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

reply to post by GoodOlDave

...and they all specifically said the Plane hit the Pentagon, which is the exact opposite of what the CIT guy is attempting to insinuate.

No, "all" of them did not say they saw the plane "impact".
And no, it's not an insinuation, it's a physical impossibility for the plane to cause the physical damage from the witnessed trajectory.

So what if there were nine or ninety? They're still human beings capable of making errors in judgement in distances. This is because we as humans don't have laser range finders built into their heads and don't have the natural ability to judge exact distances down to the exact foot.

What of the witnesses who couldn't physically see the official path mentioned in my earlier post?
The problem with your stance is that nobody contradicts them! There isn't one confirmed witness to the official path.

All the witnesses specifically said the plane flew within the general vicinity of (in the CIT's words) "the official story" so as far as I'm concerned they still corroborate each other AND the 9/11 commission report regardless of the petty differences in precise measurements.

Where did CIT say that?? And exactly what did the 9/11 Commission say about the flightpath?

The official path is very specific. Not just the path, but the trajectory within the alleged narrow timeframe that lead up to lightpoles 1 and 2 right through to the "punch out hole".

They are more than "petty differences in precise measurements"



Now if you could post me any witnesses who contradict them, I'd be very grateful.

Didn't you think your conspiracy claims all the way through yet?

It's not a "conspiracy claim". It's first hand evidence no matter how much you deny it.
.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

As I said I'm too depressed to continue. If you can't see bias like this in front of your face then you're going go be misled a lot. People will flatter your prejudices for their own ends.

I don't really care though. Your opinion is of little import.

Umm...nice answer? What was the point in posting that when you didn't address anything I said?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
I know you're probably just letting off steam but that's a little off topic, no?

Those two instances did happen though. I'm not convinced by "it" meaning the "firefighter effort". At all. But that argument can go round in circles all day.
As for the BBC announcing WTC7's collapse, what stood out to me more was the sudden "breaking up" of the satellite connection just after.

Did you watch the video debate I posted by any chance?

Yes, I was kind of blowing off steam, because I had just seen the exact argument used in another thread. It kind of makes me want to head-desk.

I did watch the video, and I thought it was a little too narrow.

As for the map you just posted, I would say that the NTSB is only an approximation. While the witness reports do seem to contradict each other (and I can't really come up with a decent explanation), there is still a plane in every report. Obviously, there will be issues with people not being able to judge accurately where exactly the plane is, and I did see the testimonies by the two officers who swore it was on the other side of the Citgo Gas Station. It is weird, and I can't explain why they saw it there, because they certainly seemed sincere, and based on their positions, it is difficult to say it could have been anywhere else, since the gas station was obscuring the opposite direction's view.

It is strange, and I can't explain it, but there is still no doubt that there was a plane, in my opinion.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

No, "all" of them did not say they saw the plane "impact".
And no, it's not an insinuation, it's a physical impossibility for the plane to cause the physical damage from the witnessed trajectory.

And how many Pentagon witnesses who saw the event did CIT NOT interview? Does Ranke say that? Does he even have a clue? Do you think he cares? Of course not. He has his handful who corroborate his skewed thinking, and anyone else who would put forth a contrary story are "government shills". Great scientific method going on there. Is that how Socrates came to his conclusions? Interview only those who agree with you, and anyone else are liars. Yeah, buddy!

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.

Originally posted by pteridine
CIT has no theory about how thousands of gallons of hydrocarbons were smuggled into the Pentagon and by whom.

Well most of the smoke came from that diesel generator next to the Pentagon, the ONLY one at the Pentagon (what's that odds that got hit!) and funny how the NRO/CIA drill nearby about a plane crashing into the building that very same day nearly at the same time had, of all things, a generator outside planning to generate smoke! What are the odds?! What are the odds?!!!!!!!!!!!

As to how fuel got smuggled into that nearly empty and partly closed-off section of the Pentagon, I'm guessing by hand.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
I know you're probably just letting off steam but that's a little off topic, no?

Those two instances did happen though. I'm not convinced by "it" meaning the "firefighter effort". At all. But that argument can go round in circles all day.
As for the BBC announcing WTC7's collapse, what stood out to me more was the sudden "breaking up" of the satellite connection just after.

Did you watch the video debate I posted by any chance?

