Originally posted by discombobulator
Originally posted by Ligon
2) They are all correct and the relatively small number of witnesses who were in locations from which they may have been able to see the alleged impact spot and who do genuinely believe that they saw the plane hit the building were fooled by a carefully planned deception, executed with military precision..
Ignoring the false premise for a moment
There is no false premise.
please define "relatively small number of witnesses".
I'll define it twice:
1) Small relative to the number of people the average person thinks would be in the category
2) Small relative to the number of people in the immediate area -- including people who saw the plane in the final seconds of the flight path -- many of whom had their view obstructed due to the complex topography.
There are dozens, if not hundreds of people who would have had a perfect view of the impact from Route 27 and I395.
Dozens for sure. Scores for sure. I think hundreds is pushing it. I was driving around there yesterday, and you definitely don't have a "perfect view" from 395 if any. (The various POVs are shown here).
Regardless of the exact number there was a considerable number who fall in this category, but its is still "relatively small" as defined above.
The overriding point still stands since the plane flying north of Citgo and hitting the Pentagon are mutually exclusive, and the plane definitely flew north of Citgo, because there's no way all of the north side witnesses are all so drastically wrong in the same way.
Joel Sucherman was one of them, and seeing a plane crash into the Pentagon is precisely what he said he saw. Sure, throw all the nonsense you want about how CIT says that Joel Sucherman could not have seen the plane from his location, and I'll show you exactly how they are lying when they say this. I know they are lying because their errors have been shown to them, they have admitted them to be errors and they have made no effort whatsoever to correct them. They are spreading deliberate disinformation about Joel Sucherman, because his testimony is inconvenient to them... so he must be "in on it".
Joel Sucherman is inconvenient to you, not them. They're the ones who got the interview in the first place and published it, remember?
Like your other favorite witness Wheelhouse Sucherman says he saw a second plane on the scene 3-5 SECONDS after the event. Since the plane was not there until approximately 3 MINUTES after the event, I say he is a proven liar. Do you disagree?
Lagasse and Brooks both saw the impact
They either saw the plane on the north side or they saw the impact. They clearly saw the plane on the north side. Do you deny this?
Brooks has prior testimony where he said he witnessed the plane hitting the light poles. Go and check it.. It is his voice, he said it.
I don't need to go and check it out because I've checked it out already. He deduced it and admitted that he didn't actually witness it when asked by Craig. Did he (1) see the plane hit the building and hallucinate the flight path or did he (2) see the plane on the north side like he and so many others swear they did (and STILL swears even after being made aware of the implications), deduce the poles (as many admit to have doing including him), and get fooled by a military deception about impact.
[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]
I've told you that I don't know how many people were there. I didn't do a headcount. 40? 50? 60? Enough that
someone saying 8 is a liar. I don't know the exact number. It was less than 100. 
