Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by JPhish
If you’re familiar with logic, I suggest you start employing it. I’m not here for your entertainment; I’m here to spread the truth, which I seem to be doing quite efficiently since illogical comments are all my opponents can seem to retort with.

Everything you say is entertaining.

I’m glad you were entertained. But I regret you’ve thrown in the towel because of your incapacity to debate logically.

You know bugger all about what took place on 9/11 and show it with every ridiculous post you make on the subject.

bare assertion (3) This thread is evidence to the contrary.

There has never been a question that 3 planes hit 3 targets on Sept 11, 2001. Too many eyewitnesses, pictures, warehouses full of evidence.

Bare assertion (4) If all of this evidence were abound, one would assume you’d be using it instead of illogical insults.

A fringe subculture of paranoids and mental defective likes to play with the reports and testimony re-editing and twisting it into some US govt mega-conspiracy.

appeal to ridicule (5).

Witness this "no plane hit the Pentagon" lunacy.

poisoning the well (6)

8 years later none of this BS pans out to a shred of solid evidence.

bare assertion(7) Craig has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane that passed over the naval annex north of the citgo gas station did not knock down any light poles which subsequently impaled Lloyds cab.

Solid Proof

But they desperately keep on trying. Like with the fixation on some nearby taxi's broken windshield. What kind of retarded person thinks it's relevant to anything?

Argumentum ad baculum (8)

If x accepts P is true, then Q .
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, P is not true.

If a person accepts what I say is true, then that person is retarded.
Being retarded is a punishment upon that person.
Therefore what I say is not true.

Nice logic.~

You've very obviously have never read a single thing by someone with a two eyes and more than half a brain on 9/11 - restricting your diet to all the junk food lies, speculation and disinformation which you swallow down whole.

bare assertions (9)

You show zero display of critical faculties.

bare assertion (10)

Don't respond with the usual Philosophy 101 and use of Latinate 3 syllable word you don't understand.

bare assertion (11)

It won't get read.

Au contraire! It more than likely will be read by someone; and whomever reads it, will bare witness to the FACT that your insults and lies were impotent against logic.

P.S. I hope that person is you.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by pteridine
Of course everyone is in on it and lying

straw man (1) I never said that everyone was “in on it” or lying.

and you, because you are a genius, can make the determination of which witnesses are real and which are agents of the plotters.

straw man (2) I never claimed to be a genius nor did I claim to have the ability to determine if someone is a government agent or plotter.

Surely, you can tell us what solid evidence you have that is the basis for your position.

Neither of those things you just stated were my position all. They were Straw Men created by you. Nice try though.

Please don't trot out the mindless "questions unanswered" or subjective inconsistencies in witness statements.

poisoning the well (3) It is not very judicious to suggest that questioning inconsistencies in witness statements is mindless or unproductive.

Those are for people who seek an easy way to rouse the masses without evidence.

bare assertion (4)

Evidence

My personal interviews have yielded reliable evidence as well.

A person of your skills understands human psychology and eyewitness accounts and does not need something-for-truth websites to do his thinking for him.
You understand that thousands of gallons of hydrocarbon were burned and have a theory, substantiated by evidence, of how it got to the Pentagon and how it was ignited.
You understand who planted evidence and how and when they did it. You have the knowledge of Newton when it comes to understanding modern aircraft and will not repeat misinformation spouted by the technically incompetent.

Appeal to flattery (5) That was rather tactless on your part and demonstrative of the degrees to which you underestimate me.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Like with the fixation on some nearby taxi's broken windshield. What kind of retarded person thinks it's relevant to anything?

Just a reminder for you, mmiichael.

You have not proven that the light pole hit the taxi. If you don't think that it is relevant to anything, then why do you claim that the light pole hit the taxi?

You have not substantiated your claim that thousands of people saw the plane depart.

You have not substantiated your claim that hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon knocking over light poles.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by JPhish


You seem to have gone completely through your latest course on logic and rhetoric without explaining how you know which witnesses are telling the truth and which are "lying," as you so judiciously phrase it.

You should be able to postulate a theory that has some grounding in physical evidence and provide reasoned explanations of what happened if you think AA77 didn't strike the Pentagon.

Have your interviews shown anything of substance? Inquiring minds want to know.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

You seem to have gone completely through your latest course on logic and rhetoric without explaining how you know which witnesses are telling the truth and which are "lying," as you so judiciously phrase it.

