Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Seems you now agree that these statements have been seen extensively even by yourself previously just as I stated earlier before posting a link to them as requested.

Key thing is the overwhelming general concensus that they observed a passenger jet at low altitude and high speed impact the Pentagon's west side. Not a single observation of a jet clearing the building unless you can point out those flyover witnesses for me.

I was hoping you had something that would not be so easy to dismiss because of it's self contradictory nature. I thought that you sounded like you had something more substantial than this mess of crap. You may call it overwhelming general consensus but when two or more stories CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT, they do not really back anything up. See, apply all of those witnesses to one murder and the murder walks because the eyewitnesses ALL KILL EACH OTHER"S STORIES. I guess if you already knew that list would be waved off, then why did you not prepare some decent explanation for why this one time so many conflicting reports should be allowed to corroborate each other?

reply to post by JPhish

Sure you will prevail in any argument. You never make mistakes. [Did I not catch you in a bare assertion logic fault?]

I'll post these again for you to try to manipulate:
911research.wtc7.net...

Here are the trends:
911research.wtc7.net...

These are from a pro conspiracy site, so you should be comfortable with them.

Once again your bias against any witnesses but those that show the conspiracy you desire is evident. Estimates of flight path are what you consider rock solid proof that the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon and therefore couldn't have hit the light poles. Those estimates are probably the least reliable thing to bank on.
You must believe that there was a flyover and explosives or a missile of some kind was as you believe that there was a plane but that it did not hit the Pentagon. You believe CIT's explanation that their claimed flight path could only result in a flyover.
You propose no mechanism for planting the evidence of an airplane impact or what caused the poles to fly around. You have no witnesses to a fly over. You propose no mechanism for having thousands of gallons of fuel burning inside the Pentagon and at the impact point. You have proposed no rationale for such a contrived conspiracy when flying an airplane into the building would have been so much easier than the Rube Goldberg chain of events as espoused by CIT.

If you believe that there was a conspiracy involving a flyover, fill in the testable details. Why would such a complex series of events accomplish more than just slamming a plane into the Pentagon? What was used to simulate the collision? How were the lightpoles scattered? Where was the fuel placed and how was it triggered? What was used to cause the extensive internal damage? What happened to AA77 and the passengers on AA77?
What I usually hear is "well there were so many, like, inconsistencies in the OS, dude. There like had to be a big conspiracy, y'know. Why can't people like, live in peace" or "I'm just searching for the truth, I don't have a theory." Now is the time for you to propose a theory. Explain how it happened and who did it [please don't blame the NWO, Reptilians, Bilderbergers, or Illuminati. They are overworked and the Villains Union local 42 will be down on you.]

[edit on 12/8/2009 by pteridine]

reply to post by pteridine


Just skimming through your first link and the first three entries I read are -

Biggert, Judy

Members of Congress have been shuttled to the site to inspect the damage.

Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) made the trip on Thursday. She saw remnants of the airplane. 'There was a seat from a plane, there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane,' she said. 'It smelled like it was still burning.'

Birdwell, Brian

LTC Brian Birdwell. He was just heading back down the hall to his office when the building exploded in front of him. The flash fire was immediate and the smoke was thick. The blast had thrown him down, giving him a concussion. He wanted to head down the hall toward the A ring...but because he couldn't see anything he had no idea which way to go and he didn't want to head in the wrong direction. (...) Once they stabilized Brian, they transferred him to George Washington Hospital where...the best, cutting edge burn doctor in the U.S. The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs.
www.aog.usma.edu...


Birdwell, Brian

Down the hall from Yates, Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell, 40, had been at his desk in Room 2E486 since 6:30 a.m. (...) Birdwell walked out to the men's room in corridor 4, a move that saved his life. He had just taken three or four steps out of the bathroom when the building was rocked. "Bomb!" the Gulf War vet immediately thought as he was knocked down. When he stood up, he realized he was on fire. "Jesus, I'm coming to see you"

3 accounts from 2 people and neither one of them saw the plane or the impact. If I keep going through this list, how many more people can I cross off because they DID NOT ACTUALLY WITNESS ANY PLANE CRASH?

reply to post by Lillydale


This is a list of witnesses. Some saw the impact some didn't. It is biasd toward conspiracy but I used the truther site to reduce the outcries. Try moving your lips faster and you should get through it quickly.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

This is a list of witnesses. Some saw the impact some didn't. It is biasd toward conspiracy but I used the truther site to reduce the outcries. Try moving your lips faster and you should get through it quickly.

