Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Witnesses List Broken Down; No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses
Topic Started: Jan 15 2008, 03:11 PM (4,665 Views)
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 02:59 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 02:50 PM
How do you know there are no witnesses to a flyover? You heard the 911 calls and read the transcrpits that were confiscated and sequestered? You spoke with everyone in the area?
Absence of evidence is not evidence.
Methinks you don't know what that phrase (bolded) means.

It means that the LACK of anyone reporting a flyover is not:
- Evidence that someone reported same and that it was covered up
- Evidence that the flyover happened and it wasn't reported

Therefore, the lack of witnesses to a flyover is not evidence in support of your theory. (Even if your theory demands that any reports of same be concealed)
Meknows you are wrong.

I have 7-8 witnesses who place the plane on the north side, 1 of which places it pulling up, a fraudelant FDR, an altered gas station video, a fraudelant Security video, a fabricated flight path, and witnesses who are adamant that it did not look like AA all of which points to and supports a flyover.

THAT is all I have ever contended and provided evidence for, Nicecircle. I have evidence that supports a flyover, I have not produced any witnesses for such and I don't have to. Your cult continues to state that there were no witnesses to a flyover. This is not fact. Absence of evidence is not evidence. I do not have an absence of evidence and have the PRESENCE of evidence.

Get it, sweety? Or do we need to go around in another circle?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 03:08 PM
nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 02:59 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 02:50 PM
How do you know there are no witnesses to a flyover? You heard the 911 calls and read the transcrpits that were confiscated and sequestered? You spoke with everyone in the area?
Absence of evidence is not evidence.
Methinks you don't know what that phrase (bolded) means.

It means that the LACK of anyone reporting a flyover is not:
- Evidence that someone reported same and that it was covered up
- Evidence that the flyover happened and it wasn't reported

Therefore, the lack of witnesses to a flyover is not evidence in support of your theory. (Even if your theory demands that any reports of same be concealed)
Meknows you are wrong.

I have 7-8 witnesses who place the plane on the north side, 1 of which places it pulling up, a fraudelant FDR, an altered gas station video, a fraudelant Security video, a fabricated flight path, and witnesses who are adamant that it did not look like AA all of which points to and supports a flyover.

THAT is all I have ever contended and provided evidence for, Nicecircle. I have evidence that supports a flyover, I have not produced any witnesses for such and I don't have to. Your cult continues to state that there were no witnesses to a flyover. This is not fact. Absence of evidence is not evidence. I do not have an absence of evidence and have the PRESENCE of evidence.

Get it, sweety? Or do we need to go around in another circle?
Really? How many eyewitnesses reported that the plane flew over the pentagon? (I'll help you out with this)

Zero.

Absense of evidence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 03:18 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 03:08 PM
nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 02:59 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 02:50 PM
How do you know there are no witnesses to a flyover? You heard the 911 calls and read the transcrpits that were confiscated and sequestered? You spoke with everyone in the area?
Absence of evidence is not evidence.
Methinks you don't know what that phrase (bolded) means.

It means that the LACK of anyone reporting a flyover is not:
- Evidence that someone reported same and that it was covered up
- Evidence that the flyover happened and it wasn't reported

Therefore, the lack of witnesses to a flyover is not evidence in support of your theory. (Even if your theory demands that any reports of same be concealed)
Meknows you are wrong.

I have 7-8 witnesses who place the plane on the north side, 1 of which places it pulling up, a fraudelant FDR, an altered gas station video, a fraudelant Security video, a fabricated flight path, and witnesses who are adamant that it did not look like AA all of which points to and supports a flyover.

THAT is all I have ever contended and provided evidence for, Nicecircle. I have evidence that supports a flyover, I have not produced any witnesses for such and I don't have to. Your cult continues to state that there were no witnesses to a flyover. This is not fact. Absence of evidence is not evidence. I do not have an absence of evidence and have the PRESENCE of evidence.

Get it, sweety? Or do we need to go around in another circle?
Really? How many eyewitnesses reported that the plane flew over the pentagon? (I'll help you out with this)

Zero.

Absense of evidence.
WOW.

Dude, you are not too bright, Nicecircle.

Do you realize we are back at where we started again, Nicecircle.

You just ignored everything I just typed and proceeded on with your ignorance. Do you think typing ZERO in larger fonts changes this conversation?

