It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 99
215
<< 96  97  98    100  101  102 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x
 


Has CIT gone over how witnesses could have been fooled into thinking that there was a flyover?


Not to my knowledge, no. I personally think it'd be rather difficult; a plane either flew over it or it didn't really. Now here's a question for you; have you gone over how witnesses could have been fooled into thinking that the plane crashed into the building?


Originally posted by pteridine
How they edited witness statements?


As I mentioned to you or someone else, due to the quantity of statements they got, some cutting down and editing would clearly need to be done. This is especially true of NSA, one of their latest releases, since they used footage of various testimonials from previous documentaries they'd previously done; as they mention in their video, if you'd like to see the unedited footage, go back to the earlier documentaries.


Originally posted by pteridine
Note that the diesel gen set was outside the building. How much fuel did it have? How did all that fuel get inside the building?


You think the wind couldn't carry the smoke inwards? Also, I've heard that someone in the building smelled cordite, but that's not jet -or- diesel fuel; it's a smell associated with explosives.


Originally posted by pteridine
Was it placed in the walls so that a hologram plane appeared to ignite it when it hit the building?


No holographic plane necessary here, although I certainly believe that the explosives were timed to go off as soon as the pentaplane began its flyover, so as to make it appear as if it had exploded into the pentagon; there is even evidence that a plane that might have been the pentaplane landed shortly after the pentagon attack in Reagan National; unfortunately, I don't currently have the information for this on me.


Originally posted by pteridine
How were engine parts planted?


I have already mentioned that I don't know the answer to that one, but I do remember someone saying that the president was scheduled to land in the nearby helipad later on that day; perhaps some elements of the secret service were involved.


Originally posted by pteridine
Did anyone witness plane debris being planted?


Clearly the people who planted it would have witnessed it, but as to others, I really don't know. I think you should consider the fact that there was certainly no official investigation as to whether any of the evidence was planted.


Originally posted by pteridine
As to your statement about "details" that is exactly what has to be theorized.


I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I think that perhaps it was this comment that I made:
"one doesn't need to know every single detail of how something was done in order to know that it's what was most likely done."

I stand by it.


Originally posted by pteridine
If they can't come up with testable hypotheses on the details, you might as well just say "the space ray did it, damn the details, and prove that it didn't."


There are no witnesses to space rays. There were no reliable witnesses to a south of the citgo flight path for the plane that approached the pentagon. There are -many- reliable witnesses who place the plane on a north of the citgo flight path, however. And if the plane flew in from that direction, it simply couldn't have hit the building, as I believe you know.



Originally posted by pteridine
There are too many holes in the CIT story


So you say, but you have yet to demonstrate one as far as I can tell. I find it very revealing that we're only discussing CIT's theory. I think it's clear that the official story is so flimsy it's essentially indefensible; thus, the inevitable focus on the alternative theory, which is much more robust and, taking years of criticism while getting stronger all the while.




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x


Originally posted by pteridine
The evidence is completely against them.


I believe the reverse is true. What alleged evidence are you referring to?


I don't know if you sincerely want to know what happened on 9/11 Scott, or have just bought into the various conspiracy ruses and like to act as if you're receptive.

There hasn't been any question Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon since mid-day Sept 11, 2001. Little over an hour after routinely taking off from Dulles airport the plane was in smithereens in the Pentagon. Among other things, he passengers DNA doubly confirmed what happened a few weeks later.

Any questions are creations by Truthers trying to cloud what has always been clear and unambiguous.

Example: Ranke say on his site radar tracking was lost after 8:56. He's purposefully employing selective omission to push something that is not true. For 9 minutes primary and was lost due to the hijackers turning off equipment. Oher tracking kicked in and the plane was picked up and followed right up to the crash.

When all data and testimony was later assembled, it was known precisely where Flight 77 and it's passengers were from the minute they boarded the plane to the second it hit the Pentagon.

