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

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Well here is a definition of the word shill:

2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

We know he's making money and that he's supporting the official story while making false claims about "thoroughly" considering the truth movement. CIT made that pretty clear in the debate. He is therefore, by definition, shilling for the official story.



You know what? Fair enough. You make a good point. So, I secede my previous statement. According to the definition you gave you are absolutely right.



And again, like I said before, I do think Craig Ranke won the debate.



edit on 9-11-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I'm going to try a little test for the "Truthers" who believe that somehow, the CIT "eyewitnesses to the "NoC" idea proves the "OS" wrong.

I didn't know CIT went down there and showed people who weren't at the scene pictures of planes flying overhead and ask them what route the planes took?!



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


'Crushed' is a bit extreme. I saw an author unprepared for the CIT silliness. He wants money and they want attention. The CIT theory is pure nonsense based entirely on guesses about the final track of the airplane. No airpane flew away from the Pentagon. Witnesses saw it strike. CIT has no theory about how thousands of gallons of hydrocarbons were smuggled into the Pentagon and by whom. They have no good explanation as to why any plotters would bother with such a complicated plan. A last second pull up at the speed the plane was travelling wouldn't happen too smoothly at the altitude of the aircraft.
These clowns have no credibility and drag out their same, tired, old stuff whenever they feel attention deprived. My theory is that CIT is testing the gullibility quotient of the public to determine just how many people can be fooled by their Rube Goldberg theory.


He was crushed man. He was an author who made outrageous claims and who fell at the first hurdle.

Where are you getting the "thousands of gallons of hydrocarbons" from??

You actually believe that the alleged manouevre at cruise speed and full "penetration" into the first floor would have been a doddle??

Through here?

img851.imageshack.us...

You're asking me to speculate on the actual op itself. I could do that or I could stick to what we actually know.



"Thousands of gallons of hydrocarbon" would be the big fireball on impact and smoky fires. Your maneuver and penetration appeal to incredulity is certainly a 'doddle.' The entire CIT theory hinges on estimates of the track of a passenger jet flying low and fast by untrained observers. The estimates are used as the basis for a theory so contrived as to be laughable.
Why don't you speculate on the "actual op" and help out the hapless CIT?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by GenRadek
I'm going to try a little test for the "Truthers" who believe that somehow, the CIT "eyewitnesses to the "NoC" idea proves the "OS" wrong.

I didn't know CIT went down there and showed people who weren't at the scene pictures of planes flying overhead and ask them what route the planes took?!



And .......

"WOOSH!!!"

that is the sound of it going over your head, just as I predicted.

So I take it you have never heard of "perspective" eh? Ok, well for starters, the reason why I posted the pictures with the questions to get an idea of how one would describe the aircraft flying over whatever is in the picture. Apparently it was too complicated for you to understand but, people tend to say "it flew over that sign over there", or "It flew over that house right there", when watching a plane or something flying a distance away. However, as is the case, it is from their perspective, and sometimes, them saying "It flew over that house" or "Just over that Citgo" does not mean that it actually flew directly over that particular spot on the Earth. Just like the picture of 747 landing, it looks like it is flying over the billboard sign. But can we tell if it is? Is it closer? Farther? That is the error with CIT's use of the eyewitness accounts, and their drawn "flight paths".

Do you understand yet?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I will apologize before hand................sorry

This guy is like every other "expert."

I have to laugh out loud


The debate gets no where
and never will.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by pteridine
 



[
You're making speculatory claims as fact.

The smoke was mainly from the generator. There were also two cars ablaze.


"You're making speculatory claims as fact." The generator and two cars couldn't have produced the fireball and the amount of smoke from burning fuel.
What did happen to the plane, anyway?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





Do you understand yet?


I know perfectly well what you're saying.
Some of the recorded witnesses were in positions where they couldn't physically see the aircraft on the official path from their stated positions or described a path and trajectory that totally contradicts the OCT.

How about Brooks and Lagasse at the Citgo?

i14.photobucket.com...

i14.photobucket.com...

How stupid do you actually think these people are to have corroborated exactly and got it totally wrong?

Or these people who described the aircraft as coming straight for them when the official path would have the aircraft do nothing of the sort?

i14.photobucket.com...

i14.photobucket.com...

Or Terry Morin who was within the Navy Annex area and claimed that he couldn't see the stripes because it went directly over his head! What he should have seen is this..

i14.photobucket.com...

He described nothing of the sort.

How about Sean Boger who was actally in the heliport looking straight at the Annex. How in the name of god could he possibly be confused by perspective when the OCT aircraft wouldn't have crossed over his field of vision at any point? It would have been coming steadily from his left.

i659.photobucket.com...

