Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by pteridine
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?

My point, Sir, is that they haven't changed since then. In fact, they haven't changed since my father retired.

I shall explicate...

My Navy quiz was not for the purpose of estimating the technology present in a phased array radar on a guided missile destroyer, nor to explicate the differences between an Arleigh Burke and a Spruance. It wasn't to be a technological smarty pants. Some people get off on military talk, and some people like me listen politely and nod.

It was actually a much simpler "quiz" than you are implying, and this is where I explain why it is my faith in the fact that the military never changes that I don't buy mmichaels theories on the surveillance cameras.

My quiz was for the purpose of a) demonstrating that senior officers, simply put, have nicer things than enlisted, and in doing so pointing out that any building housing the Joint Chiefs of staff will have much nicer, much more up to date things than those that don't house flag, and b) to point out what our battlefield surveillance capabilities are (my hint since he seemed to be aware of the latest military technologies) since 04, and if we can do that on a battlefield, again, I hesitate to believe we would do less for the building that has at any given time, the President, head of intelligence, the CNO, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, brigade generals, etc.

From what they eat to what their offices look like there is a huge difference between what is given to the Pentagon and what is given to everyone else.

How does this quiz or yours or what your cousin told you, have anything to do with the Pentagon in September 2001?

Covered above. You are obfuscating the issue with your straw man. My point was not that the devil is in the details, but that it is in the simplicity of military life that we find our truth--at least in regards to why I don't believe they had crappy cameras at the Pentagon-- and that is that (and let me put it in layman's terms) people with stars on their shoulder get nicer crap than people that don't.

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

Ooops, sorry! I forgot.

...and this one time at band camp...

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Do you want to believe the commission appointed by the MOST inept, lying, hijacked government administration in the history of America
?

You mean that "ineptness" that all of you claim enabled the "government" to pull off the most sophisticated attack in history, without anyone being caught or spilling the beans???

Methinks you just got thrown out of your 9/11 "Truth" Movement, Donny 4 million.

May I call you spinster? lol
First of all I am not a you as in plural (more than one) in this post or any of my posts. Me thinks, you can't. Me thinks your jack jaw could get you thrown out of play school not just whatever MOVEMENT you are associated with. Is it the The daily movement? Solely methinks because you seldom have content. Answer questions with questions. And are more off topic with hind leg banter than most.
Now use some gray matter and answer the question in the quote or simply say, I dunno.
Here is the question so you can't say, er, I forgot what it was.

Do you want to believe the commission appointed by the MOST inept, lying, hijacked government administration in the history of America.
Pick one YES or NO. With an explaination if you choose. Thank you very much.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Donny 4 million]

Originally posted by jthomas
The burden of proof remains on you to refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon and demonstrate why we should believe otherwise.

It should be crystal clear why, Lilydale. Do you understand why, finally?

Now, get to work and convince the entire world that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon and no passenger bodies were found at the Pentagon.

What evidence?

Saying "the entire world" thinks something is not evidence...

Saying "you can't prove a AA77 didn't hit the pentagon" is negative proof...

Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form: "X is true because there is no proof that X is false." It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false.

The burden of proof remains on you to provide the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon and demonstrate why we should believe otherwise.

No photos, no videos, no eyewitness accounts...

You are the one making the claim.

----
Jthomas: There was a Unicorn at the pentagon
Lilydale: No there wasn't...
Jthomas: Refute my evidence!
Lilydale: What evidence?
Jthomas: The burden of proof is on you!

reply to post by A Fortiori


Yes it is true that the Pentagon has some things that are better than other units and also some things that are not as high tech. Mostly they have really keen stuff that is important to them and that they have daily need for. Maybe cams on the parking lot isn't one of them. Do they have other pictures? Maybe they do but don't want to reveal camera angles or capabilities. Do they have better defenses against attack? I'd bet they do, now.

Do you think things will change by the time you retire or are you not in the military?

[edit on 9/14/2009 by pteridine]

reply to post by jthomas


There aren't 1000 eyewitness reports of flight 77 striking the pentagon, there arent 1000 eyewitnesses.

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.

Look. This is getting old. I have to call it like I see it. Watching the things you all write tells me that you have an IQ at least higher than the average monkey and yet you keep running back to hide behind this "prove the negative" BS. It does not make any sense. You are all such paradoxes within yourselves and it is starting to make the entire lot of you melt away into some monochromatic slimy goop. It is really hard to sit here with a straight face and take seriously anything coming at me from goop.

You made the claim. You prove it.

reply to post by Lillydale

Originally posted by Lillydale

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 waiting for your evidence that shows the aircraft story to be false.

