Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
What "government story?"

Exactly, you're finally catching on! All of these official government story supporters have been entering this thread, trying to convince the casual readers that the light pole hit the taxi... yet they fail to produce a shred of government evidence to prove that it ever happened!

Well done, jthomas. You're finally starting to see it for what it is... media driven...

What "government" story? Speak up, man. Let's see it. Give us a link to this so-called "government story."

Originally posted by jthomas
And you haven't made any case why we need to be concerned with the light poles and Lloyd's taxi.

Yes I have. You must have missed reading the past thirty-odd pages.

You should be capable of explaining it in one short paragraph. I have seen nothing from you in 30 posts that remotely explains why we should care. Speak up, man.

mmiichael has claimed that a light pole hit the taxi. He has not proven it. pteridine has claimed that a light pole hit the taxi. He has not proven it. Others have made the claim that a light pole hit the taxi. They have not proven it.

You said it was a "government" story and that we should care about it for some unexplained reason. None of us, including mmichael, pteridine, reheat, or me gives a flying quack that a light pole hit by AA77 and knocked it down into Lloyd's windshield. Yet you claim we should care about it and that WE should prove it without giving us any valid reason why.

If they were not so concerned about the light pole hitting the taxi, then why are they trying to convince everyone that it happened?

We've all told you we don't care and want to know why you think it has any relevance whatsoever. It has no bearing on anything since AA77 hit the Pentagon, a fact with which you you now claim to agree.

So, fess up, tezz, and explain why you are so worked up. After all, you are not making a bit of sense.



[edit on 22-11-2009 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by tezzajw
What "government" story? Speak up, man. Let's see it. Give us a link to this so-called "government story."

You know . . . the official fairy tale where a lightpole was knocked down by a commercial airliner and impaled a taxi cab?

Originally posted by jthomas
You should be capable of explaining it in one short paragraph. I have seen nothing from you in 30 posts that remotely explains why we should care.

I’ll explain it in two sentences. If a commercial airliner didn’t knock down a light pole which subsequently impaled llyods cab. Then there is no reason to assume that a commercial airliner knocked down a light pole.

You said it was a "government" story and that we should care about it for some unexplained reason. None of us, including mmichael, pteridine, reheat, or me gives a flying quack that a light pole hit by AA77 and knocked it down into Lloyd's windshield. .

Well you should care, and if you don’t, it speaks worlds of your logical abilities. I repeat . . . “If a commercial airliner didn’t knock down a light pole which subsequently impaled llyods cab. Then there is no reason to assume that a commercial airliner knocked down a light pole.”

Yet you claim we should care about it and that WE should prove it without giving us any valid reason why.

I repeat . . . again “If a commercial airliner didn’t knock down a light pole which subsequently impaled llyods cab. Then there is no reason to assume that a commercial airliner knocked down a light pole.”

We've all told you we don't care and want to know why you think it has any relevance whatsoever. It has no bearing on anything since AA77 hit the Pentagon, a fact with which you you now claim to agree.

“If a commercial airliner didn’t knock down a light pole which subsequently impaled llyods cab. Then there is no reason to assume that a commercial airliner knocked down a light pole.”

[edit on 11/22/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by tezzajw
You have failed to prove your claim that a light pole hit the taxi,

It's proven by first hand testimony, photographs taken immediately after, an overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

Further, there is a complete lack of conflicting evidence, reliable testimony, or credible alternative explanation.

Case Closed.

The subject here is "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

You have provided no information or analysis on the topic. You unremittingly harangue on the broken windshield. It begs the question of why the emphasis on an inconsequential event irrelevant to the Pentagon Attack.

reply to post by JPhish


Because there were witnesses to a commercial airliner striking the Pentagon, the light poles are insignificant as part of the conspiracy.

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by tezzajw
You have failed to prove your claim that a light pole hit the taxi,

It's proven by first hand testimony, photographs taken immediately after, an overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

circumstantial evidence is not good evidence. ever.

Further, there is a complete lack of conflicting evidence, reliable testimony, or credible alternative explanation.

all of the evidence is conflicting.

