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

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

I never said this:

As for your claim that marks are "visible" on the facade where the vertical stabilizer allegedly struck....

The wings. There are photos out there that show the limestone facade blocks having been affected by the wing impacts.

The vertical stabilizer is, as I said, a composite material. Not aluminum, nor as substantial in build as the wings.

The vertical stabilizer would have shattered on impact, at those speeds and against the stone.

The vertical stabilizer "shattered" yet left no mark on the facade. You can see it in that image I posted. If your talking about the small cracks seen in other images, not even the outer masonry was budged!

You're talking about a composite material but it wasn't glass! It was a graphite/kevlar poxy that was designed to withstand high speed flutter and stabilize the aircraft.

www.mrl.columbia.edu...

As I said, even the ASCE Report determined that there was no visible damage to the facade "above 25ft" which is the height of the first two floors. Are they wrong too?

So....is it now the contention that no airplane at all hit the Pentagon?

Despite the evident debris from a Boeing 757....a destroyed Boeing 757? And the DNA from the passengers and crew? And the personal effects? And the path of damage shown? And the debris that continued ahead to punch out ultimately at the C-Ring?

All of that (plus much, much more) must be "ignored" in order to proceed with an "hypothesis" of "no airplane".....seems ludicrous, on its face.

The "debris", or images of "debris" have never been identified as coming from "Flight 77" or a 757.
There are no chain of custody records that have been released for the alleged passengers of "Flight 77", nor for those of "Flight 93"

911blogger.com...

The alleged 95% success rate of identification of alleged passenger DNA from tissue was meant to have been recovered from C Ring. An area that the ASCE Report claimed had reached temperatures of 950º for over an hour. Cremation point for human tissue is 1000º (remember we are taking about allegd body parts and tissue)

Most of this "evidence of an impact" is basically the word of government agencies. Sorry, not good enough for me.

Outsiders like us have been reduced to the only uncontaminated form of evidence available. Witnesses.

The NOC flightpath puts the plane nowhere near the damage path. Start rolling out names of those who contradict them and you might have a point. The other "evidence" is nowhere near as ironclad as you try to make out.

reply to post by ProudBird

You used the word "fact" about five times...yet, not one of those statements is indeed, a fact

Fact is my statment is not an opinion and you know that.

Those are apparently an opinion held by.....about one individual (or, perhaps maybe a handful of others?)

That is your opinion, where are your facts to back your claim? *(or, perhaps maybe a handful of others?)*

Compared to thousands, if not millions of others who have reviewed all of the evidence, and would merely rolltheir eyes at the claims (those five) made as "facts"....

You my friend do not know what millions of people believe or what they “roll their eyes” to, just your opinion, nothing more.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


No fly away = no fly over.

Everyone didn't blink or duck on impact. This was a real gem of an explanation and was a source of great amusement for those in the real world.

reply to post by pteridine

Everyone didn't blink or duck on impact. This was a real gem of an explanation and was a source of great amusement for those in the real world.

Supporting the OS of the Pentagon crash is what I find rather amusing. Hearsay is not evidence regardless who says it. The fact is you have no evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

Everyone didn't blink or duck on impact. This was a real gem of an explanation and was a source of great amusement for those in the real world.

Supporting the OS of the Pentagon crash is what I find rather amusing. Hearsay is not evidence regardless who says it. The fact is you have no evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon.

The discussion had moved to the CIT idea that there was a flyover and some sort of contrived demolitions. The fact is that no plane flew away eliminates this, immediately. The fact is that there is no evidence of anything but a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

reply to post by impressme


Don't let the fact that there is:
1. Radar evidence
2. Eyewitness evidence
3. Physical evidence
And
4. Forensic evidence

..stop you. By all means keep clinging to your lunatic theories.

The simple fact about the fly over theory is this...

Had the plane over flew the Pentagon, it would have been tracked on RR National approach/departure radar, and witnessed by the controllers in RR National's tower.....unless, of course, they were all "in on it" too.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Oh, I do. No a single person saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Maybe that's because there was a huge explosion hiding it, and people were not looking directly at it?

Not even the 10,000 tourists milling around Washington D.C. directly actoss the river? It would have necessarily flown right over their heads. You can even see the Pentagon from the Washington monument.