Look. This is getting old. I have to call it like I see it. Watching the things you all write tells me that you have an IQ at least higher than the average monkey and yet you keep running back to hide behind this "prove the negative" BS. It does not make any sense. You are all such paradoxes within yourselves and it is starting to make the entire lot of you melt away into some monochromatic slimy goop. It is really hard to sit here with a straight face and take seriously anything coming at me from goop.

You made the claim. You prove it.

I consider myself to be someone who seeks the truth, and I associate with the truth movement. Nevertheless, I have been distrusted by various heavies in this very same movement. I bring up arguments to truther sites that I don't know how to counter; through this, and through refusing to take short cuts when it comes to discerning the true motives of those who oppose us, I have been labelled a "skeptic" and even banned outright from some truther forums.

I'm not going to change on this, though. I can understand that emotions run hot when on this subject, but caricaturizing our opponents won't help our case; to the contrary, it hinders it.

As to the specific point at hand, what claim do you believe pteridine has made? I've been following this thread for about half of its life now and I am -so- tired of both sides claiming that the other hasn't "proven" this or that, only to find that instead of saying "you're right", the other side just says the same thing, only in reverse.

I just don't think that 2 wrongs make a right, and the same goes for evasions on both sides. Since no one else seems to be able to say this, I'll do it; -neither- side has proven many points. We can still discuss what's the most plausible theory, I think, but please, no more 'you haven't proven this or that'.

On the subject of proof, I still believe there's proof that the plane that approached the pentagon simply couldn't have pulled up from the dive it would have had to have made in order to approach the pentagon low and level as seen in the pentagon parking lot video of the event.

And can we all atleast agree that it would have been swell if an investigation were to be done as to what the pentagon cameras had seen?

I personally think that it's highly unlikely that they wouldn't have been able to capture the plane as it approached, and I find it especially interesting that Maguire didn't even mention those videos. Can we all agree on this as well? Somehow I doubt it, but I thought I might as well try :-p.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by scott3x]

[edit on 15-9-2009 by scott3x]

reply to Donny 4 million's post #338

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by pteridine

 

...Honestly, I think that most people generally -don’t- want to find a conspiracy involving elements of their own government. I generally think that wanting to find a conspiracy of this nature is kind of like wanting a ‘big bad wolf’ to be in your back yard; not exactly what most people desire.

However, while virtually everyone would prefer to not have the aforementioned scenario occur, people employ different approaches when they suspect something might be wrong. For many, what essentially occurs is what in a way can be seen as self preservation; if you can unconsciously persuade yourself that the big bad wolf is really a misunderstood dog who’s actually friendly once you get to know him, you avoid making a powerful enemy while still believing that you didn’t just chicken out of dealing with the aforementioned big bad wolf. This is what one of the former CIT members, Russell Pickering, apparently managed to persuade himself of; as far as I know, he’s no longer investigating anything to do with 9/11.

The alternative is to not be so easily persuaded. I have frequently thought of the role of truth movement detractors. On the one hand, it could be said that they are hampering efforts to get the truth told. And yet on the other hand, I think they are generally a good way of determining the wheat from the chaff; the chaff can’t withstand close scrutiny, but the wheat, or truth, can. Furthermore, some who today are on the side of the detractors could in the future cross the line; it’s certainly happened before. I think that crossing the other way hasn’t happened so often.

Thanks for keepin the spooks busy. They have nothing!

I'm glad you think (thought?) I was doing something productive, but I have serious doubts as to whether anyone here is a "spook". Just people who have different views. While I think that the truth movement's views are generally correct (there is, ofcourse, some dissent within the truth movement as well), this doesn't mean that we should dismiss the views of those who disagree with us just because they don't see things our way. Instead, I think we should continue to try to understand -why- they disagree with us, in an effort to come to an agreement as to what happened on 9/11.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
You realize they post no actual testimony of a cross examined witness and no explanation why. Then post a pile of elephant manure right out of the DC zoo instead.

I think their case is much weaker than that of the truth movement's. I tend to believe that they are somewhat partial to what official types and the mass media say, for whatever reason. But the way many on both sides describe the views of their opponents makes me feel ill. I just wish we could be more civil about it.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
911 is serious business.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
They seek only to protect their own and could care less about America.

Sorry, but I just don't buy this. Perhaps I'd get more accolades if I just ra-rahed with the majority of the truth movement and caricaturized our detractors. But I think it's better to be true to what I myself believe.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x
As to the specific point at hand, what claim do you believe pteridine has made? I've been following this thread for about half of its life now and I am -so- tired of both sides claiming that the other hasn't "proven" this or that, only to find that instead of saying "you're right", the other side just says the same thing, only in reverse.