The flight data recorder, the employees at the citgo gas station, the two cops that were there that day, the employees at arlington cemetery, sean booger who was on the control tower that day, and lloyd himself all conflict with the original story.

Case Closed.

wishful thinking.

The subject here is "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

You have provided no information or analysis on the topic. You unremittingly harangue on the broken windshield. It begs the question of why the emphasis on an inconsequential event irrelevant to the Pentagon Attack.

I repeat . . . “If a commercial airliner didn’t knock down a light pole which subsequently impaled llyods cab. Then there is no reason to assume that a commercial airliner knocked down a light pole.”

[edit on 11/22/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

Because there were witnesses to a commercial airliner striking the Pentagon,

who witnessed the plane hit into the pentagon? Only person i recall that claimed to see it actually impact the building was Mike Walter.

www.youtube.com...

He is either A. Lying or B. Mistaken

Engines on the wings are the heaviest part of the plane. they bear the most weight and the most potential for penetrating whatever the plane crashes into. They would no have folded back.

Originally posted by pteridine
the light poles are insignificant as part of the conspiracy.

I repeat . . . “If a commercial airliner didn’t knock down a light pole which subsequently impaled llyods cab. Then there is no reason to assume that a commercial airliner knocked down a light pole.”

[edit on 11/22/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by jthomas
What "government" story? Speak up, man. Let's see it. Give us a link to this so-called "government story."

Exactly, you're finally catching on! All of these official government story supporters have been entering this thread, trying to convince the casual readers that the light pole hit the taxi... yet they fail to produce a shred of government evidence to prove that it ever happened!

Well done, jthomas. You're finally starting to see it for what it is... media driven...

None of us, including mmichael, pteridine, reheat, or me gives a flying quack that a light pole hit by AA77 and knocked it down into Lloyd's windshield.

But you appear to care about it. Your collective actions, posting here page after page, trying to convince people that it happened shows the casual reader that all of you do care enough to come here and insist that it happened.

None of you have proven it. None of you have dared to supply any official government story documents to support the story.

You can only quote media spin in reference to the whole incident, jthomas.

You've utterly failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

Originally posted by jthomas
Yet you claim we should care about it and that WE should prove it without giving us any valid reason why.

Many other official government story believers have claimed that the light pole hit the taxi, for a fact.

Facts need proof. No one has proven that the light pole hit the taxi, jthomas. Why do people make claims that they can not support?

Originally posted by jthomas
We've all told you we don't care and want to know why you think it has any relevance whatsoever.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't be in the thread posting in defense of the unproven claim that a light pole hit the taxi.

Originally posted by jthomas
It has no bearing on anything since AA77 hit the Pentagon, a fact with which you you now claim to agree.

Your failure to quote me here will be another of your admissions that you have made another false claim against me, jthomas. You continue to type your fantasies, instead of reality.

Originally posted by mmiichael
It's proven by first hand testimony, photographs taken immediately after, an overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

First-hand testimony from a discredited witness is not reliable, mmiichael.

You have not proven that the light pole hit the taxi. All you are doing is chanting your line about believing Lloyde, that it happened.

When you are ready to prove it, mmiichael, return and do so. jthomas claims that none of you care about it, which is demonstrably false, considering you have all spent time here over the past thirty+ pages trying to defend the unproven claim.

Originally posted by JPhish
circumstantial evidence is not good evidence. ever.

Wrong.

en.wikipedia.org...
Circumstantial evidence is used in civil courts to establish or deny liability. It is usually the most common form of evidence, for example in product liability cases and road traffic accidents

Recently broken windshield. Recently knocked down adjacent light pole. Testimony of a witness two feet from the windshield of the light pole causing the damage. Diagram later supplied. No conflicting evidence. No plausible alternative explanation.

Legally recognizable proof. Case still closed.

I repeat . . . “If a commercial airliner didn’t knock down a light pole which subsequently impaled llyods cab. Then there is no reason to assume that a commercial airliner knocked down a light pole.”

From what I can make out this is a combination of language and logic errors.

Do you know of something other than the light pole breaking the windshield?

Is there any relevance to the plane crashing into the Pentagon?