When did I claim to know which witnesses are telling the truth and which are lying???

If I were able to deduce such things, I wouldn’t be posting on these forums. I’d be working for the government as an interrogative human lie detector or something. Oh sweet irony.

You should be able to postulate a theory that has some grounding in physical evidence and provide reasoned explanations of what happened if you think AA77 didn't strike the Pentagon.

Yes, I easily could, but any theory contrived at this point is “ground and consequent” and I prefer not to dabble in such things. I prefer to disprove current theories. It’s much more realistic.

So you can understand . . . The theory of evolution is ground and consequent. You currently can not prove it because the time needed to run a proper experiment is currently inaccessible to us, therefore we lack the readily observable and testable evidence required. However, if conflicting evidence were found; it would be disproved easily.

A 9-11 theory is even worse because unlike Evolution which is timeless (if the theory is correct) 9-11 happened only once and it is not currently happening. Hence there is no readily observable and testable evidence from which to test new hypothesis now or in the future. The only thing you can do at this point is inspect previous inferences and question their veracity logically.

Have your interviews shown anything of substance? Inquiring minds want to know.

Um, yes actually. I’m not going to go into much detail, but the ones that stick out for me . . .

A man I interviewed who worked in the towers in the late 60's/early 70's*. He had a lot of background knowledge of the buildings, particularly concerning the ventilation system, emergency drills/false alarms that were conducted while he worked in the building and also informed me of a fun little fact about the building codes while they were under construction (that fun little fact I will keep to myself for crosschecking reasons.)

The welder on the bridge was useful as well; he knew the melting points of the materials within the trade centers and other technical aspects concerning their design and construction because he’s actually worked on high-rise steel buildings. He also had an incredible vantage point of the incident. . .

Interviewed someone who had an FBI informant that was allegedly on the scene; had valuable information regarding WTC7.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by tezzajw
You have not proven that the light pole hit the taxi. If you don't think that it is relevant to anything, then why do you claim that the light pole hit the taxi?

You have not substantiated your claim that thousands of people saw the plane depart.

You have not substantiated your claim that hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon knocking over light poles.

Just a reminder to you tezza****

No one appointed you to a position of authority on this thread. The OP 'burntheships' got his multiple stars for the sensationalist subject title and split 2 months ago.

My job is not to personally provide proof of anything that happened in Washington 8 years ago. I do point to the overwhelming amount of independently gathered evidence and testimony substantiating the on-the scene reports of a passenger plane hitting the Pentagon. Further confirmed by DNA in the wreckage traced to passengers of American Airlines Flight 77 which left Dulles airport little over an hour prior. No reasonable person or court of law would conclude anything other than Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. We also have evidence, testimony and confessions showing us who planned and executed these attacks.

Nothing of any weight from any of the concocted bizarre alternative theories has produced much more than some amateurishly edited videos and website speculations. There is no counter evidence.

A broken windshield on a taxi cab in the wake of the low incoming plane is irrelevant to the attack on US military headquarters. Evidence and testimony indicate a downed light pole breaking the glass. If it were ever shown the driver found cause to smash his own windshield, secret government agents did it for undetermined reasons, it was a Sign from God - it would not in any way affect the established primary fact that a hijacked passenger plane crashed into the Pentagon. Attempts to create doubt about this minor incident are recognized as part of a parasitic sub-industry exploiting the gullibility of the conspiracy-minded. No one intelligent and reasonable takes them seriously.

Unless you can point to evidence of something completely different happening that alters significantly what is know about this terrorist attack you contribute nothing except trivial attention seeking diversions.



[edit on 26-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Unless you can point to evidence of something completely different happening that alters significantly what is know about this terrorist attack you contribute nothing except trivial attention seeking diversions.

Why do official story believers always use this ridiculous logic?

No one is obligated to create an alternative theory in order to recognize a lack of evidence...

I understand it is easier for you to put all "truthers" in the same box with tons of crazy theories but that doesn't magically create evidence for your own claim.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by mmiichael
Unless you can point to evidence of something completely different happening that alters significantly what is know about this terrorist attack you contribute nothing except trivial attention seeking diversions.

Why do official story believers always use this ridiculous logic?

No one is obligated to create an alternative theory in order to recognize a lack of evidence...

I understand it is easier for you to put all "truthers" in the same box with tons of crazy theories but that doesn't magically create evidence for your own claim.

You very obviously have not looked at the overwhelming mass of independent verification of the 9/11 event and are unqualified to critique it.

