Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by tezzajw

Casual readers, note once more, mmiichael's failure in logic

He has tried to avoid, dodge and deflect his burden

note the complete lack of substance

you further dig yourself deeper into an illogical hole

Where in any of my posts have I mentioned a crane?

Reinforced light poles cemented into the ground by a busy highway that are suddenly lying on the ground have either been impacted by something powerful, been uprooted by cranes, or there's magic involved.

If no plane flew over, there were no cranes, then all that's left is magic.

Pass that on to the "Citizen's Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California."



[edit on 8-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Reinforced light poles cemented into the ground by a busy highway that suddenly are suddenly lying on the ground have either been impacted by something powerful, been uprooted by cranes, or there's magic involved.

Interesting theory but I don't know why you're telling me about it. You already have your own theory that you've failed to prove.

To retain some sense of credibility in this thread, you need to:
Prove the light pole hit the taxi.
Prove that there were thousands (hundreds) of people who saw the flight depart.
Supply me with the names of any people, standing in front of the Pentagon, who saw the light pole hit the taxi.

Now, remember, you can't supply me with McGraw's name again. He wasn't a witness as you failed to correctly research his witness statement. You admitted to getting it completely wrong with McGraw.

Approximately how many people do you think were standing in front of the Pentagon, who saw the light pole hit the taxi? I just want a rough idea for now, so I can estimate the time that I will need to email them. I won't pin you to an exact number here, you're free to offer me a guess that may vary without challenge.

I suspect that you're currently compiling that list for me, so I'll make some time tomorrow to send my emails to them.

Originally posted by tezzajw
To retain some sense of credibility in this thread

Credibility?

There are people who discuss with a straight face theories of lamp poles being pulled out of cement to simulate fake planes passing by.

Anyone interested in credibility is miles from here.

This one's strictly pure entertainment.

The focus is on how many hoops a troll is willing to jump through to get any kind of attention.

Hopefully an astute Moderator will put it out of it's misery soon.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by tezzajw

You are not the instructor in this particular venue. You have kept a double standard and this is obvious to all, including the casual readers that you like to refer to in your stock scripts. You have made demands that no one will comply with.
I claim that the official story is closest to the actual events and, so far, neither you nor anyone else has proved that any other scenario is plausible. All we see are trivial inconsistencies amplified by those who would profit from them in some way. You claim to search for truth yet the person who wrote your signature says you are a troll. Both of you can't be correct. Which will you choose to edit?

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Jezus
A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

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

You guys keep saying the same thing over and over again.

You claim because Tezzajw can't prove something ELSE happened...the official story MUST have happened...

A request for an alternative scenario is being made because it is being said that the plane + passengers > lamp pole > Pentagon scenario is unproven.

But it is demonstrably validated by thousands of pieces of hard data, testimony, photos, etc. Nothing conflicts. All confirms.

Finding inconsistencies in initial reporting and later commenting does not change that.

If there is a plausible alternative explanation it is welcomed. But there is none.

Choosing to deny something happened doesn't mean it didn't happen.

If 2 + 2 = 4 is said to be wrong, then what does 2 + 2 equal?

Repeatedly saying "you failed to prove it" is not an acceptable answer.

It's just a worn out troll tactic.

Repeatedly claiming all this hard evidence exists is not the same thing as providing it.

Again, an alternative theory is not necessary to recognize a lack of evidence.

I don't have an explanation for your lack of evidence,

And if this debate is the equivalent of arguing 2+2=4 then why do you spend so much time here?

You are actually in a debate repeatedly claiming the issue is undebatable and that you aren't obligated to provide any evidence because all the evidence proves you right...

Given the parasitic nature of these self-appointed investigating teams they find inconsistencies and errors that crept into media reporting of 9/11, but never find a single person actively involved in their imaginary mega-schemes.

No one comes forward in all the years and says they worked on things like fantasical light pole uprootings and taxi windshield smashing. No one driving by noted these very unusual activities on a day when anything even mildly suspicious was reported.

No one seems to be able to come up with an plausible story of what happened to the passengers of Flight 77 who were somehow whisked away mid-air while a repainted missile was substituted in the Pentagon crash. Or was it bomb? hard to keep track of the delusions.

It has evolved to some mythology supported by people who seem to share severauthority problems. For them a group of Muslim terrorists attacking the US is immediately ruled out. It HAD TO be the Big Bad Government and their Evil Mossad lackeys. Even if there is zero evidence, no whistleblowers, no rationale.

A diet of too many Hollywood movies and video games has produced a sub-culture who find difficulty separating actual events involving flesh and blood people from images on a screen.



[edit on 8-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by pteridine
I claim that the official story is closest to the actual events and, so far, neither you nor anyone else has proved that any other scenario is plausible.

So far, you have failed to prove that your scenario actually happened.

When you state 'official story' about the taxi and the light pole, are you claiming there is an official government story about this incident? If so, please supply me with the official government documentation about it.

To claim it as fact, it needs to be proven. You tried to prove it, by using McGraw but that didn't turn out too well for you. Your failure to correctly understand McGraw's testimony demonstrated your lack of research on your own theory.