There is no physical evidence of a Boeing hitting the pentagon, other than a few parts that could have come from anywhere. There is no smoking gun evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon. Let's not pretend there is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

...except for the fact that the flight recorder was recovered which positively identified the craft as flight 77. Nice try and attempting to sow abject paranoia but you fail.

All right, I have to ask, just where the heck is this "nothing hit the Pentagon" baloney coming from? Even that French guy who invented the claim the Pentagon was really hit by a cruise missile isn't going that deep into fantasia.

reply to post by pteridine

The fact is that there is no evidence of anything but a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

The fact is there is no evidence of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, which is your “opinion.” Government hearsay is not proof or evidence.

reply to post by vipertech0596

Don't let the fact that there is:
1. Radar evidence
2. Eyewitness evidence
3. Physical evidence
And
4. Forensic evidence

..stop you. By all means keep clinging to your lunatic theories.

lunatic theories!

I, like you are entitled to my opinions without being indecently addressed.
We don’t need to insult one another by calling people juvenile names do we.
Eye witnesses are not proof as physical or scientific evidence.
The fact is Under the FOIA radar evidence showed the government was lying.

The fact is there is no Physical evidence to conclusively prove a plane crashed into the pentagon, just because the FBI and other government agency says there is, it doesn’t mean they are telling you the truth, as evidence proves this
The fact is there is no evidence to prove conclusively that there was forensic evidence. Just hearsay from our government and we all know how they lie.

reply to post by impressme


And once again, we see the assertion that, literally thousands of local, state, and federal employees were involved in this massive conspiracy in addition to all the non-government employed citizens that were in the area and witnessed Flight 77's final seconds. Because for your theory to have a hint of truth to it, that is what had to have happened. All the people who watched from the highway had to be on on it. All the people who were in ATC facilities and watched/tracked Flight 77 had to be in on it. The airline employees who dealt with the flight had to be in on it, from those who serviced and flew it, to those employees who took custody of what was left of the wreckage after the investigation, had to be in on it. All the people who responded to the Pentagon, had to be in on it. And finally, all the men and women who spent weeks clearing the wreckage/conducting the investigation had to be in on it. And In ten years, NOT ONE OF THEM HAS TALKED.

Like I said, keep holding on to lunatic theories.

reply to post by vipertech0596

And once again, we see the assertion that, literally thousands of local, state, and federal employees were involved in this massive conspiracy

The fact is this is “your assertion”, not mine.
I never claimed “thousands where involved in a massive conspiracy,” you did.

in addition to all the non-government employed citizens that were in the area and witnessed Flight 77's final seconds.

Hearsay is not physical evidence.

Because for your theory to have a hint of truth to it, that is what had to have happened.

Hint of truth? Sorry to tell you I have only claimed that no one can prove a thing.

All the people who watched from the highway had to be on on it.

I never made any such claim; again this is your make-believe assumption to what you want to believe.

All the people who were in ATC facilities and watched/tracked Flight 77 had to be in on it.

Again this is your imagination, I never made any such claims and I do not support your opinions of supporting a fairytale.

The airline employees who dealt with the flight had to be in on it,

I made no such claims, these are your assumption in supporting the government fairytale. There is no evidence.

from those who serviced and flew it, to those employees who took custody of what was left of the wreckage after the investigation, had to be in on it.

People who service what, where is your evidence?
All I see here is your rant and your opinions in supporting a fairytale, nothing more.

All the people who responded to the Pentagon, had to be in on it.

Fact is this is your wild accusation in believing in a fairytale, ignorance is so bliss isn’t it.

And finally, all the men and women who spent weeks clearing the wreckage/conducting the investigation had to be in on it.

Again I never made any such claims this is what you want to believe in.

And In ten years, NOT ONE OF THEM HAS TALKED.

That’s because none of your accusation are true, most people had no clue to what really happened and ”in my opinion” were on the need to know information only and in your own words that is why,” NOT ONE OF THEM HAS TALKED” because if some knew they were used to help cover-up the biggest crime in American history then they know better to keep their mouth shut.

