| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Hey there | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 26 2009, 12:39 AM (472 Views) | |
| Arcterus | Jan 26 2009, 12:39 AM Post #1 |
|
I've joined incarnations of this board a few times throughout the past but for some reason never have the time to stay on. I thought I'd re-join anyway. I've been involved with the 9/11 Truth Movement since late 2005, and in that time have had great deal of contemplation on forming my personal conclusions on 9/11. Having said that, I'm always ready to change my opinions should I run into compelling evidence. So...to say a bit about myself, my first name is Kamen. I'm 17 years old - 18 in less than a month - and am a senior at Bellevue High School. I'm a maker of independent films, including one I'm working on right now, called Imbalance, which is nearing the end of it's production phase. Since this is a 9/11 Truth forum, it's only valid to generically state my personal theories on each main section of 9/11. Overall, I'm thus far convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. I believe the World Trade Center, as well as Building 7, were brought down by controlled demolition. Contrary to what most on this board probably endorse, I do believe a plane crashed into the Pentagon, but do not concede that the plane was piloted by some martyr Muslim. I feel it's far more likely, and this is simpler than it may sound, that it was piloted by some type of trojan horse program. As for Flight 93, I believe it was shot down. My introduction to the 9/11 Truth movement was not from Loose Change, but it was the first documentary I saw on the subject. Although my personal conclusions thus far have deviated from some of the conclusions Loose Change presents, I've always respected it as an excellent way of spreading interest of the subject among the masses. I also hold Loose Change: Final Cut in high regard as it does an excellent job of keeping a relatively unbiased view of 9/11. I also write a series of articles called 9/11 Hoaxes. Although I've yet to complete so much as the second article, as I've been particularly busy the last couple of years, I do intend to continue the series. The articles focus on analyzing theories that have been presented throughout the movement. Particularly, I take theories which I deem to be hoaxes and give arguments on every significant angle to debunk it. This is for the purpose of not letting hoax theories become too prominent throughout the movement. My first article, written two years ago, detailed the fallacies behind the theory that no plane hit The Pentagon, and was well-received by the few who took the time to read it, including people who had formerly believed in the no-plane theory. The current one I'm working on details the theory that no plane hit the World Trade Center. That's a theory I think we'll be more on the same track with. Anyway, I look forward to participating in discussion among the board, with those who share my conclusions or oppose them, and that includes defenders of the official story. |
 |
 
|
| 22205 | Jan 26 2009, 03:27 AM Post #2 |
Arlingtonian
|
http://www.soniccomic.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=640
while i commend your efforts and your pursuit of truth by scratching beneath the surface arcterus, i have to say dont hang up your hat on the pentagon, cuz you're research/work is not done YET. im not 100% sure where you've been for over a year since you wrote the above (though i have an idea cuz i found out while searching for your 9/11 work), but during your absence some people (myself included) took it upon themselves to find the truth about the pentagon incident . and what we uncovered in arlington should to a very high degree of certainty separate the "hoaxes" from the truth, once and for all about the pentagon event. speaking of hoaxes, i think that word or characterization is too mild for some of these "theories" that have floated about 9/11 over the past 5 years, especially about the pentagon event. the word i would use to describe these "theories" instead is DISINFO. yes - some of the "facts" planted out there are straight up disinformation and put there intentionally to impede or even destroy 9/11 truth. personally, i see jim hoffman and victoria ashley as part of that disinfo campaign. ask yourself, where is jim hoffman now? where has he been for the past 3 years or so? what does he have to say about all the new evidence that's been uncovered? if he is a serious researcher and sincerely in pursuit of 9/11 truth, then its his responsibility to be familiar with and keep abreadt of all of the latest research. it would therefore be his responsibility to retract his flawed and incorrect assertions of yester-year about the "no plane at the pentagon". and has his significant other, ms.victoria ashely ever interviewed any of the witnesses to the plane that flew over the edge of the Arlington National Cemetery that terrible tragic day? has she done anything other than opine recklessly and attack dedicated honest researchers (like CIT) on sites like 911blogger? of course not. but then - what qualifies either of them (hoff/ash) to have the final say about what is and isnt true about the arlington part of the 9/11 op? and what of their (hoff/ash) establishment-connected backgrounds? before accepting their "research" did u bother to see what you could find out about them and their possible motivations? i mean who the hell are they anyway? what makes them any different from von kleist? you understand that in order to successfully disinform, one must first use some grains of truth to establish credibility for themselves within any movement, dont you arcterus? if you are really interested and/or devoted to finding the truth, then dont stop where you have - keep diggin man. shit's alot deeper than you thought it was, especially with what happened at the pentagon on 9/11. so i recommend that you have a look around here at LCF or at these places: http://www.thepentacon.com http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showforum=5 -and please update what you know about the pentagon and 9/11, before coming to any FINAL conclusions on the matter. once the truth about the physical (pentagon) event becomes clear to you (via witness interviews), you will be better equipped/informed to judge who is spreading disinfo, and who is trying their best to reveal the truth - at least where the pentagon and 9/11 are concerned . so welcome (back) to the forum and to the pursuit of 911 truth, and good luck. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jan 26 2009, 04:17 PM Post #3 |
|
Welcome back! Like 22205 stated, there's too many unknowns about the Pentagon and there surely is a lack of evidence to support a large 757 hitting. Something else may have hit the Pentagon, but all the evidence suggests that it was nothing the size of a 757. If it were a 757, the government would easily have shown videos as such. There are 3 cameras on the impact side of the Pentagon that would have shown the impact. One of those cameras is just feet away from the impact. Why are they covering up what really impacted? And it doesn't matter to me how many witnesses saw what, until someone can show me 150,000+ pounds of aircraft debris, there's no evidence of a 757 crashing anywhere near the Pentagon. We even have a witness that says so himself. Jamie McIntyre of CNN said that upon his close-up inspection of the Pentagon minutes after the impact, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The evidence is missing, the clear video of the plane that impacted is missing/confiscated by the FBI. I spent a year debunking the no-planes at the WTC. Then other people followed. The no-plane theory (NPT) at the WTC has been determined to be disinfo and is banned everywhere in the 9/11 truth movement (including here) except for Pilots which still allows the debate/discussion. I'm like you, I've been debunking the 9/11 hoaxes for the past couple years. There was no "pod". There was no laser. The piece of paper floating through the air that people called a laser directing FL.175 into the south tower was travelling the opposite direction as the plane. That fact alone debunks that. And there were planes at the WTC. Those are the 3 biggest hoaxes. Pod, laser and NPT. All disinfo, all debunked for years. Why some people still cling to these, I have no idea but it could be the same reason why the debunkers can't see that 3 WTC buildings were brought down with explosives. |
|
|
| Arcterus | Jan 26 2009, 06:20 PM Post #4 |
|
Ooh, I forgot I had posted it there. Way to go finding it.