AGAIN, how do you know 0 "reported" a flyover? Did you hear the 911 call tapes and read the transcripts? You CANNOT say DEFINITIVELY that 0 reported a flyover, just like I CANNOT say DEFINITIVELY that someone DID report a flyover. Do you understand?

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

But what I can say DEFINITIVELY is that the witnesses at the Citgo all place it on the north side, Robert Turcios has it pulling up, Sean Boger places it on the north side, Levi Stephens places it on the north side, more than witness is adamant that the plane did not look like an AA, the FDR is fraudelant, the flight path is fraudelant, the Citgo video has been altered, and the Gate video is fraudelant. That is the *presence* of evidence that support and even proves the flyover.

Presence of evidence is evidence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 03:32 PM
AGAIN, how do you know 0 "reported" a flyover? Did you hear the 911 call tapes and read the transcripts? You CANNOT say DEFINITIVELY that 0 reported a flyover, just like I CANNOT say DEFINITIVELY that someone DID report a flyover. Do you understand?

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

I can definitively say that there are ZERO reports of anyone witnessing a flyover because ...

There are zero reports of anyone witnessing a flyover

The fact that zero reports exist does not support your theory. (That's what "absence of eivdence is not evidence" means) You're trying to claim that there might be reports that we just don't know about. Speculation isn't evidence either.

ZERO.
Edited by nicepants, Jan 22 2008, 03:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 03:49 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 03:32 PM
AGAIN, how do you know 0 "reported" a flyover? Did you hear the 911 call tapes and read the transcripts? You CANNOT say DEFINITIVELY that 0 reported a flyover, just like I CANNOT say DEFINITIVELY that someone DID report a flyover. Do you understand?

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

I can definitively say that there are ZERO reports of anyone witnessing a flyover because ...

There are zero reports of anyone witnessing a flyover

The fact that zero reports exist does not support your theory. (That's what "absence of eivdence is not evidence" means) You're trying to claim that there might be reports that we just don't know about. Speculation isn't evidence either.

ZERO.
But in light of the PRESENCE of our evidence, you cannot say DEFINITIVELY that ZERO reported a flyover, because you do not know. You don't know. Just like I don't know if someone did report a flyover. You can say zero til you are blue in the face, you can bold it, use bigger fonts, put it in italics, change the font color it does not mean that YOU "know" there were zero.

Did I say "Someone saw a flyover and reported it, but we can't hear it because the tapes were confiscated."? No, I said we cannot say that someone DID or DIDN'T report a flyover, because WE CAN'T. It is physically impossible and a MOOT POINT.

But I bet you remember all the other stuff I listed that wasn't a MOOT POINT.

Let's boil it down to a simple point...have you heard the unedited 911 calls or read the transcripts, yes or no?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

bileduct
Jan 22 2008, 11:29 AM
I have just proven that your witness could not have possibly been where he claims to have been to witness the "pull up" as you have interpreted it. Therefore, as there are no other witnesses to the claim, it didn't happen.

Excellent work on that bileduct. I can't say this is a slam-dunk case to disbelieve Turcios (or the CIT interpretation), but these are very good points. To add to the pile.

Hey, Aldo - all these sources contradict Robert's pull-up account... true. Don't forget the Citgo video - he should be in 'single pump side" camera's view if he was where he says in the video, but you guys yourselves admit he doesn't show up there.

Quote:
 
AGAIN, how do you know 0 "reported" a flyover? Did you hear the 911 call tapes and read the transcripts? You CANNOT say DEFINITIVELY that 0 reported a flyover, just like I CANNOT say DEFINITIVELY that someone DID report a flyover. Do you understand?


True, to prove a negative is impossible. To prove a positive however, after your rigorous on-site verificational excursions, isn't it odd that to claim there MAY BE flyover witnesses you have to cite tapes that will never be released to verify, and to keep the pressure on Turcios' lonely and implausible pull-up?

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Caustic Logic
Jan 22 2008, 04:08 PM


Quote:
 
bileduct
Jan 22 2008, 11:29 AM
I have just proven that your witness could not have possibly been where he claims to have been to witness the "pull up" as you have interpreted it. Therefore, as there are no other witnesses to the claim, it didn't happen.

Excellent work on that bileduct. I can't say this is a slam-dunk case to disbelieve Turcios (or the CIT interpretation), but these are very good points. To add to the pile.


