Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

reply to post by burntheships


Here we go again. Another crazy post. My Aunt, Susan Hurd, worked there when the plane hit. (Nothing to secret, just chemical engineering contract work) Anyway... yes, it was a plane. She was in the "E" ring on the other side and she told us all about it after it happened. It's on camera and thousands of people saw it. It wasn't some russian missle or whatever the spin is on it these days. If we are supposed to Deny Ignorance, then why are you people on here still debating about it?

reply to post by logistix111


Did your Aunt see it hit the Pentagon with her own eyes did she???

It's on camera is it? Where? Please supply a link.

Thousands saw it did they? More links please.
So far it seems you are the one with the crazy post.

Hey Tezza, holding it down by yourself I see amigo. Nice work bro you have been solid. You have exposed these OS sheep nicely, well, they pretty much dug their own hole.

So, Pteridine and Miichael, are you ever going to step up and back yourself up? I have not read much of the last 30 pages but it seems the onus of proof lies upon you two to support your claims of the light pole hitting the cab. Tezza has told you a million times that he doesn't know exactly what happened at the Pentagon so stop playing dumb and front up you cowards.

Hmmmm that taxi cab bonnet looks to be unscathed. I wonder how a light pole of that size went through the windshield without touching it???

reply to post by logistix111

Here we go again. Another crazy post. My Aunt, Susan Hurd, worked there when the plane hit. (Nothing to secret, just chemical engineering contract work) Anyway... yes, it was a plane. She was in the "E" ring on the other side and she told us all about it after it happened. It's on camera and thousands of people saw it. It wasn't some russian missle or whatever the spin is on it these days. If we are supposed to Deny Ignorance, then why are you people on here still debating about it?

My Aunt Margret Neverlie worked for the pentagon and she saw a missal coming in full speed exploding into the first three rings of the pentagon, yes it was a missal She was in the front by the guard unit, she told us all about it after it happened. It’s on camera and thousands of people saw it (That’s why they won’t show us the real videos, because it will proved they lied to us.) It wasn’t some airplane or whatever the spin is on it these days. If we are supposed to deny ignorance, then why are you people on here still debating about it?

Ahhh maybe to get to the truth, and hearsay information is hardly what we consider Truth. I can be anyone, and I can claim anything however, most people want more than just hearsay as proof.

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
reply to post by logistix111

 

So, Pteridine and Miichael, are you ever going to step up and back yourself up? I have not read much of the last 30 pages but it seems the onus of proof lies upon you two to support your claims of the light pole hitting the cab. Tezza has told you a million times that he doesn't know exactly what happened at the Pentagon so stop playing dumb and front up you cowards.

Hmmmm that taxi cab bonnet looks to be unscathed. I wonder how a light pole of that size went through the windshield without touching it???

Did you postulate what may have happened or is tezza the only one who doesn't know what happened because he doesn't have "all the evidence?" Are nuances of language lost on you? Do you consider this tragic event an "interesting puzzle?" Are you emotionally arrested in your teen years? Are you able to detail a working hypothesis or is it beyond your skill level, also?
We know a plane hit the Pentagon and many people were killed. We know that the plane struck light poles on the way to the Pentagon and those light poles were then secondary projectiles. We know that those projectiles had indeterminate trajectories. We know that some people claimed that part of a light pole made a hole in the winshield of a taxicab that was along the flightpath of the aircraft. We know that there was no other explanation for said light poles to be flying around so we know that the light pole issue is the result of the airplane attack and not causal. We know that no one has offered evidence of any other circumstance that caused the hole. We know that a taxi with a hole in the windshield is merely an anomaly used by those with personal motives to promote improbable theories to the gullible.
If you have evidence of any other explanation for the hole in the windshield, sans "bonnet scratches," come forward now. You are invited to impress all of us with your evidence, should it be an airplane part, meteor, tree branch, or tezza's head. Front up.

Tezza told us how many times? Please list them.

Originally posted by logistix111
reply to post by burntheships

 

Here we go again. Another crazy post. My Aunt, Susan Hurd, worked there when the plane hit. (Nothing to secret, just chemical engineering contract work) Anyway... yes, it was a plane. She was in the "E" ring on the other side and she told us all about it after it happened. It's on camera and thousands of people saw it. It wasn't some russian missle or whatever the spin is on it these days. If we are supposed to Deny Ignorance, then why are you people on here still debating about it?

What camera? 1000's saw it? Source please.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
reply to post by logistix111

 

So, Pteridine and Miichael, are you ever going to step up and back yourself up? I have not read much of the last 30 pages but it seems the onus of proof lies upon you two to support your claims of the light pole hitting the cab. Tezza has told you a million times that he doesn't know exactly what happened at the Pentagon so stop playing dumb and front up you cowards.