As I said in my introduction, I never close the door on an issue.
I know a great deal about both of them. I've also met Jim Hoffman in the past. But none of that concerned me. I'm more interested in the facts and the proof behind said facts than the details of who wrote them. Jim Hoffman, I find, is one of the most accurate 9/11 researchers out there.
Although past experience suggests I'll find what evidence is available on said sites will be non-convincing or debunkable, I'll gladly take a look at those sites soon enough. Also, with all that being said, I'd like to know if you have any direct responses to any of the points brought up in my article. Would you mind?
I disagree. The evidence I've obtained thus far has been terribly conclusive in support of a Boeing 757 hitting it.
See my article for my response.
Forgive me if I find it rather arrogant to disregard eyewitness testimony, particularly when not one witness account details a missile or anything similar hitting The Pentagon. Not a single one.
See my article for my response.
I still can't believe that's an actual theory. It's like the special olympics of 9/11 Truth.
I think the main part is that humans, generally, have difficulty accepting when they're wrong. Those who care more about the truth than about their W/L record are the real truthers out there. Also, I figure some of these people are disinfo agents who, naturally, would continue spreading such an outright hoax. Ever notice how the ones with these radical theories like lasers and holograms and such are generally the most hostile? |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jan 26 2009, 06:57 PM Post #5 |
|
I don't completely disregard witness testimony. But in a court of law, witness testimony is only hearsay unless it's backed up by physical evidence. There is no physical evidence of a large jetliner at the Pentagon and I've never seen any pictures that come even a fraction close to showing 100,000+ pounds of aircraft debris. Witnesses can say whatever they want, but until it's backed up with physical evidence, then someone's words don't hold alot of weight. They are the most hostile. I've been threatened, banned from a forum, had Youtube videos made about me, you name it. All because of debunking NPT or "pods" or whatever else people choose to believe in. But it doesn't stop me. This is the truth movement, not the "I see what I want to see" movement. Edited by BoneZ, Jan 26 2009, 07:08 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Arcterus | Jan 27 2009, 01:40 AM Post #6 |
|
The witness testimony is most certainly backed up by physical evidence. Please read my article if you haven't already. I talk a lot about the physical evidence.
Damn straight! I think this is the attitude that any serious 9/11 Truther should have.
I haven't had a chance yet to fully analyze the other sources, but I watched all of The Pentacon, and I must say it was terribly unconvincing. I never thought I'd say this, but I thought it was even worse than 9/11 In Plane Sight. The artistic part of me had trouble watching it...I know they said they weren't filmmakers but Jesus, the headroom with that first guy was driving me crazy. Putting my filmmaker compulsions aside, I feel I watched it with an open mind and I saw nothing conclusive for me to alter my opinion on what happened at The Pentagon. There are a great deal of problems with the documentary, and I'd be glad to elaborate those problems in a well-polished essay should I have the time, but for now, I'll note the two major problems that should be fairly obvious and, with enough in-depth contemplation, will lead you to the other problems as well. 1. The Pentacon suggests that these four witnesses have more validity in their claims than well over 100 other eyewitness testimonies that, unlike these four, correlate with the physical evidence. Besides being a pretty rich leap of faith, these four eyewitness testimonies are taken five years later, as opposed to the other testimonies which were taken shortly after the attack. 2. The Pentacon ONLY used their witnesses for evidence which corroborated their conclusion. They call their testimonies "smoking guns" and "devastating to the official story". Every single one of the four said they saw a plane. One of them, who was the only one to claim any kind of credit in flight identification, said he instantly noted it as an American Airlines plane. Not one of the witnesses claimed to see two planes. 3 of the 4 witnesses claimed to see the plane hit the Pentagon, the fourth of whom was too far away to see the impact in the first plane. So what does The Pentacon conclude? Just about anything that contradicts their witness testimony EXCEPT for the flight path! For one of them they even directly point out he must have made a mistake. Another one made a dreadful mistake in being outright wrong about the position of the taxi and the status of certain light poles, instantly putting his testimony in doubt. Furthermore, all the testimony relating to the flight path does NOT CORROBORATE with the physical evidence. Yet, despite these glaring errors, they make us only of portions of the testimony that correlate with their theory. I'll still take a look at those other two sources, but if this is the kind of stuff you have to offer, I won't be expecting any major recants from me anytime soon. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 27 2009, 08:18 AM Post #7 |
|
may i ask for a link to that? i've been waiting to see an explanation for the anomalous flash captured happening prior to impact by both planes and captures on multiple cameras from multiple angles. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 27 2009, 08:22 AM Post #8 |
|
so then you haven't watched the northside flyover, the usa today parade, from the law to the lord, flight 77 : the white plane and all the other releases is what you're saying? i also don't like your generalized characterization of citizen investigation team. it couldn't possibly be further from the truth. and the fact that you prefer the government/corporate supplied evidence over independent evidence gathered by revolutionaries is a tad troubling as well. there is no such thing as 100 impact witnesses. this is nyc tour guide master disinformation. to see this referenced by someone supposedly on our side of the fence is also troubling...... |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jan 27 2009, 08:30 AM Post #9 |
|
As have I. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jan 27 2009, 03:28 PM Post #10 |
|
To what, the "pod" or "laser"? We'll be waiting for a very long time. I've always stated it was probably some sort of explosives planted in the noses of the planes to assist in making sure the buildings opened up to swallow the whole planes and to make sure the planes entered fully so they would be destroyed as much as possible in the collapses of the buildings. The only other explanation I've seen is it was some sort of friction/static electricity-type event, but I don't buy that. Edited by BoneZ, Jan 27 2009, 03:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Arcterus | Jan 27 2009, 06:48 PM Post #11 |
|
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.