Now do you understand?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Here....this video shows quite clearly why Craig Ranke is a fool, and his ridiculous "theory" is trash:



Please. Seriously??

Quick answer. The directional damage path is off in that video. It was pulled from the author's rectum.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Well here is a definition of the word shill:

2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

We know he's making money and that he's supporting the official story while making false claims about "thoroughly" considering the truth movement. CIT made that pretty clear in the debate. He is therefore, by definition, shilling for the official story.



You know what? Fair enough. You make a good point. So, I secede my previous statement. According to the definition you gave you are absolutely right.



And again, like I said before, I do think Craig Ranke won the debate.



edit on 9-11-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)


Thanks very much man!
It's rare these days to see anybody openly conceding a point. Appreciated.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by pteridine
 



[
You're making speculatory claims as fact.

The smoke was mainly from the generator. There were also two cars ablaze.


"You're making speculatory claims as fact." The generator and two cars couldn't have produced the fireball and the amount of smoke from burning fuel.
What did happen to the plane, anyway?


The ASCE report claimed that only 15% of the alleged fuel load made up the fireball.
I've posted images showing the generator smoke (and from the cars) and the facade being extinguished.

What else should I show you?

Yes there was a fire inside but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was fueled by jet fuel. What we do know is that the smoke seen in the first hours was mainly produced by the generator. End of story.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


And 2 people actually flagged that response! Wow.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by pteridine
 



[
You're making speculatory claims as fact.

The smoke was mainly from the generator. There were also two cars ablaze.


"You're making speculatory claims as fact." The generator and two cars couldn't have produced the fireball and the amount of smoke from burning fuel.
What did happen to the plane, anyway?


The ASCE report claimed that only 15% of the alleged fuel load made up the fireball.
I've posted images showing the generator smoke (and from the cars) and the facade being extinguished.

What else should I show you?

Yes there was a fire inside but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was fueled by jet fuel. What we do know is that the smoke seen in the first hours was mainly produced by the generator. End of story.


Hardly end of story. 15% of the fuel made the fireball; that would be between 1500 and 2000 gallons. That would be between 300 and 400 5-gallon cans. Where did that amount of fuel come from? Then, there was all the fuel burning inside the building. Where did that come from?

What about the disappearing plane? Where did it go?

You were invited to theorize and save Ranke but apparently you are unable to come up with any plausible theories.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 



The directional damage path is off in that video.


????

The direction of damage has been shown clearly in the Pentagon Building Performance Report


Calm yourself.

I was talking about the ridiculous path plotted in the "Perspective 77" video. Or do you think it's correct?




There were NO actual witnesses to the "North of Citgo" path. Craig Ranke and his delusions come out of his butt, and he had to selectively cherry-pick, and coach with leading questions in order to get the *results* he desired. The actual witnesses (including the pilot and crew of the Minnesota Air National Guard C-130) saw the true path of the jet, American 77.


I think that the witnesses interviewed would beg to differ. Even when told of the ramifications of what they described, they didn't change their stories. In fact William Lagasse was adamant about what he saw and told Craig Ranke so in an e mail.

"¨Obviously what I saw happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane was on the North or South side of the gas station."

~Sgt William Lagasse after watching The PentaCon and responding to the ASCE (and ultimately Pseudoskeptics)"

O'Brien is on record as saying that he lost sight of the aircraft and when he finally reached the Pentagon basin area 3 minutes later, he had to try and make out the Potomac River to get an estimate of where the smoke plume was coming from.









Here, Mike Wilson compiled a 3-D computer animation, based on the known damage path, and the facts:


Mike Wilson contradicts the ASCE Report claims regarding the aircraft being in a 8-9º tilt when it allegedly struck the building. And, as with Purdue he neatly squeezes the 170 odd feet wingspan (at an angle) into that hole without addressing the extremities. Particularly the 40-50ft vertical stabilizer.




The left engine is problematic too.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

It's also based on a trajectory that nobody witnessed. That's the real problem.





Purdue University created a simulation, using super computers:


Purdue had the aircraft slide in on its belly minus the engines. Surely they could have come up with a better depiction with their super duper computer?



And of course, there is the on-board Flight Data Recorder (FDR). This is the record of the entire flight, the video begins when the jet taxis into position for take-off at Dulles. It stops just moments before impact, because the final portion of the info was garbled.....this video was made by NTSB as a preliminary version, because so many were clamoring to see it. The last moments of data have subsequently been deciphered:


"It stops just moments before impact". Which is why it has no bearing on the NOC testimony.

The Legge 10th (or 11th?) paper is a joke. He couldn't get a single pilot to back his claims.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Maybe that should tell you something?

Apart from the fact that this alleged FDR data from "Flight 77" is allegedly "missing seconds" (which nobody has explained as to why or how), there are other considerations.