The fact is 911 was a false flag operation built on nothing but a pack of lies and Historians will write this in our history books more and more Americans are waking up to the facts, thanks to the internet. Americans do not trust their government anymore, perhaps you don’t watch the news, and perhaps you think Occupy Wall Street is meaningless. Take a good look what has happened to the United States since George Bush and Richard Cheney took America down a destructive path and turned our country into an aggressor not a country on any dam peace mission. We attacked two countries that had nothing to do with 911, fancy that! Perhaps torturing (water boarding) of innocent people into making “false confession” is how we have terrorist. How many times did we have to water board one person to confess he did 911, oh yes 180 times in one month and some people want to call that reliable intel.
Only in America where our government has no credibility and no accountability by waging a false flag attack would be the ONLY reason we need to torture innocent people to force false confession. You my friend are on the wrong side of this information war and more and more people exhibiting this kind of ignorance and opinion as you have demonstrated are losing the game.

reply to post by impressme


And you continue to show just how little you actually know about the subject. When someone makes a formal statement about what they witnessed, and it is accepted into evidence in a court of law, it is no longer "hearsay", it's called evidence. You should do some more research in the Moussari trial exhibits.


Or were all those people involved in that trial in on it too?

Originally posted by impressme

 

The fact is there is no evidence of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, which is your “opinion.” Government hearsay is not proof or evidence.

You're right. Except for the fact that hundreds of eyewitnesses specifically saw a plane hit the Pentagon, and that aircraft wreckage was strewn all over the front lawn and inside, and possessions known to have belonged to passengers on flight 77 were recovered from the crash site, and DNA testing confirmed the human remains found at the site as being passengers known to have been on flight 77, and the flight recorder was recovered and it reported it came from flight 77, and the only tangible "evidence" you have to the contrary is the lies those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shoveling out that's been debunked 5000 times over (I.E. "Does the order still stand" being transposed into "stand down order"), then yes, you're right, there is no evidence whatsoever that it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

Your inane theories have no credibility whatsoever, Impressme. Heck, you can't even say they're your theories- this whole "no plane hit the Pentagon" baloney was invented by that French conspiracy mongor to sell a bunch of books. All YOU'RE doing is cutting and pasting his claims off those damned fool conspiracy web sites you frequent, exactly the way that CIT guy in the OP is doing.

Originally posted by impressme

 

Perhaps torturing (water boarding) of innocent people into making “false confession” is how we have terrorist. How many times did we have to water board one person to confess he did 911, oh yes 180 times in one month and some people want to call that reliable intel.

So how many times was Penny Elgas waterboarded to force her to say it was a plane she saw fly into the Pentagon...? Explain that one to me.

There are times that I think these truthers are really making these inane claims up on purpose simply to post flame bait.

reply to post by vipertech0596

And you continue to show just how little you actually know about the subject. When someone makes a formal statement about what they witnessed, and it is accepted into evidence in a court of law, it is no longer "hearsay", it's called evidence. You should do some more research in the Moussari trial exhibits.

Or were all those people involved in that trial in on it too?

It’s not Moussari , Its Moussaoui
I read the Moussaoui trial.

Moussari case lacked evidence, beyond his own admissions

www.thenational.ae...

I am no terrorist sympathizers, however It’s amazing of the results one can do when one is tortured (water boarded) to force one to believe he is a mastermind and to criminate himself in public without any evidence. It is very clear this man was” unfit” to stand trial. Perhaps you believe our military and CIA are not skillful enough to use techniques to make one think or believe he is a great mastermind criminal.
I wouldn’t be amazed if the man said he was superman.

They said he was therefore[color=gold] incompetent to represent himself, and perhaps even to stand trial. "Mr. Moussaoui's ideology appears to be interlaced with serious psychopathology, the nature of which is unclear," they told Judge Brinkema.
Two psychologists they hired speculated that "Mr. Moussaoui's decision to waive his right to counsel may be the product of a mental disease or defect rendering the decision involuntary." They cited "considerable evidence that Mr. Moussaoui's thinking is dominated by irrational and unrealistic persecutory beliefs." One of them claimed Moussaoui's behavior was "far more consistent with a paranoid psychosis than with being an extremist Muslim."
But the prosecutors had an expert of their own, a court-appointed psychiatrist who interviewed Moussaoui for two hours and concluded that he was capable of deciding for himself how to proceed with his defense. "His actions and attitudes are not the product of mental illness, but are based on his view of the world," the prosecutors said. "He is a fanatic, a jihadist, but he is not mentally incompetent to stand trial or waive his right to counsel."

