Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I did see you praising them. I was trying to determine if you were being sarcastic.

I absolutely was being sarcastic. Sorry but I was not on the board trying to tell other people that I am smarter or know more because of the newspapers I may choose to read. Not only was that a stupid argument, the fact that Murdoch bought the times pretty much seals the deal for partisan political influence. Sorry, but unless I am waving my daily news sources around to prove superiority of myself over others, you do not really need to worry about what I read or do not read and watch and listen to.

Seriously now, what if I needed to call witnesses for a trial. How do you think it would go over if I called the exact same person 3 separate times to ask them the same question each time?

edit to fix my question.



[edit on 21-9-2009 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by jthomas
blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, nothing, rambling, nonsense that there would ever be a single reason why there should ever be another investigation.

But of course that fact will fly right over your heads like all facts and evidence have so far.

OK. I will give you one more shot. You are little more than a gnat that needs to be repeatedly swatted away, only to return again doing nothing but buzzing around and being annoying. You make no sense. I have had to watch people over and over tell you the same things the other people already told you, over and over. You have no clue what you are even arguing about. You cannot make your case so instead you have spent two weeks trying to get me to make mine? I made my case, pal. No passenger bodies on the 10th so no passenger bodies on the 11th. It is really that simple. I am not sure why you are having such a hard time with this.

I will give you one last chance to give me any reason to not put you on ignore. Just show us the coroner's report that claims bodies were found strapped into seats. That is all you have to do to prove your case. You cannot and you will not. You have one more post and I am definitely done with you.

Originally posted by jthomas
Stop being a chump. Just show us how Liliydale KNOWS "there were no passenger bodies at the crash scene."

If she knows it, she can demonstrate it.

Stop being ridiculous and answer the question.

Say it isn't so. Is this what I will be saying goodbye to? Someone else completely asks you to back up your claim. You cannot back up your claim. You tell them to show you that I cannot back up my claim?????????? LOL. Did you fall on your head?

Jezus asked you to back up your claim. That has nothing to do with me. I guess you cannot back up your claim even without me to toss the argument back to. This is really getting sad.

A negative belief is the default position...until someone provides evidence of something I have no reason to believe it.

Originally posted by jthomas
show us how Liliydale KNOWS "there were no passenger bodies at the crash scene."

If she knows it, she can demonstrate it.

Originally posted by jthomas
Show me that no passenger bodies were recovered.

"show [demonstrate]...there were no passengers bodies"

You keep changing the words but it boils down to one very simple concept...

Negative proof - en.wikipedia.org...

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

Originally posted by Jezus
"show [demonstrate]...there were no passengers bodies"

No, silly. He does not expect you to show that there were no bodies. He expects you to show how I know that there were no bodies. That makes way more sense does it not?

reply to post by jthomas


Grrrrrr JThomas you are so annoying

Do you get paid to troll the 9/11 forums???

I had a look at some of your threads and they are all pathetic attempts at discrediting the 9/11 truth movement. Like CameronFox and a few others, this seems to be all that you do. IMO you are either in denial, being paid to troll or just plain stupid.

There is so much evidence pointing to an inside job. Do you just ignore it all?

I have a few questions for you, it would be great if you could answer even one of them. For the record, I am no expert in any field. I am just a curious tennis coach who lives in New Zealand.

1. Why do you think they are not releasing the 80+ security tapes?

2. Why can't they link Osama Bin Laden to 911?

3. Why did the 9/11 Commission report fail to mention WTC7 at all?

4. Why did the Bush Admin make over 930 flase statements?

5. Why are you so sure the OS is true when half the world has serious doubts?

Peace

reply to post by Lillydale


You do not need to keep apologizing. I just wanted an opinion on sources of news and I am not concerned about your intentions or whether people think you are smarter or know more.
The judge might be annoyed and ask you whay you didn't ask the three separate questions at one sitting. Are you trying to say that multiple news publishers owned by the same entity would produce similar coverage with a similar slant? This reinforcement is a common thread when multiple outlets use the same source materials whether those outlets are commonly owned or not.

Originally posted by pteridine
Casual readers will note that whenever Tezza brings up a topic, such as "all the evidence" and "politicians' " statements, he will resort to tactics of deflection when he finds himself in an uncomfortable position.