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".
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. Also, the witnesses don't even perfectly add up in their flight path.  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?"
Oh really? 1. “I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11… [It] slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon.” 2. “I saw this plane right outside my window… Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon… It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon).” 3. “It was coming down head first,” he said. “And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking.” 4. “I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing…” 5. “And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking.” 6. “[The plane] impacted the side of the building.” 7. “ saw the plane hit the Pentagon.” 8. “Mark Bright, actually saw the plane hit the building.” 9. “This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it.” 10. “I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon.” 11. “He realized he had a front-row seat to history, as the plane plowed into the Pentagon.” 12. “I thought, ‘There’s no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,’ “Before he could process that thought, he saw “a huge mushroom cloud.” 13. “He was in front of one of the blast-resistant windows [inside of the Pentagon as he saw the plane coming in to crash]…” 14. “[The plane] nearly shearing the roof off the trailer before slamming into the E ring.” 15. “[he saw the plane] strike the building. ‘It seemed to be almost coming in slow motion,’ he said later Tuesday. ‘I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running.’” 16. “This plane was going to slam into the Pentagon. I steeled myself for the explosion.” 17. “The airliner crashed into the Pentagon and exploded.” 18. “He saw the plane approach and slam into the west side of the structure… it crashed into the building and burst into flames.” 19. “The plane approached the Pentagon… slicing into the building, said Lee Evey.” 20. “The plane hit the building.” 21. “We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building.” 22. “When [the plane] made impact with the Pentagon initially he saw smoke, then flames.” 23. “It seemed like [the plane] made impact just before the wedge.” 24. “He impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo[copter], tower.” 25. “What instantly followed was a large yellow fireball accompanied by an extremely bass sounding, deep thunderous boom.” 26. “This plane is going down into the Pentagon!” 27. “By the time I looked up, the plane was moving so fast all I saw was an explosion.” 28. “The crash was exceptionally loud… It shook the building and knocked people down who were closer to the point of impact.” 29. “I [saw] an airplane descend into the side of the Pentagon.” 30. “[He saw the plane] strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation’s military.” 31. “He watched as the plane plowed into the Pentagon.” 32. “[We] watched it crash.” 33. “I turned my head to the right and saw it crash into the Pentagon about 200 yards away.” 34. “‘There was a big noise when it hit the building,’ said Oscar Martinez, who witnessed the attack.” 35. “My first thought was just ‘No, no, no, no,’ because it was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National Airport. It was going to crash.” 36. “I saw it crash into the building…My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing.” 37. “I saw…this big silver planerun into the side of the Pentagon.” 38. “The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking ‘whoomp’ as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon.” 39. “I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass.” 40. “[He] saw a plane crash into the building.” 41. “I saw it crash.” 42. “it was an American airlines plane that came in and hit the Pentagon.” 43. “I knew it was about to crash.” 44. “The impact created a huge yellow and orange fireball, he added.” 45. “I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first… It did not hit the roof first… and yes, it did impact the Pentagon… There was none of this hitting-the-ground first crap I keep hearing…” 46. “The Pentagon is about a mile and half distant in the center of the tableau. I was looking directly at it when the aircraft struck.” 47. “I saw the airplane” a split second before it struck.” 48. “I looked back at the road, and when I turned to look again, I felt and heard a terrible explosion. I looked back and saw flames shooting up and smoke starting to climb into the sky.” 49. “[He saw the plane] seconds before it exploded into the building.” 50. “[the plane was] aimed like a dart straight into it.” 51. “The plane hit the Pentagon.” 52. “I saw it hit the building.” 53. “The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. My first thought was he’s not going to make it across the river to National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction.” 54. “[he saw it] fly 50 feet over I-395 in a straight line, striking the side of the Pentagon.” 55. “[it] plowed into the south side of the Pentagon.” 56. “And then he just slammed into the Pentagon.” 57. “I saw an American airlines jet come overhead and slam into the Pentagon.” 58. “[the plane flew] fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon.” 59. “It added power on its way in…The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.” 60. “A few minutes later, Vaughn witnessed the craft’s impact.” 61. “Wallace hadn’t gotten far when the plane hit. ‘I hadn’t even reached the back of the van when I felt the fireball. It slammed into the building just a couple hundred feet from him… Wallace switched on the truck’s radio. We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side.” 62. “They watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon.” 63. “It hit the Pentagon.” 64. “[I saw the plane] crash right into the Pentagon.” 65. “The only intelligent thought that came into my head was, ‘Oh my God, they hit the pentagon.’” 66. “They turned and ran, and at the point of impact were partially shielded by their fire truck from the flying debris of shrapnel and flames.” 67. “It slammed right into the building.” 68. “[I saw the plane] keep coming and then slam into the front of the building.” 69. “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.” 70. “[The plane] came from behind us and banked to the right and went into the Pentagon.” 71. “The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the building.” 72. “Engine 101… saw the airliner plow into the northwest side of the Pentagon. The radio crackled, ‘Engine 101—emergency traffic, a plane has gone down into the Pentagon.’” 73. “I just watched it hit the building. It exploded… I could actually hear the metal going through the building.” 74. “I saw it fly right into the Pentagon… ‘It just was amazingly precise… It completely disappeared into the Pentagon.” 75. The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. [Note: this eyewitness claims he watched everything in ‘slow motion’ due to ‘adrenaline’].At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again—only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon……I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building” 76. “The next thing we saw, the airplane crashed into the Pentagon…[It] sucked in the airplane.” 77. “My people who did see it enter the building described it as entering the building and then there being flames coming out immediately afterwards.” 78. “[It went] inside the side of the Pentagon.Obviously, it was going in the Pentagon purposefully.I told my husband ‘he’s going into the Pentagon.’We heard the direct hit—huge crash, saw this fireball, flame and smoke.”Reporter: ‘so you actually saw the plane impact the side of the building?’[Isabel:] “Yes I did.” 79. “I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving the direction the aircraft was taking at the time. As most know, the Pentagon lies at the bottom of two hills from the west with the east side being next to the river at 14th street bridge… The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft. The entry point was so clean that the roof (shown in news photo) fell in on the wreckage.” 80. “I saw it hit the pentagon. It happened so fast… it was in the air one moment and in the building the next…” 81. “It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere… It was very sort of surreal.” 