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
Are there any flyover witnesses?
Topic Started: Jan 16 2008, 02:13 AM (8,688 Views)
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 25 2008, 05:24 PM
nicepants
Jan 25 2008, 05:14 PM
Do they not also all agree that the plane hit the Pentagon?
Circular logic pseudoskeptic.

Your confirmation bias is showing.
This is a question, it's not circular logic and it's not biased.

Do they (your witnesses) not also agree that the plane hit the pentagon?

Craig Ranke CIT
 
Actually no they don't all agree that the plane hit the Pentagon. Sgt. Brooks admits "anything is possible" when it comes to him being fooled, but he stands by where he saw the plane and the color of the plane.


Did Brooks report that the plane hit the Pentagon?
Edited by nicepants, Jan 25 2008, 05:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Posted Image

Anybody have anything else to add or ask?

I think Nicepants has had enough fun at our expense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Calcas

Great answer Aldo.

You sure showed everyone...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

We showed you.

Don't you have some crap to talk about this forum over at your cult?
Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 25 2008, 10:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

So, let's recap:

Craig says that the mere fact that their witnesses agree on the NOC claim rules out the possibility that they were wrong.

If we accept that logic, then we must also conclude that there is no possibility that they were wrong about the Pentagon impact, since they agree on that as well.

Craig, could you explain how this logic only applies to some of their statements?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 26 2008, 04:10 PM
So, let's recap:

Craig says that the mere fact that their witnesses agree on the NOC claim rules out the possibility that they were wrong.

If we accept that logic, then we must also conclude that there is no possibility that they were wrong about the Pentagon impact, since they agree on that as well.

Craig, could you explain how this logic only applies to some of their statements?
Because it is impossible for both claims to be simultaneously true and they had a much better view of the plane as it passed by the station.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 26 2008, 04:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 26 2008, 04:18 PM
nicepants
Jan 26 2008, 04:10 PM
So, let's recap:

Craig says that the mere fact that their witnesses agree on the NOC claim rules out the possibility that they were wrong.

If we accept that logic, then we must also conclude that there is no possibility that they were wrong about the Pentagon impact, since they agree on that as well.

Craig, could you explain how this logic only applies to some of their statements?
Because it is impossible for both claims to be simultaneously true and they had a much better view of the plane as it passed by the station.
So then, by your own admission, the fact that they agree does not make their claims true.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 26 2008, 04:23 PM
So then, by your own admission, the fact that they agree does not make their claims true.
Not when considering the context of the crime which is a massive deception.


This is what gives you the ability to talk in rhetorical circles but true critical thinkers without a strong confirmation bias as you have demonstrated quickly understand how this is a serious problem for the official story.

But this doesn't change the fact that you MUST choose which claim to believe and that the more logical one is the north side claim since they had an infinitely better view of the plane as it passed by the station.

Oh and did we tell you how the plane came from the east side of the Potomac?

What do you suppose the implications are considering this evidence?
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 26 2008, 04:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 26 2008, 04:30 PM
nicepants
Jan 26 2008, 04:23 PM
So then, by your own admission, the fact that they agree does not make their claims true.
Not when considering the context of the crime which is a massive deception.

But this doesn't change the fact that you MUST choose which claim to believe and that the more logical one is the north side claim since they had an infinitely better view of the plane as it passed by the station.

Slow down for a minute and stop using personal incredulity (bolded above) to justify your claims.

"How were you able to rule out the possibility that your NOC witnesses were wrong or mistaken?" The fact that they all agree does not rule out that possibility.

craig ranke CIT
 
Actually, yes, yes it does.


No, it apparently doesn't, because you still reject their impact claim. Please revise your answer.

Edited by nicepants, Jan 26 2008, 08:54 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

No personal incredulity required. It is a physical fact that they had an infinitely better view of the plane as it passed by station as opposed to when it reached the Pentagon.

Oh and did we tell you how the plane came from the east side of the Potomac?

What do you suppose the implications are considering this evidence?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 26 2008, 09:06 PM
No personal incredulity required. It is a physical fact that they had an infinitely better view of the plane as it passed by station as opposed to when it reached the Pentagon.
Your statement that one of their claims is "more logical" than the other is personal incredulity.

A better view doesn't mean that one claim is true and the other isn't. Did they not all have a view of the Pentagon?

What's your answer to my question:

How were you able to rule out the possibility that your NOC witnesses were wrong or mistaken?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 27 2008, 12:07 AM
Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 26 2008, 09:06 PM
No personal incredulity required. It is a physical fact that they had an infinitely better view of the plane as it passed by station as opposed to when it reached the Pentagon.
Your statement that one of their claims is "more logical" than the other is personal incredulity.