Hmmmm that taxi cab bonnet looks to be unscathed. I wonder how a light pole of that size went through the windshield without touching it???

Did you postulate what may have happened or is tezza the only one who doesn't know what happened because he doesn't have "all the evidence?" Are nuances of language lost on you? Do you consider this tragic event an "interesting puzzle?" Are you emotionally arrested in your teen years? Are you able to detail a working hypothesis or is it beyond your skill level, also?
We know a plane hit the Pentagon and many people were killed. We know that the plane struck light poles on the way to the Pentagon and those light poles were then secondary projectiles. We know that those projectiles had indeterminate trajectories. We know that some people claimed that part of a light pole made a hole in the winshield of a taxicab that was along the flightpath of the aircraft. We know that there was no other explanation for said light poles to be flying around so we know that the light pole issue is the result of the airplane attack and not causal. We know that no one has offered evidence of any other circumstance that caused the hole. We know that a taxi with a hole in the windshield is merely an anomaly used by those with personal motives to promote improbable theories to the gullible.
If you have evidence of any other explanation for the hole in the windshield, sans "bonnet scratches," come forward now. You are invited to impress all of us with your evidence, should it be an airplane part, meteor, tree branch, or tezza's head. Front up.

Tezza told us how many times? Please list them.

You only know what you have been told. Perhaps you should watch the interview with the cabbie regarding his experience with the light pole that allegedly struck his cab. You may be surprised to find that what you know is not the truth.

reply to post by Swing Dangler

The interview seems to be people taking advantage of an old soul who wants to be important and is working to that end. He was never important before and this was his one chance.
The anomaly is the result of the aircraft striking lamp posts before striking the Pentagon. The windshield hole did not effect the flight of the aircraft, the speed of the aircraft, or the damage to the Pentagon. There was absolutely no reason to plant it, fake it, or conspire, as no important part of the story changes if all the poles fall without striking anything. This is a non-event used to drum up business among those who need a conspiracy surrounding a terrorist conspiracy.

reply to post by impressme


Care to provide your aunt's contact details to the Citizens Investigation Team so they can add her account to the public record? I'm sure they would be interested in speaking with her to verify her account rather than relying on an anonymous poster.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

The interview seems to be people taking advantage of an old soul who wants to be important and is working to that end. He was never important before and this was his one chance.
The anomaly is the result of the aircraft striking lamp posts before striking the Pentagon. The windshield hole did not effect the flight of the aircraft, the speed of the aircraft, or the damage to the Pentagon. There was absolutely no reason to plant it, fake it, or conspire, as no important part of the story changes if all the poles fall without striking anything. This is a non-event used to drum up business among those who need a conspiracy surrounding a terrorist conspiracy.

Can you explain verbatim the part of the interview where the investigators are 'taking advantage' of this person? Or is that a pre-conceived reflection of your opinion of the investigators? It appears to be the latter.

This event is being ignored out of context by you it appears. The poles of course support the official flight path which isn't supported by numerous eyewitnesses or the FDR. The alleged pole strike is documented as a part of the official story.

Can you garner an certified expert to determine if the light poles affected the alleged plane's flight path or structural integrity?

Originally posted by pteridine
The interview seems to be people taking advantage of an old soul who wants to be important and is working to that end. He was never important before and this was his one chance.

That's your speculative opinion and may not be factual, pteridine. Please show us your interview with Lloyde where you confirm this with him.

Originally posted by pteridine
The anomaly is the result of the aircraft striking lamp posts before striking the Pentagon. The windshield hole did not effect the flight of the aircraft, the speed of the aircraft, or the damage to the Pentagon.

Yet, you have failed to prove that the taxi was struck by the light pole. When you tried, using McGraw for a witness, you exposed how weak your research is and how little you knew about the incident.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

The windshield hole did not effect the flight of the aircraft, the speed of the aircraft, or the damage to the Pentagon.

Can you garner an certified expert to determine if the light poles affected the alleged plane's flight path or structural integrity?

I would expect that the impacts with the poles would have small effects on the aircraft but that is not what I said.

reply to post by tezzajw


I'll rush right down there, tezza. Can I use you as a reference to your buddies at CIT so they will help me select the proper answers from the proper witnesses? Maybe we can ignore all that physical evidence and select a few eyewitness accounts that we really like to hang a new theory on. After all, everyone knows that a few seconds of seeing a plane flying over provides one with a high precision flight path.

Do you have enough evidence to back up your statements, yet?

Originally posted by pteridine
I'll rush right down there, tezza.

Report back to us once you have returned with your interview.

I'll be interested to see what Lloyde says to you, as opposed to what he said to CIT. Thanks for offering to do that, pteridine.

