Originally posted by billybob
i agree. i didn't before, but now i see it.
the damage is irreconcilable with the northern path, which IS effectively proven in toto.

You got it backwards again, billybob.

Obviously, the NoC flight path is mistaken eyewitness testimony since all of the eyewitness statements from independent, widely separated locations is consistent with all of the physical evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. The NoC eyewitnesses are clear in stating the jet hit the Pentagon or they believe it did, and none of them ever stated they saw any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.

Obviously, we rational people are going to discount any flight path for which there are no eyewitnesses and which is not consistent with the physical damage and all of the other verified eyewitness reports.

Despite my persistence in asking for positive, verified eyewitness reports of a flyover that CIT claims happened, no eyewitnesses have been produced.

Remember, CIT is the only "investigative" unit to interpret the evidence backwards by dismissing every bit of physical evidence and running away from the actual eyewitnesses who saw AA77 crash as well as the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside of the Pentagon.

Now it IS true that the 9/11 Truth Movement has to get evidence bassackwards in order to try to make it fit its pre-determined conclusions but isn't it clear yet how pointless it is for CIT to be pushing strings?

Originally posted by billybob
i agree. i didn't before, but now i see it.
the damage is irreconcilable with the northern path, which IS effectively proven in toto.

all the witnesses drew the same approach, and if they were unreliable, their testimony wouldn't all be exactly the same(ie. north of citgo).

Awesome man.

Intellectually honest people get it.

You can accept independent verifiable evidence that proves a deception or you can simply dismiss it in favor of pure faith in what we were told by told by the authorities.

Now we know WHY the physical damage is so questionable and there was such a suspicious lack of plane debris.

Now we know WHY all the video evidence and 911 call transcripts were confiscated and permanently sequestered and WHY the NTSB data is anomalous and lack of disclosure of evidence in general.

The plane was on the north side.

Government loyalist pseudo-skeptics only look silly as they unabashedly defend their proven fraudulent faith.

You can feel the desperation in their posts.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by jthomas
You got it backwards again, billybob.

actually he doesn't.

Obviously, the NoC flight path is mistaken eyewitness testimony since all of the eyewitness statements from independent, widely separated locations is consistent with all of the physical evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

the fabricated? physical evidence does not match the North side approach. I'm sure Craig can live with that

In fact, none of the evidence is supportive of any aircraft hitting the pentagon.

The NoC eyewitnesses are clear in stating the jet hit the Pentagon or they believe it did, and none of them ever stated they saw any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.

They didn't see a jet hit the pentagon.

Obviously, we rational people are going to discount any flight path for which there are no eyewitnesses

well then you shouldn't consider yourself rational, because all of the honest eye witnesses say the plane approached from the north side.

and which is not consistent with the physical damage and all of the other verified eyewitness reports.

what other verified eye witness reports? I'll believe a gas station attendant over some government tool any day of the week. The north side flyover isn't consistent with the physical damage because the physical damage is FABRICATED.

Despite my persistence in asking for positive, verified eyewitness reports of a flyover that CIT claims happened, no eyewitnesses have been produced.

he's produced 13, where have you been? depositing your government pay stubs?

Remember, CIT is the only "investigative" unit to interpret the evidence backwards by dismissing every bit of physical evidence and running away from the actual eyewitnesses who saw AA77 crash as well as the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside of the Pentagon.

If the physical evidence is fabricated, only a fool would consider using it.

Now it IS true that the 9/11 Truth Movement has to get evidence bassackwards in order to try to make it fit its pre-determined conclusions but isn't it clear yet how pointless it is for CIT to be pushing strings?

it's obvious to any one with a handful of operating brain cells that you are the one manipulating words and playing with semantics in an attempt to hide the truth.

[edit on 11/29/2008 by JPhish]

It's always funny to watch 9/11 Deniers surface and again commit the fallacy of arguing in circles.

It's hard to imagine that they are so ignorant as to continue to smuggle that which they are trying to prove into the premise of their claims.

These jokers don't get it that we are stilll waiting for them to demonstrate that any evidence was fabricated or planted, that over 1,000 people who either were eyewitnesses to the crash of AA77 into the Pentagon or saw or recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon were magically all "government tools."

And then they come up with the nutty claim that 13 CIT eyewitnesses are "proof" that a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon when ALL of those eyewitnesses either saw the jet hit or believed it did!

Gosh....