M

[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by JPhish


You disagree so the witnesses are all either lying or mistaken?

Here is one who watched the entire event: americanhistory.si.edu...

A plane hit the Pentagon. All evidence points to that. Anyone who says differently is "either lying or mistaken."

Which are you?

[edit on 11/22/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by JPhish
circumstantial evidence is not good evidence. ever.

Wrong.

en.wikipedia.org...
Circumstantial evidence is used in civil courts to establish or deny liability. It is usually the most common form of evidence, for example in product liability cases and road traffic accidents

Sorry, you are still 100% wrong. Our court system is flawed, so using examples of how it conducts itself is laughable. I’m talking about epistemology and basic scientific method. Circumstantial evidence should never be relied on to deduce TRUTH. EVER.

Broken windshield. Recently knocked down adjacent light pole. Testimony of a witness two feet from the windshield of the light pole causing the damage. Diagram later supplied.

Means absolutely nothing considering I could replicate all of those things in many different situations.

I could pay a random stranger $20 right now; find a broken windshield, attach it to my car replacing the unbroken one. Have the guy call the cops. Have him tell the cops he saw a thug nail my windshield with a baseball bat.

Guess what?

I’ll make a $200 insurance claim. I’ve just increased my investment 10 fold.

No conflicting evidence. No plausible alternative explanation. Case closed?

Yup, case closed, but I just duped the gieco for $200

The same way you were duped for much more on 9-11. Then again . . . I might be getting a head of myself. Get paid $20 recently?

No conflicting evidence. No plausible alternative explanation.

Legally recognizable proof. Case still closed.

You’re funny.

From what I can make out this is a combination of language and logic errors.

What you said are two bare assertion fallacies(1)(2). You’ve offered no evidence that my language or logic was in error. I suggest you scrutinize your own reading and logistic abilities.

Do you know of something other than the light pole breaking the windshield?

Loaded question (3). I never said that I knew a light pole broke a windshield. Your logic is failing.

Is there any relevance to the plane crashing into the Pentagon?

“If a commercial airliner didn’t knock down a light pole which subsequently impaled llyods cab. Then there is no reason to assume that a commercial airliner knocked down a light pole.”

Originally posted by tezzajw
First-hand testimony from a discredited witness is not reliable,

Wrong. Initial testimony is given primacy weight particularly when corroborated by a prepondrance of circumstantial evidence, probable cause, lack of conflicting material evidence, lack of credible alternative explanation.

A commercial video statement recorded years after the fact done with no controls, impartial third party witnesses on hand, no access to outtakes, particularly with an interviewee considered by some to be senile, is inadmissable.

Compounded by suspicion of evidence tampering by the source of the recording.

All of which has no bearing on the plane crash into the Pentagon that occurred within seconds of this peripheral event, and is the topic of this discussion.

Why do multiple witnesses claim a Boeing 757 knocked down light poles in the vicinity of the taxi, and struck the Pentagon? Why were there light poles on the ground instantaneously?

Why was debris of Flight 77 found in and around the Pentagon? Why was there DNA evidence found in the crash site that matched that of passengers on Flight 77?

Where is the "Alarming Evidence" that brings any of these verified facts into question?

Originally posted by mmiichael
with an interviewee considered by some to be senile, is inadmissable.

You claimed that he was senile, mmiichael. You have not proven this claim.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Why do multiple witnesses claim a Boeing 757 knocked down light poles in the vicinity of the taxi,

Please list the names of these witnesses and confirm their statements with independently verified interviews.

Your failure to do so will be your admission that you have handwaved this claim to be true.

Originally posted by JPhish

en.wikipedia.org...
Circumstantial evidence is used in civil courts to establish or deny liability. It is usually the most common form of evidence, for example in product liability cases and road traffic accidents

Sorry, you are still 100% wrong. Our court system is flawed, so using examples of how it conducts itself is laughable. I’m talking about epistemology and basic scientific method. Circumstantial evidence should never be relied on to deduce TRUTH. EVER.