82. “The plane vanished, absorbed by the building, and there was a slight pause. Then a huge fireball rose into the sky.” 83. “The plane came in hard and level and was flown full throttle into the building, dead center mass, Maj. Leibner said. “The plane completely entered the building… The plane went into the building like a toy into a birthday cake…The aircraft went in between the second and third floors.” 84. “I think I actually heard it accelerate—and then it disappeared and a cloud of smoke started billowing.” 85. “It hit the pentagon. It happened so fast… it was in the air one moment and in the building the next… I still have a hard time believing it, but every time I look out the window, it seems to be more real than it did the time before.” 86. “A groundskeeper who watched in horror as the plane crashed into the Pentagon… The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building.” 87. “We watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon, and there was no indication whatever that it was doing anything other than performing a direct attack on that building.” 88. “The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon… the aircraft had been flown directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building.” 89. “The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon’s wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball. The people who built that wall should be proud. Its ability to withstand the initial impact of the jet probably saved thousands of lives.” 90. “He also recalled seeing the tail of the plane as it entered the building, followed by a fireball that erupted upon the plane’s impact.” 91. “The nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. Still gripping the wheel, I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact. An instant inferno blazed about 125 yards from me. The plane, the wall and the victims disappeared under coal-black smoke, three-storey tall flames and intense heat.” 92. “[It] headed for the Pentagon “at a frightening rate… just slicing into that building…”Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon… he saw the Pentagon “envelope” the plane.” 93. “It was pretty horrible… he said of the noiseless images he carries inside him, of the jet vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust… the memory starts to come back when he hears a particularly low-flying airliner heading into nearby Reagan National Airport.” 94. “[It] crashed into the west side of the building…It happened so fast. One second I saw the plane and next it was gone.” Recalling those moments again, Ramey said it appeared the building sucked the plane up inside.” 95. “It was headed straight for the building. It made no sense… A huge jet. Then it was gone. A massive hole in the side of the Pentagon gushed smoke. ‘Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?’ That's the conversation I had with myself on the way to work… There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building.” 96. “[it veered] sharply and then slice into the Pentagon… [he] watched the plane slide silently into the Pentagon ‘like a car entering a garage’ [note: witness was far from Pentagon causing a delay before the explosion could be heard].” 97. “I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the building…I saw an indentation in the building and then it was just blown-up up—red, everything red.” 98. “It was an American airlines jet. And I watched it go into the building. I saw the big ‘AA’ on the side…” 99. “[The plane went] into the Pentagon.” 100. “It ploughed right into the Pentagon.”
Supposedly. I don't agree with a certain aspect that most truthers do, therefore I'm immediately suspect of being COINTELPRO? For God's sake, if you're going to accuse someone of being an agent, at least prove me wrong instead of going "There are no such thing as 100 impact statements" only for me to list out exactly 100 eyewitness statements noting - you know - IMPACT! Sorry, I know they weren't interviewed by The Pentacon so they're probably all government agents or have been deceived, but still, it's weird how consistent it is with the physical evidence, isn't it? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 28 2009, 12:54 AM Post #12 |
|
ok there must have been some sort of misunderstanding. i personally believe both wtc planes were swapped with military planes that fired a projectile into the building just prior to impact. and to date i have not seen any other suitable explanation. if it didn't occur with both impacts then theres another explanation. if it wasn't captured from multiple cameras and multiple angles then theres an explanation. always come up with some sort of anomaly to blame it on if that were the case. but that isn't the case.... 
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 28 2009, 01:13 AM Post #13 |
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
ask sgt lagasse to abandon his north side of the citgo claim and get back to me.
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...... |
|
|
|
| 22205 | Jan 28 2009, 04:26 AM Post #14 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
i would tackle your points one by one arc, but i assure you that if you check out the arlington cemetery witness accounts, you will see why there's no point in me tackling anything. what it boils down to is that the plane never flew where the government alleges it did. this includes the flight data recorder path (alleged to belong to flight "77" and found in the pentagon rubble), the light pole path (5 poles allegedly knocked down by the plane), and the linear damage path inside the building (which is meant to mimic the path the alleged flight "77" would have taken thru the building, going from southwest towards northeast). opposite the official evidence and "77" flight path, are over a half a dozen real living breathing eyewitness (at the ANC) who without any vested interest in lying, and without any understanding of the implications, recalled on-camera and on-location that the plane flew over them, north of - and in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of - the official flight path. but its painfully obvious that you have not viewed the NEW evidence and are stuck making yesterday's arguments on the subject. you have no frame of referrence, you have no understanding of the physical event, especially with regard to official path versus actual/witnessed path. you are dissecting false bread crumbs placed there intentionally to help substantiate a lie. until you do become familiar with the NEW information, we will only be able to exchange insights on mostly moot points. if u wanna do that, just go and read the pentagon section of this, the LCF2 forums, and pilotsFORtruth forums, and you can see rebuttal after rebuttal to all the stuff you've "covered". so please dont be lazy, view at least the first link i posted (thepentacon.com) and watch the presentations (the north side documented is probably the most important one and should get you up to speed - hopefully). let it be clear arc - im not asking u to watch some 9/11 related movie - im asking you to watch, hear and listen to real living witnesses to the event in question, interviewed on location. after watching them and understanding the data/evidence and all the consequent implications, you will understand why i find it so easy to separate the gatekeeping disinformers from the true and sincere researchers. its not about rumors and personalities, its about there being only ONE TRUTH, and knowing that anyone who tries to sell or promote or disseminate anything other than that TRUTH, is ill or uninformed, lying, and/or perpetrating some bullshit, whomever they may be. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jan 28 2009, 03:29 PM Post #15 |
|
That statement corroborates Jamie McIntyre's statement which supports our version of the events even more. I keep saying it over and over again, there was not 100,000+ pounds of aircraft debris shown anywhere at the Pentagon. Plane wreckage doesn't disappear into thin air. That's the type of physical evidence we're talking about. And it does no good to bring up how much aircraft wreckage we saw at the WTC because we saw both planes hit the towers. We have not seen any video of a plane hitting the Pentagon. That's not to say that nothing hit, but it surely wasn't a large 100,000+ pound jetliner as the physical evidence of the damage to the facade and lack of wreckage all say otherwise. May have been a smaller mlitary jet painted like an AA plane. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jan 28 2009, 03:30 PM Post #16 |
|
It's almost like "BoneZ 2.0". 
