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.
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?
No it doesn't. Please refrain from using strawman arguments. I'm not suggesting that you reverse your position. But if your standard is agreement, you have 2 claims on which your witnesses agree, it doesn't make sense to simply reject one of them.
You will have to weigh in other evidence, since the witnesses agree on NOC and on impact, agreement alone cannot be the standard that you use.
Aldo Marquis CIT
MY story? It was THEIR story!!!!! THEY told it. We asked for one specific detail to be specified and it was.
Your story is that the plane went NOC but did not impact the pentagon.
Their story is that it did both.
Aldo Marquis CIT
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.
Exactly, they say that they saw both, and you reject their claim of impact.
Aldo Marquis CIT
Both cannot be true and one isn't. The ONLY ONE that can't be true is the impact.
What prevents the NOC claim from being the one that is untrue? Is it impossible for the witnesses to have been wrong on that point?
Aldo Marquis CIT
7 witnesses all put it on the north side path, 7 believe it hit the building. Which is correct?
Those statements alone are not enough to determine which is correct.
Aldo Marquis CIT
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.
That's a pretty wild accusation, but I'd be more than willing to defend myself against it in court if you want to bring this evidence to a prosecutor.
I don't need to go interview witnesses, I'm not trying to push some conspiracy theory, you are.
Lagasse already gave his response to your flyover theory:
William Lagasse
The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end.
Back to my question, which you still haven't answered truthfully: How were you able to determine that the eyewitnesses who reported the plane NOC were correct?
Your story is that the plane went NOC but did not impact the pentagon.
Their story is that it did both.
Watch, this is how you silence these fake skeptics.............
ready?
(for arguments sake)
Ok, it came North of the Citgo and impacted.
Now let's go over the damage and discuss the implications of this on the cab, security videos, damage to the building, and confiscated 911 calls.
Are you game?
That is a false argument to say that it went north of the CITGO and impacted. You choose to believe that it went north of Citgo. You are saying that it is fact that it went noc. That is not a fact. There is way more evidence that it impacted the building rather than it went noc.
That is a false argument to say that it went north of the CITGO and impacted. You choose to believe that it went north of Citgo. You are saying that it is fact that it went noc. That is not a fact. There is way more evidence that it impacted the building rather than it went noc.
See how quickly all the corroborated eyewitness testimony becomes null & void if a member of CIT acknowledges impact (for argument sake)?
I choose to believe it went NOC because of multiple corroborated eyewitness testimonials from people who aren't affiliated with the government or mainstream media.
The fact that over 85+ camera's didn't capture an image of this huge plane on your flight path and the fact that government refuses to release these videos along with the 911 calls and now ever denies that the Sheraton Hotel video even exists adds to the list of reasons to be suspicious of the official account.
Add in 4 light poles not even on the road and 1 cab and 1 pole and a cab driver who has no idea how he and a complete stranger supposedly, oddly enough, removed this pole from his cab within a minute or two (or else there would have been photo's of it) and then let's rummage through Leo Titus's photos inside the pentagon and hunt 757 parts, k?
That is a false argument to say that it went north of the CITGO and impacted. You choose to believe that it went north of Citgo. You are saying that it is fact that it went noc. That is not a fact. There is way more evidence that it impacted the building rather than it went noc.
...aaand You choose to believe it impacted.
The witnesses saw it on the north side, that is FACT. If they saw it on the north side, their belief (Sgt Brooks changed his belief) that it hit the building is irrelevant.
Just saying there is "evidence that it impacted the building" is not proof of it hitting the building. We have already illustrated how the that "evidence" is fraudelant and dubious at best.
That is a false argument to say that it went north of the CITGO and impacted. You choose to believe that it went north of Citgo. You are saying that it is fact that it went noc. That is not a fact. There is way more evidence that it impacted the building rather than it went noc.
...aaand You choose to believe it impacted.
The witnesses saw it on the north side, that is FACT. If they saw it on the north side, their belief (Sgt Brooks changed his belief) that it hit the building is irrelevant.
Just saying there is "evidence that it impacted the building" is not proof of it hitting the building. We have already illustrated how the that "evidence" is fraudelant and dubious at best.
I don't choose to believe the impact, there is evidence of the impact. There is zero evidence that the plane was north of the citgo and did a flyover. A handful of witnesses can be wrong. It happens in every investigation in the world. You have to let the evidence guide you to the truth. You choose to believe the noc witnesses. There are many witnesses who say without a doubt the plane hit the building.
and what if their corroboration of impact cancels out their corroborating belief that the plane was NOC?
"What if"? You don't sound so sure about that Nicepants.