If you really do want to know what happened leading up to and on 9/11, you have to actually look at what is known instead of assuming it's not there.

History Commons, a site I often refer to

www.historycommons.org...

summarily covers everything related to 9/11. It is open-sourced. Click on the 9/11 Timeline which has over 6000 separate entries.

Flight 77 sample:



At 9:32 a.m., according to the 9/11 Commission, several air traffic controllers at Washington Dulles International Airport notice a fast-moving target, which is later determined to be Flight 77, heading eastbound on their radar screens. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 25; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 33]

At the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) at Dulles Airport, which is 22 miles west of the Pentagon, controllers have been searching for primary radar targets since 9:21, when the facility was notified of the loss of contact with Flight 77. [USA Today, 9/13/2001; Navy Times, 9/22/2001; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 25]

Controllers See Fast-Moving Radar Track - They now notice an unidentified blip on their screens, heading toward the White House at unusually high speed. [Washington Post, 9/11/2001; Spencer, 2008, pp. 145]

Controller Danielle O’Brien will later recall: “I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed.… I had literally a blip and nothing more. I slid over to the controller on my left, Tom Howell, and I asked him, ‘Do you see an unidentified plane there southwest of Dulles?’ And his response was, ‘Yes. Oh, my gosh, yes! Look how fast he is.’”

According to O’Brien, the aircraft is between 12 and 14 miles away when she notices it. It is heading for what is known as Prohibited Area 56 (P-56), which is the airspace over and near the White House, at a speed of about 500 miles per hour. [ABC, 10/24/2001; ABC News, 10/24/2001; Department of Transportation, 8/4/2005]

Reagan National Airport. [Source: Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority] Air traffic controllers at Washington’s Reagan National Airport are contacted by controllers at Washington Dulles International Airport, and informed of a fast-moving unidentified aircraft, later determined to be Flight 77, which is approaching the restricted airspace around the White House. [Washington Post, 9/11/2001; Federal Aviation Administration, 9/17/2001 ; 9/11 Commission, 6/4/2003 ; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 33 ]

Reagan Airport is less than a mile from the Pentagon and only a few miles from the White House. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/19/2001] During a shift, it has 10 or 11 controllers working in its Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) and seven or eight controllers working in its air traffic control tower. [9/11 Commission, 7/28/2003 ] Controllers at the Dulles TRACON have recently noticed the unidentified aircraft on their radar screens. [Federal Aviation Administration, 9/17/2001 ; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 9]

TRACON Told of Aircraft - A Dulles Airport controller now calls the TRACON at Reagan Airport, and says: “Hey! Untracked target 15 [miles] west of you. Primary target eastbound! Heading toward P-56!” [Spencer, 2008, pp. 145-146] (P-56, or Prohibited Area 56, is the restricted airspace above and near the White House. [Department of Transportation, 8/4/2005] )

Reagan Airport controller Dan Creedon checks his radar screen and sees the aircraft’s target about 10 miles west of the White House. The radar track is untagged, so he attaches a data box to it with the word “LOOK” in it. This will allow other controllers to quickly spot the aircraft. It also causes its ground speed to appear on the screen.




M

[edit on 29-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

What north side evidence? Selected witness testimony? Then you have to disallow all those witnesses that saw the strike.
When you started with the NOC you did so why? Was it just a mismatch to question? Then it grew and worked your way into two planes, shock and awe, flyovers, explosives and all sorts of contortions. It seems that your entire case rests on a few guesses at flight paths. All we ever hear is that "something must have happened and we don't know how but surely there is a consiracy." Some theory.
If you actually have a theory, it should have testable details and you should be able to describe them.
Here are some you can start with:
What explosives were used and where were they placed?
Where are the many wtnesses that saw the flyover?
Where are the witnesses that saw parts and lamp posts being planted? How did the fuel explode inside the Pentagon when the diesel gen set was outside? [Not even a good try on that count]
What happened to the plane?