Adam you are such a transparent cheeleader. Did you miss all the other logic and the counterpoints listed in my rebuttal? Or are you just ignoring it and positively reinforcing Bileduct's tripe to give the impression that what he said was actually valid? Because most everyone here knows what you are and how you operate.

Quote:
 
Hey, Aldo - all these sources contradict Robert's pull-up account... true.


False. I love how you just say it. You act as if you are looking at this objectively. Caustic Logic has been one of main detractors and will do and say anything to cast doubt, even act like a 911 truther to blend into sites desperately cast doubt on our work.


Quote:
 
Don't forget the Citgo video - he should be in 'single pump side" camera's view if he was where he says in the video, but you guys yourselves admit he doesn't show up there.


Oh and don't forget the fact that the video was altered because they removed the camera angle that caught impact. Oh and don't forget that they released the Citgo video 10 days after I spoke with Robert and got the north side, and 5 days after I announced it.

But you don't mention that, "Adam"? Gee how come? Is it because you enjoy misleading people or because you get paid to mislead people? Or is it because you only want people on one singluar misleading piece of disinfo at a time?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
AGAIN, how do you know 0 "reported" a flyover? Did you hear the 911 call tapes and read the transcripts? You CANNOT say DEFINITIVELY that 0 reported a flyover, just like I CANNOT say DEFINITIVELY that someone DID report a flyover. Do you understand?


True, to prove a negative is impossible. To prove a positive however, after your rigorous on-site verificational excursions, isn't it odd that to claim there MAY BE flyover witnesses you have to cite tapes that will never be released to verify, and to keep the pressure on Turcios' lonely and implausible pull-up?


Odd? No not at all. You, you are odd. But that, naaaw.

"Adam", did you forget about the 7 north side witnesses? How about the fraudelant FDR? The fraudelant flight path? The fraudelant gate cam video? How come those "fraud" don't "frustrate" you? How come you are always distracting people, "Adam"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 04:05 PM
But in light of the PRESENCE of our evidence, you cannot say DEFINITIVELY that ZERO reported a flyover, because you do not know.
You don't know. Just like I don't know if someone did report a flyover. You can say zero til you are blue in the face, you can bold it, use bigger fonts, put it in italics, change the font color it does not mean that YOU "know" there were zero.

Did I say "Someone saw a flyover and reported it, but we can't hear it because the tapes were confiscated."? No, I said we cannot say that someone DID or DIDN'T report a flyover, because WE CAN'T. It is physically impossible and a MOOT POINT.

But I bet you remember all the other stuff I listed that wasn't a MOOT POINT.

Let's boil it down to a simple point...have you heard the unedited 911 calls or read the transcripts, yes or no?
Definitely there are zero reports of a flyover.

Speculation about what you think might be in 911 tapes or transcripts is not evidence, it's just speculation. The absence of that evidence does not mean that your speculation of what that evidence may contain is evidence.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

nicepants
 
I believe they saw what they said they saw, not what YOU concluded that they saw.

Again, do you believe the plane hit from north of the CITGO. If so, where do you believe the downed light poles were located before they were downed?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 04:35 PM
Definitely there are zero reports of a flyover.

...oooor definitely there are no 911 calls or transcripts??


Speculation about what you think might be in 911 tapes or transcripts is not evidence, it's just speculation.


I didn't say what might be in the tapes. I didn't speculate. I didn't claim it to be evidence.

I said that I didn't know what was in the tapes so I could not say. Just like, you don't know what was in those tapes so you could not say.

Yet you say, there are zero reports of a flyover. Yet, the record of all the "reports" is being witheld and you have not heard it, yet, you say "Definitely there are zero reports of a flyover."

Anybody else sick of Nicepants' circles?

You ever going to address the other pieces of evidence??????????????????????????????



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 04:25 PM

Adam you are such a transparent cheeleader. Did you miss all the other logic and the counterpoints listed in my rebuttal? Or are you just ignoring it and positively reinforcing Bileduct's tripe to give the impression that what he said was actually valid? Because most everyone here knows what you are and how you operate.

What am I Aldo? Disnfo? I've see others accusing YOU more vaguely than that and get warnings. And why should I disguise my 'cheerleading?'

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Hey, Aldo - all these sources contradict Robert's pull-up account... true.