Yes, I was kind of blowing off steam, because I had just seen the exact argument used in another thread. It kind of makes me want to head-desk.

I did watch the video, and I thought it was a little too narrow.

As for the map you just posted, I would say that the NTSB is only an approximation. While the witness reports do seem to contradict each other (and I can't really come up with a decent explanation), there is still a plane in every report. Obviously, there will be issues with people not being able to judge accurately where exactly the plane is, and I did see the testimonies by the two officers who swore it was on the other side of the Citgo Gas Station. It is weird, and I can't explain why they saw it there, because they certainly seemed sincere, and based on their positions, it is difficult to say it could have been anywhere else, since the gas station was obscuring the opposite direction's view.

It is strange, and I can't explain it, but there is still no doubt that there was a plane, in my opinion.

Thanks for the civil, honest rsponse.

The path in the image I posted, (representing the official path) is not just down to the unidentified mess of "data" released under FOIA, but the necessary trajectory to line up through the alleged directional damage given the alleged speed (540-580mph).

Even if the data were accepted as is, there is no left bank recorded. Just a gradually decreasing slight right bank.

I know witness testimony isn't iron clad but when the same pattern is repeated over and over and nobody contradicts it, something's up, It's definitely strange and I can't accept people who claim to be skeptics to offhandedly dismiss it as irrelevant when clearly something's rotten in Denmark.

Oh yeah, there was a plane alright. But how it allegedly managed to cause the directional damage from that trajectory is the equation that needs to be honestly approached. Until it's resolved, a flyover is the only possible conclusion for me.

"Goodoledave" is right that Summers was "fast and loose" with his responses but it's the same thing any time the subject is brought up.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Dude you didn't get the memo ? The Truth movement no longer endorses the evidence presented by Craig Ranke AKA the Truth Fairy. That poor little Truther is under attack from all sides.

Here is a video about Craig made by fellow Truther Jeff Hill.



Jeff Hill interviews Pentagon Witnesses.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

No, "all" of them did not say they saw the plane "impact".
And no, it's not an insinuation, it's a physical impossibility for the plane to cause the physical damage from the witnessed trajectory.

And how many Pentagon witnesses who saw the event did CIT NOT interview? Does Ranke say that? Does he even have a clue? Do you think he cares? Of course not. He has his handful who corroborate his skewed thinking, and anyone else who would put forth a contrary story are "government shills". Great scientific method going on there. Is that how Socrates came to his conclusions? Interview only those who agree with you, and anyone else are liars. Yeah, buddy!

Can you tell me which aircraft witnesses he hasn't interviewed?
Who claimed a "contrary story" to the NOC flightpath?

CIT interviewed all known witnesses within the Pentagon basin and then some. They placed the aircraft NOC without any prompting. I think CIT made an exhausting effort.

reply to post by waypastvne

One person represents the truth movement?

I did not know that.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

The skeptics are in a panic because the NoC witnesses proves the official story is a lie.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by pteridine
CIT has no theory about how thousands of gallons of hydrocarbons were smuggled into the Pentagon and by whom.

Well most of the smoke came from that diesel generator next to the Pentagon, the ONLY one at the Pentagon (what's that odds that got hit!) and funny how the NRO/CIA drill nearby about a plane crashing into the building that very same day nearly at the same time had, of all things, a generator outside planning to generate smoke! What are the odds?! What are the odds?!!!!!!!!!!!

As to how fuel got smuggled into that nearly empty and partly closed-off section of the Pentagon, I'm guessing by hand.

Check the volume of the genset fuel tank. Most of the smoke was from thousands of gallons of Jet-A . The part of the Pentagon under construction didn't allow unrestricted access, so construction workers would have had to smuggle the fuel in in their lunch boxes. As to the big hole in the CIT argument about the flyover; what happened to the plane? Did it become invisible as it flew over? What happened to the passengers? CIT's contrived theory is more hole than substance and if Ranke and Balsamo actually believe it, I will be surprised.

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by waypastvne

 

One person represents the truth movement?

I did not know that.

David Chandler, John Cole, Frank Legge, Richard Gage, All the really big chunks that floated to the top, do not endorse the Truth Fairy.

