South Side/Light Pole eyewitnesses

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!

Pages:
1
2
3
…
30

South Side/Light Pole eyewitnesses
Topic Started: Feb 10 2009, 06:18 PM (9,028 Views)
Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 01:35 PM Post #26
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: A handfull of people, Is that it? Or are they key witnesses (some of whom are the same published witnesses your ilk spammed as proof of a 757 impact) in key locations who you would logically seek out if you wanted to confirm or clarify where the plane flew, specifically which side of the Citgo??? Quote: interviewed by self-proclaimed "investigators" Wrong. Self proclaimed "Citizen Investigators". Citizens who investigate. Researchers into the Pentagon attack who went out to investigate the claims made by the gov't. Pretty simple. Pretty open and shut. Quote: with no previous experience or training in investigation of any sort, No previous experience? Researching the pentagon attack, witnesses, their locations, their PoV's, the FDR flight path etc. that isn't previous experience with the matter? I didn't know you needed "experience or training in investigation" to ask which side of the gas staton the plane flew on. Quote: almost half a decade after the fact. Lagasse put the plane on the NoC in 2003. The ANC guys just weeks after 9/11. Your point? You really think they could forget or misremember which side of the gas station the plane was even though they drove past, visited, and worked at or next to the Citgo gas station before, during, and everyday after the event??? Does that seem logical? You don't think they visually imagined or remembered the plane on that NoC flight path every day after they went by there? You don't think this was/is just an accepted, observed fact? You think this changes because you don't agree with what they saw? Quote: No complete record of the interviews. No transcripts. They are near complete. They are devoid of awkward silences, pauses, and general irrelevant minutae. If we misrepresented them or led the witnesses, it should be easy to prove. Contact them and ask them. You choose not to and choose to hold us to a silly requirement you know we will never adhere to. Just another one of your moved goal posts. Quote: And yet we are asked to give superior weight to this collection more than to the physical evidence and the testimony of a miriad of professionals. What physical evidence? What professionals? What testimony? Quote: We are even asked to go so far as to assume that all physical and techincal evidence that contradicts the product of these amatuer sleuths has therefore been manufactured. The product or the witness's account of a very simple detail? Why are you so pathetic that you have to bring it back to us? Are you jealous or do we make you feel inferior? Why is this about us? Why do you refuse to contact the witnesses and clear this up? The fact is that the a lot of the "technical evidence" came out AFTER and BECAUSE OF our evidence. The fact is a lot of that "technical evidence" does not even jive with the official story or even the facts that we have uncovered or established. Why are you refusing to understand the "technical evidence" of the topography and required G force required in the official flight path wihich makes it impossible? Quote: Sorry reasonable people would beg to differ and dismiss. Brother, there ain't nothin reasonable about you. In fact, there is no proof you are even real "people". Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Feb 13 2009, 01:45 PM.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


justfacts	Feb 13 2009, 01:51 PM Post #27
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	Quote: No previous experience? Researching the pentagon attack, witnesses, their locations, their PoV's, the FDR flight path etc. that isn't previous experience with the matter? I didn't know you needed "experience or training in investigation" to ask which side of the gas staton the plane flew on. There was a lot to address in your previous response but I thought would look at this statement. It would appear that before this these investigators had no previous experience in investigation, correct? It is quite apparent from the last part of the statement Quote: I didn't know you needed "experience or training in investigation" to ask which side of the gas staton the plane flew on. An experienced investigator would have never asked what side of the station the plane flew on, they would have asked them simply to describe, in their own words, the flightpath. Now by inferring the plane did fly on one side or the other of the gas station, the entire interview is tainted by this leading question.
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


