Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by SPreston

Originally posted by pteridine
He said it hit the light poles which were right overhead. He must have seen it. The pieces hit the taxicab. He must have seen that, too.

Is this what constitutes evidence to you pteridine? He must have seen it?

Yeah, you missed the show, SPreston.

pteridine tried his brand of trickery to no avail. He painted himself into a far corner and then lost the plot with his McGraw claims. I wonder what he'll type when he decides to return - especially after he watches the CIT interview with McGraw.

He even had the disrespect to claim that I had nothing to offer and that I was trolling, all because I was asking him to prove his claim that the light pole hit the taxi!!! Go figure!!!

posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw

 

McGraw said "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car." How would he know that if he hadn't seen it?

Lloyde England was injured? His wife said he was not in the interview. Perhaps you have never watched the interview. Perhaps the Opus Dei priest Steven McGraw has also never seen the interview and is basing his statements on the wrong witnesses.

How would he know that? Perhaps the FBI told him. Perhaps they followed FBI procedure and threatened his family.

Could you please prove your claim that a light pole hit the taxi pteridine, or provide us with a complete retraction? Be forewarned that we require proof greater than the light pole must have hit the taxi or our benevolent government would never lie to us.

Don't see any bandaids on Lloyde standing here all day on the highway.

Do you see any evidence of injury pteridine?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0362c8dfd392.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston


The statement that Lloyd was injured was made by McGraw. Obviously, the injury was small or McGraw was mistaken.
He said that the light pole hit the cab. That means he must have seen it hit the cab which was only a few feet away.


[edit on 9/26/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine
He said that the light pole hit the cab. That means he must have seen it hit the cab which was only a few feet away.

That's a completely unfounded assumption by you, pteridine.

I guess you've been too shell-shocked by your poor logic to view McGraw's interview with CIT.

Your loss and you continue to prove it with each ill-informed post that you make.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


CIT interviews seem to be slanted toward CIT's predetermined conclusions. Given the number of witnesses that saw a plane strike the Pentagon, CIT's theories are unsupported.
Would you like to take up their arguments for a flyover, Tezza.

[edit on 9/26/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine
CIT interviews seem to be slanted toward CIT's predetermined conclusions. Given the number of witnesses that saw a plane strike the Pentagon, CIT's theories are unsupported.

Please show where McGraw stated that he saw the light pole hit the taxi, pteridine.

You've made this claim all day and you continue to avoid proving it.

reply to post by tezzajw


McGraw, must have sensed the lightpole striking the cab, which was a few feet away, through a secret, Australian, not-so-remote viewing technique. This must be the case as he said that the light pole hit the cab instead of saying he SAW the light pole hit the cab.
From now on, he has promised to state clearly that he saw, or Australian not-so-remote viewed, anything that he directly witnessed.

Originally posted by pteridine
McGraw, must have sensed the lightpole striking the cab, which was a few feet away, through a secret, Australian, not-so-remote viewing technique.

Completely unfounded speculation on your part.

You've failed, pteridine. You have not proven your claim that the light pole hit the taxi.

Pathetic, really...

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw

 

McGraw, must have sensed the lightpole striking the cab, which was a few feet away, through a secret, Australian, not-so-remote viewing technique. This must be the case as he said that the light pole hit the cab instead of saying he SAW the light pole hit the cab.
From now on, he has promised to state clearly that he saw, or Australian not-so-remote viewed, anything that he directly witnessed.

There are lots of things that people say they know happened yet did not see happen. Saying something happened is not the same as saying "I saw" something happen and you know it. You are not being the least bit honest with yourself. If it was the other way around you would accuse tezza of reading what he wanted into it. Instead you are reading what you want to into it and somehow it is ok.

reply to post by Lillydale


This may come as a shock, but many people, when they see something, state it as having happened but never say "I saw." In any case, the entire Lloyde England event is a distraction from the important events of the day, witnessed by many and spun by many more. The preponderance of evidence is that a commercial airliner struck the building. I know that you question if it was actually flight 77.

My question to you is what would you accept as evidence?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

This may come as a shock, but many people, when they see something, state it as having happened but never say "I saw." In any case, the entire Lloyde England event is a distraction from the important events of the day, witnessed by many and spun by many more. The preponderance of evidence is that a commercial airliner struck the building. I know that you question if it was actually flight 77.

My question to you is what would you accept as evidence?

No, that does not come as a shock to me at all. Unfortunately, it does not make you right either. You are still just presenting supposition.

What "preponderance of evidence" would that be, exactly? I have been reading here a long time and a member for a while and I still have seen barely any evidence of anything at all. Where is this preponderance of evidence?

What would I accept as evidence of what exactly? That a plane crashed there? That the lightpole was struck by a plane? That that plane was AA77?

reply to post by Lillydale


Well how about all the people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Do witnesses count for you? www.debunk911myths.org...

Originally posted by pteridine
This may come as a shock, but many people, when they see something, state it as having happened but never say "I saw."

Casual readers to the thread will note that the only 'shock' is pteridine's attempt to deflect his responsibility to prove his claim.

Remember that pteridine has claimed that the light pole hit the taxi but he has not proven it or retracted it.

He also claimed that I was a CIT/P4T drone and he has not proven it or retracted it.

pteridine's participation in this thread has been deceptive and underhanded. Do not let him forget that, while he continues to participate in this thread.

