|
- Posts:
- 1,650
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- 01/14/08
|
- Quote:
-
- Aldo Marquis CIT
- Apr 2 2009, 10:42 AM
1. Because he saw the plane approach on the north side of the Citgo, this negates a belief in an impact. In other words, the plane cannot hit the building since it approached from the north side of the building.
Or, because he saw the plane crash into the building, this negates a belief in a NoC approach. In other words, the plane cannot fly NoC because it hit the Pentagon.
I know it is easier to just say the opposite back to me instead of actually being intellectually honest. I gave you a list of reasons why this isn't the case. I suggest you think about them for a while. Besides being corroborated thoroughly on the very simple detail of north side/south side, it is patently ridiculous to say that he would get the flight path in relation to a gas station and a very noticeable and significant right bank wrong over an impact that is supposed to happen right next to him that is the result of a plane that is coming right at him-an event that would surely make him duck for cover before the plane reaches the wall.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
2. His description is incompatible with the official story. He claims it hit between the 2nd and 3rd floor. The plane allegedly hits the 1st, tail hitting the 2nd floor. This would support the fact that he is deducing and embellishing.
Or, he is describing what he saw from memory, and his recollection isn't perfect.
Or did he just not see the alleged impact, mainly because he like everyone else asked saw the plane approach NoC.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
3. He didn't agree with the surveillance video.
What part doesn't he agree with?
Go back and watch it. Here:
http://www.thepentacon.com/SeanBogerATC.htm
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
4. He admitted the plane was coming at him and right below him the firefighters we running away from the scene. Logic and common sense would tell you that he ducked before the plane reached the building.
That's a possibility, but it's an assumption you're making that contradicts his actual statement. If I do that, I get accused of all kinds of nonsense.
No it is an assumption any logical individual would have to include especially in light of the plane being on the north side.
Besides the plane coming right him, according to him: true. Him ducking for cover, according to him: true. It's just a question of when, and since the plane can't hit on a NoC approach then it was obviously before.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
5. He claimed the tail hit the overhead sign, this would be the overhead sign Robert Turcios saw it pull up over. The sign was not hit, but this would put it on the NoC path he saw it on.
He is simply describing his recollection of the incident. Is it possible he saw the plane fly very close to an overhead sign, and also saw a lightpole being struck, and his memory of the event is that the overhead sign was struck?
No that is not possible, especially since he saw the plane approach NoC. What are you not getting?
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
1. Because he saw the plane approach on the north side of the Citgo, this negates a belief in an impact. In other words, the plane cannot hit the building since it approached from the north side of the building.
The reverse logic may also apply.
No it may not. Because it is illogical. The plane can't hit since it approached on the north side of the Citgo.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
2. He flinched out of fear after seeing the plane on the north side, then jumped into his car to look down and grab his radio.
3. He admitted that the fireball prevented him from seeing what the plane actually did.
On a sidenote, where did Sgt Lagasse say the impact is "non-negotiable"?
IIRC it was at the end of your interview with him, where he was saying he didn't know what the exact angle of the plane was, or it could have been closer to him or further away, but only things that weren't up for discussion were the NoC approach and the impact.
No, what wasn't up for discussion was the plane being on the north side. Go back and watch it again. Especially since they are mutually exlcusive.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
1. Because he did not and could not give an accurate account of how the plane hit. He had to remember what other people had told him to create his description.
Why does he have to remember specific details for his account to have merit?
Um because that is the point. Regardless, he is and has been a suspect witness. I understand that you are a "critical thinker" skilled in the art of rational thought, Occams Razor, and all of kinds of logic none of us wild eyed "conspiracy theorists" could ever hope to use, but there are suspect witnesses involved. We are detectives of sorts and he fits our criteria. He was someone we did not believe. That is what detectives do, they follow hunches and suspicions in building their case. He needed to have specific details because they have to jive with what the plane was supposed to have done and was capable of doing.