pguillory	Feb 13 2009, 01:54 PM Post #28
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 13 2009, 12:26 PM Quote: The problem is that they have not been shown to be right. Yes they have. Over and over and over (X13). Quote: All you are clinging to is a few witnesses telling you where they believe or perceived the plane to be. Clinging? I think you got that under control. All we are doing is actually going there and interviewing key witnesses in key locations who all place the plane on the north side. We are also interviewing people we believe are in on it who either agree with the noc or are very silent about it. All YOU are doing is clinging to really bad research and vague published accounts (that we had to clarify for you). We are applying a detailed investigation into a very simple detail. Quote: All of them think or saw the plane hit the pentagon. Um that is a negative good buddy. Especially when the plane approached on the north side. So they didn't see the plane approach on the north side of the Citgo, but according to the almighty Pguillory, they are right about the impact or seeing the impact. Hmmmmm. WOW. Again, it can't hit the building or the light poles when it approaches from the north side of the Citgo. Plus, how do you know what they THINK now? You base your fucking reality on the words they said in the video in a moment of a time. A time where they thought they were just there to tell the story about the alleged impact of Flight 77 to quell conspiracy theories. Do you know what they believe now? Again, Sgt Brooks called our movie an "eye-opener" and that "anything is possible" when it comes to him being fooled. So what do you think Lagasse thinks right now? Did you know that he stands by which side of the gas station the plane is on even now knowing the implications??? Quote: You give them no credit for that last part. You give them no credit for that first part which logically cancels out or negates that "last part". LOL. Quote: You can't explain the flyover. Yeah, we have. The plane approached on the north side in a bank, pulled up into an ascent over/after Rt 27, went to the corner/side of the building, and was seen in the south parking lot banking around the parking lot 50-100 ft over the light poles. Quote: It is something you have made up. How old are you? You can't be this obtuse can you? We made it up? That's it? Like with our imagination? It doesn't have anything to do with the north side flight path/pull-up that prevents an official story impact? Quote: In any event of this scale you can find ten or so people to say many things. Nice generalization. Well go ahead then killer. Go find ten or so people who saw the plane on the south side of the Citgo, hitting light poles, namely pole 1 into Lloyd's cab. Quote: Why did Lagasse see the plane yaw into the pentagon? He didn't. Go back and watch the movie again. He admitted that he didn't see what the plane did because of the fireball. He deduced the "yaw movement" from tons of pictures like this that show the plane at an angle: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/pentagon&plane.jpeg Also remember that he flinched after he saw the plane to his left, on the north side ahem, and jumped into his car to grab the radio. Quote: Why did many more than ten people see the plane impact the pentagon? What more than 10? Who? Where were they located? What was their vantage point. Who do they work for? Did you actually clarify that they actually saw the plane strike the building or whether they are deducing it? Quote: How were they fooled? A fast moving plane and then an explosion. That's how. Some could also be lying, did you ever consider that? Quote: Why is the damge to the pentagon consistant with impact of fast moving object from south flight path? According to who? You? It is also consistent with explosives. 'Why is the damge to the pentagon consistant with impact from south flight path"??? Um because that is how they designed their simulation. Your disbelief in "why" they put the plane NoC but the damage path SoC helps reinforce your belief that it "has to be" SoC. They are using the severe denial that you are in against you. Doesn't that make you mad? If your goal is to convince people that the govt carried out 9/11 because some people say they saw the plane noc therefore, the plane flew over, the poles were staged, the DNA was faked, the damage was simulated, the other witnesses didn't see what they say they saw ( just the ones we talked to), the debris was planted on the front lawn, Lloyd England is working for the govt, etc., you will never reach it. The only so called proof you have is that some people say the plane was in a certain position. Lagasse states clearly that he saw the plane 'yaw' into the building. He would not use that decription if he just deduced it. You know that people from every perspective were fooled by the fireball on the western side of the pentagon, while the plane flew over? OK.
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08


noeffects	Feb 13 2009, 02:16 PM Post #29
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	ooo...a "miriad" of compartmentalized professionals' testimonies . lol. Tell Lagasse he's wrong then...
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


justfacts	Feb 13 2009, 02:38 PM Post #30
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	noeffects Feb 13 2009, 02:16 PM ooo...a "miriad" of compartmentalized professionals' testimonies . lol. Tell Lagasse he's wrong then... Fine. He's wrong.
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


