First things first: What Hit the Lightpoles?!, page 4

Originally posted by robert z

Everything you've stated above applies to your own arguments and conclusions. In terms of valid debate tactics, it is you who are averring an extraordinary scenario that needs to be substantiated with an analysis of all available data, not just data you deem worthy.

Incorrect. The burden of proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon is on the government and I am merely showing how they have failed.

Shifting the burden of proof is another logical fallacy so you once again YOU have failed to demonstrate critical thinking.

You claim that it's not your job to explain why the evidence contradicts the official story, yet you do exactly that in concluding that the entire operation of a grand illusion which includes an unseen flyover of the Pentagon by a 757.

Where was a flyover mentioned in this thread? This thread is about the light poles. Let me know when you plan to address the evidence within the context of the proposed discussion.

The fact that you can't reconcile all the data to fit with the official story does NOT prove your theory true.

The north side claim is not a theory. It is independently corroborated evidence. The fact that the plane was not near the poles and the fact that Lloyd's story is irreconcilable with the physical damage to his cab is not a theory. It is evidence.

In fact, in reading your posts it is YOU who base almost the entirety of your arguments from a position of incredulity. You simply don't believe that the pole could have damaged the windshield without damaging the hood. Your disbelief leads you to conclude the story is false. That is a classic example of an argument from incredulity.

Incorrect. It is a physical fact based off Lloyd's first-hand testimony when considering the length and weight of the pole in relation to the kinetic energy of a 90 ton jet traveling over 500 mph. These are facts, not conjecture.

I am addressing the evidence directly. 5 light poles were found on the ground along a path that coincides with the internal damage to the Pentagon. All witnesses, including your Citgo witnesses saw a plane. Only one witness claims the plane did NOT hit the Pentagon and instead flew over the Pentagon.

Can we agree that this is a subset of the evidence in question?

No because it is incomplete and ignores the entire point which is that ALL witnesses place the plane far from the physical damage. The north side claim is highly corroborated and not directly refuted by a single other account in the entire investigative body of evidence regardless of how many people were deceived into believing the plane hit the building.

Based on this evidence, we have not just a preponderance, but evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane hit the Pentagon per the official story.

Well no because you took it out of context of the FACT that the plane was not near the physical damage and therefore can not be what created it.

* All but ONE witness testified that the plane hit the Pentagon. 100% of all witnesses testified that there was indeed a plane.

Incorrect. Very few of the reported witnesses were able to physically see the alleged impact so therefore cannot legitimately testify to this.

* 100% of all witnesses testified that the plane approached the face of the Pentagon at the exact location of the explosion at precisely the exact moment of the explosion.

Not many specifically say this at all but yes I agree with this statement.

* Pieces of the witnessed plane were found inside the Pentagon and on the lawn.

Some yes. Suspicously few but some. NONE have been positively identified as being from tail number N644AA.

* Radar controllers tracked the plane into the Pentagon.

Wrong. It was completely lost on radar as early as 8:56 and ATC even though it went down in the Kentucky/Ohio border.

Even the 9/11 Commission acknowledges this.
source

* The C-130 pilot visually identified FL77 per instructions from ATC.

Incorrect. He would have no way of telling the flight number, does not describe the aircraft, and specifically says that he did NOT see it hit the building or even know at first that the initial smoke he saw rising was coming from the Pentagon.

Lt. Col Steve O'Brien:

"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National Airport."

* Civilians, including young school children and their teachers, were known to be on FL77 and have never returned to their families.

Sure. Of course this does not support the notion that the plane hit the Pentagon.

The above is just SOME of the evidence of the official story that FL77 hit the Pentagon.

None of it valid nor does it refute the evidence proving their story false.

Your evidence that FL77 flew over the Pentagon:

* One witness stated they believed the plane flew over the Pentagon.

* 4 witnesses said the plane flew to the north of the Citgo, therefore precluding the plane from hitting the light poles. (So rather than conclude the witnesses are wrong about the flight path, you conclude secret agents planted the light poles.)

