Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

Snowcrash911,

How come you reneged on your promise to debate Craig Ranke?

You said:

I think you both are excellent researchers and you showed balls going out there [...] I am quite certain, however, that you're on to something.

So you think they are both excellent researchers? You think they are onto something? What exactly are they onto?

Also, I know you have been a vocal CIT detractor, but can you point me in the direction of witnesses you have interviewed as well as the ones you interviewed on camera and in location?

And as has been pointed out online before, if you are a 9/11 truther, how come you are so vicious when it comes to attacking witnesses who stand by what they saw and said they would testify to it after being unaware and then made aware of the implications? The implications being the damage was staged and 9/11 is an inside job.

If you feel they are both excellent researchers and onto something, why won't you let the witnesses they interviewed have their day in court?

The officers said they would testify to it. Who are YOU to say that they are wrong and shouldn't be on the stand, and if you are for 9/11 truth why would say that?

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Hi Reheat,

Since you feel that the NoC flight path is impossible and just a "theory" (although I am not sure how all those witnesses saw a "theory") can you please let us know your thoughts on this? I think it would be quite humorous to hear.

z3.invisionfree.com...

Hello Waldo,

Must you lie when even asking a question. You well know that I've said all along that the ANY NOC path was impossible when adhering to witness statements. Very different than your lie even when asking a question, but very in character.

Nah, since you would find anything I say hilarious, I'll pass and not provide a laugh for you today. I will note in passing that your "bottom" chose to spend half of his article attacking my anonymity as opposed to offering substance.

I would like to provide a laugh to those reading to note that your "National Security Alert" and "Operation Accountability" have obviously been a dismal failure rejected even by most truthers. That says more than I could ever say here about it and should provide the laugh you requested for everyone else.

Originally posted by WetBlanky

Originally posted by snowcrash911
OK Marquis. What do you want?

Last chance. Aren't you supposed to be more effective by actually being on the board? Please address me by screen name or I will be forced to report you.

Ha ha ha. Okay dude. I'm not sure what you mean by "Aren't you supposed to be more effective by actually being on the board" but whatever.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Snowcrash911,

How come you reneged on your promise to debate Craig Ranke?

You said:

I think you both are excellent researchers and you showed balls going out there [...] I am quite certain, however, that you're on to something.

So you think they are both excellent researchers? You think they are onto something? What exactly are they onto?

Yes, I once thought that. This is no secret. I've changed my mind. I was 100% wrong about you and Craig. Quote some of my comments from the past year, won't you? No?

I was wrong... about CIT. Completely.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Also, I know you have been a vocal CIT detractor, but can you point me in the direction of witnesses you have interviewed as well as the ones you interviewed on camera and in location?

This is the well known "independently corroborated" spiel, in which CIT attempts to isolate their cult victims by pretending that only THEIR WORK may be considered, while interviews conducted by others are by definition "disallowed". More importantly, we're supposed to wallow in reverence for CIT because they interviewed witnesses in person, some of which are now upset with CIT and/or refuse further contact. This includes Mike Walter, Keith Wheelhouse, Steve Storti, Madeleine Zakhem, William Lagasse, Albert Hemphill, Dewitt Roseborough, Roosevelt Roberts, Robert Turcios, Tim Timmerman, Dawn Vignola, and so on, and so forth. You've left a trail of utter devastation behind you. See this video by Jeff Hill, someone with the sense to let go of his no planer beliefs (since you believe NO PLANE crashed at the Pentagon, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, which you all dismiss as fake, I consider you a no planer)



They saw the plane hit. They loathe you and Craig.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
And as has been pointed out online before, if you are a 9/11 truther, how come you are so vicious when it comes to attacking witnesses who stand by what they saw and said they would testify to it after being unaware and then made aware of the implications? The implications being the damage was staged and 9/11 is an inside job.

If you feel they are both excellent researchers and onto something, why won't you let the witnesses they interviewed have their day in court?

The officers said they would testify to it. Who are YOU to say that they are wrong and shouldn't be on the stand, and if you are for 9/11 truth why would say that?

April Gallop's court case citing among another things your bullcrap research was thrown out and judged "frivolous". So would any court case you bring forth, in fact, I'd be surprised if you and Craig wouldn't be both declared mentally incompetent.

Put William Lagasse on the stand and he'll state unequivocally that the plane hit the building. We know that from the totality of his statements on the subject. He hates your guts. The plane hit the building, he was wrong about the flight path. Witness confidence is no metric for witness accuracy. You've defamed, snitchjacketed and slandered every witness who disagreed with you.

So was Sgt Lagasse lying when he said he was "100%" sure he saw a plane fly NoC?

Now, I am not Anthony Summers, and I think Summers is a shill and a hack. So I'm not surprised he put on a pathetic performance. So we agree on this one: Summers lost the debate. By a wide margin.

Originally posted by ATH911
So was Sgt Lagasse lying when he said he was "100%" sure he saw a plane fly NoC?

He wasn't lying that he was sure. However, he was mistaken about where he saw the plane fly.

It's a good thing he didn't "bet his life" on where he was parked, now wasn't it?

