espresso

Mar 23 2009, 04:35 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:24 PM

Find some SoC eye-witnesses and get back to me OK? The original point of this thread still remains.

Any witness to the impact is a SoC flightpath witness, correct?

espresso

Mar 23 2009, 04:35 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:24 PM

Find some SoC eye-witnesses and get back to me OK? The original point of this thread still remains.

Any witness to the impact is a SoC flightpath witness, correct?

Quote:

 

Aldo Marquis CIT

Mar 23 2009, 04:13 PM

espresso

Mar 23 2009, 04:09 PM

He never said that the pole hit his hood, he said it went through his windshield and the physical evidence doesn't contradict this.

Go back and watch it dopey, I asked him and he said it was laying on his hood, you fucking time wasting goof. He even showed Russell Pickering how he allegedly removed the pole that was on his hood:

http://thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm#FirstKnownAccomplice

He said it was sticking out "across the hood" and the picture he drew showed the pole above the hood of the car, not on it. He never claimed that the pole damaged his hood so there's no reason to call him a liar because the hood wasnt damaged.

Quote:

 

Quote:

 

What physical evidence? You mean the photographs?

No, I mean the pieces of the plane, the DNA of the passengers, etc which was present after the crash.

Quote:

 

Quote:

 

What "physical" evidence do you have that proves a 757 made contact with said object?

I don't have any of it in my posession. Perhaps you should contact the FBI, coroner, rescue workers, firefighters, American Airlines, victims family members, etc if you'd like to see it first-hand.

Aldo Marquis CIT

Mar 23 2009, 04:10 PM

You should be kicked in the fucking head you know that?

Quote:

 

you fucking time wasting goof

Aldo Marquis CIT

Mar 23 2009, 04:38 PM

espresso

Mar 23 2009, 04:35 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:24 PM

Find some SoC eye-witnesses and get back to me OK? The original point of this thread still remains.

Any witness to the impact is a SoC flightpath witness, correct?

Nope, stupid. Don't you get it yet?

If they saw it impact, are they an NoC witness? Don't you think you should confirm exactly what they saw?

of course you don't, because you are a cowardly Investigoogler. You are no different than the conspiracy theorists you've been making fun of all these years.

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:24 PM

espresso

Mar 23 2009, 04:17 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

 

NoC requires you to have absolute faith in these eyewitnesses. Absolute faith that even though what they say is impossible, none of them are wrong about the flight path.

It isn't impossible and I am comforted that there are so many of them.

It is impossible for a plane on the NoC flightpath to have impacted the pentagon.

Quote:

 

Quote:

 

Soc on the other hand just requires you to realize that they aren't perfect and can be wrong.

And believing a single cab driver with an implausible tale and no eye-witnesses. You can't claim the SoC path as the default if the evidence is not there for it.

I don't believe it because of the cab driver. Physical evidence trumps eyewitnesses.

Quote:

 

Quote:

 

the broken light pole = evidence
the hole in his windshield and damage to his car = evidence

Actually that is strong evidence for somebody trying to make it appear as if a pole has struck a car, there is no logical reason for the pole to be removed.

He stated that he removed it. His actions are not required to conform to your logic.

Find some SoC eye-witnesses and get back to me OK? The original point of this thread still remains.

I believe in Father Christmas and that he delivers presents to all the children in the world on Christmas Eve. If you don't, please that it is untrue.

Stich2306

 

"You believe in Father Christmas because someone told you he exists, just like this NoC theory."

Miragememories

Mar 24 2009, 06:22 AM

NoC is not a theory.

To say it is, is promoting a lie.

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 04:06 AM

OK so to review we have on the south side :-

Afework Hagos and his 2 lines from the Guardian newspaper.
Keith Wheelhouse and his not so great location for viewing.

Any more for any more?

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:39 PM

espresso

Mar 23 2009, 04:35 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:24 PM

Find some SoC eye-witnesses and get back to me OK? The original point of this thread still remains.

Any witness to the impact is a SoC flightpath witness, correct?

Any witness to the SoC flightpath is a witness to the SoC flightpath.

espresso

Mar 25 2009, 01:46 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:39 PM

espresso

Mar 23 2009, 04:35 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:24 PM

Find some SoC eye-witnesses and get back to me OK? The original point of this thread still remains.