|
|
|
|
| 22205 | Jan 28 2009, 03:59 PM Post #17 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
hehe, aint that the truth bonez? but its all good man, you showed that you are a critical thinker and finally examined the presentation(s), and came to ur own conclusions that if im not mistaken, led you to agree that something aint right with the official story, but also gave you a very exact contradiction to analyze and accept the implications of. seriously tho, i dont hold it against you or anyone if they find the task of watching at least 2 hours (but up to 8 or more hours) of technical presentations. its a daunting task and can easily intimidate and discourage even a sincere researcher. so i think you have to find the right time and proper frame of mind to sit thru and absorb the information. of course the sooner would be the better, especially if you are going to publicly try and debate (against) the evidence. if arc continues to post WITHOUT having watched at least the North Side Documented, then i will have to fault him for still being unprepared for proper discussion about the pentagon. but he's young, probably doesnt have kid to raise, bills to pay, and "adult" responsibilities to take care of, so unlike you or me, he might actually have the time (soon) to watch and ABSORB as much of the evidence as presented by CIT and P4T as possible. arc seems passionate enough, having devoted enough time to putting together his own presentation/analysis, but let's see if the pseudoskeptical bug doesnt bite him yet. hopefully not, but i guess we'll just have to wait and see. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 28 2009, 05:18 PM Post #18 |
|
Hi am one of the researchers and filmakers. I will try and make this as easy as possible on you. Let's start with this first. The "physical evidence" IS the crime. In this case, our witnesses do back up the physical evidence. They all place the plane on a path that will not allow it to strike the light poles or the Pentagon which is supported by the anomalous/minimal damage/debris field which also indicates a 757 did not strike light poles or the Pentagon.
haha, well maybe you should watch it again. Did Dave Von Kleist research ALL the eyewitnesses from the Pentagon attack? Did he locate their locations? Did he locate photos or take photos of their PoV's? Did he critically analyze the accounts to determine if they actually saw the event or just deduced it because they saw a plane and then smoke rise in the distance? Did he determine a fatal flaw in the flight path of the Pentagon attack jet proving it could not hit by interviewing crucial eyewitnesses on location, on camera? Did you?
Maybe you should watch the other presentations. They have gotten a lot better in presentation. I am not sure what the qulaity of the filmaking has to do with the evidence uncovered.
Others have tried and have failed. You will also. Our evidence and research is bullet proof. I sense more ego and an unwillingness to admit you were wrong being the reason for your essay. Judging by your first kneejerk reaction post, I can tell you are putting your very DEBUNKED and OLD HAT beliefs first rather than actually digesting what it is we have done.
Yawn. I hate to yawn but these are the same tired arguments that have been rehashed desperately. First of all, there aren't 4. There are more than that 13+ to be exact. You just watched our first presentation of findings. Secondly, there aren't "well over 100 eyewitness testimonies". This is a generalize blank statement. Honestly, you should understand how many times people make that same mistake and assumption. I have personally analyzed almost every single account and have obtained many photos of PoV's. Many people couldn't even see the Pentagon. They either saw a plane and then smoke/fireball or saw the plane approach and thought it hit because of the fireball. This is called deduction. This is what the majority of your "well over 100 eyewitness testimonies" consist of. Don't believe me? Try a little research, I already did the bulk of it for you... http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82 Third, it wasn't "5 years later" as if that had anything to do with it in the first place. They ALL place the plane on the north side. It is a very simple black or white detail that THEY DID NOT AND CANNOT GET WRONG. Lagasse is the one who tipped us off in 2003 with his e-mail to Dick Eastman when he put the plane on the north side of the Citgo. Some of the ANC witnesses place the plane on the north side of the gas station just months after 9/11 in the CMH interviews. You have some serious catching up to do my friend.
Um, nooooo, you need to dig a little deeper there bud Sgt Lagasse and Sgt Brooks are very powerful witnesses. They are part of that vague "over 100 witness" list you mentioned. Lagasse has been used over and over to prove an impact of a plane. Perhaps you don't understand that we didn't buy the missile or global hawk, that we proved there was a plane. We are not promoting a missile or that these witnesses saw two planes. Maybe you don't understand what the 2nd plane cover story means. DO THE RESEARCH before commenting on this. Lagasse placed the cab and poles there BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE HE SAW THE PLANE FLY TOWARDS. Furthermore, the fact that their testimony relating to the flight path does NOT CORROBORATE with the physical evidence IS THE PROBLEM. Don't you get it?
Well I am not too worried. In a couple of months, you will be kicking yourself once you understand what it is we have done. Why don't you watch those officers ONE MORE TIME and then think about going to them and telling them they didn't see the plane on the north side of the gas station? What do you think that would be like. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 28 2009, 05:22 PM Post #19 |
|
Yeah really. Why didn't you put the witness names, source or the entire context of their statements? Why don't you show us where they were located? Why don't you show us what their PoV (Point of View) was? Do you take everything literally? Like this one?