noeffects	Feb 13 2009, 02:49 PM Post #31
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	"An experienced investigator would have never asked what side of the station the plane flew on, they would have asked them simply to describe, in their own words, the flightpath. Now by inferring the plane did fly on one side or the other of the gas station, the entire interview is tainted by this leading question." - Just Matlock thanks for the laugh...
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 02:51 PM Post #32
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	justfacts Feb 13 2009, 02:38 PM noeffects Feb 13 2009, 02:16 PM ooo...a "miriad" of compartmentalized professionals' testimonies . lol. Tell Lagasse he's wrong then... Fine. He's wrong. Not us and the anonymous internet world. Lagasse himself. Face to face. Voice to voice.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


justfacts	Feb 13 2009, 02:52 PM Post #33
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	noeffects Feb 13 2009, 02:49 PM "An experienced investigator would have never asked what side of the station the plane flew on, they would have asked them simply to describe, in their own words, the flightpath. Now by inferring the plane did fly on one side or the other of the gas station, the entire interview is tainted by this leading question." - Just Matlock thanks for the laugh... Don't know where you see the humor....oh, wait I get it! Yeah, it is pretty stupid to ask a leading question and then claim to be an "investigator".
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 03:03 PM Post #34
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Quote: No previous experience? Researching the pentagon attack, witnesses, their locations, their PoV's, the FDR flight path etc. that isn't previous experience with the matter? I didn't know you needed "experience or training in investigation" to ask which side of the gas staton the plane flew on. There was a lot to address in your previous response but I thought would look at this statement. It would appear that before this these investigators had no previous experience in investigation, correct? It is quite apparent from the last part of the statement Well again, what is your point? What does our experience in "investigating" have to do with what the witnesses told us? Did you ask the witnesses if we misrepresented their accounts as investigators. It sounds as if you are floundering and reaching for anything to make your case seem like it has weight. Quote: Quote: I didn't know you needed "experience or training in investigation" to ask which side of the gas staton the plane flew on. An experienced investigator would have never asked what side of the station the plane flew on, they would have asked them simply to describe, in their own words, the flightpath. Now by inferring the plane did fly on one side or the other of the gas station, the entire interview is tainted by this leading question. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. As if it would have made a difference. Are you seriously fucking saying that because we became more specific and asked them which side of the gas station the flew on, that this actually made them ALL misremember the same detail? Again, genius, they all stand by where they saw plane even in light of the implications. Are you for real? Aren't you tired of moving those goal posts?
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 03:04 PM Post #35
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	justfacts Feb 13 2009, 02:52 PM noeffects Feb 13 2009, 02:49 PM "An experienced investigator would have never asked what side of the station the plane flew on, they would have asked them simply to describe, in their own words, the flightpath. Now by inferring the plane did fly on one side or the other of the gas station, the entire interview is tainted by this leading question." - Just Matlock thanks for the laugh... Don't know where you see the humor....oh, wait I get it! Yeah, it is pretty stupid to ask a leading question and then claim to be an "investigator". How the fuck is it leading when the plane HAD TO fly on A SIDE of the gas station? Right? It had to fly on one of the sides right? The north or south, right? You truly are astonishing. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Feb 13 2009, 03:48 PM.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


tuatara	Feb 13 2009, 03:13 PM Post #36
Posts: 197 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09	As the starter of this thread can I bring it back to the original reason why I started it? Quote: 1. Show that the flightpath that they observed is not incompatible with the plane striking the 5 light poles OR 2. Provide detailed eye-witness accounts that prove that the plane did strike the light poles and thus refute the eye-witnesses that CIT has interviewed. I am assuming that this was a busy highway and there must have been many people who saw the plane strike the poles and a pole strike the cab. So let's keep it simple. Please choose either 1 or 2 and state your best evidence. I have seen zero evidence so far, what's the problem? If you want to go down the "conflicting evidence of eye-witnesses" road then find some evidence of the "light pole flight path" so we can assess the conflicts. Busy highway, lots of eye-witnesses surely????
Posts: 197 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09