If anyone still wonders why the 9/11 Truth Movement is dying out rapidly from it's own bizarre contradictions and illogical thinking, one only has to look at the post of the last poster above.

Simply amazing.


[edit on 29-11-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas
It's always funny to watch 9/11 Deniers surface and again commit the fallacy of arguing in circles.

Hasty generalization/Baseless assertion;

It's hard to imagine that they are so ignorant as to continue to smuggle that which they are trying to prove into the premise of their claims.

Ad hominem/Baseless assertion;

These jokers don't get it that we are stilll waiting for them to demonstrate that any evidence was fabricated or planted, that over 1,000 people who either were eyewitnesses to the crash of AA77 into the Pentagon or saw or recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon were magically all "government tools."

Ad hominem/Baseless assertion; there’s nothing magical about someone being a tool.

And then they come up with the nutty claim that 13 CIT eyewitnesses are "proof" that a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon when ALL of those eyewitnesses either saw the jet hit or believed it did!

Baseless assertions;

If anyone still wonders why the 9/11 Truth Movement is dying out rapidly from it's own bizarre contradictions and illogical thinking, one only has to look at the post of the last poster above.

Ad hominem

Simply amazing.

What is amazing is that you have nothing to offer but your weak and formulaic idiom.

When you acquire some new material to use, maybe you’ll have a chance of challenging me in a communicative capacity.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas
It's always funny to watch 9/11 Deniers surface and again commit the fallacy of arguing in circles.

When you acquire some new material to use, maybe you’ll have a chance of challenging me in a communicative capacity.

You have yet to address or refute any of the factual evidence about 9/11. And I have plenty of posts showing why. When you come out from hiding, you can attempt to refute that evidence.

Until then you remain, as always, just another 9/11 Denier.

Originally posted by jthomas
You're still in real trouble, sonny. You don't know either and you can't predict there would be none.

I'm in no trouble at all, jthomas. I've never stated that there was or was not a flyover. I don't know what happened. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Maybe people saw it, maybe they didn't.

In another thread, you accused me of stating that I agree with the flyover theory. I challenged you to search my 2000+ posts, which you didn't do. You made a false accusation about me.

By your own admission, jthomas, you and I both don't have the 'magical power' to know what people may or may not have seen. I don't know why you then go and contradict yourself by stating that there was no flyover. I guess that 'magical powers' allow oneself to contradict oneself at times, hey?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
You're still in real trouble, sonny. You don't know either and you can't predict there would be none.

I'm in no trouble at all, jthomas. I've never stated that there was or was not a flyover. I don't know what happened. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Maybe people saw it, maybe they didn't.

In another thread, you accused me of stating that I agree with the flyover theory. I challenged you to search my 2000+ posts, which you didn't do. You made a false accusation about me.

By your own admission, jthomas, you and I both don't have the 'magical power' to know what people may or may not have seen. I don't know why you then go and contradict yourself by stating that there was no flyover. I guess that 'magical powers' allow oneself to contradict oneself at times, hey?

Your evasion is noted for the record. I already showed you why you make no sense. You can shut your ears and eyes to reality all you want.



[edit on 1-12-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas
Your evasion is noted for the record. I already showed you why you make no sense. You can shut your ears and eyes to reality all you want.

How can I evade anything, when I have not stated anything other than I don't know what happened at the Pentagon???

You've already admitted that there were an unknown number of people who could have seen a flyover. You've already admitted that of those unknown number of people, that NO ONE knows what they saw.

You made those statments, jthomas, not me.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Your evasion is noted for the record. I already showed you why you make no sense. You can shut your ears and eyes to reality all you want.

How can I evade anything, when I have not stated anything other than I don't know what happened at the Pentagon???

Why don't you know?

Originally posted by jthomas
Why don't you know?

Being short of clairvoyant, having access to a time machine or the government disclosing more security video, every member's opinion is as good as any and you shouldn't be so condescending. You don't win debates by attacking the opponent so I suggest you stick to discussing the topic.

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by jthomas
Why don't you know?

Being short of clairvoyant, having access to a time machine or the government disclosing more security video, every member's opinion is as good as any and you shouldn't be so condescending. You don't win debates by attacking the opponent so I suggest you stick to discussing the topic.

My question is meant to go to the heart of the matter: how do we know what we know and how do we acquire knowledge?

Why do I have the basis for understanding and knowing what happened on 9/11, Truthers believe they know what happened, and others claim they don't know.