Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by jthomas
You made this claim: "...explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

Demonstrate that there were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon or withdraw your claim. It's as simple and straightforward as that.

Enough of your evasions, Lilydale. You're making a fool of yourself.

Not really....you still have not proven that there were any passengers found at the Pentagon crash scene. Why are you evading this question? It is the truth right? You seem to know it for a fact so it should be simple to demonstrate.

Seriously, what is easier to show? The truth or a lie? Which one is easier to prove?

You have never even come close to trying to prove any of your wild claims. You are making a fool of yourself by insisting that you do not need to prove your crazy claims but that other people need to prove that your crazy claims are not true. It does not work that way.

Prove AA77 hit the pentagon.

Prove bodies of passengers were found.

Unless you can prove either of these very simple to prove truths, you really have nothing left worth reading.

Originally posted by jthomas
SPreston's pictures do not show which way they aim. He only claimed which way they aimed.

Right, that makes sense. The pentagon rings the roof with cameras but not in order to capture the entire side of the building, they are all pointing at the same obscure point right?????

The cameras are set up in order to 'see' the entire lawn and some of the sky above it. The cameras are spaced enough to be redundant. Please do some simple research.

I'm sorry you are upset that I noted your fallacy.

When?

I await your evidence that videos cameras "should have" caught the actual crash of AA77 into the Pentagon as I still wait for your refutation of the evidence that AA77 did hit the Pentagon.

Do you need another 8 years to do it?

Nope, I need just as long as you do apparently. How many times do I have to ask you to prove that AA77 DID hit the pentagon????

By the way, when do we get to hear your evidence that lots of the hundreds of people all around the Pentagon ever saw a jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon?"

Oh, now I get it. You have a learning disability. My apologies. I was responding to you as if you were a normal person. I have said this about 20 times and most of them directly to you. Apparently you cannot read, do not read, or just have no short term memory.

I NEVER ONCE ENDORSED THE FLYOVER STORY

. Now you are demonstrating you desperation. You cannot actually refute what I say. You cannot prove I am wrong about anything. You cannot successfully argue any of my points away so instead you keep running to someone else's argument. Unless you can quote me saying there was a flyover or anything close to that, you need to stop asking me to prove it.

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by jthomas
Scott3x, I can only go by what Lilydale claims directly.

Fair enough. Guess we'll have to wait for her response on this one.

No bodies, no evidence of bodies. Whatever. I still never made the claim that bodies were found. My little stalker claims they were found because they were on AA77 when it crashed into the pentagon. It really does not matter how specific my statement is. Prove bodies were found. Prove they were from that plane. Then come ask me to prove they were not.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Your Navy quiz notwithstanding, 2001 was 8 years ago. How do you think things might have changed since then?
What was the drive system on an Ashville class PG and what was the cause of most casrepts? What was a KW-26? Who inspected the mess? What was a sea bat? What powered the Mk45? What is the issue knife for EOD? What was the radio call sign for Com6thflt? Where was the golden rivet? Where was the RPIO in the Med? On what street was the "gut" in Valetta, Malta.
How does this quiz or yours or what your cousin told you, have anything to do with the Pentagon in September 2001?

Many fine sea stories begin with a classic phrase and yours should, too.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
I'm not sure where she lives, but in the DC Metro area everyone knows someone who worked at the Pentagon site that day. Almost every fire, rescue, and emergency vehicle in the region was parked out front.

People talk and a lot of people have talked about what they saw that day. All I can say as I didn't battle the fires (just sent pizzas to the firefighters) is that there were a lot of unanswered questions on the part of people that were there.

Enough, in my opinion, to not tell people that they are making "fools" of themselves.

Thank you for pointing out that people around there all knew someone working at the scene and yet, you did not mention people seeing any bodies; only that there were questions. I hope thomas is paying attention here.

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm sure the Pentagon still serves bacon n' eggs in the cafeteria. They still drive 3 year old cars and have out of date equipment and technology hanging around in most areas. You can't keep replacing expensive hardware with the 2024 design model every few months.

