Pentagon debunking

For those who wish to criticise the 9/11 truth movement & key peace campaigners

Moderator: Moderators

Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

paul wright wrote:
Wibble wrote:
paul wright wrote: huh?
How are wobbles like wibble ever allowed to post here?
How else to you explain this statement?
I totally refute that a bunch of untrained herberts with penknives can take over a packed passenger jet
Not they haven't got the capability, rather lack the ability, - lack of resources or something
The boxcutter story is plainly nonsense
I wont be drawn, btw
You cant explain it then and I am not trying to draw you whatever that means.

I have explained how you can take over an aircraft with pen knifes. Are you disputing my explanation? I am more than happy to be proved wrong if I am wrong.
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2649
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

Post by paul wright »

Can you abide time with wibble wobble?
I know I can't
Am I doing something wrong here?
User avatar
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1873
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Upstairs

Post by telecasterisation »

Wibble wrote;
The most high profile military installation on the face of the planet and they had ............aircraft!!!
The conclusions you draw from my response are a trifle weighted;

The security system that related to CCTV related to CCTV, not missiles. I have yet to see any critic tackle the issue of why an establishment such as The Pentagon, had so few external cameras? If in fact superior footage exists of what hit The Pentagon, then why is the world not shown it?

As for 'herberts' being racist or derogatory in terms of ability - then it is most certainly the latter, as an expression it was very common when I was being brought up in London. Much akin to the more recently adopted 'numpty', it is a way of assigning an opinion with a simple turn of phrase with a modicum of affection. Open a search engine of your choice and type 'bunch of herberts' - you can witness its usage in a spririted sense via other sources.

It has nothing to do with race coding or ethnic origins, merely, how could such poor aero students take control of a number of large jet aircraft and even locate their targets, let alone adjust height and speed so perfectly? I have yet to see the colour of their skin being cited as a determining factor, more their lack of experience.

It is interesting that things have to get so 'base' as playing the 'racist' card just to attempt to make a point. Odd you associate their origins with deficiency of aptitude. Are you sure the racism isn't a tad closer to home?
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

f in fact superior footage exists of what hit The Pentagon, then why is the world not shown it?
If!! Who says it does? This is real world not CSI most CCTV cameras work on a reduced frame rate. Owing to the shape of the pentagon (maybe that's how it got its name?) The only cameras to see the aircraft would be the ones directly facing it. So you have cameras facing on the oncoming aircraft travelling upwards of 500mph taking pictures every couple of seconds. They probably did not even capture the aircraft. Look at this demo of fiulming a fast aircraft flying toward the camera. How many second is the aircraft in view? That is where you can tell exactly what it is? And this is a proper video camera set up to film the event not CCTV cameras placed around a building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMEgp_tGDw4

As for 'herberts' being racist or derogatory in terms of ability - then it is most certainly the latter
How can they be "herbets" in terms of ability? They pulled of the biggest terrorist attack in modern times.


It has nothing to do with race coding or ethnic origins, merely, how could such poor aero students take control of a number of large jet aircraft and even locate their targets, let alone adjust height and speed so perfectly?
Go take some flying lessons and see how you get on. These people were not trying to learn how to be the best pilots. Once the aircraft is in the air it easy to fly. During the flying lessons that would have been expected to be competent at many skills (Met, NOTAMS, Flight Plans, Pre-flight checks, take-offs, landings etc) they did not need to carry out the attacks so why would they put much effort in? Im not surprised they were bad students as they only needed to learn how to steer and change height. Hardly rocket science really, and 10 year old could do it. Whats the worst case scenario for them? They miss or crash into the wrong buildings? ITY would still be an effective attack and the effect would probably still be the same. That's thing with terrorism, there are no rules for the terrorist so they can not lose.

You don't need to be a full trained pilot to map read either. There are plenty of people who have never even been in an aircraft that can map read perfectly.

So there is no basis for you calling the terrorists "herbets" and they were far from it. So it is fair to question your motives for calling them herbets.