Really? Did she? She was on the Reagan Metro platform. Please explain how she saw the plane hit:   Do you understand what deduction means now and why we have to study each individual account and independently confirm their statements? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 28 2009, 05:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 28 2009, 05:30 PM Post #20 |
|
I didn't even realize he was only 17. Well that figures Hoffman and Ashley(and the rest of the disinfo ops) could hustle a kid with this tripe |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 28 2009, 06:39 PM Post #21 |
|
If you are being honest here and if you actually view the evidence we have obtained in full I am quite sure you will change your mind about the Pentagon attack. We aren't theorizing here Kaman. We have done the legwork and we provide the evidence. We have never pushed any missile or 2-plane theories and we are just as much against this type of unsupported nonsense as you are. That is WHY we went to Arlington and exactly WHY we have continuously and furiously sought out as much independent verifiable evidence as we could obtain. To put an end to the disinfo theories and find out for real what happened. Well we have done just that by contacting as many people that we could get a hold of on that list you just copy and pasted as well as canvass the area on foot to find new previously unknown witnesses that have never been talked to by the media or government. That is TRUE independent data. As it stands the witnesses UNANIMOUSLY report one big plane with jet engines flying tree top level over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion. And they all independently place it on the north side approach proving it did not hit the building. What you need to realize is that the downed light poles leave zero room for error in the official flight path. Yet this is not where ANY of the witnesses saw the plane fly. There has been a significant amount of validating evidence uncovered since you watched The PentaCon. So much that Jim Hoffman refuses to even address it. Because he can't. No intellectual honest official story skeptic can view this evidence and dismiss it in favor of the official narrative. So please view the follow up evidence Kaman and come back and let me know what you think. First Part 1 and Part 2 of this: The North Side Flyover And then view this: The Eye of the Storm And then this by Pilots for 9/11 Truth: 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon I highly doubt you will still believe a 757 or any plane hit the Pentagon after viewing this scientifically validated evidence. I'll be interested in opening a dialog with you about this after you have viewed the evidence in full. Glad to see you are open and willing to look at new information! Peace and welcome to the forum. Craig |
|
|
|
| Arcterus | Jan 28 2009, 08:51 PM Post #22 |
|
This is going to be a long debate, I can tell.
No I wouldn't be. That would require me wanting to see a plane not hit. I'd rather see whatever did hit. I have no bias whatsoever. Therefore, I wouldn't be remotely disappointed.
You missed a few things. I also dismissed it because it's inconsistent with physical evidence, was taken five years later rather than shortly after, and because when they did try to draw exact flight paths, they didn't even end up quite the same.
I'm dismissing testimony that through Occam's Razor (in comparison with the other 100 statements I listed) suggests he's wrong, and also because it's outright inconsistent (not Occam's Razor here. This part isn't speculative) with the physical evidence.
Says the person who openly states to dismiss any evidence that doesn't come from a truther. Pot, meet kettle.
Doesn't the movie have a part near the end where they talk of reports that there were two planes?
I'll add the sources this time since I get hell in later posts. 1. “It was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down.” - Mark Bright 2. “He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire.” - Bruce Elliott 3. “Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her.” - Penny Elgas 4. “The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in.” - Walker Lee Evey 5. “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.” - Don Fortunato 6. “[she saw] a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles.”Kat Gaines 7. “It hit some lampposts on the way in.” - Afework Hagos 8. “[the [plane flew] over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building.” - Tom Hovis 9. “[he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.” - Don Mason 10. “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.” - Stephen McGraw 11. “I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles.” - Kirk Milburn 12. “As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110.” - Terry Morin 13. “Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.” - Mary Ann Owns 14. “On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner’s wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.” 15. “I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.” - Wanda Ramey 16. “It knocked over a few light poles in its way…” - Steve Riskus 17. “[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.” - Noel Sepulveda 18. “It turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles…” - Mike Walter 19. “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.” - Rodney Washington 20. “I saw it clip a light pole.” - Unnamed Navy Admiral
Okay, fine, 13 witnesses or whatever. It's irrelevant unless you can get a significantly large number of witnesses (No, "13" is not significantly large) and correlate their testimony to the physical evidence. The four witnesses in The Pentacon do not corroborate with the physical evidence, no matter how sure they are.
They're also taken years later and don't add up with any physical evidence or the many other eyewitness testimonies.
So you explicitly state you take the 9/11 Truth evidence over evidence obtained from any other source? I don't know why the government doesn't just give us the damn trial. With people like you doing the prosecution they could easily make a mockery of the whole movement.
Every single one of them except for over 100 other people.
Evasion, much? That testimony of the debris is extremely consistent with the physical evidence (not to mention is exactly what I state in my article, as even if there should have been large amounts of debris, most of it would have ended up inside of the building), but you seem more interested in his north side of the citgo claim, even though evidence contradicts that claim.
All you had to do was ask, buddy. In order of how I listed the original quotes: 1. Steve Anderson 2. Deb & Jeff Anlaub 3. Battle 4. Gary Bauer 5. Battle 6. Donald R. Bouchoux 7. Pam Bradley 8. Mark Bright 9. Joseph Candelario 10. Susan Carroll 11. James R. Cissell 12. Allen Cleveland 13. Wayne T. Day 14. Michael DiPaula 15. Mike Dobbs 16. Bob Dubill 17. Bobby Eberle 18. Bruce Elliott 19. Walker Lee Evey 20. Kim Flyler 21. Ken Ford 22. Afework Hagos 23. Joe Harrington 24. Albert Hemphill 25. Albert Hemphill 26. Fred Hey 27. Andrea Heiser 28. James Keglovich 29. Leslie Kelly 30. Aydan Kizildrgli 31. William Lagasse 32. "M.J" 33. M. Rick 34. Martinez, Oscar 35. McCusker, Elaine 36. McGraw, Stephen 37. Mosley, James 38. Munsey, Christopher 39. O’Keefe, John 40. Pak, Zinovy 41. Perry, Scott 42. Petitt, Mark 43. Regnery, Alfred S. 44. Renzi, Rick 45. Riskus, Steve 46. Robbins, James S 47. Ryan, Darb 48. Scott, Don 49. Smith, Dennis 50. “Steve” 51. Snaman, Steve 52. Stanley, G. T. 53. Sucherman, Joel 54. Sutherland, Jim 55. Stephens, Levi 56. Taylor, Shari 57. Thompson, Phillip 58. Ticknor, Henry 59. Timmerman, Tim 60. Vaughn, Clyde A. 61. Wallace, Alan 62. Wheelhouse, Keith 63. “Whisper2i” 64. Wright, Don 65. Wyatt, Ian 66. Yeingst, William 67. Unidentified man #1 68. Unnamed Navy admiral 69. O’Brien, Steve 70. Bauer, Gary 71. Bell, Mickey 72. Blunt, Ed 73. Boger, Sean 74. Donley, Daryl 75. Elgas, Penny 76. ElHallan, Aziz 77. Evey, Walker Lee 78. James, Isabel 79. Hovis, Tom 80. “K.M.” 81. Kean, Terrance 82. Leonard, Robert A. 83. Liebner, Lincoln 84. Lyman, Mary 85. M. K. 86. Middleton, William Sr. 87. Mitchell, Mitch 88. Morin, Terry 89. Narayanan, Vin 90. Mason, Don 91. Owens, Mary Ann 92. Patterson, Steve 93. Probst, Frank 94. Ramey, Wanda 95. Skarlet, Skarlet 96. Storti, Steve 97. Thompson, Carla 98. Walter, Mike 99. Washington, Rodney 100. Winslow, Dave
I don't see how witness accounts, regardless of whether or not they're reliable (which is an entirely separate issue I've already mentioned), is justification for not offering an explanation for physical evidence and a myriad separate eyewitness accounts.