More to the point, the 10-15 year advance is yet another exaggeration. Sure they keep ahead for military and warfare advantages. But the US military does not work in isolation. Hi-tech research companies, academics, consult on and implement most of their products with them or as sub-contractors.

Technology grows in a lot of places, the military's single advantage is the budget to research and implement working models. But they can't keep the theoretical basis of the technology to themselves.

Mike

Can you then explain why we are supposed to believe that 8 years ago the Pentagon had extremely inferior cameras to those found on an office supply warehouse?

reply to post by A Fortiori

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Do you think I want to believe that my government is run by mad men? No, because that actually means that all is lost because they are, in fact, too powerful if that is the case.

I believe 9/11 was an inside job; but that doesn't mean that I believe that anyone is too powerful to be dealt with by the rest of society. However, "the rest of society" is rather large, and views differ on how things should be dealt with. When we're talking about the amounts of money and power involved in starting a "war on terror" (think of the amounts to be made as an arms dealer, for example), the principles of many may become severely bent. It reminds me of the democrats' admonishment of Bush Administration's use of illegal wiretapping; essentially, the idea that it shoudn't be done again, but that they would suffer no punishment for having done it. I was going to name torture as well, but I'm no longer so sure that that's truly been stopped.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Please, I'm serious. Make me believe you. I'd love to go back to feeling the way I did before.

I think I understand where you're coming from there. Still, I can't help but think of the man who regretted taking the red pill in "The Matrix". Ultimately, as a race, I think that while it may temporarily be nice to live with falsehoods such as the official story regarding 9/11, in the long run I believe it can be quite detrimental; as the old saying goes:
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on -me-.

By the same token, I can easily imagine that 1 or more events of a similar nature to 9/11 may have been foiled due to people being more vigilant against such things since then. Charlie Sheen bringing up Cheney wanting to do a false flag operation against some in the U.S. military in order to get the U.S. into Iran comes to mind...

[edit on 13-9-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by Jezus

There was a Unicorn at the pentagon...

I don't need photos or video evidence...

Tell me about. I have an invisible dragon in my garage and I am still waiting for Thomas to prove that I do not.

reply to post by A Fortiori


I was talking about the video cameras. Someone (Seventh I'm pretty sure) already started it here in this forum. I looked up the make and model from within the thread but didn't save the link.

I'm only talking about the cameras. People gave you three stars and you were talking about something completely different. I stand by my ascertation: The cameras and the quality of video are decent for the time period, & 1 FPS does not equal exactly one frame per 1000 milliseconds in the real world.

reply to post by SPreston


Many good points there SPreston; I already knew some, but certainly not the one regarding the seconds the cameras would have seen the plane. Thanks :-).

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
OMG!!
If you read or listen to the stupid, ignorant, ultra fantastic, dribble of the gl, spook, reason impaired clan. Then you can laugh it off as I do. Always ask them for CROSS EXAMINED testimony. Ya know what, they got. None. They have NONE from a PERP either. Their spew comes totally from 911 hearsay. The store houses of evidence and testimony of the entire country are congested with the moot material. Only after a jury trial does that stuff hold any water, and maybe then just a little.
Think OJ
Do you want to believe the commission appointed by the MOST inept, lying, hijacked government administration in the history of America?
The one that simply let 911 in it's totallity happen. I do not. I will not believe their shills. Nope.

It is difficult to believe that you are as incredulous as you project but your impressive valley girl salutation certainly makes you a person to be reckined with. Of course, you must have something much better than everyone else and the entire ATS community awaits the exposition of your evidence. Please bring your evidence forward so that the public clamor will force the Federal prosecutors to begin building cases against the guilty.

Originally posted by Lillydale
Can you then explain why we are supposed to believe that 8 years ago the Pentagon had extremely inferior cameras to those found on an office supply warehouse?