* The FDR data doesn't match up with the downed light poles based on your analysis, even though the same perps who would have planted the poles could have created a corroborating FDR but chose not to.

* Based on the limited photos you have access to, and based on your own incredulity, the lack of perceived foundation damage precludes that FL77 hit the Pentagon.

So try these rules of debate...

a) 3 of your 4 witnesses provide internally contradictory evidence for your flyover theory. This means that something they claimed to witness is wrong -either the north of Citgo flight path or the plane hitting the Pentagon. It is your position of incredulity that leads you to conclude that they are right about the flight path but wrong about the plane hitting the Pentagon. According to the rules of debate, the testimony of 3 of your witnesses would weigh equally in favor of the official story as your flyover theory.

b) For your scenario to be true, by necessity you must begin creating a reality that is backed up by no affirmative evidence. You must concoct secret agents implementing secret plans for which there is no evidence of having ever existed. This is the equivalent to John Lear's grade-school holograph explanations based on his claim that futuristic technology was used for which there is no evidence of its existence.

Your theory requires the following evidence, which does not exist:

No evidence of poles downed before impact,
No evidence taxi driver is government agent,
No evidence of agents placing the poles on the road,
No evidence of 757 flying on opposite side of the Pentagon after flyover,
No evidence of anybody planting parts of plane inside the Pentagon,
No evidence of anybody planting parts of plane on the lawn,
No evidence of any other device other than a plane causing the explosion,
No evidence passengers on FL77 are still living,
No evidence passengers on FL77 were murdered away from Pentagon,
No evidence passengers on FL77 were fake identities a la Northwoods,
No evidence that the ATC radar data was faked to show the plane disappear from radar at the Pentagon,
No evidence of the 757 landing anywhere else, etc.

You have proven time after time that it is YOU that's approaching the entirety of the evidence from a position of incredulity in terms of the official story. You've latched onto a very small segment of data (your witnesses, 3 of whom saw the plane hit the Pentagon) and have concocted a fantasy world of scenarios that have no corroborating evidence.

And when reasonable people like myself are unconvinced of your flimsy arguments, you and your sidekick Aldo invariably degrade, insult, and attack them rather than face the fact that your arguments are lacking.

Here's the reality. In spite of your zealous efforts, you've failed to convince many people of your flyover theory. Your antagonistic and degrading attitude towards others makes you and your theory look even less substantive.

Once again you have resorted to an argument from incredulity without directly addressing the evidence relevant to the topic of discussion.

Um, wow, this thread got active. I can't see where its gone way off topic. Good times.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If you didn't actually say that I argued it then you have place bringing it up in this discussion.

Fair enough.

Realy tho, should I start a new thread saying that I wouldn't argue that? I really wouldn't argue that. But I apologize if anybody did percieve the apparent insiniuendo as your argument.

Suggesting that they had control over traffic of a single highway during the operation of an operation that they created is NOT even close to the same as suggesting they "totally controlled" every single human that was present even 5 years later when we are there looking for witnesses.

Honestly, I certainly view the "perps" as being control freaks. In fact, most related to all possible motives for a "9/11 Conspiracy" would be the result of said paradigm. Your language, to me, spoke of the same. If there was a "conspiracy" then 'you' can bet that they would have agents in place there, as well as anywhere else of strategic value. The fact that "they" were so prepared to gather the security tapes demonstrates that they had already considered the location.

From there, assuming there was a conspiracy, then it's irrational, in my view, to assume that they aren't "watching" 9/11 "Truthers", myself included. In such a case, then they would have been tapping the phone of yourself and Merc, and with the gathered intel would have provocatuer agents ready in advance to be ready to answer your questions.

That was my reasoning for that proposition anyways.

How did they know we would talk to the cops and Edward Paik also?

I'm not sure how you 'dug up' the Pentagon Police. Haven't seen that stated anywhere yet. Isn't Edward an immigrant? He could be an agent from the "School of the America's. During Operations Gladio/CONDOR they would send terrorist agents, trained at the SotA's, from South America over to Europe to perform assassinations and other terrorist acts so that if caught they would be hard to investigate. It's so sad that we can't trust much of anything thanks to our grossly corrupted Estavlishment.