Your entire basis for all this, including an implication that all the physical evidence was essentially faked, are witness accounts that are easily contradicted.
And also in direct contradiction to physical evidence and a myriad of eyewitness testimony, including testimony from I-395 where, as one of The Pentacon's own interviewees stated, they would have had a great view of the attack.
I'm viewing the new evidence you all keep giving me, and it's just as unconvincing. Also, you say I'm intentionally substantiating a lie, yet I have yet to hear a conclusive and valid counter-argument to anything I've been saying. I give my opinion, and the reasoning for it, and I have yet another COINTELPRO accusation, this one even more explicit than the last one.
Physical evidence of a plane strike is a moot point? Or is it just a point you'd rather not touch?
If "rebuttal" is like all the responses I've been getting so far, then I doubt I'll be convinced.
I DID! It was the first one I clicked. Don't accuse me of being lazy because I've been checking all these sources you've been referencing to me. But NOTHING so far is substantiating. NOTHING is conclusive and NOTHING is valid. Get me some real counters please.
I'm listening to them. But they're inconsistent. They could have been filmed on the moon for all I care, the fact of the matter is that their testimony doesn't add up, and I have no reason to take their accounts over the hundreds of others.
I agree, the truth is what it's about, which is why I've been taking the time to look into these sources, despite them being consistently weak in evidence.
...I'm confused...one of your own witnesses says he saw debris, and your response, after almost every one of your posts in this thread being about the lack of debris, say it supports your version that there was not any debris...huh?
People saw the plane hit the Pentagon too. Why is that testimony ignored? And I think it's bullshit that anyone of you so far would recant if you saw a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. You'd all claim it was faked and continue with your no-plane theories anyway. The ignorance I've seen so far in this thread gives me no doubt in that theory.
False. The physical evidence you reference is perfectly consistent with a high-speed, head-on crash of a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon.
What the hell? How is that any different with me? I came to my own conclusions too and agreed that something isn't right with the official story. How come my disagreeing on this aspect of 9/11, in comparison, turn me not into a critical theory but into COINTELPRO, lazy, etc...
Do not dare patronize me. My age does not corroborate with my intelligence or responsibilities. I'm an incredibly busy person with the work I do and I also have a great deal of personal life issues, such as my ex-fiancee breaking up with me last Summer, something I'm still not over. And instead of saying I'm unprepared for not [yet] watching The North Side Documented, how about you work on debunking what I say? You say you would, but I'm not hearing it. From anyone. I'm hearing COINTELPRO accusations and ad-hominem attacks.
Once again, you feel patronized. You act as though my very stance on the issue is indisputably wrong and you won't consider the possibility that I'm right (or, in some bizarre way, that we're both wrong, but that's obviously the least likely of the 3). Maybe it unintentional, but the response I'm getting from you is like an attempt at converting religion. As though I will soon be enlightened and converted if I just listen to what you have to say and accept it. Well, I will listen to what you and anyone else have to say, but unless I have any logical reason to accept it, I won't do that much.
More patronizing. Though I have to say, it's kind of cool that the director himself has come forward to debate with me.
As I've said time and time again, the physical evidence is very consistent with a 757 crash. Your witnesses place it on a path that CONTRADICTS, not correlates, the physical evidence, and other eyewitness testimony.
I wasn't saying Von Kleist was a fantastic researcher. I was saying his film was atrocious, but I happen to think yours was worse. Neither of you have much in valid and/or conclusive evidence. And no, I didn't, but do not be so ridiculous as to assert that because I haven't gone through the same weak evidence as you that my counters automatically become equally weak. The assertion is very close to going under the category of ad-hominem.
It's not, the quality wasn't a criticism of the evidence, I just pointed it out because, well, the film maker part of me had a lot of trouble watching it, but I was so dedicated in my word to look through every source that I persevered. It may have not amounted to much, but I don't necessarily regret taking the time to check out another source. Oh, the use of a camera microphone also drove me nuts. I wish you used a boom mic, if nothing else.
Bold words. Pompous ones too.
Do not patronize me, I never let me ego get in the way of the truth. Provide me with some real evidence and not the crap in your movie and I'll immediately re-contemplate my stance on the issue. Until then, I'm not budging.
I hardly think my first reaction post was a "kneejerk" reaction. I pointed out some of the major flaws in the film. So far I've been met with bias (I don't care about other witnesses), COINTELPRO accusations (supposedly on our side of the fence), and ad-hominem (Particularly in your later post. "What!? 17! What a moron."). "What you've done" is take a handful of witnesses years after the fact and cherry-picked parts of their testimony to suit your needs, no matter how they contradict with other evidence.
As I referenced earlier, such a small amount hardly makes up for the lack of corroborating physical evidence and contradictory eyewitness testimony from shortly after the event.
