Dissecting the Flight 93 OCT...or should i say debunking it?

this video clearly provides enough evidence for one to conclude the OCT is a fabrication and is well deserving of its own thread.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by Domenick DiMaggio]

why is my thread flagged and what does that mean?

reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio



Great video! Star and flag, it sure proves the official story a lie.
I just love how that loser who will not answer the questions honestly, refers for them to ask the victims as if they would really know. The creep comes across as a liar especially when he starts getting angry and gets an attitude.

Now we know, all of 911 was Government sponsor terrorisms.

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio

 

Great video! Star and flag, it sure proves the official story a lie.
I just love how that loser who will not answer the questions honestly, refers for them to ask the victims as if they would really know. The creep comes across as a liar especially when he starts getting angry and gets an attitude.

Now we know, all of 911 was Government sponsor terrorisms.

thank you!

then i believe its safe to say flags are a good thing....?

thought someone would have tried to debunk something by now.....

geez i wonder why no duh-bunker has tackled this yet..........nah im just kidding i know why.

so when you leave the enemies of truth speechless that means you've won.......right?

I take this to mean that since you and CIT cannot provide any eyewitness or media reports of AA77 flying over and away from the Pentagon, and CIT still won't interview any of the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage from inside the Pentagon in the days and weeks after 9/11 -- after being repeatedly being asked to do so for over two years -- that you know you have been debunked and are now trying to divert attention to some other unsupported claim about 9/11.

It won't work, Dom. CIT is finished, thoroughly incapable of providing even the most fundamental evidence that AA 77 flew over the Pentagon.



[edit on 31-10-2008 by jthomas]

Domenick, you guys stumbled upon such shocking kind of disturbing evidence, that it leaves your opponents truly speechless.

They can't address the witnesses shown in your video, so they go on their usual distracting tour, totally ignoring the offered totally new evidence.

Let's proceed to the real questions, the once which will have popped to every long term 9/11 forums contributor's mind :

Why does none of us, the truth seekers, react on this new evidence?

Is it as disturbing to the mind as the North of Citgo witnesses, who clearly described a totally different flightpath than the officials and the media wants us to believe?

Same as these "flight 93" witnesses, who also describe a totally different picture than the officials and the media.

Are we so baffled by this sort of witnesses, to have to admit that the alternative 9/11 is no longer a theory, but hard evidence is forcing us to change from a "possibility" we in fact did not liked to believe, into a certainty that criminal factions in ones government inflicted personal and psychological damage on a whole nation, and all other nations too?


Do not pay attention to thread dis-tractors, just ignore their age old rants.
Discuss this evidence, why would there be a small white drone at that scene on 9/11, on top of the "impact" site?

What plane could the old lady describe, the one with the two "eyes" on it?
Perhaps she describes a "Warthog" with its two huge tail engines, seen from a certain perspective?

Originally posted by jthomas
...AA77 flying over and away from the Pentagon ... inside the Pentagon ... that AA 77 flew over the Pentagon.

At what point did you address the topic of the thread, which is about the alleged Flight UA93?

jthomas, your deflection and diversionary tactics are so transparent and obvious. Try a new tactic and stay on topic, then you might contribute something with your handwaving, that we can all enjoy.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
...AA77 flying over and away from the Pentagon ... inside the Pentagon ... that AA 77 flew over the Pentagon.

At what point did you address the topic of the thread, which is about the alleged Flight UA93?

As far as Flight 93 goes, it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers struggled with the Arab hijackers.

Just as AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. I don't expect Dom to deal with the actual evidence any more than he did with the evidence about AA77. Why do you think I pointed it out for you guys?

Any questions?

Originally posted by jthomas
As far as Flight 93 goes, it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers struggled with the Arab hijackers.
Any questions?

Sure, pick me, pick me!

I have a question for you, jthomas.

Will you please show me a list of serial numbers for the alleged parts and the alleged FDR that were allegedly recovered from the alleged Flight UA93 at the alleged Shanksville crash site?

No handwaving with your answer, you either do it, or you don't do it and explain why.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
As far as Flight 93 goes, it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers struggled with the Arab hijackers.
Any questions?