Your conspiracy theory here is way more complex and absurd then anything I have suggested.

Not really. It's actually quite simple. So simple in fact that it makes explaining a highly complex subject a simple matter worth rilling up actionable energy. I'm not even saying in absolutes that you or other Pentagon theorists are wrong. Instead I'm just testing out how rock solid the issue is in assessing how far I should consider pushing my supplimentary arguement which doesn't disprove or prove anything, other than action is justified, in the most simplest terms possible.

That was you making up things I didn't claim showing your dishonest approach to discussion. Don't do it again.

The mind only memorizes in approximations. This discourse, and my PC access, has been sporatic, so I hope you can forgive some of my generalizations.

So that's a 14 minute window within which they had to work. Do we know how many other official cars & "traffic controllers" were in the visible area (on the road there with them)?

Nope. Impossible to find out and not really an issue as the feds could do whatever they wanted without question.

Well, to a certain degree. This is a limited area wher ewithin minutes people were rushing out to help out, where many exit doors faced the highway section as a matter of fact.

Most normal commuters and the average public in general are not part of this conspiracy world and the "chance" that one would notice ANYTHING out of the ordinary throughout the entire course of this very complex operation is obviously a chance the perps were willing to take.

But highway, Pentagon and etc relevent police would. People whose ruotines are these areas and their lives are based on observation. I wouldn't say "zero chance" for the rest of the sheeple out there either; when you're bogged down in traffic you tend to observe things in a much richer form.

That is the nature of any lie. You risk getting caught.

Which is why I don't understand just having the patsy pilots just crash it, or the E4-B jet just guide them there, or why mess with poles at all and have the plane go where it goes, or why not just release the damn NTSB reports/etc to wrap up the case. My persistence in 'my' dichotomy isn't self-serving or irrational.

EVEN IF people noticed a pole or two on the ground it would not matter just like it doesn't matter that Willie Rodrigez and others experienced bombs in the basement of the wtc.

My point is that we'd hear about it. I won't argue that virtually ALL related whistle-blowers on all levels haven't been ignored by the masses/etc.

The light poles have only become a point of 9/11 scrutiny as a result of our work. They were rarely mentioned at all in passing by some conspiracy sites before that but the mainstream media and all official reports have always ignored them.

I thought this thread up on my own accord. And it wasn't even directed at CIT. This was a understanding seeking ordeal. I really don't even read conspiracy sites analysis'. I have seen all of the videos anyways. But I mostly go from the "facts" and "info" that I know as I articulate my way thru the fog of the edutainmentsphere.

1. Where do you get this "thousands" number? How many would have noticed the hidden light poles? Answer: not thousands.

That's a number I'd attribute to any busy highway section, alone. On Saturdays the local Ron paul Meetup group goes to thsi one busy intersection from tiem to time. This one location has between 20,000-30,000 cars pass thru in 2 hours, on Saturday. Highways packed with cars move tons of people in short time. Then there's everybody who could look out the Pentagon windows still, perhaps. The people running out. The recue workers. The people driving by until they were blocked and sent someplace else. Etc.

2. My argument does not include anything out of the ordinary that they WOULD have noticed. Even if a couple people noticed a pole off to the side that is NOT a reason for alarm under any circumstances.

As long as it doesn't involve moving them all into place, I'll give you that one.

The media and all official reports have ignored the light poles. This is fact.

I'll take that as evidence that they're not even trying to debunk 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. because it's real easy to make this one very difficult. Simply do a 5+ minute report, to millions at once, and entirely focus on the ligthpoles while not mentioning the unscratched carhood and they'll all 'go back to sleep'.

They believed the official story. They believed the plane hit the poles even though they didn't see it happen. THIS WAS MADE 100% CLEAR.

I watched your well produced film a few times, but it has been awhile. I honestly can't recall having this issue cleared up or directly discussed. It seems it would have been more memorable this vast contradiction.