It's as if the 100 impact statements I posted went unnoticed... And your following link was pretty weak. Granted, some people weren't in ideal positions. However, some people WERE, including, as your own witness states, the people on I-395. Oh, and your own witnesses also saw an impact. Except for the first guy, but of course, he was too far away to see anything.
So...what..you were just joking when you said "November 2006"? And that has a great deal to do with it. In case this hadn't occurred to you, memory is more likely to deviate from the specifics of a past event as the time between said event and the present increases. Witness accounts five years later is statistically less reliable than statements taken within the first few hours.
Can't get it wrong? Says who? How misleading. What you have there is a straw-man argument. If you cherry-pick a group of witnesses and they all say something's true, it looks true to all who see. But an examination of the full body of eyewitness statements reveals that these claims are simply not supported by any significant testimony. The fact that this testimony was recorded five years later makes that all the more significant. Furthermore, it is not simply a question of “right/left” but also of “up/down.” You and your associates completely ignore this point and simply claim, if it was flying left, it MUST have been flying high—ignoring 3 out of 4 of your own witnesses who claimed it was flying low and hit the Pentagon! You have no supporting testimony or credible evidence to support a flyover. If the plane was flying very low, then it could not have missed the Pentagon. This is overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis presented in your Pentacon film is very weakly supported.
Your film repeatedly questions your witnesses if they saw a 2nd plane, and you argue a flyover as opposed to an actual plane crash. Conceding that there was a plane is not an argument towards what I've been criticizing, which is your argument that there was no impact.
INCORRECTLY
Don't YOU get it? If the testimony doesn't corroborate with the physical evidence when many other witness statements given testimony that DOES corroborate with the physical evidence, that is not grounds for deciding that the physical evidence was wrong or faked or whatever bullshit you're trying to claim. If the majority of witness testimony agreed with you, then you might have a case that the physical evidence is somehow faked, but since you don't, it gives ZERO CREDENCE to all of your witnesses.
What's with everyone being so completely sure they're right? I'm not sure if my arguments are even being considered when all these responses are filled with such patronizing cockiness.
Don't think I wouldn't. I'd tell them exactly what I'm saying now. I'm extremely well-known among my peers and mentors for my logical and blunt approach. I'd have no problem telling them what I find reasonable. If I have reason to disagree with their testimony, and I was in a position where I could up-front talk to them about it, I would take the opportunity in a heartbeat.
See above.
Obviously, with that perspective, she would not see the actual impact. However, you're cherry-picking again. You take one testimony and use it to try and discredit any other that opposes your conclusion. You only listen to YOUR witnesses, and only use the arguments which are supportive of your conclusion. It's one of the worst cases of bias I've ever seen in the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Of course I know what deduction means. I'm one of the best at it. Don't patronize me.
Cease with these ad-hominem attacks. My age has nothing to do with this. I'm one of the most intelligent people you'll ever meet, and sure enough, that claim is supported by eyewitness testimony. Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley are not disinfo ops. I've heard the COINTELPRO claims against them and it's complete bunk. Some people just take their theories a little too personally and can't dis-attach from their ego. That's clear from this post where I've been attacked from numerous people with very weak arguments and ad-hominem attacks. How about some real evidence? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 28 2009, 09:05 PM Post #23 |
|
actually its not going to be a long debate. you're almost 18 and you've figured it all out. those who's work you "duh-bunk" have been doing this since you were 12. but you know more than them. that list of 100 names you posted. how many of them have you actually see say those words? who told you they did? do you trust the media? |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 28 2009, 10:42 PM Post #24 |
|
Kamen, Please do yourself a favor and view the evidence. You can't have a "debate" regarding evidence you haven't even viewed! This isn't the proper forum to discuss this anyway. View the evidence and THEN come back to the Pentagon forum to have a discussion on whatever you have questions or issues with. I will give you the benefit of the doubt as an intelligent HONEST guy searching for truth. You already proclaimed that you are open to new evidence so please view all the links I provided in my last post before continuing this discussion. And remember.....out of context media quotes are not evidence, they are hearsay. Until you have first-hand witness accounts (audio or video recorded by ANYONE not just CIT) you are not providing evidence. We have spoken with DOZENS of witnesses first-hand and none of the list you are copying and pasting have been ignored. Most are honest people who saw the plane and heard the explosion in the distance. When they say "I saw the plane hit the Pentagon" it's almost NEVER literally because the topography in the area is very complex. The Pentagon is at the bottom of a hill and there are very few places where the alleged impact point is visible. We have demonstrated why first-hand confirmation is important and why it is ESSENTIAL to research the area and confirm the locations of the witnesses vs their true POV on the ground. So please....take a step back here and reserve judgment until you view the evidence in full. Isn't that fair? |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jan 29 2009, 04:16 PM Post #25 |
|
Nobody said there was no debris. I'm just saying there isn't enough debris to come close to showing a 757 hit the Pentagon. Because as I've already stated, witness testimony is hearsay unless supported by physical facts. There not enough debris to come close to accounting for a 757, not to mention the small hole that was left after impact. You keep saying it's perfectly consistent, but it's truly not. A large jetliner is not going to get sucked into an 18-20 foot hole. There wasn't even close to enough debris to account for a large 757. Until someone can produce pictures of that much wreckage, then there was no 757. If you go to court and 100 people say they saw you murder someone in cold blood, the judge is going to say, where's the proof? It doesn't matter if there's 1 person or 100, if the wreckage is not consistent with that large of a jetliner, if the hole is not consistent with that large of a jetliner, if the government won't release video of the large jetliner, then there was no jetliner. If there was no murder weapon, no body, then there was no murder, regardless of what 100 people say. Plane parts do not magically disappear upon impact. A 100,000+ pound plane will have 100,000+ pounds of wreckage strewn about. Until you or anyone else can show the 100,000+ pounds of wreckage, there was no 757. That's not to say that something much smaller impacted and was painted the colors of AA. There are certain things you can be open to, but certain things are definite like in there was definitely not 100,000+ pounds of plane wreckage shown anywhere I've seen. If you've got the proof and can show 100,000+ pounds of plane wreckage, then please show us, otherwise there was no 757. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Welcome Newcomers! · Next Topic » |
2:30 PM Nov 28