False. I love how you just say it. You act as if you are looking at this objectively. Caustic Logic has been one of main detractors and will do and say anything to cast doubt, even act like a 911 truther to blend into sites desperately cast doubt on our work.


Quote:
 


Oh and don't forget the fact that the video was altered because they removed the camera angle that caught impact. Oh and don't forget that they released the Citgo video 10 days after I spoke with Robert and got the north side, and 5 days after I announced it.


Yes, of course... they removed the views of 'impact' and then altered the views left to remove your witness and insert a shadow that indicates a south path. Just to discredit Robert and his magical pull-up disposable training pants. That was a big operation. Do you still think Russell was involved with that?
Quote:
 


Quote:
 
But you don't mention that, "Adam"? Gee how come? Is it because you enjoy misleading people or because you get paid to mislead people? Or is it because you only want people on one singluar misleading piece of disinfo at a time?


No need to keep repeating your baseless assertions when you're here yourself to do it. I cover the points I chose to and you can do yours.

Quote:
 
"Adam", did you forget about the 7 north side witnesses? How about the fraudelant FDR? The fraudelant flight path? The fraudelant gate cam video? How come those "fraud" don't "frustrate" you? How come you are always distracting people, "Adam"?


The pay's just too good, jackass. :-/ Yes, I'm 8IGNORING* these issues and hoping they'll go away, it's all so hopeless for me as I struggle to prop up the official story. Woe is me you guys got me cornered, oh dear.


Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 23 2008, 01:52 AM
nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 04:35 PM
Definitely there are zero reports of a flyover.

...oooor definitely there are no 911 calls or transcripts??


Speculation about what you think might be in 911 tapes or transcripts is not evidence, it's just speculation.


I didn't say what might be in the tapes. I didn't speculate. I didn't claim it to be evidence.

I said that I didn't know what was in the tapes so I could not say. Just like, you don't know what was in those tapes so you could not say.

Yet you say, there are zero reports of a flyover. Yet, the record of all the "reports" is being witheld and you have not heard it, yet, you say "Definitely there are zero reports of a flyover."

Anybody else sick of Nicepants' circles?

You ever going to address the other pieces of evidence??????????????????????????????



You keep clamoring about 911 transcripts as if there is evidence of your conspiracy there. Unless you have proof of that, sorry, no evidence of ANY reports of any flyover.

There are Zero reports of a flyover. Zero.

Got it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

avenger
 
nicepants
 
I believe they saw what they said they saw, not what YOU concluded that they saw.

Again, do you believe the plane hit from north of the CITGO. If so, where do you believe the downed light poles were located before they were downed?


The statement of mine you're quoting was in response to Aldo's conclusion that his eyewitnesses who report seeing an impact did not actually see an impact.....and he has no factual basis for making said claim.

As to the eyewitness accounts I disagree with, I only disagree with the statements which contradict the available physical evidence & majority of eyewitnesses. I believe the downed light poles were located where the 20 or so light pole impact witnesses said they saw them and where it is supported by the physical evidence. I don't have a photo/map off hand but I believe they are all on the generally-agreed-upon flight path.
Edited by nicepants, Jan 23 2008, 10:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Smiling_Gorilla
Member Avatar
troll
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 04:25 PM
Caustic Logic
Jan 22 2008, 04:08 PM


Quote:
 
bileduct
Jan 22 2008, 11:29 AM
I have just proven that your witness could not have possibly been where he claims to have been to witness the "pull up" as you have interpreted it. Therefore, as there are no other witnesses to the claim, it didn't happen.

Excellent work on that bileduct. I can't say this is a slam-dunk case to disbelieve Turcios (or the CIT interpretation), but these are very good points. To add to the pile.


Adam you are such a transparent cheeleader. Did you miss all the other logic and the counterpoints listed in my rebuttal? Or are you just ignoring it and positively reinforcing Bileduct's tripe to give the impression that what he said was actually valid? Because most everyone here knows what you are and how you operate.

Quote:
 
Hey, Aldo - all these sources contradict Robert's pull-up account... true.


False. I love how you just say it. You act as if you are looking at this objectively. Caustic Logic has been one of main detractors and will do and say anything to cast doubt, even act like a 911 truther to blend into sites desperately cast doubt on our work.


Quote:
 
Don't forget the Citgo video - he should be in 'single pump side" camera's view if he was where he says in the video, but you guys yourselves admit he doesn't show up there.