Last reply to you.

You're incapable of reading and comprehending.

Not everyone immediately updates their technology to the latest on the market.

As I posted elsewhere, when Obama took over the White House offices they found crappy equipment with programs running that hadn't been updated in 6 years, and plenty low tech. This was headquarters for the Commander in Chief.

Deny a Boeing 757 with passengers onboard crashed into the Pentagon.

I say the government had Santa Claus and his reindeer drop a bomb on the Pentagon? That's why they won't release those security camera pictures.

Can you prove I'm wrong?

God Luck.


M

[edit on 13-9-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Lillydale
Can you then explain why we are supposed to believe that 8 years ago the Pentagon had extremely inferior cameras to those found on an office supply warehouse?

Last reply to you.

You're incapable of reading and comprehending.

Not everyone immediately updates their technology to the latest on the market.

As I posted elsewhere, when Obama took over the White House offices they found crappy equipment with programs running that hadn't been updated in 6 years, and plenty low tech. This was headquarters for the Commander in Chief.

Deny a Boeing 757 with passengers onboard crashed into the Pentagon.

I say the government had Santa Claus and his reindeer drop a bomb on the Pentagon? That's why they won't release those security camera pictures.

Can you prove I'm wrong?

God Luck.


M

No, I cannot prove you are wrong. I am one of the people trying to point out that you cannot prove a negative so you are just making my case for me. No, not everyone does update their technology right away. My warehouse had those cameras 8 years ago. I did not say they got them 8 years ago. They had for several years before that.

I am not sure what it is that you think I am not comprehending. You have offered nothing informative. Where is your proof of what kind of cameras they had?

Can you read? I asked specifically why the camera at the gatehouse would be so much more advanced than the ones on the roof then? You cannot answer that. You also cannot back up your claim about 1fps. I can read and I am responding to everything thrown at me. You are ignoring key questions, pretending you did not read solid points, and just saying things before stating you are running away from this. I respond to everything that is tossed at me while you cherry pick and then run. You cannot back anything you said up, you cannot prove any of it, an you cannot answer my questions so if you are no longer responding to me...I am not really going to miss it.

Originally posted by Lillydale
I asked specifically why the camera at the gatehouse would be so much more advanced than the ones on the roof then? You cannot answer that. You also cannot back up your claim about 1fps. I can read and I am responding to everything thrown at me. You are ignoring key questions, pretending you did not read solid points, and just saying things before stating you are running away from this. I respond to everything that is tossed at me while you cherry pick and then run. You cannot back anything you said up, you cannot prove any of it, an you cannot answer my questions so if you are no longer responding to me...I am not really going to miss it.

OK, let's try this. The security cameras at the gatehouse were more advanced - because that's the way it was.

One wing of the Pentagon was renovated and reinforced the others weren't - because that's the way it was.

That's how life works. Technology improves. They don't run out and buy the latest models and have them installed everywhere possible the first day. The building is a half a century old. Everything in it functioned as needed. They upgraded when they saw a need.

The security cameras functioned fine for their purposes for a decade.
They eventually would have replaced them with better ones. But they hadn't yet.

No mystery.

No ones running away. Just tiresome repeatedly stating the obvious and being asked to counter anything some kid making a Youtube thinks is unusual.

No one had saw Santa Claus at the North Pole that day.

M

Originally posted by mmiichael
OK, let's try this. The security cameras at the gatehouse were more advanced - because that's the way it was.

One wing of the Pentagon was renovated and reinforced the others weren't - because that's the way it was.

That's how life works. Technology improves. They don't run out and buy the latest models and have and on and on yadda yadda yadda.

Proof? Evidence? Backup? All this is is what you think. It is nice that you think and can express it but that does not somehow magically make it the truth.

Maybe this will help - when did they purchase the cameras and what model were they?

Originally posted by Lillydale
Proof? Evidence? Backup? All this is is what you think. It is nice that you think and can express it but that does not somehow magically make it the truth.

