Originally posted by Arabesque
I believe in honest research.
That means it's possible for researchers to make mistakes and then correct them when they are pointed out. Simply deriding my work because I
haven't examined all 200 or so eyewitness statements as carefully as possible is disingenuous. The testimony is massive and fills many many pages.
I will examine all of the comments in this thread and will correct my research as necessary. Name calling ('liar', 'research') is juvenile and I
don't engage in that.
Of course you have to examine, analyze, and confirm or deny the accounts! If you don't it is not research it is merely blogging/compiling.
You were deceptive in your review.
I will give you credit for fixing my quote to Lagasse.
1. No single witness has ever come forward to claim that a large commercial plane did not hit the Pentagon. This is if you take away the very
small percentage who claimed it was a small plane from from farther away.
You do not know this. The 911 calls were confiscated and permanently sequestered just like all video was. We know because we checked. How can you
make claims about what people reported when you didn't even check?
The fact that this data was confiscated is incriminating in its own right. They would not hide this data if they had nothing to hide.
2. No single witness has ever come forward to claim that a plane flew over the Pentagon--excluding the C-130. The Pentagon is surrounded by
large highways.
Not all witnesses claim it was a c-130 and at least one even claims it was a "jet". Bottom line there WERE reports of a plane flying over the
Pentagon immediately after the explosion. So why weren't there more of them? And again.....you don't know what people reported because you didn't
check. And even if you did you wouldn't have found anything because the data has been sequestered.
3. No single witness has ever come forward to retract his claim that a plane hit the Pentagon.
Huh? Why would they? Many people were fooled into believing the plane hit. Most of them couldn't even see the Pentagon.
4. No single witness has ever come forward to claim that anything other than a plane knocked down the light poles.
Because they were staged in advance. Every "light pole witness" that we have talked to said they did NOT see the poles get hit after all. This
includes Sucherman, McGraw, Brooks, and Walter. How many have you talked to?
5. No single witness has ever come forward to claim that any debris was planted at the crash site.
Why would they see it? That could have been planted in advance and/or blown out of the construction trailers that were destroyed.
This is significant because of the traffic jams next to the Pentagon. Eyewitness testimony has been used to incriminate official complicity in events
such as the WTC attack, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the shoot down of flight 93 and other events. So why is there no compelling witness testimony at
the Pentagon to *directly* support a flyover, or alternative event at the Pentagon? In any case, the fact that a plane could hit the ground floor of
the Pentagon is incriminating enough evidence as it is. Hanni Hanjour could not have accomplished this feat, and this alone proves an inside job.
This is the strongest evidence of all--no speculation required.
You have not been to the area. There are not many good views on 395 which is set away from that wedge and there is only a TINY less than quarter mile
stretch of highway on route 27 where people may have seen the plane according to the official flight path:
But guess what? Even the people on that tiny stretch of highway would not have had a good view of the alleged impact because of the trees! See
detailed research with real images of their POV here:
Route 27 Witnesses POV Of Flight Path.
That small stretch of highway would have been EASILY controlled in this extremely secure area.
The incredibly high percentage of USA Today/Gannett employees certainly has suspicious implications as well.
But there is ZERO speculation required in the north side claim.
You have basically not really said anything about any of the citgo witnesses that proves them wrong but Lagasse and with him you merely go off on the
absurd logical fallacy argument that he is discredited because he was wrong about the poles and the cab that he DID NOT WITNESS.
You have no valid reason to dismiss their testimony and your report does not provide a single account that directly contradicts them about the north
side.
Not one.