I am not sure what makes you think that I am having any trouble reading at a decent pace. While you are so busy trying to make fun of my ability to read based on absolutely nothing, you might want to check yourself.

"list of witnesses. Some saw and some didn't"



So the ones that did not see the impact, what exactly are they witnesses to again?

reply to post by Lillydale


The ones that did not witness the actual impact saw what they say they did. The fireball, the plane flying past, the aftermath, etc. None claimed to see a plane flying away, so it would appear that the preponderance of evidence says a plane hit the Pentagon, in spite of CIT flight path estimates and claims that on their proposed flight path the plane could not have struck where the Pentagon was damaged.

reply to post by Lillydale


You're succeeding at reminding me why I no longer bother getting involved in 9/11 discussions unless something new comes up.

I would like to hear an explanation of how all those accounts 'kill each other' and add up to something none of them even hinted at IE a plane didn't hit the building or there was no plane Even CIT's select group of witnesses are firm on the point that a plane hit the building.

Well, I managed to find the "Alarming Information" and it's about the "Independent Investigation"

Seems many members of the Truth Movement think Citizen Investigation Team is much more than it appears to be. Serious questions on who they work for and the real agenda of their disinformation campaign.

I strongly recommend reading the entire Moderator message here exposing this deception.

forum.prisonplanet.com...

Pentaconned spreads disinfo (ranke CIT disinfo artists)
Reply #919 on: July 21, 2009

jimd3100 - Moderator

For those more conspiracy minded. You might want to take notice that these guys have accused some top 9/11 truth movement advocates as operatives. Notice how the only people who they slander are all civilians with no ties to the Pentagon, while those associated with the Pentagon are "helping" with their "theory"?

If you ignore their spin and just listen to the witnesses, they pretty well prove the "official story" true in regards to what hit the Pentagon. And if you notice how they treat the civilian witnesses, they also proved that if a "truther" comes at you with a camera or microphone you should run in the opposite direction.

[...]

Ranke tends to lie...

Meet South Side witness M Walter

www.dailymotion.com...

They met him at his own home where he fed them. Isn't he horrible? He decided to not go on camera when he caught Ranke secretly recording him and knew they were no good. He's smarter than they are....

"The two said they were helping Avery and Pickering with research for their film. Walter chatted casually with the pair, and at one point, he realized that Ranke was surreptitiously tape-recording the conversation."

Although Pickering and Avery seemed relatively normal, Ranke and Marquis appeared to be on a mission to prove that the Pentagon plane crash never happened. They wouldn't listen to anything that contradicted this notion."

"Marquis and Ranke simply refused to believe Walter saw what he saw. "They were saying things like, 'Are you sure the plane didn't land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?' They kept coming up with all these scenarios."

"Some of those guys [at the party] were young and nice and disaffected [about] their government," Walter concludes. "And some of them were crazy."

www.ocweekly.com...

"Mike Walter is the only one who has proof he was there at all and he was probably in south parking lot waiting for the event to go down before he ran over to the scene to play "witness" for the news cameras."- CIT take on Walter

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not outrageous enough for ya?

Meet South side witness Father McGraw

CIT will deny he is a S Side witness....but listen to his testimony...

video.google.com...

It's clear he is. After hearing his story, can you seriously believe he was "fooled" and the plane flew over?

I would like to remind you this is a man of honour who gave up a career as an attorney to use his life in a spiritual way.

He gave aid and comfort to those dead and injured, like he is supposed to do as a priest, instead of saying "get out of my way, I have an appointment!" Originally, he was on his way to a funeral.

"We know for a fact that funerals continued at ANC throughout the morning and afternoon so the notion that he simply abandoned his responsibility to some veteran's family to fraternize with the first responders and loiter around the attack scene etc is unconscionable. -CIT take on McGraw

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's some outlandish and ridiculous slander. Simply outrageous.

"AND.....McGraw claims he was late to preside over a funeral at Arlington Cemetery. Why would he get out of his car at all with such an important commitment? We know for a fact that funerals continued as scheduled at ANC.

What happened to the poor family that was waiting for him as he hung around the Pentagon?

McGraw has admitted to having a connection to the controversial fundamentalist catholic secret society Opus Dei.

This is notable because of the political intrigue surrounding this catholic cult. It is well known to be favored by the "Washington elite" as reported in the History Channel special "The Spy Next Door: Robert Hanssen".

Robert Hanssen is a convicted traitor who was an FBI employee that sold secrets to the Russians for years. He was a good friends and parish members with former head of the FBI Louis Freeh who is said to have been instrumental in the Oklahoma City bombing cover-up. Both were devout members of Opus Dei but Hanssen was exposed as a sexual deviant who had extra marital affairs with strippers and secretely video taped sex with his wife while his friend would watch from a monitor set up in their spare room in the basement." --CIT take on Father

McGrawwww.abovetopsecret.com...

Why aren't you disgusted with this slander of innocent people who did nothing but make the mistake of talking to "truthers" and who ruin their fake "flyover" con?

Meet South Side witness Keith Wheelhouse...

video.google.com...

freeze frame at 14:11 guess why they call him an "undercover operative" liar?

Even after CIT went on the internet and accused this decent man of being "in on it" and a liar, he was still trying to help these "truthers" in their quest for "truth". He didn't know they were slandering him on the internet like the disgusting little cowards they are.

As Ranke's CIT loon Partner says..."Well on 7/22/08 we received a short e-mail from Keith out of the blue. Apparently he was still either oblivious to our claims about him and his account or his MO was to play dumb on purpose to make himself seem innocent. In this e-mail he included a couple of photos...

Email from Wheelhouse:

"Just thought you would like to see a few photos.
Take care

Keith D. Wheelhouse""

Nice guy. But he will soon find out he is dealing with lunatics. Here are snippits of what Ranke replies back with...

"The charade is over."...."We know you aren't to blame for a deception on this level Keith. But things will work out a lot better for you if you come clean. Work with us."......."I think it is best you are honest now. Your whole account has been proven to be fabricated by video of the C-130 at the Pentagon on 9/11."...."There is really nothing more to discuss unless you want to confess, Kieth."......" We know it was a flyover/flyaway. We have witnesses who prove this."....."We prefer to believe you are innocent and were coerced to lie."....." The video proves you are not telling the truth, Keith."

What a disgrace.

Last communication from Wheelhouse to Ranke......

"You guys need to come clean and stop the charade. Being x-military I was there and know exactly what I saw. It is a shame that there are people of your caliber that want to try to put a spin on what happened. I do not care whether you believe me or not. Have the people who contradict my story call me. You have my cell and ok to release it. There are 52 additional photos to corroborate my story. From your video you do not believe an AA jet hit the Pentagon. You had doubts that I was even there. Please have the pilot’s witnesses or who ever wants to contest it call. Best wishes in your search.

Craig you need help

Keith D. Wheelhouse"

It's all right here..

s1.zetaboards.com...

And you wonder why I don't want those loons here? So take it to court and guess what will happen? The judge will hear from every witness that they watched a plane fly into the Pentagon. Some got details wrong (Brooks said it was united) some got details right Lagasse said it was AA. Some got the path a bit off, some got it right, no one agrees on all the details, JUST LIKE AT ANY OTHER SCENE, but everyone agrees that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon. Then he will see the physical evidence and it will be 757 part after 757 part. He will see Lloyde and hear his explanation. Then he will hear Ranke's....