Oh and don't forget the fact that the video was altered because they removed the camera angle that caught impact. Oh and don't forget that they released the Citgo video 10 days after I spoke with Robert and got the north side, and 5 days after I announced it.

But you don't mention that, "Adam"? Gee how come? Is it because you enjoy misleading people or because you get paid to mislead people? Or is it because you only want people on one singluar misleading piece of disinfo at a time?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
AGAIN, how do you know 0 "reported" a flyover? Did you hear the 911 call tapes and read the transcripts? You CANNOT say DEFINITIVELY that 0 reported a flyover, just like I CANNOT say DEFINITIVELY that someone DID report a flyover. Do you understand?


True, to prove a negative is impossible. To prove a positive however, after your rigorous on-site verificational excursions, isn't it odd that to claim there MAY BE flyover witnesses you have to cite tapes that will never be released to verify, and to keep the pressure on Turcios' lonely and implausible pull-up?


Odd? No not at all. You, you are odd. But that, naaaw.

"Adam", did you forget about the 7 north side witnesses? How about the fraudelant FDR? The fraudelant flight path? The fraudelant gate cam video? How come those "fraud" don't "frustrate" you? How come you are always distracting people, "Adam"?
So your argument is that, even though you have never found anyone who reported seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon, the Doubletree video clearly shows nothing flying over the Pentagon at the point moment of impact, the Citgo video shows a shadow pass to the south, and all physical evidence indicates that AA flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, everything that doesn't support a flyover is fraudulent.

Great research. When will you be presenting your "evidence" to a grand jury?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 03:49 PM
There are zero reports of anyone witnessing a flyover

The fact that zero reports exist does not support your theory. (That's what "absence of eivdence is not evidence" means) You're trying to claim that there might be reports that we just don't know about. Speculation isn't evidence either.

ZERO.
You're lying.

There are reports of a plane flying over the Pentagon at the moment. There are reports of a plane veering away from the Pentagon as the explosion took place.

Are you saying those reports don't exist?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
Jan 23 2008, 12:11 PM
nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 03:49 PM
There are zero reports of anyone witnessing a flyover

The fact that zero reports exist does not support your theory. (That's what "absence of eivdence is not evidence" means) You're trying to claim that there might be reports that we just don't know about. Speculation isn't evidence either.

ZERO.
You're lying.

There are reports of a plane flying over the Pentagon at the moment. There are reports of a plane veering away from the Pentagon as the explosion took place.

Are you saying those reports don't exist?


"A plane"? I'm not talking about any other possible air traffic in the area, I'm talking about the pane that your witnesses reported seeing.

Let me spell it out for you:

There are no reports of the plane flying over the pentagon as opposed to impacting. Not by your witnesses or by any others.
Edited by nicepants, Jan 23 2008, 12:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
The statement of mine you're quoting was in response to Aldo's conclusion that his eyewitnesses who report seeing an impact did not actually see an impact.....and he has no factual basis for making said claim.

As to the eyewitness accounts I disagree with, I only disagree with the statements which contradict the available physical evidence & majority of eyewitnesses. I believe the downed light poles were located where the 20 or so light pole impact witnesses said they saw them and where it is supported by the physical evidence. I don't have a photo/map off hand but I believe they are all on the generally-agreed-upon flight path.

The light pole damage lines up with the southern approach, which means that you DO NOT believe they saw what they say they saw. Why do these witnesses contradict the official story?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reddawn

Avenger
Jan 23 2008, 08:24 PM
Why do these witnesses contradict the official story?
Who knows?

Why do ANY witnesses contradict each other?

It happens all the time. Talk to any cop or detective. Talk to a lawyer who works with these inconsistancies every day.

Witness testimony is only as good as the OTHER witnesses that corrborate it AND the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

BTW, the witness accounts of a plane hitting the Pentagon vs the North side claim are probably on the scale of 99-1. And then there's the physical evidence (including DNA) which all you do is claim "faked/planted."

Why do you keep harping on a point that doesn't help your side at all?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

nicepants
Jan 23 2008, 12:44 PM
Domenick DiMaggio CIT
Jan 23 2008, 12:11 PM
nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 03:49 PM
There are zero reports of anyone witnessing a flyover

The fact that zero reports exist does not support your theory. (That's what "absence of eivdence is not evidence" means) You're trying to claim that there might be reports that we just don't know about. Speculation isn't evidence either.