If your hole argument for this being a conspiracy relies on the hijackers being herbets you have nothing.
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:57 pm

Post by SHERITON HOTEL »

Wibble wrote:
SHERITON HOTEL wrote:But the facts remain they lied about there being no film of whatever hitting the Pentagon 9/11, the FBI were on the scene almost immediately confiscating this evidence, they won't release the salvaged alleged F77 plane evidence to square it with Boeing records (a bit like Mugabe and the election results) that shiny unscratched, unscorched piece of fuselage with 'C' (for coincidence theorist
?)that featured in all the propaganda is frankly an insult to our intelligence, the damage was not consistent with being hit by a B757 at 400MPH plus, Pentagon employees were seen being shepherded by FBI picking up and removing evidence among all that blood and body parts, the area was covered many feet deep in sand and the salvage workers were dressed in decontamination suits, was this protection from all that mystery DU contamination?
You have nothing to prove anything of the above. That is just mindless specualtion. You claim people removed evidence because it fits your tiresome theory yet dont think for a second that they were collecting evidence. How does sand protect you against DU? Why woud they use DU? Decontamination suites? You mean forensic suites.

I asked to talk to the 'organ grinder' and I get something down the food chain from the 'monkey!! where are these people really coming from???
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:
I asked to talk to the 'organ grinder' and I get something down the food chain from the 'monkey!! where are these people really coming from???
I asked for proof you provided nothing but recycled garbage. Where is your proof?
User avatar
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1873
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Upstairs

Post by telecasterisation »

Wibble wobbled;
I have explained how you can take over an aircraft with pen knifes. Are you disputing my explanation? I am more than happy to be proved wrong if I am wrong.
Proof of anything via a forum such as this can be highly elusive. Add to that, there are many aspects of 9/11 that cannot be 'proved' by any means. Your 'in the land of plastic cutlery, the penknife is king' is a prime example. No-one can ever definitively prove either way the validity of hijacking a jet airliner with a sharp piece of metal, it depends on a number of factors. Could the 'hijackers' be sure there weren't half a dozen special forces off-duty soldiers on any of the aircraft?

What critics never grasp, is that it isn't just about equations, fire temperatures, video evidence, DNA etc, the conspiracy aspect of the day in question is just as much about balancing probabilities. Therefore, given what we are told, on balance, in my opinion, 9/11 did not happen the way we are officially told.

No, I can't 'prove' it.
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
User avatar
pepik
Banned
Banned
Posts: 591
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:52 pm
Location: The Square Mile

Post by pepik »

Its often forgotten but it was reported at the time that the hijcakers had knives and also claimed to have bombs. Isn't this enough to hijack a jet pre-911?
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
User avatar
Chaos Warrior
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:58 pm
Location: Land Of The Scots

Post by Chaos Warrior »

It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.
-Sun Tzu

Our dreams do not fit in their ballot boxes!!

www.rinf.com
User avatar
pepik
Banned
Banned
Posts: 591
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:52 pm
Location: The Square Mile

Post by pepik »

What is that supposed to be? Retro?
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

sam wrote:
KP50 wrote: The only witness from the road who claims a lightpole is struck is our friend the taxi driver (by the way you are still avoiding the details of that little incident) and there is nobody on that supposedly busy road who can confirm the event happened.
So it requires specifically a witness actually on the road?

""The sound of the engines came so quickly I thought it was another helicopter landing. I looked left to see a large plane barely clear the I-395 overpass. Instantly I knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. ... Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. The impact was deafening. The fuselage hit the ground and blew up. I could see office walls through the broken outer walls, then smoke and flames engulfed the west wall. Perhaps 10 seconds had passed since I first saw the plane. At first no one moved. Then debris began falling over the cars." *

Or is that the wrong road for you?

Wreckage?

"The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal"*

KP50 - your theory requires no aircraft impact, right? How come so many witnesses see the plane actually strike the Pentagon? Including at least some of the NoC witnesses?

"the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building"*


*just examples
Sorry for the delay, work is too busy.

A witness on the same physical road as the taxi driver is lacking - any idea why that would be when there seem to be a dozen travelling the other way, a lot of whom happen to be journalists. And please explain how the taxi driver's story can be believed, I have waited a while for it.