Researcher Aidan Monagahan has established that the NTSB does not have either serial or part numbers for the FDRs from AA77. The NTSB’s own handbook indicates that the part number and serial number of the FDR are required for data readout of the FDR. The NTSB did not have this information, giving us another reason to question how the FDR data was created.

Why so many different stories as to when and where the alleged black box was found?

pilotsfor911truth.org...

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The government claims that the voice data recorder was damaged during the crash and that no usable data was retrieved from it. If true, this would be the first time in aviation history that a solid-state data recorder was destroyed during a crash.

9/11 huh?





Craig Ranke is a fool, and attention whore......


Is there any need for that?
edit on 9-11-2011 by ThePostExaminer because: urls
edit on 9-11-2011 by ThePostExaminer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Oh, I see your problem....you have not only fallen for Craig Ranke's nonsense, but you seem to also rely heavily on the loons over at "PilotsForTruth", too......

Anyway:



And, as with Purdue he neatly squeezes the 170 odd feet wingspan (at an angle) into that hole without addressing the extremities.


Facts are a pesky thing, aren't they? The Boeing 757 wingspan is 124 feet, 1o inches.



Particularly the 40-50ft vertical stabilizer.


Again, those messy facts. Really? The vertical stab has a height range of abuot ten feet??




The height of the top of the vertical fin is 44 feet, 6 inches....when measured from the ground, with the landing gear extended!

The vertical fin is composed primarily of composites - - carbon fiber reinforced polymer matrix materials, and would have shattered on impact.

www.aeromaintenancegroup.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 



"It stops just moments before impact". Which is why it has no bearing on the NOC testimony.


Overstatement, and not really factual.

Did you watch the NTSB video? You can clearly see that the airplane is in a position at the end of that data reconstruction that is well south of the (former) CitGo gas station.

The path it took was indicated by the downed light poles. A tree that was topped. The damage patter inside the Pentagon itself. Et cetera......





The last "bits and bytes" of code from the FDR were properly read by a gentleman named Warren Stutt.

Google for his info.
edit on Wed 9 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


You're not reading my posts.

The wingspan would have been over 170ft at the alleged angle vs facade.

I said that the vertical stabilizer would have been 40-50ft agl because of the alleged height it travelled across the lawn.

The vertical stabilizer "shattered" and left no recognizable pieces, yet the wingtips supposedly sheared multiple lightpoles? And the wafer thin skin of the aircraft ended up in tidy sheets with visible writing on them having ploughed into a reinforced facade at 540mph? No a wrinkle? How was that?

The stabilizer shattered yet it was repeatedly claimed that the nosecone made it all the way through to C Ring. Isn't that the same sort of material? How was that?

How was it that firefighters, survivors, first responders and media reported no visible parts? I mean, just how tiny were these shattered fragments?

The minimum the stabilizer should have done is leave a mark of some kind on the facade!

It didn't.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 



The government claims that the voice data recorder was damaged during the crash and that no usable data was retrieved from it. If true, this would be the first time in aviation history that a solid-state data recorder was destroyed during a crash.


No, not the "first time in history" for a Recorder to be destroyed. They are not "indestructible".

Here's the photo:





In its report on the CVR, the NTSB identified the unit as an L-3 Communications, Fairchild Aviation Recorders model A-100A cockpit voice recorder; a device which records on magnetic tape. The NTSB reported that "The majority of the recording tape was fused into a solid block of charred plastic." No usable segments of tape were found inside the recorder.


Source - Sorry, it's Wiki, but it is easy to find and post

The Fairchild model A-100A is not a solid-state CVR.

Here is the N TSB Factual Report of Investigation - Cockpit Voice Recorder



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 



"It stops just moments before impact". Which is why it has no bearing on the NOC testimony.


Overstatement, and not really factual.

Did you watch the NTSB video? You can clearly see that the airplane is in a position at the end of that data reconstruction that is well south of the (former) CitGo gas station.

The path it took was indicated by the downed light poles. A tree that was topped. The damage patter inside the Pentagon itself. Et cetera......

The last "bits and bytes" of code from the FDR were properly read by a gentleman named Warren Stutt.

Google for his info.
edit on Wed 9 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


The animation also showed the aircraft to be too high to hit the poles or the Pentagon. Or should we ignore that little anomaly?

The NTSB is the one who should answer these questions. Until they or the FBI do clear up the points I raised earlier, the data stands as is as being the official data. I personally think it's garbage but that's what they are offering.

Warren Stutt? I'm tired of seeing him schooled at Pilotsfor911Truth.

Read these samples to see how his and Legge's calculations are based on nonsense:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

pilotsfor911truth.org...

pilotsfor911truth.org...





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join