ZERO.
You're lying.

There are reports of a plane flying over the Pentagon at the moment. There are reports of a plane veering away from the Pentagon as the explosion took place.

Are you saying those reports don't exist?


"A plane"? I'm not talking about any other possible air traffic in the area, I'm talking about the pane that your witnesses reported seeing.

Let me spell it out for you:

There are no reports of the plane flying over the pentagon as opposed to impacting. Not by your witnesses or by any others.
There are reports of a plane flying over the pentagon. They've just all been dismissed as either the C130 or the Doomsday Plane.

And it wouldn't take long with a huge explosion taking place for a plane traveling in excess of 400MPH+ to blend in with 'routine' traffic or would you consider that an untrue statement?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reddawn

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
Jan 23 2008, 09:41 PM
And it wouldn't take long with a huge explosion taking place for a plane traveling in excess of 400MPH+ to blend in with 'routine' traffic or would you consider that an untrue statement?


The physics involved for a flyover are impossible. The plane couldn't have withstood the G forces needed to pull up that quickly.

You were involved in the thread at JREF and you bailed on it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75567
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Who knows?

Can't you hazard a guess? Maybe they said it flew north because it actually did?
Quote:
 
Why do ANY witnesses contradict each other?

It happens all the time. Talk to any cop or detective. Talk to a lawyer who works with these inconsistancies every day.

People claiming this plane flew over Arlington Cemetery is a pretty major inconsistency with the official story. Sean Boger was right in front of the Pentagon. He sees the plane banking. The official flight path allows for no turns on its final approach. Why does this man say he saw this plane approaching from in front of the Annex?
Quote:
 
Witness testimony is only as good as the OTHER witnesses that corrborate it AND the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Boger? Stephens? Lagasee? Brooks? Turcios?
Quote:
 
BTW, the witness accounts of a plane hitting the Pentagon vs the North side claim are probably on the scale of 99-1. And then there's the physical evidence (including DNA) which all you do is claim "faked/planted."

So 99% of the witnesses say the plane flew south of the CITGO? Can you prove that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

And what about that exit hole? The plane broke through the C ring, right? The nose was sticking out of it and "extending into A-E drive a little bit"? That's what they said 4 days after 9-11. Did it evaporate after 4 days?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

So we only have about 30 witnesses that need to be scrutinized against the north side flight path.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
22205
Member Avatar
Arlingtonian
i saw tom hovis popped up in another thread, so i wanted to break down his location and his testimony here:

hovis' original story:
http://www.beanerbanner.com/a_father____.htm
Quote:
 
"My office is 8 miles from the site."
"Tom Hovis, Fairfax, Assoc. Member"


his title makes no sense, its so vague that something is definitely being omitted from it.
fairfax is a county/city in Virginia, there are many associations in fairfax, but no "fairfax association".
perhaps this is the association he is referring to:

ELKs Lodge 2188 :
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:w5YAt3InQl4J:www.elks2188.com/2007-08%2520Committees.pdf+703+273-7704&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Quote:
 
Veterans Service - Tom Hovis (703) 273-7704 thovis@mindspring.com



lodge address:
http://www.elks.org/lodges/home.cfm?LodgeNumber=2188
http://www.virginiaelks.org/lodges/arlington_fairfax/arlington_fairfax.htm

Quote:
 
8421 Arlington Boulevard, Fairfax, VA 22031


googlemap shows his office to be roughly 8 miles from the pentagon (10 miles if you are driving):
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=8421+Arlington+Boulevard,&near=Fairfax,+VA+22031&fb=1&view=text&latlng=38865464,-77235888,15940930332662672416
Posted Image


another view (middle building):
http://maps.live.com/#JnE9eXAuODQyMStBcmxpbmd0b24rQm91bGV2YXJkK3ZhKzIyMDMxJTdlc3N0LjAlN2VwZy4xJmJiPTUxLjE3OTM0Mjk3OTI4OTMlN2UtNDkuOTIxODc1JTdlMjQuMDQ2NDYzOTk5NjY2NiU3ZS0xMDQuMjM4MjgxMjU=
Posted Image

so according to his own word,
the closest tom hovis, an elk lodge member,
was to the pentagon on 9/11,
was 8 miles.
Edited by 22205, Feb 6 2008, 10:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply