Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

reply to post by pteridine

pteridine, I agree that exact modelling of the plane hitting the poles would be difficult.

People who believe this theory need to know which part of the plane hit which part of the light poles, along with a host of other variables. Approximate modelling may give some indication, but the results would be unreliable. I don't dispute that.

That only reinforces the fact that no one in this thread, who has claimed that a light pole struck the taxi, has tried to prove it using any means.

They have not shown any modelling.
They have not shown any forensic evidence.
They have not shown any supporting witness statements.
They have not shown any official government story documetation about it.
They seem to be relying solely on the word of Lloyde, who is a discredited witness, by his contrary statements to CIT.

When will anyone, who believes that the light pole struck the taxi, ever get around to proving it happened?

[edit on 22-11-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by scott3x


I followed that link to the Dewitt Roseborough story and what I see is a twisted interpretation of his words to fit an agenda which is hardly surprising considering where that link took me.

Originally posted by tezzajw
That only reinforces the fact that no one in this thread, who has claimed that a light pole struck the taxi, has tried to prove it using any means.

They have not shown any modelling.

They have not shown any forensic evidence.

They have not shown any supporting witness statements.


They have not shown any official government story documetation about it.

They seem to be relying solely on the word of Lloyde, who is a discredited witness, by his contrary statements to CIT.

When will anyone, who believes that the light pole struck the taxi, ever get around to proving it happened?

The lack of any conflicting evidence and the virtual impossibility of any other explanation for the taxi windshield being broken except by a falling light pole has been gone over extensively on this thread. Relevant links have been provided. The only person with full knowledge says it was a light pole.

It is impossible 8 years later to provide every possible detail of this peripheral event that happened at the same time a fully loaded plane hit the Pentagon. And it is largely irrrelevant to what occurred that day.

The thread subject title is "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information" The OP disappeared from this thread months ago. There is no "Alarming Information" from any "Independent Investigation" just a lot of harangue and criticisms.

This has been pointed out by many. For this reason I am requesting the thread be declared a HOAX and put out of it's misery.


M


[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
The preclusion of any other evidence

Which evidence is that, mmiichael? You have been asked numerous times in this thread to supply your evidence and you mostly handwave it away by informing the casual reader to do a Google search.

Originally posted by mmiichael
and the virtual impossibility of anything other explanation for the taxi windshield being broken by a falling light pole has been gone over extensively on this thread and related links have been provided.

That has no bearing on your inability to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

Handwaving away something else does not help you prove what you have failed to do so.

Originally posted by mmiichael
For this reason I am requesting the thread be declared a HOAX and put out of it's misery.

When people fail to prove their claims such as "a light pole hit the taxi", "airline passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats" and "thousands of people saw the plane depart", it does start to take on the feel that the thread has been infected by some hoaxes.

Still, I can give them the benefit of the doubt and patiently wait for them to prove their claims.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Which evidence is that, mmiichael? You have been asked numerous times in this thread to supply your evidence and you mostly handwave it away by informing the casual reader to do a Google search.

That has no bearing on your inability to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

Handwaving away something else does not help you prove what you have failed to do so.

When people fail to prove their claims such as "a light pole hit the taxi", "airline passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats" and "thousands of people saw the plane depart", it does start to take on the feel that the thread has been infected by some hoaxes.

The subject of this thread is not me. It's ""Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

If there is no such information the thread is a HOAX.

Period.

Originally posted by mmiichael
The subject of this thread is not me. It's ""Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

Yes, it is. Part of that presentation claims that a light pole did not hit the taxi.

You've claimed, for a fact, that a light pole hit the taxi. Your claim is relevant to the thread.

When challenged, you have not been able to prove that it happened, mmiichael. Why has it been so difficult for you to support your claims?

What you should do is admit that the 'light pole hitting the taxi' is simply your opinion, then you would be under no obligation to prove it or justify it. Everyone is allowed to have opinions.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by mmiichael
The subject of this thread is not me. It's ""Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

Yes, it is. Part of that presentation claims that a light pole did not hit the taxi.

You've claimed, for a fact, that a light pole hit the taxi. Your claim is relevant to the thread.

When challenged, you have not been able to prove that it happened, mmiichael. Why has it been so difficult for you to support your claims?

What you should do is admit that the 'light pole hitting the taxi' is simply your opinion, then you would be under no obligation to prove it or justify it. Everyone is allowed to have opinions.

The light pole hit the taxi. Established right after and details provided when Lloyde England was interviewed.

Not examined in depth at the time because:
a) irrelevant
b) the US had a major attack and thousands were killed the same day


A software salesman and part-time musician from California interviewed the near senile cab driver years later. After leading questions and prompting he got a few minutes of confused rambling from the driver.

None of this after the fact shenanigans negate the fact that light poles were knocked down as witnessed by many. They were seen in pictures take right after. The taxi got hit by one or a part of it. Specific detail will always be lacking as it happened in a couple seconds and no confirmation of the obvious was ever needed. Plane marks on a nearby pole, trees brushed, a construction site nearby hit, all confirm yhew plane coming in at 50 ft hit those poles in it's path.

Nothing beyond some Science-Fiction Fantasy scenario could account for an operating taxi on the highway as the plane flew over suddenly having a broken windshield.

Attempts to create doubt are commercially motivated or attention seeking. No one in 8 years has provided a shred of evidence the light pole didn't hit the taxi as the driver claimed.

End of Story.



[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
The light pole hit the taxi. Established right after and details provided when Lloyde England was interviewed.

Thus far, this has only been established in your mind. You have not proven it.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Not examined in depth at the time because:
a) irrelevant
b) the US had a major attack and thousands were killed the same day

Can you supply proof that these were the reasons why a crime scene was apparently not investigated properly?

Originally posted by mmiichael
A software salesman and part-time musician from California interviewed the near senile cab driver years later.

Please link me to a medical report that shows Lloyde is near senile. Your failure to do this will be your admission that you are trying to assume his state of mind.

Originally posted by mmiichael
None of this after the fact shenanigans negated the fact that light poles were knocked down as witnessed by many.

Yet you have not provided one single witness who saw the light pole hit the taxi. Again, your contradictory nature has been exposed.

Originally posted by mmiichael
They were seen in pictures take right after. The taxi got hit by one or a part of it.

You can't make up your mind what hit the taxi? Why not? This is ridiculous, mmiichael. You've spent nearly 30 pages trying to convince everyone that a light pole hit the taxi but you can't make up your mind if it was hit by the full pole or only part of it! This should be evidence that you claim exists in the detailed forensic reports that you claim exist!!

Originally posted by mmiichael
Specifics will always be lacking.

Specifically lacking is your proof that it ever happened.

Originally posted by mmiichael
No one in 8 years has provided a shred of evidence the light pole ... hit the taxi as the driver claimed.

Yep, finally something I agree with.

Typo corrected in re-edit

"No one in 8 years has provided a shred of evidence the light pole didn't hit the taxi as the driver claimed"

The doubt about the light pole causing the broken windshield is the fabrication of "Citizen's Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California"

They have only provided some manipulated data and selected video clips that do not reconcile with the overwhelming majority of testimony, hard evidence, photographs, documentation.

None of their wild theories and speculations pan out scientifically or have tangible evidence to support them.

For this reason they are considered a highly unreliable source with an agenda to willfully promote misinformation for commercial gain.

As nothing else can account for the broken windshield except the light pole seen on the ground beside it in the photo taken right after, and the key witness states that is what happened - it's CASE CLOSED.

Still waiting for the "Alarming Information"




[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
"No one in 8 years has provided a shred of evidence the light pole ... hit the taxi as the driver claimed"

I'll be happy to agree with that.

Originally posted by mmiichael
The doubt about the light pole causing the broken windshield is the fabrication of "Citizen's Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California"

The doubt about the light pole striking the taxi is the complete lack of proof that it happened.

You're an example of this, as you've spent 30 odd pages handwaving, stumbling about, getting things wrong, admitting you lied, retracting claims, etc... all while avoiding to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

You've been a prime example of why there is so much disinformation that's been spread about the light pole allegedly hitting the taxi. All talk, no proof.