You are right. That is all that is happening. Two sides telling the other to prove it and they are wrong. The difference is that I never made any claims whatsoever and pteradine has decided to defend the "OS." Cool, since he believes that story, he needs to back it up. I am simply questioning it and there is no way to prove a question. He claims that 19 terrorist hijacked planes and...you know the rest of it. I would really like some proof of that since in 8 years I have not seen anything convincing at all.

reply to post by Lillydale

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
As to the specific point at hand, what claim do you believe pteridine has made? I've been following this thread for about half of its life now and I am -so- tired of both sides claiming that the other hasn't "proven" this or that, only to find that instead of saying "you're right", the other side just says the same thing, only in reverse.

You are right. That is all that is happening. Two sides telling the other to prove it and they are wrong. The difference is that I never made any claims whatsoever and pteradine has decided to defend the "OS." Cool, since he believes that story, he needs to back it up. I am simply questioning it and there is no way to prove a question. He claims that 19 terrorist hijacked planes and...you know the rest of it. I would really like some proof of that since in 8 years I have not seen anything convincing at all.

Ok. I agree that there is no proof to many of the official story's claims. However, I myself am not sure that pteridine has ever claimed that he has proof of any of its claims, which is why I'd like to know which particular claim you believe he is ascertaining he has proof for.

Regarding proving a tenet of the official story wrong, as a matter of fact, I -do- think there is proof that the plane simply couldn't have made the approach as required by the light pole damage and by the pentagon parking lot video tape, as explained by Pilots' for 9/11 Truth founder Robert Balsamo and which I have explained here as well.

I also think that the idea that the pentagon videos would not normally have been able to record any plane about to hit it borders on the absurd; but bordering is not the same as being; regardless of the odds against it, I admit that there is a possibility, however minute, that they were not capable of recording the event. But it goes further then whether or not they could have recorded it. What's even more damning is that Maguire didn't even -mention- them in her cataloguing of confiscated video footage. And here, I must admit, I just don't understand official story believers. I mean, seriously, don't you guys atleast -question- why it is that she never mentioned them?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by pteridine

 

You don't need to have an alternative theory to understand that certain aspects of the official story do not match up to observable records or logical reasoning.

There is no concrete evidence.

There was lots of concrete. And remains of AA77, a Boeing 757. And passenger bodies.

You just find actual evidence SO inconvenient to your desired conclusions.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas

 

Actually, we've been constantly urging you to talk. But you absolutely refuse to back up your claims.

I wonder why you can't, impressme.

I and the rest of us have and do back up our creditable claims.

Then don't be such a bloody chicken to show us. Duh.

Originally posted by Jezus

So the only proof you have is that some one can't prove their wasn't bodies...

That is negative proof.

Nope. The only thing we have is someone who claims there wasn't passenger bodies and can't demonstrate how they know that.

Just like you can't.

But you knew that. And you've painted yourself into a corner from which you have no escape.

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas

 

Alright Jthomas, as I am sure you realize I have never made a claim that there was no bodies at the site. However the one thing that would lead me to believe there were no bodies is the fact that there was no wings found at the crash site.

Sorry, you haven't demonstrated that there was no wing wreckage at the Pentagon.

No one has any reason to accept your claim.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Do you want to believe the commission appointed by the MOST inept, lying, hijacked government administration in the history of America.
Pick one YES or NO. With an explaination if you choose. Thank you very much.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Donny 4 million]

I believe the massive evidence, from thousands of different and disconnected independent sources and eyewitnesses that was vetted, investigated, and which converge on the conclusion that Arab hijackers crashed AA77 in the Pentagon, is solid and unrefuted. I also believe the Bush Administration was inept, that government agencies were typically bureaucratically ineffective, as the 9/11 Commission report shows, and that many in the government tried to cover their asses for being incompetent in passing on information that may have exposed the bin Laden plot before it happened.

I have no reason to believe fanciful Truther conspiracy theories claiming "9/11 was an inside job," either MIHOP or LIHOP. That is why I ask you all to back up your claims and demonstrate it.

After 8 full years, all you have is unsupported claims.

Perhaps this will help:

John Farmer on how what the 9/11 Commission, public and media was told by military and government officials, 'was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue. Also, he answered the unspeakable questions that Glenn Beck felt merited the resignation of Van Jones from the Obama administration. He was offended by none of those questions.
www.bradblog.com...

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

There aren't 1000 eyewitness reports of flight 77 striking the pentagon, there arent 1000 eyewitnesses.