Maybe this will help - when did they purchase the cameras and what model were they?

Michael Jackson is dead. The hired MD gave him medications that precipitated a fatal heart attack. It's the Official Story.

I haven't seen pictures of his corpse. They exist,
I don't know if he had his prosthetic nose on at the time. I don't know how many rings he had on. There are probably a million small details no one can answer.

But the Official Story says he's dead. That he had a doctor adminstering medications to him.

Websites say his death was faked. They provide proof.

Websites always say something was faked. They always provide proof.

Life's a canard.


M

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Lillydale
Proof? Evidence? Backup? All this is is what you think. It is nice that you think and can express it but that does not somehow magically make it the truth.

Maybe this will help - when did they purchase the cameras and what model were they?

Michael Jackson is dead. The hired MD gave him medications that precipitated a fatal heart attack. It's the Official Story.

I haven't seen pictures of his corpse. They exist,
I don't know if he had his prosthetic nose on at the time. I don't know how many rings he had on. There are probably a million small details no one can answer.

But the Official Story says he's dead. That he had a doctor adminstering medications to him.

Websites say his death was faked. They provide proof.

They provide "evidence" not proof. There is a dictionary. Put your calendar away and get a dictionary. There are other words in there aside from 'canard.'

Websites always say something was faked. They always provide proof.

Life's a canard.


M

and there it is. What does this have to do with the topic? What is your point?

Originally posted by ugie1028
Ive noticed that this truth movement has been really speeding up lately.

will it be taken seriously if enough people stand up and ask??

I've noticed that as well, and I'm really impressed in particular with the work of Richard Gage and the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, of which I am a proud sustaining member now (although only at the $10.00/mth level).

Once they reach 1000 professionals on their petition, it's to be submitted, along with a series of papers, to Congress (not that that's going to do anything).

It doesn't matter if people sit up and take notice, or, if indictments are made against Cheney and Co.

No, the only thing that matters ultimately, is the historical record, and that an alternative viewpoint is available for all people a generation from now, which is based on reason and fact ie: explosive demolition of the twin towers, that's a fact, which grade 10 physics students will prove time and again, armed with nothing but a few videos, a stopwatch and some basic equations.

It's now history - question is, how will the historical record ultimately render and portray it? Hopefully, based in reality, and not fiction.

To this end, people like David Ray Griffen have rendered a valuable service to future historians looking back on "the crime of the Century".

Originally posted by Lillydale

They provide "evidence" not proof. There is a dictionary. Put your calendar away and get a dictionary. There are other words in there aside from 'canard.'

I am glad that you understand what evidence is. Do you have any evidence that what happened at the Pentagon was not the result of an aircraft striking it? That would be the aircraft seen by many, the aircraft contaning passengers who were subsequently interred, the aircraft containg thousands of gallons of fuel that were seen burning.
All are waitibg for your evidence that shows the aircraft story to be false.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Lillydale

They provide "evidence" not proof. There is a dictionary. Put your calendar away and get a dictionary. There are other words in there aside from 'canard.'

I am glad that you understand what evidence is. Do you have any evidence that what happened at the Pentagon was not the result of an aircraft striking it? That would be the aircraft seen by many, the aircraft contaning passengers who were subsequently interred, the aircraft containg thousands of gallons of fuel that were seen burning.
All are waitibg for your evidence that shows the aircraft story to be false.

Do you have any evidence that a plane full of passengers hit the building? It is nice to keep repeating tha bodies were found there but they were not. You have no evidence that anything you said happened so why should anyone else be expected to prove otherwise? The OS is AA77 crashed there full of passengers, right? Have any evidence?

P.S. I am glad you gave lilly credit for understanding what evience is. Now perhaps you should educate yourself on the difference between evidence and what "many" people claim they saw. Evidence and hearsay are two different things. Sorry.

None of you have even come close to providing evidence that any passenger bodies were interred, let along there to begin with. Why is that?