"A more simple explanation is that he is a long time intelligence asset who has been driving a cab around the streets of DC with a wire in it for decades."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And guess what will happen? For all of you who say "you support the Official story". Well, CIT just proved it.

The judgement will not only be that the OCT is true, but that truthers are disgusting, and dishonest lunatics

[edit on 9-12-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
I have seen no evidence that it would involve a co-ordinated effort of hundreds. Perhaps a select team could have pulled it off. As to the risk of discovery, yes, there is that. But it's not like this is the first time that an inside job was committed. Or do you think that the Lee Harvey Oswald actually killed Kennedy?

Scott,

I think you are a genuinely sincere person

Thank you :-)

Originally posted by mmiichael
and I thank you again for your interventions to maintain civility in this discussion.

You're welcome. I continue to feel that people frequently think too negatively of others; sometimes I also have a feeling that a particular OSSer is sincere in their beliefs. This isn't the only forum where it's happened, and I have frequently found that following my feeling has good results.

In the following argument, I will use the terms OSSer (Official Story Supporter) and truther. I know that these terms are generalizations, and I know that there are people who I consider to be OSSers and truthers who would protest that they are no such thing. When dealing with them individually, I may try to work out a title that is more to their liking, but as a general rule, I think that most people fall into one category or the other; there are, ofcourse, the moderate truthers and the moderate OSSers; frequently, they can be good to kind of reign in the wilder elements of their faction.

Anyway, as a moderate truther, there are times when I feel that an OSSer is being sincere. And once in a while, I feel I should bring this up. It's somewhat risky to do so, since, ofcourse, I risk alienating my faction. But I just don't think that anyone benefits from the frequently toxic debating style that many employ here, so I have at times found it to be worth the risk.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Lee Harvey Oswald is as relevant to this discussion as the traitorous activities of Benedict Arnold.

I disagree. The reason I disagree is because I think the same general method of assassinating him was used to carry off 9/11. Other examples of this secretive method would be Germany's Reichstag fire, as well as Pearl Harbor, where it would seem the Japanese were lured into attacking it, and Roosevelt purposely didn't warn Pearl Harbor in order to effect a certain amount of casualities; interestingly, the casualty toll was strikingly similar to 9/11, around 3000.

Originally posted by mmiichael
A hijacked Boeing was flown into the Pentagon. This was clearly established by 10:00 AM, Sept 11, 2001.

Michael, no matter how many times you repeat this belief of yours, there are many, including myself, who disagree with your assertion. Given the fact that you are addressing me, don't you think it makes sense to acknowledge that I and others disagree with you?

Originally posted by mmiichael
There was plane wreckage right there for anyone to see.

Minimal plane wreckage. To this day, I have seen very little evidence of any wing debris. Those wings were big. Whether or not there was fuel in them, that doesn't account for the lack of wing debris, with the exception of a small piece or two that was never positively identified as coming from flight 77.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Minutes before all had been normal. The plane itself was seen coming in. One could hardly miss it.

Both the OS and the mainstream truth movement alternative agree that a plane approached the pentagon. The issues are:
1- What flight path did the plane take on its final approach?
2- Did the plane fly over the pentagon or into it?

Because of the nature of the incident, a north of the citgo gas station flight path precludes the possibility that the plane could have crashed into the building. For this reason, the fact that so many witnesses independently corroborate the north of citgo flight path is particularly damning for the official story.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Let me ask you frankly, do you really think people right there at the crash site are stupid enough not to be able to tell what had happened? Cleaning up after did a single person say "There ain't no plane here?"

There seems to be little doubt that a plane approached the pentagon. And certainly many people believe that the plane actually crashed into the pentagon. But as to the debris... well, I'll present you with a few witnesses from this source:

Christine Peterson:

I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon[...] I looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane flying so low I said, “holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car” (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing. And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire.

Lincoln Liebner, Army Captain:

I got to the building. Remarkably, there was no debris from the airplane. In the immediate area around the Pentagon, the grass was all scorched and blackened. Windows were obviously knocked out and you could hear a fire inside the building but the fires weren’t that prevalent at that point. It was just smoke, and it wasn’t even all that bad. One man in the ambulance with me had no idea what happened, kept asking whether it was a bomb.

I told them what I had seen and what I gather is that I was the first personal account that he had. Even at this point, I don’t believe the Secretary was confident that, in fact, a civilian airliner had hit the building. I think they still speculated about a bomb, a cruise missile, a small aircraft...

Joel Sucherman, USA Today Editor:

"It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course."
"I didn't feel anything coming out of the Pentagon [in terms of debris]," he said.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by Lillydale

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x

What you call excuses, I call probable explanations. But perhaps we can agree to disagree on that part.

Do you mind terribly if I ask just how many "mistakes" and "probable explanations" are ok before it starts to look like someone is willfully being disingenuous?

When someone commits a similar mistake in very short order, I have become suspcious. There is a mitigating factor, however: when a theme is particuarly emotional, such as 9/11. In such a case, I have found that many will circle the wagons in terms of their beliefs and it can be difficult to get them to see the flaws in their beliefs. There is something else as well: Michael could have chosen to stay away from a place like this and camp out in a place that's far more amenable to his point of view, such as JREF. For some reason, though, he's here. And he -does- atleast believe that the government wasn't altogether forthcoming in regards to Saudi Arabia's and Pakistan's connection. I wonder if he's aware of the extent of Pakistan's national intelligence agency's close relations to the US's CIA. And then there's that edited white house transcript of a reporter questioning Condoleeza Rice, the one that conveniently took out who transferred $100,000 to Mohammed Atta...

Originally posted by Lillydale
Will you also admit that basically all you have done is pointed out that mmichael is so terribly ignorant that he is barely qualified to form his own opinion?

I don't personally believe that. I do believe that he is one that circles the wagons. Personally, I've found that the way coax a person -out- of this 'circling the wagons' thing is to try to understand them and to admit when I don't understand them. I've found that it has achieved some impressive results. What I try to do is build a bridge of trust, so that OSSers can voice certain doubts without feeling that he'll just open himself up to attack. It's worked in the past. I certainly believe that there may come a day when Michael may come to believe that perhaps the government is covering up more then simply Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x
I don't personally believe that. I do believe that he is one that circles the wagons.

I find that pretty entertaining considering the fact that someone using your screen name and avatar spent an entire post reminding michael of the MANY MANY MANY times he attributed a thought, theory, or quote to you. If you want to keep calling those innocent mistakes because of the heat of the moment, that is all you.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

The ones that did not witness the actual impact saw what they say they did. The fireball, the plane flying past, the aftermath, etc. None claimed to see a plane flying away, so it would appear that the preponderance of evidence says a plane hit the Pentagon, in spite of CIT flight path estimates and claims that on their proposed flight path the plane could not have struck where the Pentagon was damaged.

Wow. You are not even trying to think this through are you?

First of all, that is not a list of all the 'witnesses.' The witnesses that did claim to see a plane flyover are simply not listed. That does not mean that they cease to exist.

Your logic is fascinating. See, MOST of them did NOT witness any impact. According to what you just stated, the preponderance of the evidence says that AA77 may or may not have been there or hit anything.

You need to understand how witnesses work. This is a list of witnesses used to prosecute someone for the alleged crime of 9/11. They only include the witnesses that support their case. When is the last time you saw a court case where the prosecution presented both damning and exonerating evidence??????????

So let us review real fast -

You say there was no flyover because people on that list do not claim they saw a flyover.

Where did they claim they identified AA77? Where did they say they saw terrorists flying the plane? There are many things that you accept about this story and yet none of the people on that list witnessed any of that either.

This is not a complete list of witnesses. This is the list of witnesses used for the prosecution.

TRY AGAIN

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Lillydale

 

You're succeeding at reminding me why I no longer bother getting involved in 9/11 discussions unless something new comes up.

...and yet you are taking the time to post directly to me, ensuring I will contribute even more of the very things you say steer you away?

I would like to hear an explanation of how all those accounts 'kill each other' and add up to something none of them even hinted at IE a plane didn't hit the building or there was no plane Even CIT's select group of witnesses are firm on the point that a plane hit the building.

OK, if you have one witness that says a small unmarked plane and another that says a large plane with markings, it crashed into the building and it crashed in front of the building and it flew over, it flew this way and it flew that way. etc... What is it you do not get about conflicting reports?

Originally posted by Lillydale

...and yet you are taking the time to post directly to me, ensuring I will contribute even more of the very things you say steer you away?

I believe you'll find, if you look back, you initially saw fit to respond to a reply I made to Scott3x but let's not descend into schoolyard squabbling here. It's the way communication works, by people making statements and others responding and forums would fairly dull without it.

What I look for in witness statements is a commonality on major salient points first up, and in this case they report a plane which was low and fast and flew straight into the Pentagon. More info is needed to start splitting hairs over precisely how low, how fast, exact heading, plane model and owner, who was flying it etc etc. Data is still surfacing enabling those details to be narrowed down and I hope there are even more revelations yet to come.

Would you be prepared to tell these people that they didn't see what they know they saw?
After all, you and I were not there - they were.

I'm open to the notion of something being wrong with the whole 9/11 thing but it's nowhere near being on what I call the 'macro' scale of faking plane crashes, demolishing buildings etc. I look more to the front end of the affair which is far more manageable as far as planning would go.

I'll try to avoid wasting any more of your time.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

Sure you will prevail in any argument.

I’m pretty sure I would lose an argument if I were attempting to prove that a light-pole impaled cab as a result of a 757 hitting into it.

You never make mistakes.

I think we can do without the glib remarks . . . I make plenty of mistakes. None of which you can capitalize on however. No matter how many mistakes I make, you’ll never have proof of something that never happened.

[Did I not catch you in a bare assertion logic fault?]

no you didn’t actually. What I had presented was a valid irrelevant thesis.

I'll post these again for you to try to manipulate:

Nice of you to poison the well again . . .

These are from a pro conspiracy site, so you should be comfortable with them.

Well you’re assumption is incorrect. I’m not comfortable with any witness unless I see them in person or they are on video. Are any of these witnesses on video reporting what they saw? Those are the ones I’m interested in. Facial expressions, demeanor, occupation, affiliations, the questions they were asked which lead up to their testimonies. These are the things needed to properly deduce whether a witness is reliable or not. Without these things they are merely writing on a page with someone’s name next to them.

Witnesses on video i have provided in this thread.
Wintesses on video CIT has provided in this thread.

Once again your bias against any witnesses but those that show the conspiracy you desire is evident.

Um how can you say I’m biased against witnesses that you just presented to me in this post? Attempting to poison the well again?

Estimates of flight path are what you consider rock solid proof that the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon and therefore couldn't have hit the light poles. Those estimates are probably the least reliable thing to bank on.

20 witnesses vs Mike Walter? They all say the car was a dark color or black. Mike Walter says the car was white. That is a drastic difference. The flight data recorder is not reliable either?

Car Analogy

You must believe that there was a flyover and explosives or a missile of some kind was as you believe that there was a plane but that it did not hit the Pentagon.

Why would I attempt to figure out the Prestige before figuring out the Turn?

You believe CIT's explanation that their claimed flight path could only result in a flyover.

Nope, I believe what my common sense told me all along. It just so happens that CIT’s witnesses and conclusions derived from them match those I had years ago. It also just so happens that the flight data recorder confirms what I believed as well. I knew the moment it happened that it was a magic trick. I know the Pledge; I know small aspects of the Turn. Not the best magic trick I’ve seen but it's scale and the number of people duped was incredible.

You propose no mechanism for planting the evidence of an airplane impact or what caused the poles to fly around.

That’s because I don’t need to. No plane hit the Pentagon, any details concerning how they planted the “evidence” is purely superfluous conjecture.

You have no witnesses to a fly over.

You’re wrong as usual. Roosevelt Robert Jr. ; other witnesses who’s testimonies support a flyover

You propose no mechanism for having thousands of gallons of fuel burning inside the Pentagon and at the impact point.

Who says there were thousands of gallons of jet fuel? What people smelled burning was likely the burning generator in front of the Pentagon. That’s a logical explanation now that we know that a plane did not hit the building,

You have proposed no rationale for such a contrived conspiracy when flying an airplane into the building would have been so much easier than the Rube Goldberg chain of events as espoused by CIT.

Black operations aren't concerned which way is easiest, they care about efficiency. Regardless, it would be insurmountably harder to actually crash a plane into the Pentagon then it would be to fly a plane over the Pentagon and let the slight of hand take it from there.

If you believe that there was a conspiracy involving a flyover, fill in the testable details.

there is no conspiracy that a plane flew over. It’s a fact. You believe the conspiracy that a plane hit the pentagon. I can fill in what I might BELIEVE are the details. But unlike you, I dabble in facts. A plane flew over the Pentagon, that’s all you need to know.

Why would such a complex series of events accomplish more than just slamming a plane into the Pentagon?

Again . . . Black operations aren't concerned which way is easiest, they care about efficiency. Regardless, it would be insurmountably harder to actually crash a plane into the Pentagon then it would be to fly a plane over the Pentagon and let the slight of hand take it from there.

What was used to simulate the collision?

there was no collision nor was there a simulation of a collision. What are you talking about? Are you talking about the explosion?

How were the lightpoles scattered?

Probably pre planted. People rarely notice pre planted props. In fact, they almost never notice, especially when the props are mundane.

Where was the fuel placed and how was it triggered?

where is your evidence that there was any jet fuel at all?

What was used to cause the extensive internal damage?

If I had to take a guess? Explosives.

What happened to AA77 and the passengers on AA77?

I have some guesses.

What I usually hear is "well there were so many, like, inconsistencies in the OS, dude. There like had to be a big conspiracy, y'know. Why can't people like, live in peace" or "I'm just searching for the truth, I don't have a theory." Now is the time for you to propose a theory.

If what you “hear” is so ridiculous, it’s time for you to accept my challenge and battle me in a member debate. Surely you could beat me in a debate if I support and employ such rhetoric?

Explain how it happened and who did it [please don't blame the NWO, Reptilians, Bilderbergers, or Illuminati. They are overworked and the Villains Union local 42 will be down on you.]

Appealing to ridicule again . . . I have no idea who did it. Whoever did it is still a masked magician at this point.

[edit on 12/9/2009 by JPhish]

reply to Lillydale's post #2298

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
Thanks, spared me having to repeat myself on this. I suspect he may have missed me trying to get this across to him; I did make a lot of points, after all. Hopefully this time around...

With all due respect, Scott - I think you should give K a little more credit. See how many times you have to suspect that mmichael may have missed something or misquoted or accidentally attributed something to someone else or stated a 'fact' that turned out to be wrong, etc. I am just saying. You keep pointing out how he is making 'mistake' after mistake after mistake after mistake. It does not look like a pattern to you yet?

It definitely looks like a pattern. The thing I'm trying to get at is -why- this pattern exists. Part of the reason, as I mention, is that there are a lot of points. But the other point, which I also mentioned rather ambiguously in a recent post, is that people who believe one thing have a tendency of discounting things that don't agree with their viewpoint. I believe this applies to people both on the OSS side -as well as- on the truther side. Clearly, I think that the truther side is more accurate than the OSS side, but I strongly believe that truthers frequently think that OSSers are trying to mislead, when in fact it may simply be that they themselves are mislead and have become entrenched on the wrong side of the fence.

Originally posted by Lillydale
I am not looking for the fight K is

It's good to know that you're not. I'm not 100% sure that you're a woman, but it seems you are, and as you may remember, we did once seem to fight; and women generally seem to have the ability to hurt me more in debates.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x

 

What's interesting is that they were allegedly discovered in 2 contradictory places; both at the entrance whole and at the exit hole.

I do not know where you get your information.

I believe I got that bit from SPreston, who in turn got it from other articles. I may try to dig up the source at some point.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Remains of Flight 77 passengers were recovered starting near the entrance hole and all along the path that the wreckage took through the building, including the remains of one passenger that were recovered from the second floor.

I see that a rather long discussion has blossomed from your post here, so I'll try to get up to speed on it.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Second thought, you quote DRG......nevermind question answered.

Never good to assume on such things; like I said, this one was from SPreston, who I have found to be a good source of information.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by JPhish

JP--“20 witnesses vs Mike Walter? They all say the car was a dark color or black. Mike Walter says the car was white. That is a drastic difference. The flight data recorder is not reliable either?”
Did you not see the list of witnesses I linked to? Did you not see the trend spreadsheet? I counted seven on your CIT witness list. They drew flight paths to the fireball and not beyond. Only one claimed to see a plane flying away. Regardless of the color of the car, there was a wreck.

JP—“Why would I attempt to figure out the Prestige before figuring out the Turn?”
You seem to be Hollywood oriented. Do you have trouble with reality? All of your statements say that you believe that there was a plane and it did not hit the Pentagon.

JP -- “Nope, I believe what my common sense told me all along. It just so happens that CIT’s witnesses and conclusions derived from them match those I had years ago. It also just so happens that the flight data recorder confirms what I believed as well. I knew the moment it happened that it was a magic trick. I know the Pledge; I know small aspects of the Turn. Not the best magic trick I’ve seen but it's scale and the number of people duped was incredible.”
Ah, now you are a magician with common sense, no less. A disaster happens and the first thing your “common sense” tells you it is a gigantic plot and a magic trick? That is some uncommon common sense. The fact is that only a small number of people have been duped and those mainly by CIT.
JP-“That’s because I don’t need to. No plane hit the Pentagon, any details concerning how they planted the “evidence” is purely superfluous conjecture.”
You should invoke magic again, here. There are large holes in your common sense.
JP --“Who says there were thousands of gallons of jet fuel? What people smelled burning was likely the burning generator in front of the Pentagon. That’s a logical explanation now that we know that a plane did not hit the building”
Fuel was burning inside the building. The generator was outside the building. Ask your common sense how that happened.
JP – " A plane flew over the Pentagon, that’s all you need to know.”
A plane hit the Pentagon, that's all you need to know.

This last one is a gem.
JP – “Black operations aren't concerned which way is easiest, they care about efficiency. Regardless, it would be insurmountably harder to actually crash a plane into the Pentagon then it would be to fly a plane over the Pentagon and let the slight of hand take it from there.”

Please describe how it would be insurmountably more difficult to fly a plane into the target than to fly over and trick people into believing a plane struck. Since you know this to be true, you will have no trouble supporting your statement.
This wouldn't be another "bare assertion" from you, would it?

reply to post by Lillydale


What is your theory, LD? You haven't provided a testable theory yet. Isn't there a "logical fallacy" called "failure to state" where you avoid defining your own position by continually asking questions and attacking responses?

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to Lillydale's post #2298

 

Clearly, I think that the truther side is more accurate than the OSS side, but I strongly believe that truthers frequently think that OSSers are trying to mislead, when in fact it may simply be that they themselves are mislead and have become entrenched on the wrong side of the fence.

Unfortunately, it is like this. The man clearly stated "YOUR" while talking to a specific person. He ascribed that theory to them and incorrectly. He was afforded NUMEROUS opportunities to admit it was a mistake or prove it was correct and all he did was deflect until eventually telling the next lie "I was ignoring you" when he was clearly responding all along. MM is the one that defined himself as someone who is trying to mislead. The method in use was by, and hold on to your behind here, attempting to mislead.

Is it now fair for me start saying that all the debunkers are saying things and putting forth 'facts' they are not? Can I then pretend I was not caught over and over and over again for pages until eventually somewhat weaselly backing out of it altogether while still not apologizing or offering a correction? I would not do that because I know that it would be dishonest. I guess you are just telling me that I am that much smarter than MM that I can see that and he cannot.