A better view doesn't mean that one claim is true and the other isn't. Did they not all have a view of the Pentagon?

What's your answer to my question:

How were you able to rule out the possibility that your NOC witnesses were wrong or mistaken?
A closer physical proximity most certainly is a scientific reason to choose one claim over the other when it is impossible for both claims to be true forcing you to make a decision.

What's your answer to my question?

Did we tell you how the plane came from the east side of the Potomac?

What do you suppose the implications are considering this evidence?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 26 2008, 08:51 PM

craig ranke CIT
 
Actually, yes, yes it does.


No, it apparently doesn't, because you still reject their impact claim. Please revise your answer.

We're getting pretty close to the point where I start insulting you because you are euther incredibly dense or incredibly insensitive regarding the victims of the Pentagon attack. Why can't you come out from the shadows and talk to victims and witnesses? Why can't you be a man and look April Gallop and her son in the face, and all the 9/11 victims and family members she has a coalition with and tell them 9/11 was not an inside job. Why can't you be a man and contact the police officers or Robert? Why can't you be a man and admit the FDR is irreconcilable with the physical damage and the gate cam video? Why can't you be a man and admit it's a problem that the NTSB won't comment on these matters? Why can't you be a man and admit that Mineta reported that the plane was traveling DRA between Great Falls/Rosslyn and Reagan and that this is irreconcilable with the FDR? Why can't you be a man and admit that ATC reported the plane E & SE of the White House and that this is irreconcilable with the FDR?

I reject their impact claim because it is irreconcilable with them seeing the plane on the north side. Do you understand? Does that compute? Or do we need another way for you to flip this back around so we can continue your circle game.

Do you understand that they can only be correct about the north side and not the impact?

Of course you do, this is just your way of making it not seem true.

You are a traitor to your country. I would revise YOUR questions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 27 2008, 01:29 AM
I reject their impact claim because it is irreconcilable with them seeing the plane on the north side. Do you understand? Does that compute? Or do we need another way for you to flip this back around so we can continue your circle game.

Do you understand that they can only be correct about the north side and not the impact?
What I don't understand is why, when your witnesses give you 2 accounts which you claim to be mutually exclusive, you automatically pick the one that supports your story instead of performing any further validation. You've shown that agreement alone does not make their statements correct.

How were you able to determine that the impact claim was wrong and that the NOC claim was right? How would you know if they were wrong about the NOC claim?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 27 2008, 01:18 AM
nicepants
Jan 27 2008, 12:07 AM
Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 26 2008, 09:06 PM
No personal incredulity required. It is a physical fact that they had an infinitely better view of the plane as it passed by station as opposed to when it reached the Pentagon.
Your statement that one of their claims is "more logical" than the other is personal incredulity.

A better view doesn't mean that one claim is true and the other isn't. Did they not all have a view of the Pentagon?

What's your answer to my question:

How were you able to rule out the possibility that your NOC witnesses were wrong or mistaken?
A closer physical proximity most certainly is a scientific reason to choose one claim over the other when it is impossible for both claims to be true forcing you to make a decision.

What's your answer to my question?

Did we tell you how the plane came from the east side of the Potomac?
It's not a scientific reason, by any means. How have you tested your hypothesis scientifically?

We can get to the Potomac claims later, stop trying to change the subject.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 27 2008, 01:29 AM
I reject their impact claim because it is irreconcilable with them seeing the plane on the north side.
No, you reject the impact fact because you have your 15 minutes of fame (and you're now at 14:59) and a $15 DVD to flog.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hetware



Notice that the F4 in the video was traveling approximately 40 mph slower than AA77 is believed to have been moving.

Time for a new test using an F-4 Phantom Jet.

The US Government wanted to test what would happen if a plane crashed into the concrete walls of a nuclear power station.

It's doing 500 miles per hour. The plane atomized with the impact. It just disappeared into dust. Only the tips of the wings [which exceeded the width of the wall] escaped total destruction.


WordNet (r) 2.0

atomize v 1: spray very finely; "atomize perfume" [syn: atomise] 2: strike at with firepower or bombs; "zap the enemy" [syn: nuke, atomise, zap] 3: break up into small particles; "the fine powder had been atomized by air" [syn: atomise]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
I am curious to know how people could assume that the plane hit the pentagon, if that is not what they actually saw? When the planes hit TWC, we saw the planes hit before the explosion. What would prevent people from seeing the plane go into the building, when the plane going into the building is what causes the explosion? Was there an explosion before the plane reached the building? Also, in order for the plane to appear to have been the cause of the explosion it would have had to be flying at near ground level. The explosion was initiated near the first floor. How could a plane flying high enough to make it over the building appear to cause that explosion? The famous POV that CIT relies on is from the CITGO station. There were people all around the pentagon. Some POV's would easily show a plane flying over the building at the time of the explosion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 27 2008, 04:45 PM
What I don't understand is why, when your witnesses give you 2 accounts which you claim to be mutually exclusive, you automatically pick the one that supports your story


"pick the one that supports your story"?????