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.

reply to post by pteridine

Check the volume of the genset fuel tank. Most of the smoke was from thousands of gallons of Jet-A . The part of the Pentagon under construction didn't allow unrestricted access, so construction workers would have had to smuggle the fuel in in their lunch boxes. As to the big hole in the CIT argument about the flyover; what happened to the plane? Did it become invisible as it flew over? What happened to the passengers? CIT's contrived theory is more hole than substance and if Ranke and Balsamo actually believe it, I will be surprised.

You're making speculatory claims as fact.

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

www.dodmedia.osd.mil...

i14.photobucket.com...

About 20 minutes after the fires started, they were extinguished:

www.dodmedia.osd.mil...

But the generator started up minutes after

www.dodmedia.osd.mil...

Can we move on now?

The same can be said about your claim that they "didn't allow unrestricted access". That kinda depends on who was giving access too, no?

On the day of the attack there were "3 fake firefighters" arrested (brushed under the carpet) and a guy who claimed to be a "go between" for PenRen who "slipped the net" after having been rused when he was hanging around the temporary morgue. They only began issuing passes later that night.

The plane flew NOC according to all of the confirmed witnesses. Are you suggesting that "impact" is possible from NOC?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

No, "all" of them did not say they saw the plane "impact".
And no, it's not an insinuation, it's a physical impossibility for the plane to cause the physical damage from the witnessed trajectory.

The eyewitness accounts say you are wrong:

Eyewitness accounts to the Pentagon attack

When such a myriad collection of people from news journalist looking out his window to a programmer packing to move to even an immigrant from El Salvador tending the lawns all say the same thing, I'm going to believe them over that CIT guy, if you don't mind. Not a single one of them said the plane flew over the Pentagon as the CIT guy is insinuating so his efforts to debate this author are completely moot.

The official path is very specific. Not just the path, but the trajectory within the alleged narrow timeframe that lead up to lightpoles 1 and 2 right through to the "punch out hole".

They are more than "petty differences in precise measurements"

Then please explain why you have seven eyewitnesses posting seven completely different flight paths on this map. Either there were seven separate planes that hit the Pentagon, or you're using petty differences in the precise differences they estimated to sow false innuendo of impropriety

As the above list I posted showed, there were a heck of a lot more witnesses to the attack than just those seven.

Now if you could post me any witnesses who contradict them, I'd be very grateful.

Yeah, me! I'm specifically seeing the lowermost "eyewitness flight path" where the plane supposedly headed directly toward the Pentagon, but immediately after it flew over the Pentagon Annex it makes a sharp 45 degree jink to the left, then makes a gentle turn back toward the Pentagon, then makes a sharp 45 degree jink to the right to line back up on it. Not only is this a ridiculous and pointless flight path, for a plane flying 500 MPH this is a violation of physics. Either the eyewitness got his estimate wrong regardless of whether he was there or not, or, you got that map from one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites and they're embellishing what the eyewitnesses said to absurdity.

Guess which scenario I'm backing.

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.

For starters, look at the following picture:



How would you describe this picture? Where is the plane flying over?

Next image:



What is the 747 flying over?

Next image:



Where is this plane flying over? How would you describe the photo?


To my comrades who know where I am going with this, please feel free to chime in.
I'm just wondering if anyone notices a little something that rhymes with "merspective".

I almost forgot this video gem:
did this 747 really fly over the Golden Gate Bridge?



Look closely:

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Are you actually reading my posts? Or clicking the links?

We can pick through that list if you want instead of linking to a large collection of media quotes which on closer inspection reveal a large percentage inside the Pentagon, second (and third) hand accounts, anonymous accounts and people who actually couldn't physically see the Pentagon or the plane itself!

There are far more than "7" witnesses to the NOC path and not one confirmed witness to the official path.

Again, if witness testimony is as unreliable as you say (make that irrelevant given the "9 or 90" statement), shouldn't they be directly interviewed? You're making the same weak and illogical claims that Summers did.

reply to post by GenRadek


Same back at you.

Which side of the stationary aircraft is that plane flying over?




Now what if witnesses dotted around that stationary aircraft from various angles all described a simple "left/right" answer?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

Of course you're never going to get one definitive flightpath from a multitude of witnesses....

Well, that's pretty much the end of the argument right there. Just like folks watching a baseball game. 10 people will swear it was right over the plate, 10 people will swear it was high and on the outside. But they all agree that the catcher caught the pitch.