I am not sure if you are familiar with this, but your SoC flight path is IMPOSSIBLE in relation to G forces. Have a looksie:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=346
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
2. Because he lied about crossing the guardrail with stole and bible in hand 45 seconds after the event happened when Mark Faram arrived 10 minutes after the event and saw him do it.
All we have here is 2 eye-witnesses with a different recollection of the same account. That doesn't make either of them liars. It's quite plausible that one or both of them are wrong about the time-scale involved. They've just witnessed a very traumatic event. You can't expect any or all witnesses to agree on every detail.
No sorry. You are assuming McGraw witnessed this event and Mark Faram didn't see anything from inside the Navy Annex. It took him 10 minutes to get down there, McGraw said and then confirmed with me that he allegedly exited his car 45 seconds after the event. Father McGraw fits the bill of complicit operative witness. Sorry.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
3. Because 13 witnesses saw the plane approach NoC, which means the plane cannot hit-and he couldn't see either SoC or NoC paths. 1 witness saw it pull up into an ascent over the highway. And 1 witness saw the plane flying away banking 50-100 ft over and around the south parking lot AFTER the explosion.
If the NoC witnesses are correct, he's wrong about the plane hitting the building. If he's right about the plane hitting the building, the NoC witnesses recollections are wrong.
No sorry it doesn't work that way. You are just going in circles and wasting everyone's time. How are you going to prove he is right? How are you going to tell Lagasse and co that they didn't see the plane on the NoC? See what we have here is a problem, one that doesn't need the assistance of "people" like you. This is something that needs to be resolved with our gov't, not some obtuse, stubborn, illogical "person" with no counter-evidence of his own. This is not a debate, as much as you would like it to be. This is about the fate of our country, not your arrogant posturing over "CT's" as being right. No one is going to concede to your idiocy.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
2. Her description much too detailed and is incompatible with the damage shown. She says, At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. The starboard side damage is incompatible with a wing entering the building. Columns are blown up and out and there is nowhere for the plane's wing to enter. This also applies to the tail of the plane. Her account is an attempt at being convincing but when scrutinized it is clear she is not telling the truth.
Why does a fallible recollection memories make someone a liar? She says she saw the wings disappear inside the building. That doesn't mean they did, it means that's what it looked like to her, and how she remembers it. Is it possible that as the wings smashed into the Pentagon and were basically pulverised by the impact and explosion, that her impression is that the wings disappeared inside the building?
I am giving you my opinion as someone who has personally uncovered a deception at the pentagon. I can't help it if you don't accept it. The fact is the plane flew NoC. This is not up for debate any longer. Since it flew NoC, pulled up, and was seen
Are you saying that there is no such things as intelligence assets paid and willing to lie? Isn't it possible that Penny Elgas can be one of those since the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo? Could a semi detailed description of an impact of a plane that did not hit and a photo op for a piece of debris be considered a possible deception thought up by the planners?
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
2. He claims it came over the Navy Annex, this is NoC. But he makes a point to say over his right shoulder and as if it was following Columbia Pike, so this makes it vague and ambiguous and can be usd to try and justify or fit with SoC.
His memory on exactly where it flew over isn't perfect. His impression is that it came over his right shoulder.
Whatever man, you are just blabbering and trying to confuse the reader. JFK, please do something about this. MM even sees through this guys masquerade.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
3. Due to no 1 and the fact that his position in the military, he could be a suspect witness.
Possible. Do you think it possible that the Pentagon Police Officers could be suspect witnesses?
No. Um, because they contradict the gov't's story.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
Definitive confirmed and corroborated SoC witnesses describing a corroborated impact
Confimed and corroborated by whom?
By you, your crew of fellow denialbots, JamesRhandi, whoever.
- Quote:
-
You interviewed Father McGraw, he looked you in the eye and told you he saw the plane impact the Pentagon.
Yes he was lying.
- Quote:
-
You corroborated his account,
Um no I didn't. His account has never been corroborated. Like many alleged impact witnesses.