You have also neglected to prove that there were passenger bodies found strapped to airline seats.

The rest of your post was about me and therefore off-topic.

Originally posted by tezzajw

So far, you have failed

You tried to prove it

Your failure to correctly

You have also neglected

I don't think you have any interest in the events of 9/11

it's just an outlet for a compulsive non-stop harangue

You imply the so-called Official Story is untrue.

But when asked to provide evidence of an alternative version of events you have nothing to offer.

plane + passengers crash into the Pentagon

You've posted hundreds and hundred of messages on 9/11 forums so have some impression of what happened

What is it?

Try not to avoid giving an answer by typing "You failed ..." for the thousandth time

reply to post by tezzajw


You have failed to support your statement, once again. Does your double standard bother you at all?

The "official story" that I refer to has apparently been defined by your cohorts. It is that terrorists did what they appeared to do and that there was no conspiracy regarding the aircraft, pilots, substitute passengers, light poles, false flags, or controlled demolitions.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw

 

You have failed to support your statement, once again. Does your double standard bother you at all?

The "official story" that I refer to has apparently been defined by your cohorts. It is that terrorists did what they appeared to do and that there was no conspiracy regarding the aircraft, pilots, substitute passengers, light poles, false flags, or controlled demolitions.

Thats just untrue. These "terrorists" conspired to do the attack, so in the end the whole thing is a conspiracy. I'd make a claim against your evidence, but no one has posted any evidence the past few pages, just pointless arguements.

[edit on 11/8/2009 by TheAntiHero420]

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
These "terrorists" conspired to do the attack, so in the end the whole thing is a conspiracy. I'd make a claim against your evidence, but no one has posted any evidence the past few pages, just pointless arguements.

Google the subject and there are a million sites detailing the events of 9/11 with photos, testimony, documentation, citations.

The chosen subject of this thread is "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

We're still waiting to be alarmed.

Still waiting to find out how those lamp poles where wrenched from their cement bearings in seconds if not hit by a plane.

Still waiting to find how the blood and body parts of passengers who weren't on a plane hitting the Pentagon ended up there.




[edit on 8-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
These "terrorists" conspired to do the attack, so in the end the whole thing is a conspiracy. I'd make a claim against your evidence, but no one has posted any evidence the past few pages, just pointless arguements.

Google the subject and there are a million sites detailing the events of 9/11 with photos, testimony, documentation, citations.

The chosen subject of this thread is "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

We're still waiting to be alarmed.

Still waiting to find out how those lamp poles where wrenched from their cement bearings in seconds if not hit by a plane.

Still waiting to find how the blood and body parts of passengers who weren't on a plane hitting the Pentagon ended up there.




[edit on 8-11-2009 by mmiichael]

How is that even a response to what i said? Mikey, fail, so now google is a good source? I thought you thought otherwise. Still waiting? Your going to wait as long as I am, with that attitude.

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
How is that even a response to what i said? Mikey, fail, so now google is a good source? I thought you thought otherwise. Still waiting? Your going to wait as long as I am, with that attitude.

I'll chalk this up to poor communication. We all come onto 9/11 threads knowing the basic version of events as reported. Muslim hijackers use fully fueled passenger planes as virtual bombs and crash into the WTC Towers and the Pentagon. A 4th plane crashes in Pennsylvania. Massive amounts of detail available to anyone wanting them.

The claim here is that story is untrue, That something else was going on. This is the entire reason this forum is here.

Pages later on in this thread no sign of the promised "Alarming Information" and that alternative story. Not even a wild guess how that windshield was smashed if not by a light pole.

Alarm us already.





[edit on 8-11-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael

I'll chalk this up to poor communication. We all come onto 9/11 threads knowing the basic version of events as reported.

Agreed.

The claim here is that story is untrue, That something else was going on. This is the entire reason this forum is here.

You like to argue your side, as do I to mine.

Pages later on in this thread no sign of the promised "Alarming Information" and that alternative story. Not even a wild guess how that windshield was smashed if not by a light pole.

Your not alarmed, because you choose not to agree. Not all alarms are listened too. The boy who called wold scenario.

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
Your not alarmed, because you choose not to agree. Not all alarms are listened too. The boy who called wold scenario.

Pages and pages of dancing around the lack of a viable alternative scenario is all I've seen. Implied: a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, there were no passenger bodies, something else broke the taxi's windshield.

If this is so, we need to know who did what, when, how, why?

So far there's as much evidence of this alternative 'real truth" as the Virgin Mary has a a hissy fit and causes all the deaths and destruction. Wasn't there a cross in the taxi?

I've gather there's some vague mega-conspiracy plot like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld decided to got to war in the Middle East. Destroying the WTC and an attack on the Pentagon would be a cool way to make the masses think it was warranted.

So a trillion dollars later, with the headquarters of Western World finances rubble, they had their false flag. Details of authenticity had to be provided to cover their insidious faked attacks. Directly involved in implementation were CIA confederates, Mossad, paid off or silenced lab technicians, planted witnesses, a senile black taxi driver, etc. All to give the impression of an international attack.