Your long quote is from the only witness account that appears to come from someone who witnessed the poles being hit rather than deducing it later. I believe CIT have tried to interview this witness without success so far. The account appears to be somewhat flowery in a slow-motion sort of way as we know it would only have been a couple of seconds at most.

A lot of the people who claim the plane hit the Pentagon, could not clearly see the Pentagon from their location.
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:09 pm

Post by sam »

KP50 wrote:
sam wrote:
KP50 wrote: The only witness from the road who claims a lightpole is struck is our friend the taxi driver (by the way you are still avoiding the details of that little incident) and there is nobody on that supposedly busy road who can confirm the event happened.
So it requires specifically a witness actually on the road?

<snippped>
Or is that the wrong road for you?

Wreckage?

"The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal"*

KP50 - your theory requires no aircraft impact, right? How come so many witnesses see the plane actually strike the Pentagon? Including at least some of the NoC witnesses?

"the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building"*


*just examples
Sorry for the delay, work is too busy.

A witness on the same physical road as the taxi driver is lacking - any idea why that would be when there seem to be a dozen travelling the other way, a lot of whom happen to be journalists. And please explain how the taxi driver's story can be believed, I have waited a while for it.
The only part of Lloyd England's account that I find mystifying is the removal of the pole. I think 2 people (one of them frail) would struggle - at best - to remove the pole especially given the leaning over the bonnet required. So England embellished his account? Other people held the pole while he backed up? People do that, to talk-up their role in a dramatic event. But it isn't the "smoking gun" that blows the OT out of the water. It's a trivial detail.

The alternative is that an old taxi driver was recruited to be part of the conspiracy, which is absurd beyond explanation.

As for lack of witnesses on that particular stretch of road -
Because nobody reported what they saw happen to the cab* and nobody asked? A cab getting struck by debris must have been pretty damn small beer compared to the death of hundreds through a hijacked plane hitting the Pentagon, no? Who the hell would care?

*although one witness decribes a 'cab on the bridge' being struck by the plane itself. Given that this is impossible perhaps they are describing the cab being struck by debris and swerving around just below the plane's path? This seems quite likely to me.
KP50 wrote: Your long quote is from the only witness account that appears to come from someone who witnessed the poles being hit rather than deducing it later...
Is it? **
KP50 wrote: A lot of the people who claim the plane hit the Pentagon, could not clearly see the Pentagon from their location.
At the very least they saw the plane in the 'official' path. There's no way it could have climbed from a descending flight path and flown over at that point.
And many of them saw the plane actually strike the building.

** (more light pole witnesses)
Vin Narayanan :
”Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The windows were dark on American Airlines Flight 77…The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign"

Mike Walter :
"...it turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles"

Mary Ann Owens :
"... Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. ... "

and others
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
User avatar
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1873
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Upstairs

Post by telecasterisation »

sam, a straight question, are you Ignatz?
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
User avatar
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1873
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Upstairs

Post by telecasterisation »

Image
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

sam wrote:The only part of Lloyd England's account that I find mystifying is the removal of the pole. I think 2 people (one of them frail) would struggle - at best - to remove the pole especially given the leaning over the bonnet required. So England embellished his account? Other people held the pole while he backed up? People do that, to talk-up their role in a dramatic event. But it isn't the "smoking gun" that blows the OT out of the water. It's a trivial detail.
Really? Is that the only part that you find mystifying?

What about the fact that the pole would have to be hurtling like a javelin (rather than falling like a chopped tree) to impact the window without damaging any other part of the car.

What about the speed it would have been travelling and consequently the momentum it would have gathered all contained in a 30 foot pole?

What about the angle it would have had to hit the car in order for that momentum to be totally absorbed by the car?

The car would have had to have been driving directly towards the pole which means our taxi driver is not driving in a straight line.

When the pole struck the car, momentum would have either forced the pole to flip over the car or go sideways killing the driver.

The taxi ends up at 90 degrees to the road as it skids to a stop which throws some more momentum into the mix.

And then the pole has to stick out, disobeying gravity while taxi driver and his mate remove it.

The removal of the pole, while a bizarre action in itself is probably the least mystifying part of the tale.
sam wrote:The alternative is that an old taxi driver was recruited to be part of the conspiracy, which is absurd beyond explanation.
Self-defeating argument as you don't seem to have a problem with his story.
sam wrote:As for lack of witnesses on that particular stretch of road -
Because nobody reported what they saw happen to the cab* and nobody asked? A cab getting struck by debris must have been pretty damn small beer compared to the death of hundreds through a hijacked plane hitting the Pentagon, no? Who the hell would care?
Lack of witnesses, lack of cars altogether in the pictures taken soon after. On the other carriageway all sorts of people (journalists mainly) have stopped and are standing around.
sam wrote: At the very least they saw the plane in the 'official' path. There's no way it could have climbed from a descending flight path and flown over at that point.
And many of them saw the plane actually strike the building.

** (more light pole witnesses)
Vin Narayanan :
”Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The windows were dark on American Airlines Flight 77…The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign"

Mike Walter :
"...it turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles"

Mary Ann Owens :
"... Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. ... "

and others
Mike Walter did not see any light poles struck - he has confirmed this in a more recent interview - all the people on the other carriageway were facing away from the plane and would not have been able to confirm the flightpath.

A large number of witnesses who were in excellent position to observe the flightpath, say the plane came over the Navy Annex. Taking witness statements from further back on the flightpath you can build a rough picture of the path the flight took - and it was not near to the lightpoles or low enough to knock them down. Are you saying that all of these people are mistaken? Or that there were 2 planes?
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

A large number of witnesses who were in excellent position to observe the flightpath, say the plane came over the Navy Annex.
It was 3 wasn't it? Still puts them in the minority. Dont tell me the CIA got at the others?
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Wibble wrote:
A large number of witnesses who were in excellent position to observe the flightpath, say the plane came over the Navy Annex.
It was 3 wasn't it? Still puts them in the minority. Dont tell me the CIA got at the others?
Your lack of knowledge makes you stand out in a crowd.

At least you are appropriately named.
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

KP50 wrote:
Wibble wrote:
A large number of witnesses who were in excellent position to observe the flightpath, say the plane came over the Navy Annex.
It was 3 wasn't it? Still puts them in the minority. Dont tell me the CIA got at the others?
Your lack of knowledge makes you stand out in a crowd.

At least you are appropriately named.
Well come on then clever cloggs who were they? How many? Where is the first person testimony?

My name is appropriate for answering the sort of questions asked on here by people like you.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Wibble wrote:
KP50 wrote:
Wibble wrote: It was 3 wasn't it? Still puts them in the minority. Dont tell me the CIA got at the others?
Your lack of knowledge makes you stand out in a crowd.

At least you are appropriately named.
Well come on then clever cloggs who were they? How many? Where is the first person testimony?

My name is appropriate for answering the sort of questions asked on here by people like you.
Do you really expect to come on here and debate the Pentagon and then make no effort to find out anything for yourself? I could spend half-an-hour listing all the evidence but given that I know what your response will be, why would I bother?
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

KP50 wrote: Do you really expect to come on here and debate the Pentagon and then make no effort to find out anything for yourself? I could spend half-an-hour listing all the evidence but given that I know what your response will be, why would I bother?
Oh so there is so much evidence you dont know where to start? What a cop out. Yet again you prove you have nothing so why are you wasting our time?
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Wibble wrote:
KP50 wrote: Do you really expect to come on here and debate the Pentagon and then make no effort to find out anything for yourself? I could spend half-an-hour listing all the evidence but given that I know what your response will be, why would I bother?
Oh so there is so much evidence you dont know where to start? What a cop out. Yet again you prove you have nothing so why are you wasting our time?
The CIT list of eye-witnesses who observed a plane north of the Citgo gas station has now reached a dozen. There are still no authenticated eye-witnesses to the light poles being struck or the collision of the light pole with the cab. It is becoming increasingly bizarre that to believe in the OCT, you have to believe that more and more eye-witnesses are incorrect in a very similar way.
User avatar
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: London, England

Post by Alex_V »

KP50 wrote:The CIT list of eye-witnesses who observed a plane north of the Citgo gas station has now reached a dozen. There are still no authenticated eye-witnesses to the light poles being struck or the collision of the light pole with the cab. It is becoming increasingly bizarre that to believe in the OCT, you have to believe that more and more eye-witnesses are incorrect in a very similar way.
Is that the same CIT who refused to even consider the 150 witness accounts documented in the Firefight book?

Do the North of Citgo witnesses agree on their flight path. No!

Is anybody seeking 'authenticated' eye-witness reports of the light poles being struck? No? No wonder they are thin on the ground then. Kind of stands to reason :).

Lloyd England would be one witness who CIT even interviewed who saw the light pole hit the cab. Because he was in the cab. One of CIT's north of citgo witnesses said in another interview he saw the lightpoles being hit.

When another of their interviewees had an account they didn't like, they accused his church order of being a murderous cult.

None of their witnesses confirm witnessing a fly-over, which is the whole bloody point of their campaign. In fact, many of them vividly describe the plane hitting the building.

The only bizarre thing is how anyone could possibly think this campaign to have the faintest hint of credibility!
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Alex_V wrote: Is that the same CIT who refused to even consider the 150 witness accounts documented in the Firefight book?
You really love that book don't you? Have you actually read it yet? CIT are looking at the approach of the plane so let's take a look at what your beloved book says about that.
In its last second of flight, American Airlines Flight 77 passed over a Citgo gas station just down the hill from the Navy Annex, a series of building that overlooked the Pentagon.
It can't pass over the Citgo station and hit the light poles.
Do the North of Citgo witnesses agree on their flight path. No!
Define "agree" given they are in a few locations. They agree on a path that puts the plane north of the Citgo station. Nobody agrees with the cab driver, zilch, zero.
Is anybody seeking 'authenticated' eye-witness reports of the light poles being struck? No? No wonder they are thin on the ground then. Kind of stands to reason :).
CIT has tried to interview all witnesses whose statements contain any mention of the light poles. McGraw is one of those, as is Lagasse and I believe Walter. None of them saw a plane hit light poles even though McGraw claims to have been standing right near poles 4 & 5. It seems there are no eye witnesses to the plane hitting the poles except for a cab driver - this supposedly on a busy highway. Maybe there are no witnesses because it didn't happen or is this too logical a step to take?
Lloyd England would be one witness who CIT even interviewed who saw the light pole hit the cab. Because he was in the cab. One of CIT's north of citgo witnesses said in another interview he saw the lightpoles being hit.
Which witness said that?
When another of their interviewees had an account they didn't like, they accused his church order of being a murderous cult.
McGraw claims he didn't see the approach, his whole account sounds a little confused.
None of their witnesses confirm witnessing a fly-over, which is the whole bloody point of their campaign. In fact, many of them vividly describe the plane hitting the building.
The point is to prove the north of Citgo flightpath, which proves an inside job.
The only bizarre thing is how anyone could possibly think this campaign to have the faintest hint of credibility!
So you think the cab driver is credible? Despite telling a physically impossible tale? Despite 13 people all agreeing that the plane flew nowhere near where he was located? Despite the fact that nobody else saw the plane hit the poles or the pole hit the cab? How bizarre. You sound as if you are in complete denial.

I'd say 13 trumps 1 every time, wouldn't you?
User avatar
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: London, England

Post by Alex_V »

KP50 wrote:You really love that book don't you? Have you actually read it yet? CIT are looking at the approach of the plane so let's take a look at what your beloved book says about that.
What kind of campaigners in pursuit of truth and justice cannot even read a book based on witness reports that details the event they brand a fake? It is preposterous.

'CIT are looking at the approach of the plane' - but their theory is that the plane never crashed. 150 witnessses disagree and they ignore it...

...And we both know why. Because it blows their silly theory completely out of the water.
CIT has tried to interview all witnesses whose statements contain any mention of the light poles. McGraw is one of those, as is Lagasse and I believe Walter. None of them saw a plane hit light poles even though McGraw claims to have been standing right near poles 4 & 5. It seems there are no eye witnesses to the plane hitting the poles except for a cab driver - this supposedly on a busy highway. Maybe there are no witnesses because it didn't happen or is this too logical a step to take?
How many of their 13 witnesses were in a position to see the lightpoles being hit? I know at least four were not.

How many of their witnesses definitely saw the plane miss the lightpoles? None.

So you are judging this small amount of witnesses on something that they may not have been in a position to see.

And you talk to me about logic...
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Alex_V wrote:
KP50 wrote:You really love that book don't you? Have you actually read it yet? CIT are looking at the approach of the plane so let's take a look at what your beloved book says about that.
What kind of campaigners in pursuit of truth and justice cannot even read a book based on witness reports that details the event they brand a fake? It is preposterous.

'CIT are looking at the approach of the plane' - but their theory is that the plane never crashed. 150 witnessses disagree and they ignore it...

...And we both know why. Because it blows their silly theory completely out of the water.
Are you actually going to discuss the witness statements or not? It isn't about the people investigating, it is about the witnesses who were there on 9/11. All of these place the plane of a different flightpath. Now you can wave your hands about and criticise CIT but try discussing the facts. Who cares about that book other than you? You even made a fool of yourself over at the Pilots forum, it was embarassing.
Alex_V wrote:
CIT has tried to interview all witnesses whose statements contain any mention of the light poles. McGraw is one of those, as is Lagasse and I believe Walter. None of them saw a plane hit light poles even though McGraw claims to have been standing right near poles 4 & 5. It seems there are no eye witnesses to the plane hitting the poles except for a cab driver - this supposedly on a busy highway. Maybe there are no witnesses because it didn't happen or is this too logical a step to take?
How many of their 13 witnesses were in a position to see the lightpoles being hit? I know at least four were not.

How many of their witnesses definitely saw the plane miss the lightpoles? None.

So you are judging this small amount of witnesses on something that they may not have been in a position to see.

And you talk to me about logic...
Yes I do talk to you about logic because if they saw the plane North of the Citgo, IT COULDN'T HAVE HIT THE LIGHT POLES. You are raising a point which makes me think you have never even looked at an overhead map of the area, is this true?

I'll make it simple for you :-

1. It hit the lightpoles. We have one witness who says that.
2. It flew north of the Citgo. We have 13 witnesses who say that.

1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. Please convince me why a logical person would believe that 1 is the option that actually happened.
User avatar
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: London, England

Post by Alex_V »

Yes I do talk to you about logic because if they saw the plane North of the Citgo, IT COULDN'T HAVE HIT THE LIGHT POLES. You are raising a point which makes me think you have never even looked at an overhead map of the area, is this true?

I'll make it simple for you :-

1. It hit the lightpoles. We have one witness who says that.
2. It flew north of the Citgo. We have 13 witnesses who say that.

1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. Please convince me why a logical person would believe that 1 is the option that actually happened.
To answer that you really have to go back to basics. The one clear reason for accepting the 'OCT' is that the wreckage supports it. The angle of the damage to the building etc. As all witnesses, to my knowledge, confirm that the plane hit the building, it's reasonable to assume that the physical evidence of the wreckage is the clearest evidence in this case.

So to phrase it as 1 witness vs 13 is totally misleading. It is 13 witnesses vs some fairly clear physical evidence. Obviously the poles themselves are evidence that the plane hit them, though that is a different can of worms.

I ask again, because it is really quite simple, which of CIT's witnesses were in the position to see whether or not the lightpoles were hit? If the answer is none, then your point here about who saw the poles being hit is utterly irrelevant.

If even one of your witnesses saw the plane fly over or beside the poles rather than hitting them then you start to have something. But none of the witnesses have ever described such a thing.

I think the argument would also hold more water if there were only 13 witnesses to the event. But in fact the road was busy, and there were probably hundreds of witnesses to the event.

I would also point you to the great variety in terms of the details in all the witness reports, both from the Pentagon and elsewhere on the day. This is to be expected, as noted on this thread...