Originally posted by mmiichael
As nothing else can account for the broken windshield except the light pole, and the key witness states that is what happened, it's CASE CLOSED.

Your failure to demonstrate that the light pole hit the taxi means that the case is still open for anyone who wants to try and pick up where you never got started.

If it's case closed can we expect that you will leave the thread for a third time, promising not to return - again?

Originally posted by scott3x

Apparently, CIT suspects that pentagon security was complicit ; I certainly suspect this at any rate.

reply to post by scott3x


If you and CIT think pentagon security was "in on it " does it not seem bizarre to you that CIT is putting forward 3 pentagon police officers as star witnesses ? Lagasse, Brooks and Roberts. Have CIT told these officers of their view ?

reply to post by mmiichael

I've got some words of wisdom for you:

So it's time to admit it: We're fools, protagonists in a kind of gruesome comedy about the marriage of greed and stupidity. And the worst part about it is that we're still in denial — we still think this is some kind of unfortunate accident, not something that was created by the group of psychopaths on Wall Street whom we allowed to gang-rape the American Dream.

Instead of "group of psychopaths on Wall Street," substitute "group of psychopathic neocons in the White House."

Tell us again why a Canadian "journalist" is so passionate in defending the official story government lies of 9/11. Maybe it's one of the reasons why no one has any respect for the MSM.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Tell us again why a Canadian "journalist" is so passionate in defending the official story government lies of 9/11. Maybe it's one of the reasons why no one has any respect for the MSM.

Fleecy,

You should come right out and say you think I'm a US government planted disinformation trying to deflect knowing Truther investigators from the details of the 'false flag' operation that was 9/11.

CIA and Mossad broke the windshield with secret supersonic laser beams in outer space. We didn't want you to find out.


M

reply to post by mmiichael

Well, at least I got you to stop quoting 911myths.com like it was an unimpeachable panacea of truth. Is that the kind of source you use for your stories?

What makes you think the U.S. government is any different now than it was 50 years ago when the Joint Chiefs of Staff were planning the Operation Northwoods false-flag terrorist frame-up of Cuba or when they concocted a phony Gulf of Tonkin attack to start a war with Vietnam, not to mention concocting phony "weapons of mass destruction" charges against Iraq? I won't even get into the decades worth of death and destruction in central and South America.

Seriously, I'd like to know why you're so passionate about this subject. How many hundreds of 9/11 posts have you made now? How many hours a day do you spend defending a patently ridiculous official story? All I can say is, if you're not a U.S. government disinfo agent, you're the most gullible journalist on the planet.

reply to post by Alfie1

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by scott3x
Apparently, CIT suspects that pentagon security was complicit ; I certainly suspect this at any rate.

If you and CIT think pentagon security was "in on it " does it not seem bizarre to you that CIT is putting forward 3 pentagon police officers as star witnesses ? Lagasse, Brooks and Roberts. Have CIT told these officers of their view ?

Actually, I think they may have mentioned secret service, not pentagon security. Whoever it was, I don't think it involved -everyone- in the group they were in. Just a select few, which I hear is how the JFK assassination was handled as well. Did you see the pilot episode of the X files spinoff, The Lone Gunman?

The episode aired several months before 9/11, as an excerpt from IMDB's description of the episode demonstrates:

The pilot episode, which first aired on March 4, 2001, concerned a terrorist plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the World Trade Center towers.

I made some excerpts as to its content in this post here at ATS, in a thread I created titled 9/11: The Mossad Connection.

The most important point, I think, was the following:

BYERS: You're saying our government is planning to commit a terrorist act against a domestic airline?

BYERS SNR: There you go, indicting the entire government, as usual. A faction, a small faction...

The same logic would apply to government agencies; only a small faction need be involved. This was apparently how the JFK assassination was carried out as well.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


"Patently ridiculous" fits CIT's theory quite nicely. There is no evidence of anything they claim but they continue to claim it. The topic of this thread implied that there would be alarming information of some sort. It is mistitled and should read "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields The Same Old Story For The Terminally Gullible."
As there is no "alarming information," should this thread be labelled a hoax?

