Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Viewing Single Post From: Lincoln Leibner: NoC flighpath?
Stinkey Puh Sep 2 2008, 09:37 PM

Craig Ranke
 
Quote:
 
I am not arguing that a plane hit the Pentagon because I don't think one did.
Then why are you more interested in spending your time on forums splitting hairs against the research of CIT than helping to expose the deception?

I don't think I'll answer that question because it appears to make too many assumptions which have yet to be proven. ;)

Quote:
 
Stinkey Puh
 
What I'm saying is that we should not just take certain parts of the witness testimony, disregard other parts, and call some witnesses liars based off nothing.
Yeah so?

That sure isn't something that CIT has done so why bring it up?

I think streetcar explained it well. And if you say certain witnesses (mentioned before) are dishonest about the plane's impact, isn't that basically saying they are lying?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
If you don't have evidence or proof someone is dishonest, why are you claiming they are dishonest?

Quote please.

We have evidence against everyone we have claimed is dishonest.

If you want, I can post the quote from the email you sent to bc and me. And anyway, I think CIT's videos against the witnesses is rather clear without saying the words outright. :blink:

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
All right, can you (or any part of CIT) list the, "contradictions and dubious details" which implicate Walter, McGraw, Sucherman, Wheelhouse, and England?

They are layed out in all our presentations. I don't feel like listing them all, there are too many.

Please go watch them again.

Well then maybe someone else can list the suspicious aspects of those witnesses or something because I don't remember seeing any that would conclusively convince me that those people are less trustworthy than the other witnesses.

Quote:
 
1. The very notion that they were central figures in the propaganda supporting the official story when even YOU believe the plane didn't hit meaning 9/11 was a world wide psychological back op.

Why does it matter how their witness testimony was used?

Quote:
 
2. The blatant contradictions, dubious details, questionable circumstances, and impossibilities in their accounts.

And those would be. . .?

Quote:
 
3. The NoC evidence automatically implicating anyone used to sell the official story.

How?

Quote:
 
4. Their strange demeanor when interviewed.

Ah, now that's intereresting. What was strange about their demeanor?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
If the NoC evidence implicates those people, why does it not implicate (for example) Lagasse, Brooks, or Sean Boger?
Because they unwittingly expose the crime by independently corroborating each other and all the other witnesses regarding NoC.

How do you know Walter, McGraw, England, Wheelhouse, and/or Sucherman wouldn't expose the crime similarly? Did you try to determine if the plane they say they saw was NoC (Wheelhouse says he is not familiar with the area, so I'm not sure the path he drew can be relied upon as what he saw)?

Quote:
 
Please contribute productively to the movement and work as a team to help figure out WHO the peprs really are instead of focusing on arguing against the research/evidence of CIT.

Look here. What's the title of this thread? I'm not the one who started this discussion. It looks more like CIT decided to focus on Biscuit Cough and Stinkey Puh personally rather than discuss the evidence at hand. :roll:

Quote:
 
If you can't even agree that the witnesses in question are "suspects" then you simply aren't interested in looking at this crime from an investigative level.

If you can't present the evidence that implicates these witnesses, why should anyone just agree with you that they are "suspects"?

The questions written on the screen in CIT's "hit pieces" on these witnesses --which for some reason you apparently did not attempt to clear up with each individual-- are not solid enough.
Edited by Stinkey Puh, Sep 3 2008, 10:44 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post
Lincoln Leibner: NoC flighpath? · Pentagon