I didn't say there were, as you well know. Why fib, jprophet420?

There were over 1,000 people who saw, handled, removed and/or sorted the wreckage from inside the Pentagon under an open tent on the Pentagon lawn in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11.

Go talk to them.

The list of who to talk to can be found here:

Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

But you already knew that.

Originally posted by Lillydale
The difference is that I never made any claims whatsoever...

We ALL know you have, so why fib, Lillydale?

I heard on a radio talk show this morning where i live that people were told not to come into work on the morning of the event at the pentagon this all came to light after the host got an email and it said that the writers brother's family thought that he was killed in 9/11 but in-fact he was called out that morning at 06:00 hours telling them to move out to Fort Drum army base in upstate new york home of the 10th mountain brigade. The whole team that was there as a K-9 bomb squad was put under a "tight lip policy" and could not contact anyone for 5 days. they were then sent overseas with the 10th mountain brigade.

After this was told people apparently started calling in and one gentleman called in and his mother works for the NSA in the pentagon in the part that was hit. On the morning of 9/11 he went to school and and heard about the towers and became worried. when he returned home he found his mother was home and asked her "what happened!" she replied "I didn't goto work today" after a while he overheard his mother talking about that morning as her boss tld her not to come in that day and also all other heads of the department.

posted by gashi

I heard on a radio talk show this morning where i live that people were told not to come into work on the morning of the event at the pentagon this all came to light after the host got an email and it said that the writers brother's family thought that he was killed in 9/11 but in-fact he was called out that morning at 06:00 hours telling them to move out to Fort Drum army base in upstate new york home of the 10th mountain brigade. The whole team that was there as a K-9 bomb squad was put under a "tight lip policy" and could not contact anyone for 5 days. they were then sent overseas with the 10th mountain brigade.

After this was told people apparently started calling in and one gentleman called in and his mother works for the NSA in the pentagon in the part that was hit. On the morning of 9/11 he went to school and and heard about the towers and became worried. when he returned home he found his mother was home and asked her "what happened!" she replied "I didn't goto work today" after a while he overheard his mother talking about that morning as her boss tld her not to come in that day and also all other heads of the department.

Which agrees with April Gallup's account.

She was told to bring her child through security to her office, instead of Pentagon day-care in another part of the building. Her office was directly in the path of the explosive damage to the Pentagon. She and her infant son were buried in the building debris, but not burned by any exploding jet fuel. She saw no sign of jet fuel nor airplane debris anywhere inside before she and Elijah finally escaped the bombed-out Wedge One area of the building.

Her supervisor was not there; but safe off somewhere else; apparently forewarned of the explosives going off. The Commanding Officer of the destroyed Navy Center was safe off somewhere else, leaving a junior officer in charge. Acting CJCS General Meyers was MIA; safe somewhere else and he got promoted for his cowardice and incompetency.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8861d7576607.jpg[/atsimg]

There was no burning jet fuel splashing through the Pentagon alleged damage area, because alleged passenger DNA was allegedly found throughout the area where thousands of gallons of alleged burning jet fuel should have been splashing and burning up the fragile DNA.

Original image

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/87e6915579e7.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c1d89121b233.jpg[/atsimg]

There was absolutely no sign of burning jet fuel out in the A&E Drive.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3a4489744016.jpg[/atsimg]

No sign of burning jet fuel on the plastic cable spools, directly in the alleged flight path, and inside the alleged fireball shown on jthomas's alleged impact video still frame.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4efbb934c0be.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 9/15/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by jthomas
There was lots of concrete. And remains of AA77, a Boeing 757. And passenger bodies.

Cool...can you post the photos or videos or eye-witness accounts?

Originally posted by jthomas
Nope. The only thing we have is someone who claims there wasn't passenger bodies and can't demonstrate how they know that.

Just like you can't.

But you knew that. And you've painted yourself into a corner from which you have no escape.

So you actually admit that the only thing we have to support your claim is that we can't prove the opposite...

AKA Negative proof...

Originally posted by Jezus
What evidence?

Saying "the entire world" thinks something is not evidence...

Saying "you can't prove a AA77 didn't hit the pentagon" is negative proof...

Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form: "X is true because there is no proof that X is false." It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false.

The burden of proof remains on you to provide the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon and demonstrate why we should believe otherwise.

No photos, no videos, no eyewitness accounts...

You are the one making the claim.

----
Jthomas: There was a Unicorn at the pentagon
Lilydale: No there wasn't...
Jthomas: Refute my evidence!
Lilydale: What evidence?
Jthomas: The burden of proof is on you!

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Jezus]