Oh I should ignore the fact that the plane was on the north side, and embrace their belief in a split second emotional and media reinforced event, even though the fact that they all saw the plane on the north makes this impossible?

Does that seem logical to you?

MY story? It was THEIR story!!!!! THEY told it. We asked for one specific detail to be specified and it was.

THEY told us where they saw the plane; on the north side if the Citgo! THEY told us that they believed the plane hit the building.

Both cannot be true and one isn't. The ONLY ONE that can't be true is the impact.

7 witnesses all put it on the north side path, 7 believe it hit the building.

Which is correct?

Your denial, circles, and endless threadwasting is growing tiresome.

Stop being a traitor to your country, coward.

Contact the witnesses and have a heart to heart. Until then, you are an accomplice to the cover-up of mass murder.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 27 2008, 09:07 PM
nicepants
Jan 27 2008, 04:45 PM
What I don't understand is why, when your witnesses give you 2 accounts which you claim to be mutually exclusive, you automatically pick the one that supports your story


"pick the one that supports your story"?????

Oh I should ignore the fact that the plane was on the north side, and embrace their belief in a split second emotional and media reinforced event, even though the fact that they all saw the plane on the north makes this impossible?

Does that seem logical to you?

MY story? It was THEIR story!!!!! THEY told it. We asked for one specific detail to be specified and it was.

THEY told us where they saw the plane; on the north side if the Citgo! THEY told us that they believed the plane hit the building.

Both cannot be true and one isn't. The ONLY ONE that can't be true is the impact.

7 witnesses all put it on the north side path, 7 believe it hit the building.

Which is correct?

Your denial, circles, and endless threadwasting is growing tiresome.

Stop being a traitor to your country, coward.

Contact the witnesses and have a heart to heart. Until then, you are an accomplice to the cover-up of mass murder.
If Lagasse is so wrong about his account of watching the plane "yaw into the building", how can you be sure of anything he says? That is too much detail to say he was mistaken.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

Bret08
Jan 27 2008, 09:13 PM
If Lagasse is so wrong about his account of watching the plane "yaw into the building", how can you be sure of anything he says? That is too much detail to say he was mistaken.
Have you seen the list of all the things that Lagasse is wrong about?

* He saw the plane was silver
* He saw the plane had American Airlines markings on it
* He saw the plane impact with the Pentagon
* He did not see the plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon
* He thought the downed light poles were under the NOC angle of approach
* He thought Lloyd's taxi was under the NOC angle of approach
* He believed the fireball was the result of deflagration, not detonation
* He recalled standing at the wrong pump

According to CIT, the only thing Lagasse was right about was that he saw the plane fly north of Citgo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
bileduct
Jan 27 2008, 09:45 PM
Bret08
Jan 27 2008, 09:13 PM
If Lagasse is so wrong about his account of watching the plane "yaw into the building", how can you be sure of anything he says? That is too much detail to say he was mistaken.
Have you seen the list of all the things that Lagasse is wrong about?

* He saw the plane was silver
* He saw the plane had American Airlines markings on it
* He saw the plane impact with the Pentagon
* He did not see the plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon
* He thought the downed light poles were under the NOC angle of approach
* He thought Lloyd's taxi was under the NOC angle of approach
* He believed the fireball was the result of deflagration, not detonation
* He recalled standing at the wrong pump

According to CIT, the only thing Lagasse was right about was that he saw the plane fly north of Citgo.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
* He believed the fireball was the result of deflagration, not detonation

CIT never said the fireball was due to a detonation.
Quote:
 
* He thought the downed light poles were under the NOC angle of approach
* He thought Lloyd's taxi was under the NOC angle of approach

He actually did place the light poles wrong, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

Quote:
 
CIT never said the fireball was due to a detonation.

Naw, it's just the only theory they're willing to hypothesize, right?

1:15:40 - The Pentacon Smoking Gun Edition

It is feasible to hypothesize that the damage to the building was accomplished with explosives that were strategically placed in an attempt to simulated the damage from the aircraft.

I must have missed the other theories. What were they again?

Quote:
 
He actually did place the light poles wrong, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

My point is that, according to CIT, his entire testimony is incorrect with the exception of the NOC claim.

I thought it was pretty fucking clear, actually.
Edited by bileduct, Jan 28 2008, 12:04 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

[ Removed ]
Edited by bileduct, Jan 28 2008, 08:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply