Viewing Single Post From: Hey there

Viewing Single Post From: Hey there
Domenick DiMaggio	Jan 28 2009, 01:13 AM
Posts: 2,005 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Arcterus Jan 27 2009, 06:48 PM I'd be glad to when I get the chance. But I've seen many documentaries advocating the idea that no plane hit the Pentagon and EVERY SINGLE ONE has had a complete lack in compelling evidence. investigations occur by the gathering of evidence. if you expect a documentary showing some news clips from the whore media and government released videos and photos to prove a plane didn't hit the pentagon then yes you are going to come away disappointed. when you take into account the massive amount of evidence collected by cit and dismiss it because you expect eyewitnesses to draw exact flight paths instead of saying 'it approached from this side of the building not that side' then i don't know what to tell you. you want to dismiss officer roberts or don't you know who he is? again if you do not examine all the evidence than your conclusions can be wrong. Quote: What generalization? Saying that they only used certain portions of their witness testimony? It's entirely true. Everything they said in their witness testimony that conflicted with their conclusion was completely disregarded. "I didn't see two planes" from all 4 witnesses came to the conclusion, in a movie that exclusively used these witnesses, as "There were two planes". I don't see how anyone can disagree with me that this movie was terribly one-sided. There's a term for this type of documentary tactic, actually. It's called "special pleading". hmmmmmmmm............ you think the pentacon and cit's work is about proving 2 planes at the pentagon? the point was that there wasn't 2 planes. there was 1 plane. it approached from over the navy annex and on the north side of the citgo station therefor it is impossible it caused the mechanical damage and impact damage. this has been corroborated again and again and again [over the navy annex & north of citgo]. there are no witnesses to the plane ever hitting lightpoles. even father mcgraw star lightpole witness admitted he didn't actually witness the plane hit any and deduced it after the fact. Quote: So only evidence from truthers is valid? So these four witnesses beat every other witness, despite the other witness testimony being shortly after (as opposed to five years later) and perfectly matching the physical evidence (which isn't "government supplied", it's right there, unless you think the pictures were fake too...), solely under the basis that these witnesses were interviewed for 9/11 Truth? I support accurate evidence, sir, not whatever crap gets flown my direction. there are more than 4 witnesses. again you are not informed. these accounts are way more in depth than the little sound bites the media whore fed you. and yes i personally take the word of 9/11 truthers over cia today reporters like mike walter. especially because they release more than a 30 second sound bite of the witness accounts. Quote: Also, the witnesses don't even perfectly add up in their flight path. but they all put it in the same area using landmarkers instead of ntsb accurate flight path diagrams for your approval. they all say over the navy annex and north of the citgo station. every single one of them. Quote: And did your supposedly non-biased directors note this quote from their witness Detective Lagasse in a separate interview? “You ask were the debris is…well it was in the building…I saw it everywhere… Have you ever seen photos of other aircraft accident photos…? There usually isn’t huge amounts of debris left… how much did you see from the WTC?" ask sgt lagasse to abandon his north side of the citgo claim and get back to me. Quote: 100 names of anonymous accounts you have no idea if any of those accounts are true. who they are. where they were. or anything. yet you don't question it. nice. no time now to reply to the rest......
Posts: 2,005 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08

Hey there · Welcome Newcomers!