| 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! |
| Talking Points | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 8 2009, 02:07 PM (179 Views) | |
| gunplumber | Oct 8 2009, 02:07 PM Post #1 |
|
I'm rather new to the world of the 9/11 Truth Movement, having recently decided to drop any pre-conceptions about the events of the day, and look at the evidence. I must say, it's shocking how much evidence there is that makes the "official story" look ridiculous. I have been reading about the research CIT has done in regards to the Pentagon Flyover event. For my own clarity, and so I can give a proper answer to a friend who is still a fence-sitter, I have a quick question. I believe I understand fairly well the flightpath data and of course, the eyewitness testimony as well as the staged light poles. It's obvious a flyover is quite feasable and I believe it has been proven that's indeed what happened. The only part I'm stuck on is why would the perpetrators choose to do a flyover rather than actually fly whatever aircraft was used into the Pentagon? Was the aircraft meant to do another flyover on another target after the Pentagon flyover? Or was it some sort of classified exotic aircraft that the perps could not afford to destroy? Any help would be appreciated not only for myself, but also so I can give a solid answer in discussions with fence-sitter/skeptic types. Thanks, gunplumber |
 |
 
|
| tuatara | Oct 8 2009, 03:27 PM Post #2 |
|
You'll find that once the little word "why" appears, then nobody has any answers - just opinions. Stick to the actual evidence, as "debunkers" would rather spout about how an inside job would have done this or that rather than actually address the fact that nobody at all corroborates the taxi driver's tale. |
|
|
|
| scott75 | Oct 8 2009, 04:54 PM Post #3 |
|
I know that many share your view tuatara, but not everyone, and I include myself in that list. Think of it this way; once upon a time, most people even within the truth movement had -very- little evidence as to all the distortions and outright lies were in the official story regarding 9/11. Instead, what we had most of were questions. Personally, I think that frequently, the hardest part in an investigation is answering the "whys". The fact that the question gunplumber is asking is of this variety is, in a very real way, a good thing, as it suggests that the rest has been fairly well answered. You and others think that we should only focus on the relatively sure things, such as what happened, but I personally don't see why we have to limit ourselves in this way. I'm sure that many of the things that we now have so much evidence for started out as speculations that some then set out to find if there was evidence or not for it. This is essentially the scientific method; you start with a hypothesis, which is essentially the same as a speculation, an intuition, or a guess. Then, you set about to see if there is any evidence for against this hypothesis. When you've found sufficient evidence one way or another, it becomes a theory. And if you find proof, it can become fact. So I don't see why we shouldn't engage in some speculation concerning this issue. As a matter of fact, I asked the very same question you did in another forum, and got some responses. The only one I still remember is that they may have wanted to confuse people who saw the plane fly over the pentagon. I'll elaborate on this possibility; if the official story had shown the plane coming in as they described, then people seeing it flying away would be able to point out that it was following the same path. However, if the official story made an elaborate plan to fool people into thinking that it came in from a direction that it didn't, it would be easier to persuade people that the plane they saw flying away from a different direction. As a matter of fact, CIT did a video on the 2nd plane hoax. Update: I was thinking of another element; could it be that crashing in the part of the pentagon that it allegedly crashed into would have been impossible? I know that Rob Balsamo of PFT essentially stated the the official flight path would have been impossible due to the Gs required to pull out of the dive, regardless of whether or not the plane was at the height that the NTSB states. What I'm not sure of is if there was any way in which the plane could have crashed into that part of the building. The reason that part of the building is so important is because that's where many important files regarding an estimated missing 2.3 trillion dollars were stored. Edited by scott75, Oct 8 2009, 05:11 PM.
|
|
|
| tuatara | Oct 8 2009, 05:12 PM Post #4 |
|
You can speculate all you want - but those of us who have been looking at this for a while already know that this is never going to be blown open by the mainstream media so we are effectively trying to convince everyone in the world one by one. If gunplumber wants to convince open-minded people (best to give up with the closed-minded ones), best to stick to the evidence and let them work through the speculation themselves. Once you present the North of Citgo evidence, they really have to make the choice between multiple people in multiple locations being fooled in a similar way or the impossible physics and uncorroborated story of a taxi driver. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 8 2009, 05:32 PM Post #5 |
|
tuatara is correct. But this is how I like to answer that question to make it 100% CLEAR that they are demanding speculation: I just provided hard evidence proving the plane did not hit the building and now you are asking me to speculate why. If I were to speculate I think there are a few potential and even obvious reasons for this: 1. Total precision control of the damage to their own headquarters including who was killed. Obviously they did not plan to completely demolish the Pentagon and conveniently no top brass were murdered. It would be infinitely more difficult for them to predict what damage would be caused from the impact of a plane compared to pre-planted explosives where they would have complete control. 2. Total control of the crime scene and physical evidence. The north side flyover jet is an unidentified aircraft and there is no reason to believe it was "Flight 77". They could conveniently use any craft for this purpose while the risk factor of a large plane that WASN'T Flight 77 hitting the building leaving large pieces of debris in the open to be quickly photographed would be too great. The plan becomes more difficult and even impossible if it has to Flight 77 hitting the building, which it would if they had any plane hit. 3. The low and level descent of a 757 in to the part of the building that they wanted to get destroyed (newly renovated section opposite top brass that housed the office of Naval accounting) is physically impossible as demonstrated by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. The direct evidence we have for a second plane cover story simply demonstrates how they were able to pull it off while providing a plausible excuse for those who saw the plane flying away and does not give an explanation as to why they did not want the plane to hit the building in the first place. scott75 didn't explain it very well and misrepresented us as usual. He likes to speak for us without quoting us. Take everything he says with a grain of salt because his contradictory actions show that he is more interested in obfuscation than truth. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Oct 8 2009, 05:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
| gunplumber | Oct 8 2009, 08:22 PM Post #6 |
|
Hello Craig, That is perfect. Keep the focus on the facts provided by our side, while pointing out the skeptics need to have people speculate on an unknown. Then engage in some speculation while keeping established facts never far from the conversation. They are guessing, we are not. I appreciate all the input everyone. As I'm still very new to all this, I'm going to keep an open mind to all suggestions. Many Thanks, gunplumber Edited by gunplumber, Oct 8 2009, 08:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
| scott75 | Oct 10 2009, 12:51 AM Post #7 |
|
-This time-, I was actually thinking of something that you specifically had said. I believe you said it at PFT. If I had had the post where you'd stated your theory on what might have happened at hand, I would have quoted you. What do you feel I misrepresented?
What contradictory actions?
I happen to know that that's not true, and I don't even understand why -you'd- think that's true, but there you have it. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
1:33 PM Nov 29