Dopey websites and videos claim there is insufficient proof. Dopes buy into this disinformation campaign without questioning it.

Millions of people throughout the world have looked at the evidence, examined it, asked relevant questions. The vast majority now understand the dynamics of the plane crashes and resultant deaths and destruction.

A small vocal minority refuses to accept these facts. That is their problem.

When and if a new scenario is presented that fits the established facts everyone will listen. In 8 years nothing has emerged beyond vague speculations and off-the-wall theories. The inability to find contradictory evidence only adds further weight to what is already known. No one has found anything seriously conflicting with what was determined by the end of the first day. Muslim extremists hijacked passenger airliners and crashed them into selected targets.

If there's a completely different story that can be proven - what is it?


M




[edit on 26-11-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by JPhish


So the bottom line is that you don't have anything and won't postulate any theory.

reply to post by JPhish

double post...disobedient computer

[edit on 11/26/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by mmiichael
No one appointed you to a position of authority on this thread. The OP 'burntheships' got his multiple stars for the sensationalist subject title and split 2 months ago.

I never claimed to be the authority in this thread, mmiichael. As a fellow member, I'm concerned that your ATS reputation will suffer, unless you can prove your claims to the casual readers.

Here, I'll remind you again what you claimed, so you don't forget what you stated as fact:

You have not proven that the light pole hit the taxi. If you don't think that it is relevant to anything, then why do you claim that the light pole hit the taxi?

You have not substantiated your claim that thousands of people saw the plane depart.

You have not substantiated your claim that hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon knocking over light poles.

Your assumption that the OP, burntheships, 'split 2 months ago' may not be accurate, mmiichael. Can you prove that burntheships has not been reading the thread?

Originally posted by mmiichael
My job is not to personally provide proof of anything that happened in Washington 8 years ago.

Then why do you make statements, as facts, when you are not prepared to prove them?

You appear to have a lot in common with pteridine, remember when he stated this:

Originally posted by pteridine
You want evidence? People in Hell want ice water. My job is not evidence producer.

pteridine won't provide evidence and you won't provide proof.

Please explain to the casual readers why both of you continue to make claims as facts and expect to be believed?

reply to post by tezzajw


...."Please explain to the casual readers why both of you continue to make claims as facts and expect to be believed?"

Please explain to the casual readers why you have a double standard with respect to backing up statements and why you continue to troll. You have failed once again to back up your statements. Will you ever make a positive contribution? Will you ever have enough information and imagination to postulate a theory of your own?

Originally posted by pteridine
You have failed once again to back up your statements.

I asked you earlier in the thread to list the statements that I have not supported, regarding the Pentagon attack. You went strangely silent and never replied.

Originally posted by pteridine
Will you ever make a positive contribution?

I've made a very positive contribution, trying to help you and mmiichael keep track of the claims that both of you have made. That way, neither of you can forget that you have a duty to prove your claims, should your reputation matter to you.

Originally posted by pteridine
Will you ever have enough information and imagination to postulate a theory of your own?

It is not encumbant upon me to do so. I have mentioned this at least six times in the thread, pteridine. You continually act as though I have never answered this question.

You expose your weak logic when you think that I need to postulate a theory. I have stated my position. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. I want to believe you and mmiichael that a light pole hit the taxi but you both fail to prove it.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


"You expose your weak logic when you think that I need to postulate a theory. I have stated my position. I don't know what happened ...."

You expose your weak logic as you assume that I think you need to postulate a theory. I wanted you to stop trolling and use your brain, apparently in vain. I erroneously assumed that you were bright enough to do so.

Originally posted by pteridine
You expose your weak logic as you assume that I think you need to postulate a theory. I wanted you to stop trolling and use your brain, apparently in vain. I erroneously assumed that you were bright enough to do so.

Oh, pteridine... is this what you have reduced yourself to?

The logical mess that you create for yourself is quite telling.

You want me to postulate a theory. It is not encumbant upon me to do so. You expose your weak logical thinking when you want me to pose a theory, as I am not required to do so. You expose your neglect to read and understand my many previous posts where I have stated exactly the same position, of not knowing what happened at the Pentagon.

Casual readers should also note that pteridine failed to make a list of my unsupported claims, about the Pentagon attack, that he has alleged exist. It is quite telling that pteridine accuses me of not supporting my claims, yet he fails to make the list of claims that I have not supported about the Pentagon attack!

pteridine, on page 75 of this thread, you stated:

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

Two weeks ago, you were promising to rush down and interview Lloyde for us.