- Quote:
-
but since it doesn't fit with a NoC approach,
Of course it doesn't, an NoC approach means the plane did not which means he is lying.
- Quote:
-
used an ad hominem fallacy to discredit him as a witness (former attorney, member of Opus Dei). Similarly with any other accounts that don't fit comfortably with a NoC approach.
Well the plane being on the NoC means ops were involved. He happens to fit the bill. This applies to anyone else who fits the bill.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
No they are not. Stop lying. Stop using deceptive terminology and phrasing. The witnesses are "corroborated".
Did you "corroborate" Father McGraw?
No. See above.
- Quote:
-
It's a fact that Sgt Lagasse said he saw the plane fly NoC, and also impact the Pentagon. Those two statements are contradictory.
Right, the statements are, the beliefs are, but the witnesses aren't. Them being deceived about an impact was part of the plan, it doesn't make them "contradictory witnesses".
- Quote:
-
13 witnesses say they saw the plane on a NoC approach. Other witnesses say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. This is contradictory.
13 witnesses on recording, confirmed and corroborated
Other witnesses aren't even considered for viability or deniability until you speak with them and confirm what's what.
"Other witnesses" are boneheads reading accounts online and believing them without confirming what they saw, if they saw, could they see, etc. You don't have other witnesses.
Better yet, since the plane approached on the NoC path, this would mean that there are more than definitely planted stories. That is what the CIA does, plant stories. Plant "witnesses". Wouldn't you agree?
- Quote:
-
This isn't a word game, it isn't a numbers game, it isn't me lying. In many respects, the witness statements are contradictory. I don't have a problem with you choosing to believe the NoC witnesses, but calling me a liar just for pointing out these contradictions says more about you than it does about me.
No you are liar because you are treating them as they were "contradictory witnesses" rather than first hand confirmation as to what happened. You are going into this assuming there was no deception, no witnesses lying, no staging etc. We went out there and looked for evidence to support our beliefs but were willing set them aside if we were wrong. We weren't.
Your repeating of shit you read online is not counter evidence. It is NOT a contradiction to our witnesses. What are you not getting. We have proved a deception, you can't take elements of the deception to prove there was no deception. Especially when you are doing it from behind your computer. Don't you get it? You have faith in those online accounts like little children have faith in Santa Claus.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
Take Sgt Lagasse's statement that the only 2 things he saw that are "non-negotiable" are a NoC approach, and the impact itself.
Where are you getting "non-negotiable" from? NoC approach negates an impact. THAT is "non-negotiable".
I mis-remembered the quote from the "Smoking Gun" video. He didn't actually say "non-negotiable", he said "irrefutable". Sgt Lagasse:- "There's one thing that's irrefutable, that isn't me guesstimating. The fact is an American Airlines plane went from here into the building."
Right and what is obviously irrefutable is the plane being on the north side of the Citgo because a NoC plane can't hit the building and we have confirmed the NoC path to the point of redundancy.
- Quote:
-
That's one of the contradictory statements I've been talking about that you see fit to label me a liar for doing so. Check your own video, 53:29.
Let me make this easy on you, because you don't seem too bright.
Since the plane appraoched on the north side of the Citgo and pulled up it would not have hit the building right? Since it would not hit the building. This would involve a deception correct?
Now, Lagasse seeing the plane NoC and believing it crashed-would this be the intentions of those who flew the plane NoC? Would Lagasse stating that he saw the plane hit be a product of him being fooled or him just being a "contradictory witness"?
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
As for incredulity, aren't you basing your dismissal of the lightpole/taxicab incident on incredulity? You don't believe it couldn't have missed the bonnet, so you reject the evidence based on your own disbelief?
No, first he is dismissing it based on the FACT that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo meaning that pole WAS NOT struck. Second he is dismissing it on the severe improbability of 535 mph 757 hitting a pole into a windshield of a car traveling 50 mph that spins out sideways and NOT damaging the hood or "bonnet".
I'd rather hear that from MM.
Well you heard from me.
|
11:59 PM Dec 2