Sure, pick me, pick me!

I have a question for you, jthomas.

Will you please show me a list of serial numbers for the alleged parts and the alleged FDR that were allegedly recovered from the alleged Flight UA93 at the alleged Shanksville crash site?

No handwaving with your answer, you either do it, or you don't do it and explain why.

Well, I have already explained why serial numbers are not needed to know the identity of an aircraft. Did you miss that?

And since you believe it's an "alleged" aircraft, I am confident that you would believe any serial numbers produced would only be "alleged" serial numbers, correct?

Originally posted by jthomas
I take this to mean that since you and CIT cannot provide any eyewitness or media reports of AA77 flying over and away from the Pentagon,

actually cit did his name is roosevelt roberts and hes a pentagon police officer but this video is about the 9/11 attack on shanksville is a completely different and seperate operation than the pentagon.

i know duh-bunkers don't want to debate me about flight 93 so you're better off remaining silent than bringing up the pentagon and making a yourself look foolish.

your friends at other forums have tried the same tactic. i post information on flight 93 and they demand i provide flight animations for the pentagon.

and CIT still won't interview any of the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage from inside the Pentagon in the days and weeks after 9/11 -- after being repeatedly being asked to do so for over two years -- that you know you have been debunked and are now trying to divert attention to some other unsupported claim about 9/11.

i'm not falling for your bait. this thread is about shanksville. it is about susan mcelwain. it is about wally miller. it is about the high school students. its about rick chaney. its about a little white plane and a bigger white plane neither of which is a corporate jet. i am not the pentagon jthomas, i am shanksville.

It won't work, Dom. CIT is finished, thoroughly incapable of providing even the most fundamental evidence that AA 77 flew over the Pentagon.[edit on 31-10-2008 by jthomas]

the title of this thread is "Dissecting the Flight 93 OCT....or should i say debunking it?".

it is not about flight 77 or the pentagon. please return to this thread when you are ready to discuss the actual topic.

if you wish to discuss flight 77 and the pentagon then craig already has threads here about that topic as do many other posters. now pay attention real close this time this thread is about flight 93 in shanksville not flight 77 in arlington. k?

If Jthoms says a plane crashed in Shanksville that points to most of us that one doesnt.

When fox news tells me took look this way, i look that way.

Rule of thumb.

No evidence supports a plane crashing in Shanksville except for bloggers who believe the official narrative. You just have to look at the pictures of the shanksville crater.

ANything else is heresay and fabricated evidence.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Domenick, you guys stumbled upon such shocking kind of disturbing evidence, that it leaves your opponents truly speechless.

thank you.

They can't address the witnesses shown in your video, so they go on their usual distracting tour, totally ignoring the offered totally new evidence.

yes the main problem here is none of the "head duh-bunkers" have figured out a way to deal with the evidence i present so all their parrots don't know what to say so they're left to regurgitate off topic stuff about the pentagon because thats what someone else has already written out elsewhere for them to use as an argument.

Let's proceed to the real questions, the once which will have popped to every long term 9/11 forums contributor's mind :

Why does none of us, the truth seekers, react on this new evidence?

Is it as disturbing to the mind as the North of Citgo witnesses, who clearly described a totally different flightpath than the officials and the media wants us to believe?

Same as these "flight 93" witnesses, who also describe a totally different picture than the officials and the media.

Are we so baffled by this sort of witnesses, to have to admit that the alternative 9/11 is no longer a theory, but hard evidence is forcing us to change from a "possibility" we in fact did not liked to believe, into a certainty that criminal factions in ones government inflicted personal and psychological damage on a whole nation, and all other nations too?


Do not pay attention to thread dis-tractors, just ignore their age old rants.
Discuss this evidence, why would there be a small white drone at that scene on 9/11, on top of the "impact" site?