Can you please provide us all with an approximate time frame for when you will be able to complete this task?

Originally posted by tezzajw
Can you please provide us all with an approximate time frame for when you will be able to complete this task?

I expect that it will not be long after you have all the evidence you need to postulate a scenario.

In the meantime, you can try supporting one of your several statements. Don't make me assign you extra homework.

Originally posted by pteridine
I expect that it will not be long after you have all the evidence you need to postulate a scenario.

Casual readers to the thread, note the evasion tactics used by pteridine. He claimed that he would rush down there to interview Lloyde. Now, when asked for a time frame to complete his interview, he has avoided answering and thrown in a ridiculous condition.

Obviously, pteridine has failed to read the thread, where I have stated many many times that I do not need to postulate a scenario. It is not encumbant upon me to do so.

We already saw, a few pages ago, how mmiichael promised to supply me with the names and addresses of people who he claimed were on the Pentagon lawn and saw the light pole hit the taxi. However, he then followed that up with a condition that I supply him with names of people who witnessed cranes pulling out light poles. Ridiculous.

We can see that both mmiichael and pteridine, as soon as they are called upon to validate their claims, have both diverted their responsibility by placing a silly, contrived condition upon their promise to act.

They both display obvious signs of not being willing to act on their words or their claims.

pteridine, you claimed that you will rush down there. Once more, so all of the casual readers can understand you, when do you plan to do this and how long before we can expect your interview to be posted online?

Your failure to do this will be your admission that you were deliberately deceptive when you claimed that you would rush down there.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

We already saw, a few pages ago, how mmiichael promised to supply me with the names and addresses of people who he claimed were on the Pentagon lawn and saw the light pole hit the taxi.

You can pretty much claim whatever you want here on ATS, then the battlers (tezza) take on the task of debating and investigating those claims.

We can see that both mmiichael and pteridine, as soon as they are called upon to validate their claims, have both diverted their responsibility by placing a silly, contrived condition upon their promise to act.

I dislike this tactic but it's here to stay.

A couple of unanswered Pentagon questions to think about.

The guard shack videos: When and how were they released to the public? Were they leaked by an unknown source? Were they released officially by someone with an actual name and job title?

The impact point: Recently renovated to be stronger yet the wings on the jet apparently "folded back" (making the wings as strong as the wall in which they plowed into) and followed the body of the plane into the hole it made. Does this make sense?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by pteridine
I expect that it will not be long after you have all the evidence you need to postulate a scenario.

Casual readers to the thread, note the evasion tactics used by pteridine. He claimed that he would rush down there to interview Lloyde. Now, when asked for a time frame to complete his interview, he has avoided answering and thrown in a ridiculous condition.
[edit on 12-11-2009 by tezzajw]

You asked when and I told you when. You gotta a problem with that? Talk to my cousin Nunzio. He has a way with words and can calm you down. If you are that impatient, you interview Lloyde. Nothing of importance has surfaced in the last eight years so I expect the Lloyde interview can wait until I decide to do it. Windshield holes are incidental to the event despite your futile attempts to bring them to the fore.
I'll be in DC next week and if I run into him, I promise to ask about the windshield. I'll even mention you and CIT. Problem solved.

Speaking of evasion, have you decided to back up your previous statements yet or are you still evading? Those casual readers are noting that you are failing.

Get back to me when you have answers.

reply to post by infinityoreilly


The wings did not really "fold back" and do no damage. This link shows what occurred.

911research.wtc7.net...

Perhaps another reader can answer your question on who released the videos.

[edit on 11/12/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine
You asked when and I told you when. You gotta a problem with that?

You have discredited your own claim about 'rushing' there, when you attach a nonsensical condition.

Originally posted by pteridine
If you are that impatient, you interview Lloyde.

I've seen Lloyde interviewed by CIT, I don't need to personally interview him. You made the claim that Lloyde was being taken advantage of, which you then followed up by stating that you will rush there to interview him.

Originally posted by pteridine
Windshield holes are incidental to the event despite your futile attempts to bring them to the fore.

You claim that the light pole struck the taxi. This presents an interesting puzzle, pteridine, which I have stated all along.

Originally posted by pteridine
I'll be in DC next week and if I run into him, I promise to ask about the windshield. I'll even mention you and CIT. Problem solved.

Will you be actively seeking to interview Lloyde? There's no point mentioning me to Lloyde, he won't know me. Naturally, he will know CIT.

reply to post by tezzajw


Postulate the source of the hole. What could have done it, Tezza? What projectiles were flying about at that moment? How many choices do we have? Is any condition concerning you nonsensical?

[edit on 11/12/2009 by pteridine]