Originally posted by snowcrash911

He wasn't lying that he was sure. However, he was mistaken about where he saw the plane fly.

It's a good thing he didn't "bet his life" on where he was parked, now wasn't it?

Oh, so he was parked at the pump on the south side facing south?

snowcrash?

reply to post by Reheat


Hi Reheat,

My screen name isnt Waldo is it? I will give you only one warning. Please use my screen name as I am extending the courtesy of using yours or I will be forced to report you.

Now, the thing is Reheat, the FAA animation is almost the perfect hypothetical flight path representation of what the witnesses describe, minus the lack of the "pull-up" and the addition of the ridiculous impact through the untouched light poles-which we know didn't happen.

So the flight path described by witnesses is perfectly possible.

Originally posted by ATH911
snowcrash?

Just a minute buddy, I'm preparing something for you.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
reply to post by Reheat

 

Hi Reheat,

My screen name isnt Waldo is it? I will give you only one warning. Please use my screen name as I am extending the courtesy of using yours or I will be forced to report you.

Now, the thing is Reheat, the FAA animation is almost the perfect hypothetical flight path representation of what the witnesses describe, minus the lack of the "pull-up" and the addition of the ridiculous impact through the untouched light poles-which we know didn't happen.

So the flight path described by witnesses is perfectly possible.

Oh, Waldo was a term of endearment. I'm surprised you're insulted by it.

BTW, the animation you're referring to was not from the FAA and it wasn't from NORAD either. It was a sample program made by a software company and was not intended to ever indicate a realistic depiction of anything other than the capability of the software being demonstrated. You know that already, but are pretending not to know. That's deceptive and is a form of a blatant lie. That's twice in two posts that you've lied. I guess when you really don't have anything else to say you think a lie is OK....

Originally posted by ATH911
Oh, so he was parked at the pump on the south side facing south?

Shall we go over this again? The parking spot recollection saga unfolds as follows:

William Lagasse
As a matter of fact, I don't think I was this far forward, I was probably further back... Uhm... So...

Craig Ranke
Do you think perhaps... Drrif... Do you think if perhaps you might even been at this pump back here?

William Lagasse
I could have been...

Craig Ranke
Okay

William Lagasse
Because the more.. the more I think about it... this is the first time I've met... ever done an interview.

Craig Ranke
Right.

William Lagasse
I kinda think so!

Craig Ranke
Okay..

William Lagasse
I really think I might have been back...

Craig Ranke
You been been back at that one.

William Lagasse
The reason I say that is because when I left, I might have backed out, I don't think I drove forward.

Craig Ranke
Okay, and the reason I'm asking you this is because you can see in the security video that your car was parked there and that you backed out and peeled off... so.. I'm... you know...

William Lagasse
I didn't... I've never thought about that until you said it.

Craig Ranke
Sure, sure.

William Lagasse
Because I remember, I didn't go forward. That's the first time I ever thought about it.

Craig Ranke
What I was I trying to do really is establish if that... whether or not that was for sure you in the CITGO... in the security video that was just recently released... and... and that... that... that establishes it... for certain.

William Lagasse
That's the first time I ever thought of it, cause nobody ever asked me.

(...)


Craig Ranke
And... But the plane hadn't flown over yet when you were talking to them. It didn't fly over till you came back, start fueling up your car... And...

William Lagasse
That... You know what? That's the first time I've actually had that recollection, that's where I parked my car. Because nobody's a... Nobody's ever asked me.

Craig Ranke
Sure, yeah no, it was five years ago, so... That's understandable.

William Lagasse
Because when you said did you back up...I'm like... Yeah, I think I did.

Source

Like I said... It's good William Lagasse didn't "bet his life" on which pump he was at, because the entire interview was conducted at the wrong pump. Lagasse was visibly happy to be able to share his experience with a few guys he thought had a genuine intention to represent his full account, including the fact that Lagasse saw the plane hit the building, and later saw plane parts and the rest of the mess inside. Are you proud of CIT now, "ATH911"? Are you proud of their 9/11 research "mojo"?

Lagasse upset with CIT:

In the same spirit, I have also talked to Lagasse, who would love to talk to me about cit. He is very pissed about what the cit folks have done. However, new rules have been implemented with his Pentagon employer since what happened with cit and now Lagasse requires Pentagon approval to talk to anyone about this issue. A request to the Pentagon went unanswered.

Source

Back in 2003, William Lagasse stated the following to Dick Eastman, the inspiration for CIT's wacky flyover idea:

Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day.

(...)

The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end.

Have you ever seen photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a diffrent sort of thinker.

(...)

There was almost no debris to the right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the engines smashed...but intact in the building. I saw the building from the inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that morning.

Source

"Flyover" huh?

It's a DISGRACE.

Craig Ranke aptly reminds us that "a true skeptic is forced to choose".

What do you choose? Do you choose to stick to your guns, implying Lagasse invented his memory of finding plane parts including a freaking engine inside the Pentagon? Or do you choose to be a true skeptic and accept that Lagasse's flight path estimation was off, unlike his assessment that the plane hit the Pentagon?

Mistaken about the flight trajectory of the plane he saw, in his own words, for about a second? Or mistaken about the crash AND the plane parts he saw with his own eyes and got a very good look at?

