Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Reheat
I see. How come there are NO QUESTIONS in any of your previous posts, only statements? There are only questions here in this one for the first time. JAQing my rear end.

I guess you don't know that a question mark at the end of a sentence means it is a question?

Out of the 6 previous posts in this thread, 4 had questions in them. Is this another spin/lie comming from your mouth Reheat?

Sure you did, including the one I addressed. You made a statement with a question mark at the end. It was addressed at least twice. They were not questions, they were statements, both wrong.

So, you now count the questions in the post I addressed. I'm sure your mother is proud of you.

Originally posted by Griff
For the third and last time for the closed minded among us. My reference was specifically about the ATC tracking FLIGHT 93 and keeping other planes away from it (which included the Delta flight) and the military involvement.

Yes, I agree. And why you used bold on both the Delta Flight and Military involvement was not lost on me or anyone else who knows what you were attempting to imply.

It was quite clear even tho' you are now denying any implications.

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
seems like me and cit report what eyewitnesses see...

Correction. You and CIT (and the others in the tree fort) report your twisted and convoluted gerrymandered pretzeling of witness statements to match your obscene raping of the actual events in order to keep up the sales for your neat hats with logos and baby-doll tee shirts for that cute little conspiracist in your life.

You use (and abuse, horribly) the concept of "trust" in order to get something from someone, then you twist it or ignore other important elements to suit your needs (i.e. Lagasse saw the plane hit the building. Boger saw the plane hit the building. Brooks saw the plane hit the building. You and CIT? You ignore those pesky little facts, with Alpo calling them "deduced" facts).

You have poisoned the well of information, making it so none of these "witnesses" can be interviewed again (re-read up on the OC Weekly request to talk to Lagasse and his reaction or try to talk to Roberts now).

Now, when faced with the explanation why all those aircraft appeared on a data spreadsheet, including UA 93, and all had take off times and landing times when the vast, vast majority of them never even took off, you ignore it. You don't seek further information, you don't try to find out by yourself - you ignore the actual reason for the data.

Your schtick is hilarious:

Dom: UA 93 landed at DCA!!!!!

Rational People: No, its a database made up of flight PLAN information, not actual landing data

Dom: UA 93 landed at DCA!!!!! It did it did it did!!!!!

RP: Will you listen? Look at the other aircraft on that spreadsheet! 98% never even took off!

Dom: Since UA 93 LANDED at DCA, it never crashed! It landeditlandeditlanded!!!!!!

With logic like that no wonder you guys are on the cover of Time and Newsweek and all the other MSM publications. Wait. You aren't. You are on the cover of the OC Weekly with a piece that says you are wacked-out moonbats.





[edit on 2-10-2008 by pinch]

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
i called the jet white because it was.

Yes, I understand perfectly that you added [white], but that is NOT what the kids said. You're attributing words to them [albeit in brackets] because you simply want to sell your story. That's dishonest.

What color was the Falcon 20?

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
so you do now admit that a fighter was present at shanksville at the time of the explosion?

Of course not. You knew that, but you tried to sneak it in anyway. Another case of blatant dishonesty.

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
that video isn't to show that 93 landed at dca that video was to help establish the presence of a military craft more than capable of creating the 8 foot deep crater witnesses saw.

I see, so now a fighter that fired missiles crashed into the trench in the ground at Shanksville. It was there at the same time as UA93 just to create the "military deception" or the words of you mentor a "military black operation". I wonder why the perps took the chance that you would discover that UA93 landed at DCA. Man, they are so smart one minute, but so dumb the next. They had no clue how smart you were to uncover all of this deception.

Propaganda prevention is exactly why I post to refute you. How 'bout you go interview the Johnstown Tower guys who asked the Falcon 20 to investigate the crash site. Oh, I forgot they have a "gagging order". That's like the "gagging order" that exists for the BBC, is it?

so now you claim it was johnstown atc that contacted gladwell and not cleveland? can't you keep your story straight taz?

Well, you could be right that it was Cleveland Center, but I'm not so sure now. Didn't the Falcon 20 land at the Johnstown airport which was it's destination? I'll have to check that more closely...