Casual readers to the thread will note that pteridine has lost the plot with his above comment.

If I knew what you were trying to imply, I'd have a go at answering you. However, your off topic rambling isn't productive to the thread.

I'm quite comfortable watching you stumble with your meaningless replies.

Originally posted by pteridine
How alarming do you think the information that the investigation yielded is? Somewhat alarming, very alarming, or completely damning? Do you think CIT is on the right track or are they off the mark?

CIT have documented independent witnesses who gave a conflicting version of the alleged flight path. Furthermore, CIT showed that Lloyde's story is questionable.

Any thorough official government investigation would have cross examined Lloyde, yet his name is never mentioned in an official government document.

Strange, huh?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

You do not need to keep apologizing. I just wanted an opinion on sources of news and I am not concerned about your intentions or whether people think you are smarter or know more.

Obviously you do not get it. I do not care if you do not care. I was replying to someone else who was bragging that they knew more because of the simple fact that they read the NYT. I said it was FOX in print. You started asking me where I get my news from. You must have cared to keep bothering me over something that was not said to you to begin with.

The judge might be annoyed and ask you whay you didn't ask the three separate questions at one sitting.

My apologies. That is not what I meant to ask. I meant to ask about calling the same person 3 separate times to ask the same question 3 separate times. Sorry.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by tezzajw

CIT have documented independent witnesses who gave a conflicting version of the alleged flight path. Furthermore, CIT showed that Lloyde's story is questionable.

Any thorough official government investigation would have cross examined Lloyde, yet his name is never mentioned in an official government document.

Strange, huh?

I wonder how many of the selected flight path witnesses had theodolites or laser rangefinders. Could they be in error? Maybe they just weren't used to seeing high speed, low altitude jets hitting the Pentagon.

Why would Lloyde be mentioned separately, anyway? Debris struck his cab and no one was hurt. I'm sure his comments were included along with those of the other bystanders. Witnesses weren't "cross examined;" that is what happens in a court of law when the prosecution and defense get to ask questions. If anything, he was just interviewed as were many who were there. See the difference?

First time I have seen this video.

It was well done and documented sources that can be checked.

The cab drivers strange discussion about the situation was bigger than he was, he was just a small player, and admitting it was planned is going to be hard to debunk.

Also, if it is true that the witnesses now will not talk to anyone about the event, then the question is why? If the truth is the truth, then speaking about the event would not change anything.

Great post S & F

Originally posted by pteridine
Why would Lloyde be mentioned separately, anyway? Debris struck his cab and no one was hurt.

Please point me to where this is officially mentioned in an official government report.

Please prove that it happened, pteridine. So far, not one single official government story believer has ever proven that this happened.

Originally posted by pteridine
I'm sure his comments were included along with those of the other bystanders.

Please direct me to where Lloyde's comments were mentioned in an official government report.

Casual readers to the thread will note pteridine's uncertainty about the official story, when he states that he is 'sure' that Lloyde's account was officially mentioned.

pteridine is making claims that he has not supported.

Originally posted by pteridine
If anything, he was just interviewed as were many who were there.

Are you sure about this, pteridine or are you just guessing? You've not supported this claim that you're making.

Please, tell us all how you intend to prove that the Lloyde England story was true and where we can find his account in the official government report.

I would just like to ask one question to all the debunker and other readers of this thread. What about the hijackers who are alive? The ones that are reported to be still alive of course, I believe it is 6 of them.



Not the full video but a little clip from Zeitgeist, for the full final edition Zeitgeist Remastered If you've never seen it, please watch all of it.





[edit on 9/22/2009 by TheAntiHero420]

Originally posted by Lillydale
You have no clue what you are even arguing about. You cannot make your case so instead you have spent two weeks trying to get me to make mine?

The only case I am making is that you are unable to support your claim that "there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

I keep asking you to do so and you keep refusing.

My case is obviously very solid.

I made my case, pal.

Yet you continue to refuse to show me your evidence for your claim. I have NO reason to accept your unsupported claim. Neither does anyone else.

No passenger bodies on the 10th so no passenger bodies on the 11th

The 10th is completely irrelevant. Why make a stupid comment like that? Now, demonstrate how you know "there were no passenger bodies at the crash scene" on September 11.