Brinkema initially agreed, finding that Moussaoui was mentally competent to fire his lawyers. But later she indicated that she might reconsider that decision. She said she would allow the defense attorneys to continue looking for evidence to impugn their former client's sanity. In a handwritten motion filed after that ruling, Moussaoui tried to turn the tables on his examiners, saying Brinkema displayed "acute symptom of Islamophobia with complex gender inferiority." He recommended "immediate psychiatric hospitalization" in the "UBL Treatment Center," explaining that UBL -- the government's shorthand for "Usama Bin Laden" -- "of course...stand[s] for unique best location."

reason.com...

CIA destroyed video of 'waterboarding' al-Qaida detainees

www.guardian.co.uk...

None of this was about getting to the truth, this is apparently about finding someone guilty and closing the case, the trial was a joke nothing but a dog and pony show. It is still “hearsay” no matter how you want to define it.
“Perhaps you should do some more research in the Moussaoui trial exhibits.” As insane Moussaoui was, I find it very hard to believe this man was able to pull off anything.

Originally posted by impressme


None of this was about getting to the truth, this is apparently about finding someone guilty and closing the case, the trial was a joke nothing but a dog and pony show. It is still “hearsay” no matter how you want to define it.
“Perhaps you should do some more research in the Moussaoui trial exhibits.” As insane Moussaoui was, I find it very hard to believe this man was able to pull off anything.

Really? A dog and pony show? Will you be contacting him to assist in his appeal? His defense team allowed the exhibits into evidence. The courts allowed it. You cry hearsay, yet you haven't a clue what it means.

Have you ever read a book by Hervey Cleckley called The Mask of Sanity? No, it's not on Alex Jones website. You may find it interesting.

reply to post by Six Sigma

Really? A dog and pony show?

Absolutely! Putting an insane man on trial was nothing more than public spectacle. Moussaoui outbursts in the courtroom demonstrated the man was a raven lunatic. People watching and researching this trial do not have to be psychiatrist to see this man wasn’t even capable of driving himself to a grocery store much less be a mastermind to destroy America.

Again I will repeat, if a fraction of our government pulled off a false flag attack as circumstantial evidence supports this, just as circumstantial evidence was used to prosecute Moussaoui to be a criminal mastermind then how would the real criminals go about finding someone and using old torturing methods to force a person to confess to crimes that he or she could have never committed.

These people (CIA and Milatary) were not looking to extract information from their subjects they were using torturing techniques to brain wash to force false confessions in their subjects and in the end they turned out like Moussaoui a raven lunatic, a job well done.

China Inspired Interrogations at Guantánamo
The 1957 article from which the chart was copied was entitled “Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War” and written by Albert D. Biderman, a sociologist then working for the Air Force, who died in 2003. Mr. Biderman had interviewed American prisoners returning from North Korea, some of whom had been filmed by their Chinese interrogators confessing to germ warfare and other atrocities.
Those orchestrated confessions led to allegations that the American prisoners had been “brainwashed,” and provoked the military to revamp its training to give some military personnel a taste of the enemies’ harsh methods to inoculate them against quick capitulation if captured.

In 2002, the training program, known as SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, became a source of interrogation methods both for the C.I.A. and the military. In what critics describe as a remarkable case of historical amnesia, officials who drew on the SERE program appear to have been unaware that it had been created as a result of concern about false confessions by American prisoners.

[color=gold]“What makes this document doubly stunning is that these were techniques to get false confessions,” Mr. Levin said. “People say we need intelligence, and we do. But we don’t need false intelligence.”

www.nytimes.com...

The courts allowed it. You cry hearsay, yet you haven't a clue what it means.

I seriously doubt you even understand a thing I have presented seeing that you have well demonstrated “status quo thinking,” and cannot look past the OS of Moussaoui and his trial.

No, it's not on Alex Jones website. You may find it interesting.

Again, your negative assumptions about where I get my reading material are sadly wrong. I am not a follower of on Alex Jones or his pathetic websites that spreads fear and lies; perhaps its best that you should stick to the contexts of our subject and not where you “assume” to where I get my reading material from.

So skeptics, how do you explain the dozen(?) eye witnesses who said they saw the plane fly North of the Citgo?

reply to post by ATH911


So why didn't they see a plane leaving the area if there was a flyover? No plane leaving = no flyover. CIT theory is rebutted.