Is that the covered up story?

If so, where is a drop of supporting evidence for it? There are thousands of photos, recorded conversations, bank transfers, computer hard drive data, confessions to support the Evil lying Official Muslim hijacker version.

Nothing so far to support the false flag op one.

There was a ray of hope it would come out. Every journalist, independent investigator, millions of Truthers are waiting for this thread's announced "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information."

So where is it? Where's substantiation we aren't just refrying the paranoid conspiracy innuendo fairly tales kept alive by hungry video salesmen?

Where is our "Alarming Information" from the ""Independent Investigation"?

It seems to be as tangible and verifiable as the "Wrath of the Virgin Mary" Unofficial Story.


[edit on 8-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Given the parasitic nature of these self-appointed investigating teams they find inconsistencies and errors that crept into media reporting of 9/11, but never find a single person actively involved in their imaginary mega-schemes.
[edit on 8-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Lets take a look it this one quote here.

1st off, "parasitic nature of these self-appointed investigative teams".

Are you talking of CIT?

Your opinion that they're "parasitic" is not shared by me.
Now you'll most likely show us some evidence of they're "parasitic nature". Right?

2nd, "inconsistencies and errors that crept into media reporting of 911".

Like secondary explosions at the WTC and lack of large pieces of aircraft at the Pentagon?

You admit to the reason why there might be a need for "self- appointed investigative teams" that would go ask the "locals" what they saw rather than take the tripe that we got from MSM.

3rd, "never find a single person actively involved in their imaginary mega-schemes"

If you don't admit there are indeed "mega-schemes" going on in this world I'd like some of whatever your drinking

What of the taxi driver's candid admission of "this is bigger than me" in one of CITs interviews?

Even if there was a different "story" than what we're told, what's the point?

Probably won't change anything if we new the truth right?

Perhaps, but then again one "never" knows.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
What of the taxi driver's candid admission of "this is bigger than me" in one of CITs interviews?

Exactly my point. Even Aldo Marquis of Citizens Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation has said Lloyde England is senile and should not have been driving at taxi.

So this tragic old man is badgered with questions, inflated with some notion of importance actually being interviewed, either is playing to an audience or seriously rattled, and starts spewing away.

AND THAT'S ALL YA GOT AFTER 8 YEARS!!

Manipulated edited testimony on the absolutely pettiest side detail of the 9/11 event.

Where are the CITLLC tapes of educated professionals on the scene?
Why don't they interview the people involved in the cleanup of the plane and bodies?

This is so patently obviously a con op I'm amazed anyone over 15 falls for it. Don't you people have any life experience?

Do you believe it when Nigerian bankers tell you they are sending you millions as long pay you pay the nominal transaction fee?

Wake up.

There are kids who were in high school in 2001. In 8 years they've gone through college, got degrees, some doctorates. And some in field like Structural Engineering, Chemistry, Criminology, and so on. They've investigated a dozen real crimes and solved them.

In the same 8 years in Conspiracy Land the same Youtubes of WTC collapses have been timed and retimed, graphs with loads of red arrows have been made showing flight paths, a s**tload of websites and videos have been produced, a million messages flying on boards. And not one iota of hard evidence has emerged to validate the Grand Cover-up. No paperwork, no whistleblowers, nothing.

Meanwhile virtually every detail of the plane attacks, the hijackers, the financiers. the planners have been tracked, documented, independently corroborated.

You can talk or email hundreds of people who were there and can substantiate their observation or participation.

The world knows what happened that day. The key planner and a number of his confederates have confessed to their involvement.
Books have been written, journalists form dozens of countries have interviewed anyone relevant, every scrap of paper and photo has bee analyzed. They all come out with the same story.

I really don't know what else to say about the fringe culture that chooses denial in their constant search for the Mega False Flag Conspiracy that no on can find any evidence of.

Snake oil is snake oil whether it's in a green bottle or a $19.95 video.



[edit on 8-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by pteridine
The "official story" that I refer to has apparently been defined by your cohorts.

Your theory is that the light pole hit the taxi. However, you have not clearly defined if you think this is just an official media story, or an official government story. Why not?

Why can't you produce a single official government document supporting your theory?

Why did you try to deceive everyone by claiming that McGraw said things which he didn't?

You have thus far failed to prove your theory.

This is new. People who supposedly jumped out of WTC windows on 911 were actually 'beamed' aboard spacecraft and have been living with the galactics, and when the time is right, they will all return and tell their stories.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Where are the CITLLC tapes of educated professionals on the scene?

Casual readers, witness the destruction of mmiichael's logic once more.

The only person who was alleged to be driving the taxi was Lloyde. That's probably why CIT went to ask Lloyde their questions.

mmiichael, last night (my time) you promised to supply me with the names and email addresses of all the people standing on the Pentagon lawn, who saw the light pole hit the taxi.

You have so far failed to do this - why?

Please, tell us how many 'educated professionals' can give witness statements about the light pole striking the taxi.

You tried to use the priest, McGraw and you admitted that you failed to quote him properly and that you stuffed up his testimony. Your lack of research for your own theory is quite telling.