What is your source? How do you know? Why do you evade providing your evidence for your claim? Are you afraid the NWO is going to "take you away."

Enough of your silliness, Lillydale. The only thing you are accomplishing is showing how foolish you Pentagon no-planers are. The massive evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon that you refuse to acknowledge (because to acknowledge it would mean you have to debunk it) demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt that AA77 was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. Those who claim that it didn't bear the burden of proof to demonstrate it. And your first job is to acknowledge the evidence and refute it. If you continue to be in such extraordinary denial, just exactly what do you think you will ever accomplish?

Just give us your evidence or retract your claims. It's that simple.

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by jthomas

 

here's 250 reasons you might want to ponder:

killtown.911review.org...

it seemed to "nudge" me over to the side of another investigation.

That's a new one, considering the media the source of actual evidence.

And from Killtown, no less.

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas

 

Then why don't you simply just prove her wrong?

You don't understand the "burden of proof" and you never will. Deniers never do.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
Stop being a chump. Just show us how Liliydale KNOWS "there were no passenger bodies at the crash scene."

If she knows it, she can demonstrate it.

Stop being ridiculous and answer the question.

Say it isn't so. Is this what I will be saying goodbye to? Someone else completely asks you to back up your claim. You cannot back up your claim. You tell them to show you that I cannot back up my claim?????????? LOL. Did you fall on your head?

Mumbling incoherently isn't helping you present your evidence that "there were no passenger bodies at the crash scene."

Originally posted by Jezus
A negative belief is the default position...until someone provides evidence of something I have no reason to believe it.

I have no reason to believe Lillydale's claim "there were no passenger bodies at the crash scene."

Do you?

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
reply to post by jthomas

 

Grrrrrr JThomas you are so annoying

Asking 9/11 Truthers to support their claims does annoy them.

Do you get paid to troll the 9/11 forums???

I get to "just ask questions", too.

I had a look at some of your threads and they are all pathetic attempts at discrediting the 9/11 truth movement. Like CameronFox and a few others, this seems to be all that you do. IMO you are either in denial, being paid to troll or just plain stupid.

Truthers do believe that but in fact there are more of us skeptics who routinely show the problems with so-called "9/11 Truth", including, bit not limited to, irrational thinking, misrepresentations of facts, failure to support claims, repetition pf previously-debunked claims, extreme failure to think of, or analyze, the implications of claims made, dismissal of actual evidence, etc., etc. etc.

In fact, I and other skeptics represent the real world you would have to face outside of internet forums, those of who would demand truthers support their claims. 9/11 "Truthers", especially the wacky Pentagon no-planers I've been engaging lately, don't have a clue that they bear the burden of convincing the rest of the world that they have any case at all.

There is so much evidence pointing to an inside job. Do you just ignore it all?

No, there are so many claims of an "inside job" that have never held up to scrutiny. How can you possibly ignore the difference between unsupported claims and evidence?

I have a few questions for you, it would be great if you could answer even one of them. For the record, I am no expert in any field. I am just a curious tennis coach who lives in New Zealand.

Here is the perfect example of standard Truther methodology, the "just asking questions" approach.

1. Why do you think they are not releasing the 80+ security tapes?

2. Why can't they link Osama Bin Laden to 911?

3. Why did the 9/11 Commission report fail to mention WTC7 at all?

4. Why did the Bush Admin make over 930 flase statements?

5. Why are you so sure the OS is true when half the world has serious doubts?

Do you not know how many times your questions have been repeatedly addressed for years?

If you are not paying attention to the answers already given, then what is your purpose, to keep asking the same questions? (Watch how Truthers will now jump out of the woodwork and claim Jthomas can't answer the questions, as if the answers depended solely on me!!:lol

So, go find the answers and come back and tell us which questions are even legitimate.

Originally posted by jthomas
The massive evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon that you refuse to acknowledge (because to acknowledge it would mean you have to debunk it) demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt that AA77 was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. Those who claim that it didn't bear the burden of proof to demonstrate it.

Without a shadow of a doubt?

Photos? Videos? Eyewitness statements?

You keep talking about massive evidence but have never provided any in this entire thread...

Those who are making a claim that something specific happened are the ones with the burden of proof...

"I don't believe that bodies were found" is the default position until some one provides evidence of it...





[edit on 22-9-2009 by Jezus]