If you like to know how good your theory really is, stop on over at JREF for a good review. The members on JREF are less gentlemanly but they will help you with the details.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by pteridine
 


Now here's a question for you; have you gone over how witnesses could have been fooled into thinking that the plane crashed into the building?
******* Yes but since a few described the impact in detail, it must ahve been a "hologram special"


Originally posted by pteridine
Note that the diesel gen set was outside the building. How much fuel did it have? How did all that fuel get inside the building?


You think the wind couldn't carry the smoke inwards? Also, I've heard that someone in the building smelled cordite, but that's not jet -or- diesel fuel; it's a smell associated with explosives.

********It wasn't smoke, it was fire. No theory of how thousands of pounds of fuel got in there? The "cordite smell" is due to nitogen oxides which are associated with high temperature combustion in air. No evidence of explosives was found or witnessed.


Originally posted by pteridine
How were engine parts planted?


I have already mentioned that I don't know the answer to that one, but I do remember someone saying that the president was scheduled to land in the nearby helipad later on that day; perhaps some elements of the secret service were involved.
**********and perhaps not. Witnesses?


Originally posted by pteridine
Did anyone witness plane debris being planted?


Clearly the people who planted it would have witnessed it, but as to others, I really don't know. I think you should consider the fact that there was certainly no official investigation as to whether any of the evidence was planted.
***********no witnesses

Originally posted by pteridine
As to your statement about "details" that is exactly what has to be theorized.


I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I think that perhaps it was this comment that I made:
"one doesn't need to know every single detail of how something was done in order to know that it's what was most likely done."
******would this apply to the lamp post taxi interaction also?

There are no witnesses to space rays. There were no reliable witnesses to a south of the citgo flight path for the plane that approached the pentagon. There are -many- reliable witnesses who place the plane on a north of the citgo flight path, however. And if the plane flew in from that direction, it simply couldn't have hit the building, as I believe you know.
****Who decides on witness reliability? The CIT folks who have a vested interest in it>


[

[edit on 11/29/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

What north side evidence? Selected witness testimony? Then you have to disallow all those witnesses that saw the strike.


and HIS own witnesses (except for Paik) stated that they saw the plane impact the Pentagon.

Selective quote mining evidence throughout all of CIT's claims




If you like to know how good your theory really is, stop on over at JREF for a good review. The members on JREF are less gentlemanly but they will help you with the details.


Craig has been banned at JREF because of his abusive attitude, harassment of members there, spamming, shared account, false information on his account, having a sock puppet during a ban, and violation of the rules. He is not welcomed there.

forums.randi.org...



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


My post said "I implied that they did not wait, prove and verify all stories, especially trivial human interest stories among the carnage."



STOP!

Please stop this madness right now.

You continue to post to ME and then respond to all this nonsense that has nothing to do with anything in my post. You even get two stars on this one? We all know what that means though don't we? Obviously people give you stars without reading your posts. I hope you are proud of them then.

I am glad I got you to reply without using "Tezza" in the first sentence but you just moved on to some other random rant.

When I ask you something, you hide behind another poster and attack them from your reply. When you get called out on it, you disguise a rant as a relevant response.

You are a joke. You are trolling. Look at the fine work you have done in this thread.

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WHEN YOU ARE READY TO RESPOND TO ME ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID TO YOU, LET ME KNOW. UNTIL THEN, STOP REPLYING TO ME JUST TO GO OFF SOMEWHERE ELSE.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You didn't read it, did you.

Ldale: "Do you know anything about the media? What makes you think they would wait to verify a story before publishing it?"

Pteridine: "I believe that reporters do not prove and verify all stories before publishing, especially trivial human interest stories among the carnage."



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
There hasn't been any question Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon since mid-day Sept 11, 2001.


I just want to thank mikey for joining pterry in the "Do not read anything I say because English and Logic are severely lacking" club.

You have tried to pull this one before and got shot down over and over. You insisted there was NO QUESTION all the while there were many many many questions. Even the government investigated the crime scene so there must have been some question right? You insist that there was NO QUESTION. Then you follow that bold lie by the following.