The law was cited as the issue was legal 'proof'

Circumstantial evidence, it's preponderance, when in conjunction with testimony, and a lack of alternative plausible explanations are used extensively in the legal system, particularly with traffic accidents.

If circumstantial evidence were given no weight, it would be impossible to prosecute or defend in a vast number of cases. Very few incidents are fully witnessed or recorded.

You can check this out.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

You disagree so the witnesses are all either lying or mistaken?

No they are either lying or mistaken because the evidence disagrees with them and none of their stories corroborate each other.

Here is one who watched the entire event: americanhistory.si.edu...

"I work at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation"

i should have stopped reading it right there. Are you serious?

The witness has a conflict of interest in regards to telling the story accurately or telling the story at all.

Not a reliable witness.

"At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon."

Conflicting with Mike Walters' "report" who said that the wings folded back.

"God Bless America!"

too funny.

Which are you?

"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun."

A plane hit the Pentagon. All evidence points to that. Anyone who says differently is "either lying or mistaken."

All the evidence points to a plane hitting the Pentagon? You sure about that?

Let’s make a deal, if I prove you wrong, you leave this thread to people who are logical.

Mind you, you just said that ALL of the evidence points to a plane hitting the pentagon.

Feel free to rephrase your statement.

Originally posted by JPhish
Mind you, you just said that ALL of the evidence points to a plane hitting the pentagon.

Allow me to second that thought. ALL of the evidence points to a plane hitting the Pentagon.

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by JPhish

en.wikipedia.org...
Circumstantial evidence is used in civil courts to establish or deny liability. It is usually the most common form of evidence, for example in product liability cases and road traffic accidents

Sorry, you are still 100% wrong. Our court system is flawed, so using examples of how it conducts itself is laughable. I’m talking about epistemology and basic scientific method. Circumstantial evidence should never be relied on to deduce TRUTH. EVER.

The law was cited as the issue was legal 'proof'

legal proof is different from actually proof. This is epistemology 101.

Circumstantial evidence, it's preponderance, when in conjunction with testimony, and a lack of alternative plausible explanations are used extensively in the legal system, particularly with traffic accidents.

This is why it is so easy to dupe insurance companies.

AGAIN

I could pay a random stranger $20 right now; find a broken windshield, attach it to my car replacing the unbroken one. Have the guy call the cops. Have him tell the cops he saw a thug nail my windshield with a baseball bat.

Guess what?

I’ll make a $200 insurance claim. I’ve just increased my investment 10 fold.

If circumstantial evidence were given no weight, it would be impossible to prosecute or defend in a vast number of cases.

It’s supposed to be impossible to prosecute and defend most cases. Naively relying on circumstantial evidence is the reason why innocent men go to prison and insurance fraud is easier than stealing candy from a baby.

Very few incidents are fully witnessed or recorded.

There are stars in space, thanks for the insight.

You can check this out.

check what out?

[edit on 11/22/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by JPhish
Mind you, you just said that ALL of the evidence points to a plane hitting the pentagon.

Allow me to second that thought. ALL of the evidence points to a plane hitting the Pentagon.

i'm serious about pteridine leaving the thread if i prove him wrong, if he agrees to the wager i'll make sure his end of the deal is upheld by the moderators.

And the same holds true for me, if i can not prove the claim fallacious i won't post in this thread anymore and the mods can delete any posts if i do.

Are you willing to no longer post in this thread if i prove the claim fallacious 911files?

If not, hold your tongue knave.

[edit on 11/22/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Circumstantial evidence, it's preponderance, when in conjunction with testimony, and a lack of alternative plausible explanations are used extensively in the legal system, particularly with traffic accidents.

Is this what you have reduced yourself to, mmiichael?

Arguing precedents used for traffic accidents to try and prove that a light pole hit the taxi?

Your utter failure to prove that a light pole hit the taxi has resulted in you handwaving around circumstantial evidence... Keep going with that line of thought, it's showing the casual readers how you have run out of ideas.

Originally posted by JPhish
Are you willing to no longer post in this thread if i prove the claim fallacious 911files?

If not, hold your tongue knave.

[edit on 11/22/2009 by JPhish]

I don't make childish bets, but be careful what you ask for.