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
hey the bbc found where missing billions of dollars of us money ended up in iraq. you read the report. where did those billions end up at again?

I know you'd like to change the subject, but it's off topic.

I know. Now, why was it there if UA93 did not crash there? Susan said it was there just as UA93 crashed. Apparently, you don't believe her any more. Which part was she wrong about, the "little white drone" or that she also saw UA93 crash? Both can't be correct since you have stated there is proof that UA93 landed at DCA. It seems that you have proven your own witness wrong.

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
why was the little plane there? thats the million dollar question isn't it reheat?

No, not really. I don't think there is more than at the most 6 people who think there was a small drone. It's so stupid it stinks to high heaven.

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
oh by the way this further corroborates susan mcelwain. she did not see ua93 crash. she did not see any 757 anywhere even though it was allegedly nose diving out of the sky while she was staring in the same direction it was allegedly coming from.

Yes, I know that's what you think, but rational people don't.

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
so again how does this contradict her?

Simply because she did see the crash and you just don't realize it yet.

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
you're just running your mouth and talking # like always......

I've quoted this because I'm reporting it.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio

cit reports some people claim to have seen a 2nd plane seconds afterwards but there was only 1 plane.

Thank HEAVANS! According to Dom, we can finally put Roosevelt Roberts to bed, since he claimed there were 2 aircraft that day.

Great. Who is left, now, as your prime "flyover" witness now, Dom?

Oh. You don't have one. Well, truth be known you didn't have one with Roberts, either, but since he's out of the picture now, let's just move on, shall we?

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio

people saw a plane at the pentagon. there was one there.
some people saw a plane fly away from the pentagon seconds after the event [wheelhouse, varayamen, sucherman, roberts] but no one reported 2 planes approaching and the c130 didn't arrive until over 2 minutes after the fact.

You may want to go back and check Wheelhouse's testimony.

Noone reported a flyover.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by discombobulator]

Just as a point of information, and I know it's largely academic, (since after all, the hijacking of America and subsequent driving of the old jalopy into the ditch was initiated over seven years ago) would radar, of whatever sort, including Doppler, at Reagan International Airport have picked up a flyover, if one occurred at the Pentagon?


[edit on 2-10-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by Reheat
Yes, I agree. And why you used bold on both the Delta Flight and Military involvement was not lost on me or anyone else who knows what you were attempting to imply.

Try going back to the original post and show where I bolded anything to do with the Delta flight. Here, I'll help the old and tired around here.

As Werth struggled to keep other jets away from United 93, he had to turn the Delta flight (Delta 1989) several times. The pilots responded normally. He couldn't be sure of anything that day, but it seemed a safe bet that the Delta flight hadn't been hijacked.

However, Werth recalls, someone in the military seemed to have mixed up the Delta flight with the hijacked United jet. A supervisor rushed up to Werth and said, "It's the Delta!" Werth recalled. She told him that a military liaison on the phone had confirmed that the Delta jet was hijacked.

Now please show where the Delta is bolded or admit that you are making things up and/or plain old lying.

It was quite clear even tho' you are now denying any implications.

Maybe your glass eye needs a polishing because it is quite clear that I did no such thing.

If all you are going to do is spin my words and imply that I am implying this or that even when told that was not my intention, so be it, but I will not engage with you anymore. The circular arguments based on what YOU percieved me stating (even though shown again and again that YOUR perception is in the wrong again and again) get extremely tiresome.

[edit on 10/2/2008 by Griff]

If they had seen something at National, then I think that we would have heard something by now. The other controllers came first fairly quickly, and with the number of controllers on duty that day, you wouldn't be able to keep them ALL quiet this long.

They didn't know WHAT it was at first. They found out later. A primary skin paint is just that. It ONLY shows the target, no identifying data. For all they knew it was a military flight squawcking a mode they wouldn't pick up on the transponder and under military control.

I think you are speaking words that are truer than you know, although I realize you don't mean it in that sense. 9/11 was a strange day.