Any witness to the impact is a SoC flightpath witness, correct?

Any witness to the SoC flightpath is a witness to the SoC flightpath.

Since an impact is contradictory to NoC, why is it necessary for any eyewitness to mention the gas station in order to contradict the NoC flightpath?

Domenick DiMaggio

Mar 25 2009, 04:47 AM

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 04:06 AM

OK so to review we have on the south side :-

Afework Hagos and his 2 lines from the Guardian newspaper.
Keith Wheelhouse and his not so great location for viewing.

Any more for any more?

keith wheelhouse?

how did that happen?

he couldn't see the gas station and made no mention of the plane hitting any light poles......

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 02:58 PM

espresso

Mar 25 2009, 01:46 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:39 PM

espresso

Mar 23 2009, 04:35 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:24 PM

Find some SoC eye-witnesses and get back to me OK? The original point of this thread still remains.

Any witness to the impact is a SoC flightpath witness, correct?

Any witness to the SoC flightpath is a witness to the SoC flightpath.

Since an impact is contradictory to NoC, why is it necessary for any eyewitness to mention the gas station in order to contradict the NoC flightpath?

I didn't say they had to mention the Gas Station, I say they had to witness an approach from the south side of the Citgo station, that is they had to witness the approach that you claim was made by the plane. If a person didn't see the approach then they are not a valid witness of the approach - seems pretty clear to me.

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 03:01 PM

Domenick DiMaggio

Mar 25 2009, 04:47 AM

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 04:06 AM

OK so to review we have on the south side :-

Afework Hagos and his 2 lines from the Guardian newspaper.
Keith Wheelhouse and his not so great location for viewing.

Any more for any more?

keith wheelhouse?

how did that happen?

he couldn't see the gas station and made no mention of the plane hitting any light poles......

Domenick,

He is being claimed as a south-side witness on this thread so I added him to the list. I am doing my best to reach an agreement so we can pit the south-side claims against the north side claims.

Domenick DiMaggio

Mar 25 2009, 04:21 PM

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 03:01 PM

Domenick DiMaggio

Mar 25 2009, 04:47 AM

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 04:06 AM

OK so to review we have on the south side :-

Afework Hagos and his 2 lines from the Guardian newspaper.
Keith Wheelhouse and his not so great location for viewing.

Any more for any more?

keith wheelhouse?

how did that happen?

he couldn't see the gas station and made no mention of the plane hitting any light poles......

Domenick,

He is being claimed as a south-side witness on this thread so I added him to the list. I am doing my best to reach an agreement so we can pit the south-side claims against the north side claims.

who claimed that?

cit interviewed him on camera.

he was not in position to tell what side of the gas station the plane was on but the fact that in his account he does not mention seeing the plane strike any light poles resolves this issue for me.

so again i go back to who determined this and how?

did you see cit's interview with him?

espresso

Mar 25 2009, 03:52 PM

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 02:58 PM

espresso

Mar 25 2009, 01:46 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:39 PM

espresso

Mar 23 2009, 04:35 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:24 PM

Find some SoC eye-witnesses and get back to me OK? The original point of this thread still remains.

Any witness to the impact is a SoC flightpath witness, correct?

Any witness to the SoC flightpath is a witness to the SoC flightpath.

Since an impact is contradictory to NoC, why is it necessary for any eyewitness to mention the gas station in order to contradict the NoC flightpath?

I didn't say they had to mention the Gas Station, I say they had to witness an approach from the south side of the Citgo station, that is they had to witness the approach that you claim was made by the plane. If a person didn't see the approach then they are not a valid witness of the approach - seems pretty clear to me.

Fair enough. Do you agree that if the plane impacted, it was on a SoC approach?

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 04:38 PM

espresso

Mar 25 2009, 03:52 PM

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 02:58 PM

espresso

Mar 25 2009, 01:46 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:39 PM

espresso

Mar 23 2009, 04:35 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:24 PM

Find some SoC eye-witnesses and get back to me OK? The original point of this thread still remains.

Any witness to the impact is a SoC flightpath witness, correct?

Any witness to the SoC flightpath is a witness to the SoC flightpath.

Since an impact is contradictory to NoC, why is it necessary for any eyewitness to mention the gas station in order to contradict the NoC flightpath?

I didn't say they had to mention the Gas Station, I say they had to witness an approach from the south side of the Citgo station, that is they had to witness the approach that you claim was made by the plane. If a person didn't see the approach then they are not a valid witness of the approach - seems pretty clear to me.

Fair enough. Do you agree that if the plane impacted, it was on a SoC approach?

If the plane flew on the NoC approach it couldn't have been on the SoC approach. That is the point of the thread.

espresso

Mar 26 2009, 09:24 AM

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 04:38 PM

espresso

Mar 25 2009, 03:52 PM

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 02:58 PM

espresso

Mar 25 2009, 01:46 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:39 PM

espresso

Mar 23 2009, 04:35 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:24 PM

Find some SoC eye-witnesses and get back to me OK? The original point of this thread still remains.

Any witness to the impact is a SoC flightpath witness, correct?

Any witness to the SoC flightpath is a witness to the SoC flightpath.

Since an impact is contradictory to NoC, why is it necessary for any eyewitness to mention the gas station in order to contradict the NoC flightpath?

I didn't say they had to mention the Gas Station, I say they had to witness an approach from the south side of the Citgo station, that is they had to witness the approach that you claim was made by the plane. If a person didn't see the approach then they are not a valid witness of the approach - seems pretty clear to me.

Fair enough. Do you agree that if the plane impacted, it was on a SoC approach?

If the plane flew on the NoC approach it couldn't have been on the SoC approach. That is the point of the thread.

Yes.
And if the plane flew into the Pentagon, it couldn't have flown a NoC approach - agreed?

tuatara

Mar 26 2009, 02:05 PM

espresso

Mar 26 2009, 09:24 AM

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 04:38 PM

espresso

Mar 25 2009, 03:52 PM

tuatara

Mar 25 2009, 02:58 PM

espresso

Mar 25 2009, 01:46 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:39 PM

espresso

Mar 23 2009, 04:35 PM

tuatara

Mar 23 2009, 04:24 PM

Find some SoC eye-witnesses and get back to me OK? The original point of this thread still remains.

Any witness to the impact is a SoC flightpath witness, correct?

Any witness to the SoC flightpath is a witness to the SoC flightpath.

Since an impact is contradictory to NoC, why is it necessary for any eyewitness to mention the gas station in order to contradict the NoC flightpath?

I didn't say they had to mention the Gas Station, I say they had to witness an approach from the south side of the Citgo station, that is they had to witness the approach that you claim was made by the plane. If a person didn't see the approach then they are not a valid witness of the approach - seems pretty clear to me.

Fair enough. Do you agree that if the plane impacted, it was on a SoC approach?

If the plane flew on the NoC approach it couldn't have been on the SoC approach. That is the point of the thread.

Yes.
And if the plane flew into the Pentagon, it couldn't have flown a NoC approach - agreed?

There were multiple possible approaches for the plane to take which could have resulted in an impact with the Pentagon. A NoC approach would not have enabled the plane to strike the light poles that were photographed on the ground.

espresso

Mar 26 2009, 02:17 PM

Do you agree that if the plane was NOC it couldn't have impacted?

Lin Kuei

Mar 26 2009, 02:28 PM

espresso

Mar 26 2009, 02:17 PM

Do you agree that if the plane was NOC it couldn't have impacted?

Regardless of how you want to direct the argument, it is a serious problem for the official story that the flight path was North of the Citgo gas station.

You can try and make it about the (supposed) impact, but the multiple verifications of the NoC path and its implications for the official narrative remain.

espresso

Mar 26 2009, 02:47 PM

My point was that the multiple verifications of the actual impact pose a problem for the NoC flight path. Whether or not these eyewitnesses mentioned the citgo is irrelevant since NoC is impossible if the plane impacted.

espresso

Mar 26 2009, 02:47 PM

My point was that the multiple verifications of the actual impact pose a problem for the NoC flight path. Whether or not these eyewitnesses mentioned the citgo is irrelevant since NoC is impossible if the plane impacted.