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine
"Patently ridiculous" fits CIT's theory quite nicely. There is no evidence of anything they claim but they continue to claim it.

I disagree. Can you provide an example where you feel they do this?

Originally posted by pteridine
The topic of this thread implied that there would be alarming information of some sort.

Yes; I believe it delivered in kind.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by tezzajw


As we have many witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon and no flyover, how would expending mega CPU hours provide anything positive? Part of CIT's claims that nothing struck the Pentagon require that the lightpoles be planted in some magical fashion by unknown conspirators. The theories of how it was done, how many people did it, how did it appear that the plane struck the poles, how did the people under the flight path not see the poles being planted, and others remain unresolved. CIT made this up "on the fly" which became apparent when they were doing the one-plane-two-plane-maybe-something-else dance. I am waiting to hear the testable details of what that they propose happened but they never get past the NOC flightpath as seen by parallax challenged selected witnesses during a traumatic event.
When will CIT provide a detailed theory? Likely never.

reply to post by scott3x


Scott,
Here are some easy questions for you.
How many people saw a flyover? Where did all the jet fuel come from in the initial fire? Why are the support columns pushed in along the track of the plane if explosives were used? What proposed explosives were used and where were they placed?

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Well, at least I got you to stop quoting 911myths.com like it was an unimpeachable panacea of truth. Is that the kind of source you use for your stories?

What makes you think the U.S. government is any different now than it was 50 years ago when the Joint Chiefs of Staff were planning the Operation Northwoods false-flag terrorist frame-up of Cuba or when they concocted a phony Gulf of Tonkin attack to start a war with Vietnam, not to mention concocting phony "weapons of mass destruction" charges against Iraq? I won't even get into the decades worth of death and destruction in central and South America.

Seriously, I'd like to know why you're so passionate about this subject. How many hundreds of 9/11 posts have you made now? How many hours a day do you spend defending a patently ridiculous official story? All I can say is, if you're not a U.S. government disinfo agent, you're the most gullible journalist on the planet.

I am passionate against agenda drive disinformation ans willful ignorance.

9/11 Myths is one of endless sources that dispel the morass of disinformation on the subject. There is something called proper research and common sense which many don't apply to the subject.

Operation Nothwoods was one of who knows how many preliminary floated plans concocted by US intelligence. There were to be no American deaths, but most relevantly it was rejected out of hand as a bad faith policy. It was looked at as an option but never gave it serous consideration. In fact, ultimately the person who came up with it was fired. Relevant point, it was something on paper that was never enacted.

Inernational politics are multi-factorial. The US was on the verge of attacking Afghanistan in July 2001 when the Taliban reneged on an agreement on security for a proposed pipeline. And of course Iraq was in a standstill position since the 1991 invasion. Saddam broke the rules of the a desire to surround oil-for-peace program, the no-fly zone, etc. Other factors including a desire to contain Iran, but basically to get rid of Saddam.

It should be obvious if the US wanted an excuse to invade Iraq it would not destroy the most valuable property in the US and cause as much financial loss as the war itself caused. A blown up secondary target with planted evidence would have been more than sufficient,

We now know from mountains of documentation, material evidence, testimony, confession - that in fact Saudis, Pakistan's ISI, faction in Turkey and elsewhere, funded, planned, and co-ordinated the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden was operations manager. Information sources are international and include intelligence from Muslim states, Russia, Germany, the Philippines, etc.

Credible writers, investigative journalist, reporters, have all put the pieces together. There is little room for doubt after 8 years. The Truth Movement has come up with no substantiated evidence that seriously contradicts what is known. A mysterious broken windshield is about the best they can muster.

Conspiratorial beliefs in controlled demolitions, plane flyovers, Mossad plotting, etc - are limited to a paranoid conspiracy sub-culture that fewer take seriously as time moves on. They are almost completely surmise, speculation, surmise, manipulated data, etc. A few have managed to make low-level careers disseminating this BS.

That's what well-informed reasonable people around the world have come to realize. The concept of 'Official Story' is a Truther creation, based on the refusals to come to terms with something quite simple - America has determined enemies and they successfully put together a large scale terrorist attack. They proudly admit it.


M



[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]