I've quickly typed this out. It's near to being accurate word for word. Bolding is by me.

McGraw's Testimony to CIT

McGraw:
And basically, without warning, there was, just the sensation of something coming over top of us. I didn't see anything in that, in that first... that first instant, but it was just the sense of something coming over the top of our cars... and it be about twenty or twenty-five feet. It seems the plane was so low that it hit a light pole, uh that was um, just ah on the edge of the highway on the, on the far side there, um before it came over the highway it clipped this pole, which I heard ended up being knocked over and hitting a taxi which was near my car.

CIT:
Now do you remember which pole it was, or was it the entire pole itself? The large part or was it a piece?

McGraw:
That's a good, that's a good question... um, umm my recollection is... is vague on that point, but, um...

CIT:
So you just saw it bounce over?

McGraw:
I didn't actually see the light pole go over or anything, no. I, I believe I, I later saw, you know, the evidence of the pole having been knocked over. Um, and I think that was just after the fact saw the evidence, piece of, piece of the light pole. I think may have only recalled seeing the top part of the pole, so maybe that was the only part that actually got knocked off, and it may not have been the entire pole being knocked down, but um, there was... I think that may have been the first noise perhaps, in that first second, that was, that was sensed... the noise of clipping the light pole, because then, the next instant was simply, I guess a natural reaction looking over to my right and 'cause the plane came right over and I, I did see the plane as it came in. My recollections are, simply that it came in somewhat controlled and straight.

Source Video from around the 2:30ish mark.

So much for pteridine's star witness to the light pole hitting the taxi, hey?

[edit on 26-9-2009 by tezzajw]

posted by tezzajw

Source Video from around the 2:30ish mark.

So much for pteridine's star witness to the light pole hitting the taxi, hey?

Gee willikers pteridine; you have never watched that video have you?

Here you have been clamoring on and on and on and on; and you have never even bothered to look at the testimony of Stephen McGraw? Have you ever viewed the testimonies of Lloyde England?

reply to post by SPreston


I have watched many videos edited to imply conspiracy. I discounted that video. If you would bother to read the other witness reports about the AA plane hitting the Pentagon you would see references to lamp posts being knocked over. Interestingly, you would not see any references to any flyover.
Lilly has not yet responded as to what evidence she/he deems necessary to show that it was flight 77 and not some other passenger aircraft.

posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston

 

I have watched many videos edited to imply conspiracy. I discounted that video.

You are hilarious. Edited to imply conspiracy?

The entire 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY official conspiracy theory has been edited to imply the truth. But it is not the truth is it? Any honest person with eyes and ears and mind wide-open can quickly detect the endless holes and contradictions and improbabilites and impossibilities and outright lies in the official conspiracy theory can't they?

Honest persons, which leaves you out doesn't it pteridine?

Could you please prove your claim that a light pole hit the taxi pteridine, or provide us with a complete retraction? Be forewarned that we require proof greater than the light pole must have hit the taxi or our benevolent government would never lie to us.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Well how about all the people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Do witnesses count for you? www.debunk911myths.org...

Seeing as how this list of witness contradicts Jthomas's list of witnesses, I would have to give them each about the same value. No one was able to identify the plain. SOP was abandoned that day. DNA from passengers has a dubious origin at best.

Witnesses are worthless in a story where witnesses contradict each other and in some cases present two completely different stories depending on who put their website together.

I do not understand why people like you cling to these so called eyewitness accounts anyway. A plane crashed. That plane will be identified by serial number and any passenger bodies found will be accounted for in the coroner's report.

You have no S/N checked parts and according to the coroner, no passenger bodies. You can tell me 20 people saw plane parts if you like. I do not really know that they would all know what a plane part was separate from a part from anything else. These plane parts were verified by no one so your witnesses hardly bring that end up.

I know it is nice to rant and rave at how you have all these witnesses so it must be true.

Ok, if it must be true, then SOP was followed and they could admit that there was no DNA to collect. Or you can show me another webpage full of people just saying things and call that proof too.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston

 

I have watched many videos edited to imply conspiracy. I discounted that video. If you would bother to read the other witness reports about the AA plane hitting the Pentagon you would see references to lamp posts being knocked over. Interestingly, you would not see any references to any flyover.
Lilly has not yet responded as to what evidence she/he deems necessary to show that it was flight 77 and not some other passenger aircraft.

Jthomas?

Why are you responding to Spreston about me? My post and his post have nothing in common.

I answered you - serial numbers!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bodies that you all claim to be found listed on the coroner report!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You just outright lied in the above though. You kept claiming McGraw MUST have seen the light pole get knocked over by the plane and hit the cab. You tried every way you could to defend it without actually producing the quotes to back you up. Now we have a video of the man admitting he did not see what you claim he saw and your response is to point out that I had not answered a different question?

What a joke you OSers are turning into. No wonder you all want us to go away so badly, you cannot hold up your end of this argument without lying and it is really getting sad.

Originally posted by SPreston
Could you please prove your claim that a light pole hit the taxi pteridine, or provide us with a complete retraction? Be forewarned that we require proof greater than the light pole must have hit the taxi or our benevolent government would never lie to us.

Would you accept this as proof that the lightpole hit the taxi - "But um...Lilly said something to me before and has not responded to my response to that yet so until then, I am somehow magically absolved from answering about my own contradictions in a completely unrelated conversation?"

Just wondering if I am the only person that thinks that is the saddest defense on here.