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14255

Also, can you list these 13 witnesses to me? I can't find an actual list of their names or even find their accounts on the CIT site or anywhere else on the net. Would be helpful for any further discussion.
User avatar
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2569
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:06 am
Location: One breath from Glory

Post by fish5133 »

Take a look at Pilots for 911truth website. They seem to have some pretty good research on it about eyewitnesses and black box data.

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
User avatar
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: London, England

Post by Alex_V »

On the lack of South-of-citgo witnesses, there's a nice blog attempt to identify some from freely-available accounts...

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/20 ... ented.html

On that same blog there's a nice discussion of one of the 13 witnesses CIT use, Maria De La Cerda...

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/20 ... ories.html

To use her statements as backing up a north-of-citgo flightpath is ludicrous. She is looking over, from way to the North, at a brief glimpse of a plane somewhere to the south.

And also there's a very nice piece on the way that CIT have attempted to smear any witness who gives an account they don't agree with...

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/20 ... -ones.html

It's hard, after reading that, to label CIT as anything other than a bunch of deluded, ignorant fraudsters.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Alex_V wrote:On the lack of South-of-citgo witnesses, there's a nice blog attempt to identify some from freely-available accounts...

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/20 ... ented.html

On that same blog there's a nice discussion of one of the 13 witnesses CIT use, Maria De La Cerda...

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/20 ... ories.html

To use her statements as backing up a north-of-citgo flightpath is ludicrous. She is looking over, from way to the North, at a brief glimpse of a plane somewhere to the south.

And also there's a very nice piece on the way that CIT have attempted to smear any witness who gives an account they don't agree with...

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/20 ... -ones.html

It's hard, after reading that, to label CIT as anything other than a bunch of deluded, ignorant fraudsters.
Alex, it looks like you used Google to try to find somebody who expressed the view that you want to have. Why do you keep on focussing on the people and not on the evidence?

I don't support CIT blindly, I don't think they are the saviours of the world. Some of the films they make are hard to watch and they do apply a bit too much of their own bias onto the witnesses.

But if 2 people stand on a gas station forecourt and say a plane flew to their left when the official story has it flying to their right (and in a position where it would be barely visible to them) then I start to take notice. If a series of other eye-witnesses appear to back up their memory of the position of the plane, then each one corroborates their story and makes it more likely that it actually happened.

The flightpath has to be correct for the OCT to survive. As you have said previously, all of the physical evidence appears to support it, however unlikely the damage to the Pentagon is following collision with a large jet. And the flightpath has to stand on its own.

How happy are you to have a world view that depends on a confused cab driver saying he climbed out of a cab that had been struck by a 200 pound lightpole struck by a fast-moving jet and escaped without a scratch?

And that he picked the lightpole out of his cab before anyone had the chance to take a photo. And the whole event took place with no damage other than to the windscreen.

And that on a supposedly busy highway, not a single other eye-witness claims to have seen it happen.

To me that sounds like he is lying. What about you? Or are you going to come up with the usual response that I see. "I don't have a problem with his account" or the even better "Prove it didn't happen".

And then find me a single confirmed eye-witness account of a plane striking a lightpole. There are dozens of witness accounts, even from people who weren't at the Pentagon at the time of the incident, how about one from the highway who watched in horror as the lightpole speared the cab driver's window? What about the guy who helped him life the pole out, strange he didn't hang around for a while to talk.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Alex_V wrote:So to phrase it as 1 witness vs 13 is totally misleading. It is 13 witnesses vs some fairly clear physical evidence. Obviously the poles themselves are evidence that the plane hit them, though that is a different can of worms.
It is not misleading at all. We are determining the flightpath based on eye-witnesses.
Alex_V wrote:I ask again, because it is really quite simple, which of CIT's witnesses were in the position to see whether or not the lightpoles were hit? If the answer is none, then your point here about who saw the poles being hit is utterly irrelevant.
Some of them couldn't see the lightpoles. My point is not about which of the CIT witnesses saw the lightpoles but which of any witnesses saw them. If the plane had flown the OCT flightpath, some of the CIT witnesses wouldn't have had much view of the plane. So why are they all claiming to have seen it north of the Citgo station? Mass hallucination?
Post Reply