| 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! |
| Witnesses List Broken Down; No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 15 2008, 03:11 PM (4,665 Views) | |
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 03:08 PM Post #51 |
![]()
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 03:18 PM Post #52 |
|
Really? How many eyewitnesses reported that the plane flew over the pentagon? (I'll help you out with this) Zero. Absense of evidence. |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 03:32 PM Post #53 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 03:49 PM Post #54 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 04:05 PM Post #55 |
![]()
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 22 2008, 04:08 PM Post #56 |
|
Deleted User
|
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.
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? |
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 04:25 PM Post #57 |
![]()
|
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.
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.
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?
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"? |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 04:35 PM Post #58 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Jan 22 2008, 10:13 PM Post #59 |
![]()
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 23 2008, 01:52 AM Post #60 |
![]()
|
...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?????????????????????????????? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 23 2008, 03:17 AM Post #61 |
|
Deleted User
|
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?'
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 23 2008, 09:52 AM Post #62 |
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 23 2008, 10:13 AM Post #63 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Smiling_Gorilla | Jan 23 2008, 10:55 AM Post #64 |
|
troll
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 23 2008, 12:11 PM Post #65 |
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 23 2008, 12:44 PM Post #66 |
|
"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.
|
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Jan 23 2008, 08:24 PM Post #67 |
![]()
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Reddawn | Jan 23 2008, 09:36 PM Post #68 |
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 23 2008, 09:41 PM Post #69 |
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Reddawn | Jan 23 2008, 10:00 PM Post #70 |
|
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 |
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Jan 23 2008, 10:04 PM Post #71 |
![]()
|
Can't you hazard a guess? Maybe they said it flew north because it actually did?
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?
Boger? Stephens? Lagasee? Brooks? Turcios?
So 99% of the witnesses say the plane flew south of the CITGO? Can you prove that? |
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Jan 23 2008, 10:40 PM Post #72 |
![]()
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 26 2008, 12:23 PM Post #73 |
![]()
|
So we only have about 30 witnesses that need to be scrutinized against the north side flight path. |
![]() |
|
| 22205 | Feb 6 2008, 10:09 PM Post #74 |
|
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
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
lodge address: http://www.elks.org/lodges/home.cfm?LodgeNumber=2188 http://www.virginiaelks.org/lodges/arlington_fairfax/arlington_fairfax.htm
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 ![]() another view (middle building): http://maps.live.com/#JnE9eXAuODQyMStBcmxpbmd0b24rQm91bGV2YXJkK3ZhKzIyMDMxJTdlc3N0LjAlN2VwZy4xJmJiPTUxLjE3OTM0Mjk3OTI4OTMlN2UtNDkuOTIxODc1JTdlMjQuMDQ2NDYzOTk5NjY2NiU3ZS0xMDQuMjM4MjgxMjU= ![]() 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.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |








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. 


7:21 PM Jul 10