Any questions are creations by Truthers trying to cloud what has always been clear and unambiguous.


Are there questions about it or not?

It cannot be both.

You cannot have NO questions and then continue to explain the questions there are away.

Can we have a serious conversation about the subject in one common language? That would mean that you two need to start reading what you write.

'There is NO question, except for the questions that I do not like.'




[edit on 11/29/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You didn't read it, did you.


I read the first couple of sentences and they had nothing to do with anything I have said or asked. Seeing as how the last 3 or 4 replies from you of that type were little rants about another poster, I saw no reason to continue.

Like I said, if you want to respond to me, do it. I do not care what you think about Tezza nor do I care about your editorial at the beginning that is every bit as relevant as your love for another poster in this thread.

I have read enough of your "replies to me" that were really another branch of an argument with someone else about something else to get a little tired of it.

I already shattered your credibility.

I had to ask this question a handful of times before you could even begin to address it in your responses about it.

I no longer see any reason to sift through your pablum. If you actually have anything informed and intelligent to say, you will not need an off topic opening paragraph to get there.

Like I said, your credibility is shot anyway. The only question I really care to see you answer is why anyone should care about any of your answers. Other than that, you have nothing to offer here.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
Craig has been banned at JREF because of his abusive attitude, harassment of members there, spamming, shared account, false information on his account, having a sock puppet during a ban, and violation of the rules. He is not welcomed there.

forums.randi.org...


CIT is transparently fraudulent to anyone who takes a close look at it - and has an IQ over 65.

Exposed in a dozen places online:


To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'

Victoria Ashley

911review.com...


Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce

by Jim Hoffman

911research.wtc7.net...


The Pentagon Flight Path Misinformation, Stand-Down, War Games, and the Three Mysterious Planes

by Arabesque

arabesque911.blogspot.com...


A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’
by Arabesque

arabesque911.blogspot.com...



9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described

by Arabesque

arabesque911.blogspot.com...


[edit on 29-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Note the word "if." Possibly, Klingon is your first language,

pteridine, Klingon is not my first language. Why would you try to assume that? It is rather silly.

When you state the word 'if' you consider the possibility that it could happen. You have stated a possible course of action based on CIT paying Lloyde for an interview.



Originally posted by pteridine
Stop dodging the question and state how he became unreliable 5 years after the fact and how that effects his original statement.

Lloyde contradicted himself, all by himself, in his interviews with CIT. He's not a reliable witness, pteridine.

You have failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi. You have also failed to prove that passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Oh no. You "shattered" my credibility? How? By whining continuously?

You, a troll-in-training, only famous for glib patter and insulting posts, also say I have nothing to offer.
Maybe you could finish me off by succunctly stating Pentagon 911 theories that you don't have with evidence that you can't seem to find. You are certainly amusing, Lillydale.

What hit the Pentagon, Lilly? Don't be shy, now.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Oh no. You "shattered" my credibility? How? By whining continuously?



Um no. Please read back in this very thread where I got you to admit that you are NOT interested in EVIDENCE or FACTS. I got you to admit that all you were interested in was new ideas that could not be verified...and then you ranted about evidence for a while. Keep reading, I gave you just enough rope to contradict yourself a couple of times. Need me to go back and get all that together for you?

I will get you started. Please refer to THIS POST.

This is where you begin by explaining to me that anything you say is true unless I can prove it wrong and then tell me that I need to offer a hypothesis of my own. That would be fine if it were not for the fact that, keep reading, you point out how facts and evidence get in the way for you and that is why you would rather discuss theories.

See you claim to be here as an official story believing honest person in search of the truth. You admitted in those pages that the truth is the farthest from what you are after. Thank you.

[edit on 11/29/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

When you state the word 'if' you consider the possibility that it could happen. You have stated a possible course of action based on CIT paying Lloyde for an interview.

******Yes, I have. How astute of you to notice. I listed several possibilities. Are you demanding definitive proof of possibilities, now, or have you thought better of that demand?


Originally posted by pteridine
Stop dodging the question and state how he became unreliable 5 years after the fact and how that effects his original statement.


Lloyde contradicted himself, all by himself, in his interviews with CIT. He's not a reliable witness, pteridine.



You are really panicking, tezza. I asked a simple question based on your declaration of unreliability and you won't answer it. Tezza the Inquisitor made a statement and now refuses to answer how Lloyde's purported unreliability 5 years after the fact effects his original statement made within hours of the event.
Those casual readers are going to think that your reputation has been "shattered" also. Don't worry, only a very few are keeping shattered reputation scores.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I'm happy to see that you are saving my words of wisdom for rereading even though my reputation is shattered. I knew you secretly agreed with my position on the Pentagon events.
I hope that someday you will find yourself a conspiracy that you can actually write down and provide testable hypotheses for.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by pteridine

If CIT paid Lloyde or LLoyde became confused or Lloyde became senile, how does that affect his original testimony immediately after the incident?

Stop weaseling and answer the question.



For the record we haven't paid Lloyde anything whatsoever.

Lloyde's story about the light pole spearing his windshield has been consistent since day one, long before we ever talked with him and throughout our entire experience with him.

This ridiculously implausible story has been PROVEN false by the witnesses at the citgo station and everyone in the near vicinity who corroborate them regarding the north side approach.


Yeah, right, Ranke, like when you claimed Robert Turcios was pointing to your fantasy NOC flight path when he was actually pointing to the correct SOC flightpath.

You remember how we all caught your screw-up:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let me remind you again, Craig Ranke:



"In another blow to CIT's North Side flight path claim, one of CIT's Citgo eyewitnesses actually points to the South Side flight path that we know AA77 flew in lining up to hit the Pentagon.

"It is the second blow to both CIT's claims and Pilots for 9/11 Truth's latest animation in one day.

"CIT's Citgo eyewitness, Robert Turcios, is shown pointing to the South Side flight path, the flight path AA77 actually took, in Pilots for 9/11 Truth's latest video here:

video.google.com...

"In this frame clip when Robert Turcios, with the Pentagon to his back, states:


"...from this corner..."


"he raises his arm to point to the South Side:"




You can run, but you can't hide.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I'm happy to see that you are saving my words of wisdom for rereading even though my reputation is shattered. I knew you secretly agreed with my position on the Pentagon events.
I hope that someday you will find yourself a conspiracy that you can actually write down and provide testable hypotheses for.


You really are deluded aren't you? I am fairly certain that I do not agree with you about anything.

First and foremost is the fact that in my quest for the truth, I am actually interested in facts and evidence. You are not. How sad. Other than that, I believe we stand at opposite ends so you are again, replying with nonsense. I wish I knew what was actually wrong with you.

p.s. There is a big difference between saving something because it is worth hearing and remembering something because it was so outlandishly stupid.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Don't worry, only a very few are keeping shattered reputation scores.


You really have no sense at all do you?

Did I say anything about your reputation?

I believe what I was attacking was your CREDIBILITY.

Do you not feel credibility matters?

I could care less what your reputation is. You do not have one with me at all.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You are really panicking, tezza.

Panicked by you? Hardly, pteridine. When you make claims about interviewing Lloyde's corpse, there's no need for anyone to panic, except you.



Originally posted by pteridine
I asked a simple question based on your declaration of unreliability and you won't answer it.

You must not have read my answer properly. Your question is pointless, pteridine. I never stated general criteria. That's the second time you have been answered.



Originally posted by pteridine
Tezza the Inquisitor made a statement and now refuses to answer how Lloyde's purported unreliability 5 years after the fact effects his original statement made within hours of the event.

You entirely fail to read responses given to you, pteridine.

Lloyde has contradicted himself in his interviews with CIT. He is an unreliable witness. I've answered this so many times for you.

Why have you failed to prove that LLoyde's story is true, pteridine?

You type about interviewing Lloyde's corpse, rather than trying to prove that his story his true. Why?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

What north side evidence? Selected witness testimony? Then you have to disallow all those witnesses that saw the strike.


It is a logical fallacy to suggest that people who believe the plane hit refute the placement of the plane on the north side of the gas station. Particularly since the north side witnesses all believed the plane hit when we first spoke with them! And also since the plane on the north side proves a deliberate deception regarding an impact.

Faulty logic does not refute evidence.

In order to refute evidence you MUST provide direct counter-evidence of greater strength.

In this case it would be 4 or more witnesses who were at the gas station filmed on location placing the plane on the south side as emphatically as Brooks, Lagasse, and Turcios place it on the north side.

To accept anything less exposes a confirmation bias against this evidence and in favor of what you were told by the govt.



When you started with the NOC you did so why? Was it just a mismatch to question? Then it grew and worked your way into two planes, shock and awe, flyovers, explosives and all sorts of contortions. It seems that your entire case rests on a few guesses at flight paths. All we ever hear is that "something must have happened and we don't know how but surely there is a consiracy." Some theory.


We started this independent investigation with no theory at all. We knew people talked about missiles, global hawks, small planes, and of course the official story of a 757 hitting the building so we decided to deliberately ignore it all and seek out previously unknown witnesses on the street to find out what really happened since this would be the purest form of independent evidence possible. I'm talking about people who never talked to the media or govt that we could find from canvassing the area on foot.

As it turned out Robert Turcios was one of the first previously unknown witnesses we could find. Since we instantly knew that his placement of the plane on the north side was make or break for the official story (particularly when considering he volunteered that the plane "pulled up" over the highway) you could say the north side approach became our thesis at that time. Only AFTER we talked to Turcios. But it did remind us about Lagasse's 2003 email to Dick Eastman where he claimed he was on the "starboard" side of the craft. If we could confirm this with Lagasse directly we knew this would be huge. The rest is documented history as we would go on to test this thesis over and over with unanimous results from ALL independent witnesses we could find in the best vantage point to see the gas station and tell on what side the plane flew.

So the accusations of us cherry picking or using "select" witnesses is patently false. There simply are not any other known witnesses in a better position to tell what side the gas station the plane flew other than the ones who were on the station's property and we've done our best to contact ANY and ALL of them in a position to see the station at all. (as well as several others but the central question of north or south of the gas station became the focal point of our thesis since that simple detail is make or break for the official story).

In order to refute this definitive evidence you MUST provide 4 or more witnesses who were at the gas station filmed on location placing the plane on the south side as emphatically as Brooks, Lagasse, and Turcios place it on the north side.

To accept anything less exposes a confirmation bias against this evidence and in favor of what you were told by the govt.



If you actually have a theory, it should have testable details and you should be able to describe them.
Here are some you can start with:
What explosives were used and where were they placed?
Where are the many wtnesses that saw the flyover?
Where are the witnesses that saw parts and lamp posts being planted? How did the fuel explode inside the Pentagon when the diesel gen set was outside? [Not even a good try on that count]
What happened to the plane?


Actually none of those questions are relevant once the plane has been proven to have been on the north side of the gas station which it has.

Even our most studied detractors at jref (and everywhere) openly agree with us that a hypothetical north side approach proves the plane did not hit the light poles or the building and therefore that 9/11 was an inside job.



If you like to know how good your theory really is, stop on over at JREF for a good review. The members on JREF are less gentlemanly but they will help you with the details.


Although RipCurl is correct that I have been banned there it has nothing to do with my "behavior" and everything to do with the fact that they are scared to death of this information and of me discussing it on their forum.

They banned me for no other valid reason.

Read my open letter to them about that here.




top topics



 
215
<< 96  97  98    100  101  102 >>

log in

join