Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by emsed1

How does this equate to ultimate validation?

Because everyone else saw the plane approach and bank on the north side of the gas station proving it could not have hit the building.

I thought you said you watched it.

This shouldn't be so difficult to comprehend.

I just quoted you half a dozen witnesses who say the plane did hit the building?

Are they lying?

Originally posted by Amaterasu
To all of you who are posting all these interviews with people who claimed they saw a plane hit...

Nobody has done even that.

They are posting nothing but unconfirmed out of context media quotes.

That is hearsay not evidence.

First hand witness accounts are evidence.

Many people were deceived into believing the plane hit.

They are not all liars.

If they saw the plane and simply heard the explosion they will sometimes say "I saw the plane hit the Pentagon" even if they could not see the Pentagon.

This does not mean they are lying.

It just means that they deduced the impact and were deceived as intended.

This is why first hand confirmation and analyzation of actual points of view etc is so important.

Of course the fact that all the witnesses place it on the north side proves that there were some other alleged witnesses who DID lie.

This much is certain.

Originally posted by emsed1


I just quoted you half a dozen witnesses who say the plane did hit the building?

Are they lying?

Unconfirmed out of context media quotes are not evidence.

That is hearsay not evidence.

First hand witness accounts are evidence.

Many people were deceived into believing the plane hit.

Certainly they are not all liars.

If they saw the plane and simply heard the explosion they will sometimes say "I saw the plane hit the Pentagon" even if they could not see the Pentagon.

This does not mean they are lying.

It just means that they deduced the impact and were deceived as intended.

This is why first hand confirmation and scrutiny of actual points of view etc is so important.

That's the difference between investigative reporting and investigoogling.

Of course the fact that all the witnesses place on the north side proves that there were some other alleged witnesses who DID lie.

This much is certain.

Originally posted by Reheat


NONE of them are possible according to the witnesses.

Huh?


What the witnesses say they saw is impossible according to themselves?

How does that make sense?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Reheat


NONE of them are possible according to the witnesses.

Huh?


What the witnesses say they saw is impossible according to themselves?

How does that make sense?

It makes more sense than your garbage. The witnesses describe a scenario in which a flight path to get there and execute is IMPOSSIBLE.

If that is not true, you should be able to prove it's possible. You haven't been able to do that in OVER TWO (2) YEARS. ALL you can do is spit and sputter about how reliable your witnesses are.

CHALLENGE - Post a flight path that complies with witnesses statements from Mr. Paik to the Pentagon impact point WITH NUMBERS.

Your fantasy is destroyed.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Reheat]

What I want to say here concerning this, is that it is possible that some of the eyewitnesses who thought they saw the Plane Impact were thinking this, due to what was being reported in New York City.

All this talk about Planes hitting buildings "SEEDED" many peoples minds. So it is worth considering, that in a stressful situation you might think this is the case, when in fact it isn't.

It could be in the confusion of the Plane approaching the Pentagon at High Speed, timed with a very Large Explosion, and all the story's of Planes Hitting buildings, that people just concluded what they thought was obvious.


[edit on 6-8-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by beachnut


77 hit the Pentagon, your witness. The question is which part of "hit the building", do you have a problem with.

It's the part where he corroborates all the other witnesses from different perspectives and says it was banking on the north side of the gas station proving he must have been deceived in regards to the impact.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by beachnut


77 hit the Pentagon, your witness. The question is which part of "hit the building", do you have a problem with.

It's the part where he corroborates all the other witnesses from different perspectives and says it was banking on the north side of the gas station proving he must have been deceived in regards to the impact.

Oh, you mean the part that is aerodynamically impossible.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by beachnut


77 hit the Pentagon, your witness. The question is which part of "hit the building", do you have a problem with.

It's the part where he corroborates all the other witnesses from different perspectives and says it was banking on the north side of the gas station proving he must have been deceived in regards to the impact.

If he was deceived, who deceived him?

...there's one more point I want to make. I'm quite sure that most of us has been at an airport observation deck to watch a loved one take off. These are well away from the actual plane and runway.

So, a jet plane this big makes a hell of a lot of noise and vibration this low to the ground would it not rattle any body's brain enough to put them in shock and disbelief for perhaps 30 seconds.
Things happened so fast and LOUD and the fear of dying that there focus is getting out of the way.
What they really saw and what they assume are two different things.

the end