What plane could the old lady describe, the one with the two "eyes" on it?
Perhaps she describes a "Warthog" with its two huge tail engines, seen from a certain perspective?

wow, thank you. i believe you have correctly assessed the situation. its a natural evolution that goes beyond speculating and theorizing. it is average everyday americans who were witnesses to extraordinary events telling their stories without the filter of an editor or executive producer. some realize the implications of what they see such as the people in shanksville and some don't such as the people in arlington although i know officer roosevelt roberts clearly understands the implications of his testimony.

what we have is a small white plane and a larger white plane at treetop level in shanksville and an official story that a corporate jet was there around 1,500 feet agl at the lowest account.

so when they saw susan or rick saw a corporate jet then the corporate jet can't be the bigger one witnessed by viola, bob blair, or doug miller.

if they want to argue its the same plane then they have another problem because viola saw them both in the air at the same time.

i want to thank you for participating in this thread. your post was a much needed breath of fresh air.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
...AA77 flying over and away from the Pentagon ... inside the Pentagon ... that AA 77 flew over the Pentagon.

At what point did you address the topic of the thread, which is about the alleged Flight UA93?

As far as Flight 93 goes, it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers struggled with the Arab hijackers.

Just as AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. I don't expect Dom to deal with the actual evidence any more than he did with the evidence about AA77. Why do you think I pointed it out for you guys?

Any questions?

yes when will you address the opening post?

Originally posted by jthomas
Well, I have already explained why serial numbers are not needed to know the identity of an aircraft. Did you miss that?

yes let me get this straight :

the bush administration says its this plane so we don't need any more proof what so ever. just like they said saddam had ties to al qaeda and wmd's. they said it. who needs proof?

And since you believe it's an "alleged" aircraft, I am confident that you would believe any serial numbers produced would only be "alleged" serial numbers, correct?

people say alleged aircraft because not one single serial number from any plane used allegedly in the 9/11 attacks has ever been properly documented and used to positively identify those aircraft.

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio

Originally posted by jthomas
I take this to mean that since you and CIT cannot provide any eyewitness or media reports of AA77 flying over and away from the Pentagon,

actually cit did his name is roosevelt roberts and hes a Pentagon police officer...

And you have been reminded numerous times full well that IF Roberts actually saw AA77, then dozens of others on a flight path away from the Pentagon would have to as I demonstrated already.

The fact that you avoid mentioned that salient fact here only illustrates my case. You refuse to provide the necessary evidence just as CIT has for over two years. You know that full well.

and CIT still won't interview any of the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage from inside the Pentagon in the days and weeks after 9/11 -- after being repeatedly being asked to do so for over two years -- that you know you have been debunked and are now trying to divert attention to some other unsupported claim about 9/11.

i'm not falling for your bait. this thread is about shanksville. it is about susan mcelwain. it is about wally miller. it is about the high school students. its about rick chaney. its about a little white plane and a bigger white plane neither of which is a corporate jet. i am not the pentagon jthomas, i am shanksville.

So what? I've already shown that you won't deal with any pertinent evidence, will not answer direct questions about your claims, and evade providing the necessary evidence to support your claims.

When and if you answer my questions and provide the evidence then we'll have a basis to take you seriously. But nobody does and I will remind them of your evasions and inability to support your claims when asked to.

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio

Originally posted by jthomas
Well, I have already explained why serial numbers are not needed to know the identity of an aircraft. Did you miss that?

yes let me get this straight :

the bush administration says its this plane so we don't need any more proof what so ever. just like they said saddam had ties to al qaeda and wmd's. they said it. who needs proof?

As you already know, but desperately can't admit, we never needed the Bush Administration to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon in the first place. Your pet canard was trashed in 2002 but you still need it to hold up your disintegrating house of cards.

You know that too. Remember you and CIT haven't interviewed the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage

And since you believe it's an "alleged" aircraft, I am confident that you would believe any serial numbers produced would only be "alleged" serial numbers, correct?

people say alleged aircraft because not one single serial number from any plane used allegedly in the 9/11 attacks has ever been properly documented and used to positively identify those aircraft.

And as we all know, no one needs to have serial numbers to identify the aircraft as AA77.

These canards are getting silly, Dom.

And don't forget, you and CIT have been asked for over two years why you won't interview the 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage to ascertain what the wreckage was when they are available to you to do so.

Nothing like avoiding more evidence, is there, Dom?

Now, if you choose to explain why you won't do those interviews, we'll have a good laugh.