How much progress have you made, pteridine?

Is two weeks enough time for you to 'rush right down there', pteridine?

[edit on 26-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Where's Craig?

I'm worried Lloyde England will call Dick Cheney and tell him Citizen's Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California has uncovered the big cover-up. They know about the hidden videos, the faked plane, the flyover, the painted missile, everything.

Time for another false flag operation to divert attention. The light pole pulling and windshield smashing crews need to be put back in action.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Can you come up with an alternate theory of what happened that is consistent with the evidence at hand? If you believe that a different plane struck the Pentagon, please hypothesize what happened to Flt 77, and its passengers, in some detail and provide a basis for your belief.

My uncle died suddenly in his sleep. They were never able to determine the cause of death. I guess I could then say that he died from a stroke or heart attack. Now my premise is true until you come up with an alternate explanation????????????????

To say that you are right only because I cannot offer a perfect explanation against it is just about the stupidest thing since Jthomas insisting everyone prove a negative.

For one thing, I never said it was another plane, did I???? Now you are asking me to provide you with an explanation for something I never said????????

Dude, seriously.

It could have been several different things happening that day. I could guess if I wanted to, we all could.

You are apparently getting your info from the people on tv that tell you what to think. I am getting mine from the evidence provided to us. So far there has been no evidence at all that flight 77 crashed into the pentagon. No plane, no engines, no wings, no wing damage, no bodies. If you came from a black hole and just happened upon that crime scene, would you guess airplane crash from the evidence at hand? What evidence exactly is it that does it for you?

I do not believe Tony Snow. Sorry. I do not have to explain what really did happen just to doubt the story we have had. I expected better from you than this kind of pointless exercise in fishing for stars. You got some, hope that makes you happy. You tell me what evidence I should be looking at so that I can believe the same thing you do.

Look how many threads and how many pages about 9/11 are here. What is the holdup? You all have the only one true story and all the reasons that you believe it. Why are the rest of us still calling BS and asking for this evidence? Are you OS believers also withholding for the trial?

Of course, if I was out promoting a government manufactured lie and people were calling me on it and asking me to provide evidence to prove why I believe it....then I guess I would flip it and tell you you have to explain why it is wrong. See how weak, cowardly, and intellectually dishonest that is.

If you believe the OS, just show us the evidence that convinced you. There is still time to convince me, I am not dead yet. You are not even trying though. People like you are not here because you care about the truth. If you did, you would be using that as your weapon instead of trying to turn the tables for no reason other than to grab some cover.

Oh, and P.S. I just thought these two things looked nice together.

originally posted by pteridine
Can you come up with an alternate theory of what happened that is consistent with the evidence at hand?

and

You expose your weak logic as you assume that I think you need to postulate a theory.

Do you pay attention to yourself?

[edit on 11/26/09 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by mmiichael
You very obviously have not looked at the overwhelming mass of independent verification of the 9/11 event and are unqualified to critique it.

"overwhelming mass of independent verification"

Repeatably claiming evidence exists is not the same as posting it.

You still didn't prove your claim.

Just because I won't except your claims without evidence doesn't mean I'm not qualified to point out that lack of evidence.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by mmiichael
You very obviously have not looked at the overwhelming mass of independent verification of the 9/11 event and are unqualified to critique it.

"overwhelming mass of independent verification"

Repeatably claiming evidence exists is not the same as posting it.

You still didn't prove your claim.

Just because I won't except your claims without evidence doesn't mean I'm not qualified to point out that lack of evidence.

I don't make what you call claims. Just restate facts. It's November, it 2009, the Sun comes up in the East. I don't have to prove these things. They're not claims. Except for the odd nut bar, everybody accepts them.

Every kid in Grade 5 can look up the documentation of 9/11. The names, pictures, testimony, etc, etc.

If I mention a city has 3 million people. I don't have to give a list of all 3 million names and addresses because some twerp says "Prove it."

You and a few others have to deal with your choice of denial and ignorance. You don't want to look at any of facts and keep calling them claims because they would shatter you Big Bad Conspiracy Fantasy. Keep right in doing it.

I've had to look at enough BS that people put out on these list. Talk about some msterious invisible plane flying over the Pentagon, some old cab driver being in on the Big Coverup, various other nonsense.

That's what a claim is. No support just supposition.