Alfie

Sep 29 2009, 05:00 AM

DM

Quote:

 

You keep calling Toriac a troll, along with "captain stupid " and "mr low life ", but you ignore the fact that this is his thread in the Skeptics section.

Quote:

 

The subject of the thread is about whether there is any evidence that UA 93 was artificially delayed at Newark.

Quote:

 

In your post 138 you said "I am not here to discuss phone calls or plane delays ". You go out of your way to make it clear that you have no intention of addressing the subject of his thread,

Quote:

 

The official story does add up. Its the myriad of ever changing theories that the truth puts forth that don't add up.

Quote:

 

really?

what flew over indian lake prior the explosion coming from the direction of the crash site then?

perhaps i can tell mayor lichty.....

Quote:

 

wow......no answer for me. how surprising.

Quote:

 

I guarantee you that you nor the person you got that from knows, so why are you asking us? It doesn't prove anything.

Quote:

 

When you are dealing with people you can't just run with whatever they say. Remember Lagasse forgot which pump he was at? It is an exspected mistake. He is human. Could this witness be wrong on any aspect of what he said. Yes.

Quote:

 

so then there is justification to have another investigation, correct?

because mayor lichty and the marina owner jim brandt, and his employees carol delasko, john fleegle, & tom spinelli and chris smith over at the golf course all heard something fly over them prior to the explosion in shanksville.

jim stop told the pittsburgh tribune review it was flight 93 and it flew over him while he was fishing in indian lake.

but we all know that since the "official story adds up" that flight 93 can never fly over indian lake so are you prepared to call all these highly credible people liars or admit that the official story doesn't add up?

Quote:

 

its a group of witnesses.....

not one.

mayor barry lichty.
marina owner jim brandt.
marina manager john fleegle.
marina employees carol delasko and tom spinelli.
golf course employee chris smith.
and jim stop fishing in a boat in the lake.

thats 7 people.

Quote:

 

I'm assuming that you are assuming that whatever they heard flyover was UA93?

Quote:

 

you're assuming that i'm assuming and you're only making an ass out of u and not me.

they all heard it.

jim stop saw it.

you can't explain it.

the official story does not add up.

concede.

Quote:

 

Since flight 93 was not delayed on purpose, it was not crashed in Shanksville to give the 'hero' story. This proves that it only crashed in Shanksville because the delay gave the passengers a chance try and save their lives.


There is no reason to speculate forever about what someone may have heard over the lake, or what someone expected to see at the crash site.

Quote:

 

the people that i named who heard and watched it fly over indian lake prove it didn't crash in shanksville. you have offered no explanation whatsoever for their accounts because the only explanation you can offer is to call them liars.

but they are not anonymous internet personas but real live breathing human beings who were in indian lake on the morning of 9/11.

theres no speculation because there was only one plane headed in that direction and if it crashed in shanksville like you claim then these witnesses would never have had any story to tell.......

your official story is a fabrication and has been proven so. concede.

Quote:

 

Mabe your witnesses heard the drone?

Quote:

 

The official story does add up. Its the myriad of ever changing theories that the truth puts forth that don't add up.

Quote:

 

so who's the troll ?

Alfie

Sep 29 2009, 04:47 AM

JFK

Sep 29 2009, 02:01 AM

Alfie

Sep 29 2009, 01:55 AM

ToS

Sep 28 2009, 08:27 PM

Toriac

Sep 28 2009, 07:51 PM

I'm satisfied with the evidence and witnesses on record. There is no need to go out and harrass people 8yrs later.

Someone please ban this closed-minded troll?

ToS

If you want to ban people just because they disagree with you why have a skeptics section ar all ?

I'll answer that.

Because on rare occasions out of the mouths of skeptics come good points which may be worthy of further research.

The same is not true of trolls.

JFK

Problem is that troll on here just seems to mean a skeptic arguing his points.

I haven't been here very long but I have seen a succession of skeptics banned but no truther. Even when they call another member " Mr lowlife " or " Captain Stupid " as DM does above.

I'm frankly surprised I am still here. IMO there must be some lurkers out there who will have come to the conclusion that, even in a special skeptics section, dissent is not welcome.

You obviously have it in your hands to get rid of all skeptic opinion whenever you want but then you just go back to a handful of posters patting each other on the back a million miles from having any impact on the world outside.

Toriac

 

What is it called when a truther puts forth an IDEA or OPINION

Toriac

 

and calls it a fact?