Don't you EVER accuse any of us of insinuating Lagasse was LYING ever again.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Like I said... It's good William Lagasse didn't "bet his life" on which pump he was at, because the entire interview was conducted at the wrong pump.

So he was parked at the pump on the south side facing south?

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Snowcrash911,

How come you reneged on your promise to debate Craig Ranke?

You said:

I think you both are excellent researchers and you showed balls going out there [...] I am quite certain, however, that you're on to something.

So you think they are both excellent researchers? You think they are onto something? What exactly are they onto?

Yes, I once thought that. This is no secret. I've changed my mind. I was 100% wrong about you and Craig. Quote some of my comments from the past year, won't you? No?

I was wrong... about CIT. Completely.

Ok I reported you.

So if you were wrong about CIT, what makes your judgement any better now? Besides, didn't you think they were on to something because of the witnesses and not because of CIT?

Or did you just feign support, so you could later say you looked at it all and CIT is wrong and you don't need to debate them.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Also, I know you have been a vocal CIT detractor, but can you point me in the direction of witnesses you have interviewed as well as the ones you interviewed on camera and in location?

SNIP

They saw the plane hit. They loathe you and Craig.

Loathe them? All of them? You spoke with them all? Come now, snowcrash911. You know that is not true.

A majority of the witnesses you listed are north side witnesses, some are alleged witnesses who have lost their credibility and none support a south of citgo low and level impact. We can dissect them one by one if you want.

How many of those witnesses Jeff Hill spoke with described any details of the impact that are corroborated or even consistent with the official flight path.

Second, do you agree with this statement from known CIT detractor Boone 870 (who was cited by Miles Kara)

Originally Posted by Boone 870
I was there ... memorial on September 11, 2008, I....
After having been there myself, I came to the realization that the people who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken. There is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level. Impossible!

Once you answer that, then we will tackle this matter in relation to alleged impact witnesses.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
And as has been pointed out online before, if you are a 9/11 truther, how come you are so vicious when it comes to attacking witnesses who stand by what they saw and said they would testify to it after being unaware and then made aware of the implications? The implications being the damage was staged and 9/11 is an inside job.

If you feel they are both excellent researchers and onto something, why won't you let the witnesses they interviewed have their day in court?

The officers said they would testify to it. Who are YOU to say that they are wrong and shouldn't be on the stand, and if you are for 9/11 truth why would say that?

April Gallop's court case citing among another things your bullcrap research was thrown out and judged "frivolous". So would any court case you bring forth, in fact, I'd be surprised if you and Craig wouldn't be both declared mentally incompetent.

Well, you said it. Amongst "another things". The "other things" is what you would call the frivolous part. Just because they threw the baby out with the bath water doesn't make the NOC witnesses "frivolous". Their accounts were simply buried amongst "other things".

Put William Lagasse on the stand and he'll state unequivocally that the plane hit the building. We know that from the totality of his statements on the subject.

But the subject he would be on the stand for would be the north side flight path he witnessed. He stated unequivocally that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo. That is what proves the plane did not cause the damage. Why would you misdirect attention to an "impact" when you, me, and almost everyone reading knows the crux of the matter is the north side flight path? The very something you said CIT was "onto".

So, since a north side flight path proves an inside job and since the witnesses, Lagasse, included all stood by where they saw the plane even after learning the implications and would testify to it, would you, as an alleged 9/11 truth supporter, want to see them, including Lagasse, on the stand regarding the north side flight path?

He hates your guts.

He doesn't hate CIT. That is just you recycling unsourced lies once again. Regardless, any disdain he may have for CIT would be irrelevant to where he saw the plane in relation to the gas station.

The plane hit the building, he was wrong about the flight path. Witness confidence is no metric for witness accuracy. You've defamed, snitchjacketed and slandered every witness who disagreed with you.

Everyone is Aldo Marquis apparently. He is like Spartacus.

Ok so let's forget that you were just force-feeding everyone his old Dick Eastman e-mails where he reinforces his belief that the Plane hit out of anger and indignance towards doubters. And let's forget that you skip over the part where he places himself on the starboard side of the plane ie the north side flight path.

Please explain how he is inaccurate about the north side flight path which was corroborated with supporting details by other witnesses, but he is accurate about the impact?

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Like I said... It's good William Lagasse didn't "bet his life" on which pump he was at, because the entire interview was conducted at the wrong pump.

So he was parked at the pump on the south side facing south?

snowcrash?

Originally posted by ATH911
So he was parked at the pump on the south side facing south?

No, but his recollection of his parking spot was erroneous. Class act ignoring the rest of my post, ATH911.

So did Lagasse not see plane parts inside the Pentagon with his own eyes? Did he not say the plane went crashed into the Pentagon with a "yaw", ATH911? Why must you ignore William Lagasse's crash testimony?

Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day.

(...)

The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end.

Have you ever seen photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a diffrent sort of thinker.

(...)

There was almost no debris to the right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the engines smashed...but intact in the building. I saw the building from the inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that morning.

Respond to this pertinent information. Information you deliberately ignore.