justfacts	Feb 13 2009, 03:24 PM Post #37
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	Well, yes and the internet is chock full of their statements. However, their statements have been unilaterally dismissed because, of all things, they are either associated with the government or the press. Mind you, on any given rush hour morning in D.C. you would venture to guess that at least a majority of persons on the road work for either the government or the press. The statements are out there, use google and you will find them, I would rather you do it yourself so nobody is accused of bias.
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 04:09 PM Post #38
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: If your goal is to convince people that the govt carried out 9/11 because some people say they saw the plane noc therefore, the plane flew over, the poles were staged, the DNA was faked, the damage was simulated, the other witnesses didn't see what they say they saw ( just the ones we talked to), the debris was planted on the front lawn, Lloyd England is working for the govt, etc., you will never reach it. WTF are you talking about? We have convinced people. Lots of people. We get e-mails of praise damn near everyday. We got a midnight tour of the Pentagon by a rescue recovery worker/victim because "we convinced people". We convinced April Gallop. We convinced Bob Pugh. We convinced senior director of an ABC television show.You are delusional if you think your frustration laced declaration of us not reaching our goal of convincing people will carry any weight with me. It means nothing because it means nothing. Quote: The only so called proof you have is that some people say the plane was in a certain position. Lagasse states clearly that he saw the plane 'yaw' into the building. He would not use that decription if he just deduced it. You know that people from every perspective were fooled by the fireball on the western side of the pentagon, while the plane flew over? OK. Huh? Well I guess you are going to just gloss over the part where he asked Lagasse is he actually saw what the plane did and he admitted he didn't because of the fireball that could only mean that you ASSUMED he was talkin about what he "saw" versus what he actually deduced years later from multiple images of the event and was merging into his description of the event.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 04:16 PM Post #39
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Well, yes and the internet is chock full of their statements. However, their statements have been unilaterally dismissed because, of all things, they are either associated with the government or the press. Mind you, on any given rush hour morning in D.C. you would venture to guess that at least a majority of persons on the road work for either the government or the press. The statements are out there, use google and you will find them, I would rather you do it yourself so nobody is accused of bias. They? Their statements? Statements? Guess? Why don't you get specific? Because you know you will get stomped. You would rather leave it vague and ambiguous and hope that readers/lurkers will "google it" and simply become convinced because they read it and it said what you said it would say. Rather than them actually being able to understand every detail required for their statements to be valid.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


justfacts	Feb 13 2009, 04:27 PM Post #40
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	Quote: They? Their statements? Statements? Guess? I really don't know what you mean with this word string. Quote: Why don't you get specific? Because you know you will get stomped. No need to get violent. Quote: You would rather leave it vague and ambiguous and hope that readers/lurkers will "google it" and simply become convinced because they read it and it said what you said it would say. Yes, I would rather not lead anybody. Invite them to search for themselves, see the sources and the citations and make their own decisions. Quote: Rather than them actually being able to understand every detail required for their statements to be valid. And who did you have in mind to impart this understanding on the unwashed masses? Are you afraid that someone may look at other perspectives and sources and draw other conclusions?
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


justfacts	Feb 13 2009, 04:38 PM Post #41
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 13 2009, 03:04 PM justfacts Feb 13 2009, 02:52 PM noeffects Feb 13 2009, 02:49 PM "An experienced investigator would have never asked what side of the station the plane flew on, they would have asked them simply to describe, in their own words, the flightpath. Now by inferring the plane did fly on one side or the other of the gas station, the entire interview is tainted by this leading question." - Just Matlock thanks for the laugh... Don't know where you see the humor....oh, wait I get it! Yeah, it is pretty stupid to ask a leading question and then claim to be an "investigator". How the fuck is it leading when the plane HAD TO fly on A SIDE of the gas station? Right? It had to fly on one of the sides right? The north or south, right? You truly are astonishing. Wrong. Well, wrong if you are interested in conducting an investigation. Right if you are just trying to get only certain answers. Wasn't the stated purpose to determine the witnesses recollection of the flightpath of flight 77?
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 05:03 PM Post #42
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Quote: They? Their statements? Statements? Guess? I really don't know what you mean with this word string. Well it pertained to that whole "specific" thingy you left out. Quote: Quote: Why don't you get specific? Because you know you will get stomped. No need to get violent. Oh silly, you know what I meant. Meaning I would pounce you and rip your counter evidence to shreds in other words "get stomped". Just curious, what is your s/n on JREF? Quote: Quote: You would rather leave it vague and ambiguous and hope that readers/lurkers will "google it" and simply become convinced because they read it and it said what you said it would say. Yes, I would rather not lead anybody. Invite them to search for themselves, see the sources and the citations and make their own decisions. Please. It's not about leading anyone. It's about stating your case, not leaving it to unresearched individuals to be fooled or mistaken. You are trying to CYA while you mislead the readers to look at the very witness accounts we analyzed (and contacted) to validate their accounts. You won't get specific because you know you don't have a case. You just have the same unverified, unclarified witness accounts that have been floating out there for 7 years. Yet you people want to talk about us ACTUALLY speaking with witnesses on location on camera, getting as detailed as possible about a very simple detail (some had mentioned shortly after 9/11) a mere 5 years later. Quote: Quote: Rather than them actually being able to understand every detail required for their statements to be valid. And who did you have in mind to impart this understanding on the unwashed masses? Are you afraid that someone may look at other perspectives and sources and draw other conclusions? Oh STFU. Who did I have in mind? Me. You know the guy who analyzed all the witness account, contacted or attempted contact of a majority of them, placed them, obtained their PoV, and knows the if it ain't verified it don't mean shit partner. I am afraid people will read them and not think it through. I am trying to get you to post one or some so I can make an example out of you. Like the slippery JREFer you are you are trying to get out of it and shift YOUR lack of confidence my way. Like take Sue Carroll. Did she see the plane hit the Pentagon?
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 05:13 PM Post #43
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Wrong. Well, wrong if you are interested in conducting an investigation. Right if you are just trying to get only certain answers. Certain answers like which side of the gas station the plane was on? LOL. So it is only right if we are interested in conducting an investigation into which side of the gas stion Quote: Wasn't the stated purpose to determine the witnesses recollection of the flightpath of flight 77? No there was no Flight 77 and yes that was the stated purpose and with the Citgo/ANC witnesses the stated purpose was to determine their recollection of the flightpath; specifically which side of gas station the plane was on. Remember when Craig asked Sgt Brooks which side of the gas station the plane was on, Sgt Brooks indicated to the left of the camera frame or the north side, Craig asked if it was over the canopy and Brooks said no it was more to the left. Your goal is not to confront this issue and resolve it with the witnesses or the gov't and get to the truth, your goal is dissuade readers of the validity and urgency of the evidence.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 05:14 PM Post #44
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Justfacts it justfoolish.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


justfacts	Feb 13 2009, 05:24 PM Post #45
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	You analyzed? Thats fine. Perfectly acceptable. Let others do the same, thats all. Let them find the interviews and statements and draw their own conclusions. What is an "unresearched individual"? Exactly how does contacting someone and asking them to repeat what they said to you validate anything? "A mere 5 years"? Granted in some context 5 years isn't much, but witness statements for an event that took what, 5 or 6 seconds to unfold? You analyzed ALL the witness accounts? How many did you actually attempt to contact? Did you get a hold of Gary Bauer? Why can't others be allowed to analyze all the witness accounts?
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 05:33 PM Post #46
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: You analyzed? Thats fine. Perfectly acceptable. Let others do the same, thats all. Let them find the interviews and statements and draw their own conclusions. Really? So when someone says the plane knocked down some light poles, they are to accept that they saw it rather than them deducing it? Quote: What is an "unresearched individual"? You and the new people. Quote: Exactly how does contacting someone and asking them to repeat what they said to you validate anything? Repeat it? No sneaky. Clarify it. Confirm it. Refute it. I like how you skipped Susan Carroll... Quote: “I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon.” -Susan Carroll "Duh uuuhhhh, hmmm. Seems pwetty open and shut, she saw duh plane hit and nothing about duh flyover. Duuuhh. Why would I needz to contact her for herz to repeat herz-self" Really? She was on the Reagan Metro platform. Please explain how she saw the plane hit: Or DS Khavkin... Quote: D.S. Khavkin: "First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles." That was right from that piece of shit Mark Robert's blog. Really, Mark? No need to get her to "repeat herself" right, JF? Although she might want to tell Mark how she actually saw the plane knock down poles from that location. Dunces. Quote: "A mere 5 years"? Granted in some context 5 years isn't much, but witness statements for an event that took what, 5 or 6 seconds to unfold? You mean an event that was involves a very simple right or left detail? An event they recollected months to a couple of years later? Quote: You analyzed ALL the witness accounts? How many did you actually attempt to contact? Did you get a hold of Gary Bauer? http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82 Quote: Why can't others be allowed to analyze all the witness accounts? Because unless they understand the concept of deduction and independent verification, there is a chance they will be as gullible as you. Now quit wasting everyone's time! Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Feb 13 2009, 05:49 PM.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


tuatara	Feb 13 2009, 05:51 PM Post #47
Posts: 197 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09	justfacts Feb 13 2009, 03:24 PM Well, yes and the internet is chock full of their statements. However, their statements have been unilaterally dismissed because, of all things, they are either associated with the government or the press. Mind you, on any given rush hour morning in D.C. you would venture to guess that at least a majority of persons on the road work for either the government or the press. The statements are out there, use google and you will find them, I would rather you do it yourself so nobody is accused of bias. All I am asking is for one eye-witness (other than the confused taxi driver) to the plane hitting the light poles who can be reasonably confirmed to have been in a position to see the event (remember busy highway, plane hitting light poles, not an every day event). I haven't seen one which is why I am asking here of people who are convinced that there is nothing wrong with the official theory of 9/11. If the internet is chock-full, find me one that convinces you that you haven't been duped. That was the original point of the thread.
Posts: 197 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09


justfacts	Feb 13 2009, 06:13 PM Post #48
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	Quote: Really? So when someone says the plane knocked down some light poles, they are to accept that they saw it rather than them deducing it? They are going to draw their own conclusions. Just like you did. Again, "unresearched individuals"?? You know by common American English that means persons who have not been researched. Not persons that have not done research. Quote: "Duh uuuhhhh, hmmm. Seems pwetty open and shut, she saw duh plane hit and nothing about duh flyover. Duuuhh. Why would I needz to contact her for herz to repeat herz-self" You know I have tried to be as civil as possible in this exchange and you have continued to be degrading and condescending. I would hope your interactions with witnesses was better conducted. The link you posted doesn't work, or more to the point it requires me to "log in" and I am not going to do that, what were you trying to say? Also, don't you think that there is a chance at least that others may better understand the concepts of deduction and verification than you do?
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


justfacts	Feb 13 2009, 06:22 PM Post #49
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	tuatara Feb 13 2009, 05:51 PM justfacts Feb 13 2009, 03:24 PM Well, yes and the internet is chock full of their statements. However, their statements have been unilaterally dismissed because, of all things, they are either associated with the government or the press. Mind you, on any given rush hour morning in D.C. you would venture to guess that at least a majority of persons on the road work for either the government or the press. The statements are out there, use google and you will find them, I would rather you do it yourself so nobody is accused of bias. All I am asking is for one eye-witness (other than the confused taxi driver) to the plane hitting the light poles who can be reasonably confirmed to have been in a position to see the event (remember busy highway, plane hitting light poles, not an every day event). I haven't seen one which is why I am asking here of people who are convinced that there is nothing wrong with the official theory of 9/11. If the internet is chock-full, find me one that convinces you that you haven't been duped. That was the original point of the thread. Well, you just cited to qualifiers, one: it can't be the cab driver (I don't know why) and two: "reasonably confirmed", I don't know what that means to you and don't know what standards you are using for "reasonable".
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


JFK	Feb 13 2009, 08:44 PM Post #50
Posts: 4,219 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	justfacts Feb 13 2009, 06:13 PM The link you posted doesn't work, or more to the point it requires me to "log in" and I am not going to do that, what were you trying to say? Gee, That's funny. It works perfectly fine from here. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82 Edited by JFK, Feb 13 2009, 08:46 PM.
Posts: 4,219 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
…
30