Toriac

 

What is it called when they can't support these opinions with any facts or evidence?

Toriac

 

Why am I a troll for asking how the flyover could have worked physically?

Toriac

 

No truther has even attempted to opine as to how this flyover could have worked physically.
That is the least you could do, if you are going to call it a fact.

Toriac

 

How could they plan the 'lets roll' thing unless they knew they would delay flight 93 long enough to make it work?

Toriac

 

These are real questions that pertain the the facts as we know them.

JFK

Sep 29 2009, 11:36 AM

Toriac

 

What is it called when a truther puts forth an IDEA or OPINION

Theory

Toriac

 

and calls it a fact?

Deduction

Toriac

 

What is it called when they can't support these opinions with any facts or evidence?

hypothesis

Toriac

 

Why am I a troll for asking how the flyover could have worked physically?

You are a troll for ignoring the flightpath by multiple witnesses and not knowing the flight characteristics of a 757-200 series or the topography of the area which makes the 5 frame low and level across the lawn "video" impossible, yet defending the official story as vehemently as you do based on your lack of knowledge.

Toriac

 

No truther has even attempted to opine as to how this flyover could have worked physically.
That is the least you could do, if you are going to call it a fact.

Actually several have, yet you refuse to listen and continue your trolling path.

Toriac

 

How could they plan the 'lets roll' thing unless they knew they would delay flight 93 long enough to make it work?

Perhaps that is what "they" did. Again I refer you to a bit of history

Toriac

 

These are real questions that pertain the the facts as we know them.

You need to learn the facts and dispose your faith.

Toriac

Sep 29 2009, 11:51 AM

You can't use the noc witnesses to deduce there was a flyover, because the noc theory has not been shown to be a fact. Using opinions to validate other onpinions. The flyover has to be physically possible and it is not. There is no way a plane could have flown low and fast toward the base of the pentagon and had enough time to pull up and over. There is no way it could be done as to fool everyone from every perspective. There is no way Lagasse would think the plane flew into the base of the pentagon, if it flew over. There is no way the plane synced with the explosion and didn't get damaged by it. It would have to be that close. There are many more points that prove the flyover is physically impossible, which proves the plane was not noc. I'm dealing with reality not faith.

JFK

Sep 29 2009, 11:57 AM

Toriac

Sep 29 2009, 11:51 AM

You can't use the noc witnesses to deduce there was a flyover, because the noc theory has not been shown to be a fact. Using opinions to validate other onpinions. The flyover has to be physically possible and it is not. There is no way a plane could have flown low and fast toward the base of the pentagon and had enough time to pull up and over. There is no way it could be done as to fool everyone from every perspective. There is no way Lagasse would think the plane flew into the base of the pentagon, if it flew over. There is no way the plane synced with the explosion and didn't get damaged by it. It would have to be that close. There are many more points that prove the flyover is physically impossible, which proves the plane was not noc. I'm dealing with reality not faith.

Let's see your math then.

Toriac

Sep 29 2009, 12:25 PM

JFK

Sep 29 2009, 11:57 AM

Toriac

Sep 29 2009, 11:51 AM

You can't use the noc witnesses to deduce there was a flyover, because the noc theory has not been shown to be a fact. Using opinions to validate other onpinions. The flyover has to be physically possible and it is not. There is no way a plane could have flown low and fast toward the base of the pentagon and had enough time to pull up and over. There is no way it could be done as to fool everyone from every perspective. There is no way Lagasse would think the plane flew into the base of the pentagon, if it flew over. There is no way the plane synced with the explosion and didn't get damaged by it. It would have to be that close. There are many more points that prove the flyover is physically impossible, which proves the plane was not noc. I'm dealing with reality not faith.

Let's see your math then.

It doesn't take math. The plane would have to go where the explosion initiated. The explosion initiated on the first floor. If Lagasse and the other witnesses who saw the plane hit the building were fooled, the plane would have had to go through the building. When did the plane meet the explosion? A fireball will start small and expand. Where was the plane at the beginning of the explosion? Where would it have to be to be hidden by the fireball? People from other perspectives would not have the fireball blocking their views. There are so many criteria that simply can't be met for the flyover to be successful.

Domenick DiMaggio

Sep 29 2009, 11:43 PM

please dont allow the troll to drive this discussion off topic.

this is about the shanksville event and not the event in arlington.

Toriac

Sep 30 2009, 10:40 AM

Come up with something new.