It does not look like a pattern to you yet? I am not looking for the fight K is but I cannot help but wonder how you are still overlooking this even as you yourself are pointing it out.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Just for your reading pleasure, here's a link to 87 eyewitness statements all collected prior to 2004 so the event was somewhat fresher in their minds than anything collected more recently. I would have pasted them all in the thread but that would certainly incur the wrath of members and management alike so apologies if I'm making you work

87 Eyewitness Statements

The big question is - are these the statements you lost?

Lost? No. This is the collection of statements that have already been presented and then scrutinized to no satisfaction. Far too many of them contradict each other. This has been covered. How do you suppose we handle that? Do conflicting statements cancel each other out or add up to make some magical new story to you?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

You must be an old banned member because...

...quoth the member who 'joined' in September, 2009 whilst speaking to a member who dates back to 2007....

An incalcitrant stance, and refusal to accept valid evidence when presented repeatedly, over and over, is a refuge of the devout.

And who's refuge is this constant lie of presented valid evidence that is never actually presented?