Explain how them "believing" the plane hit the building cancels out the north side of the Citgo approach.
Quote:
This is the problem you will run into when corroboration is the only factor in your determination of truth & accuracy.
No this is the problem you will run into when you deal with desperate skeptics willing to do and say anything to feel like they still have control so they can maintain the obvious unfortunate reality isn't true.
Quote:
Aldo Marquis CIT
Do you believe the plane approached on the north AND hit the building? Is that what you believe?
No, that's what your witnesses claim.
Yup, and that's what they are. Witnesses. Witnesses to the plane approching on the north side of the Citgo.
Remind me again, were you there at the Citgo on 9/11? Tell me, who would have a better idea of which side of the gas station the plane flew on, the witnesses at or near the Citgo or um, you?
That is a false argument to say that it went north of the CITGO and impacted. You choose to believe that it went north of Citgo. You are saying that it is fact that it went noc. That is not a fact. There is way more evidence that it impacted the building rather than it went noc.
...aaand You choose to believe it impacted.
The witnesses saw it on the north side, that is FACT. If they saw it on the north side, their belief (Sgt Brooks changed his belief) that it hit the building is irrelevant.
Just saying there is "evidence that it impacted the building" is not proof of it hitting the building. We have already illustrated how the that "evidence" is fraudelant and dubious at best.
I don't choose to believe the impact, there is evidence of the impact. There is zero evidence that the plane was north of the citgo and did a flyover. A handful of witnesses can be wrong. It happens in every investigation in the world. You have to let the evidence guide you to the truth. You choose to believe the noc witnesses. There are many witnesses who say without a doubt the plane hit the building.
blah blah blah.
Heard it all before. Let me know when you come up with something specific and original, that can actually counter the evidence at hand.
Until then, you are just another random poster posting the same general BS we've heard over and over and over.
Realize you are wasting your time, as most everyone here is. The plane was on the north side, you can't change that. Especially with vague general declarations.
and what if their corroboration of impact cancels out their corroborating belief that the plane was NOC?
"What if"? You don't sound so sure about that Nicepants.
Explain how them "believing" the plane hit the building cancels out the north side of the Citgo approach.
If NOC + Impact are impossible (as you claim).
If impact is true, then NOC cannot be true.
Quote:
Aldo Marquis CIT
Do you believe the plane approached on the north AND hit the building? Is that what you believe?
No, that's what your witnesses claim.
Yup, and that's what they are. Witnesses. Witnesses to the plane approching on the north side of the Citgo.[/quote]q
...and Witnesses to the plane impacting the pentagon...you keep forgetting that part ;-)
Aldo Marquis CIT
Remind me again, were you there at the Citgo on 9/11? Tell me, who would have a better idea of which side of the gas station the plane flew on, the witnesses at or near the Citgo or um, you?
The witnesses theoretically would have had a better view, but that doesn't mean that they're correct.
Since you want to play that game: Were you there at the Citgo on 9/11? Tell me, who would have a better idea of whether the plane hit the pentagon, the witnesses near the Citgo, or um, you?
That is a false argument to say that it went north of the CITGO and impacted. You choose to believe that it went north of Citgo. You are saying that it is fact that it went noc. That is not a fact. There is way more evidence that it impacted the building rather than it went noc.
...aaand You choose to believe it impacted.
The witnesses saw it on the north side, that is FACT. If they saw it on the north side, their belief (Sgt Brooks changed his belief) that it hit the building is irrelevant.
Just saying there is "evidence that it impacted the building" is not proof of it hitting the building. We have already illustrated how the that "evidence" is fraudelant and dubious at best.
I don't choose to believe the impact, there is evidence of the impact. There is zero evidence that the plane was north of the citgo and did a flyover. A handful of witnesses can be wrong. It happens in every investigation in the world. You have to let the evidence guide you to the truth. You choose to believe the noc witnesses. There are many witnesses who say without a doubt the plane hit the building.
blah blah blah.
Heard it all before. Let me know when you come up with something specific and original, that can actually counter the evidence at hand.
Until then, you are just another random poster posting the same general BS we've heard over and over and over.
Realize you are wasting your time, as most everyone here is. The plane was on the north side, you can't change that. Especially with vague general declarations.
That just proves that you will stick to your theory, even though not one shred of proof supports it, while evidence upon evidence supports AA77 sticking pentagon killing 189 people. Lagasse and Brooks are the worst witnesses I have ever seen in my life. They are wrong on so many of the facts, that it is laughable that anyone takes them seriously.
and what if their corroboration of impact cancels out their corroborating belief that the plane was NOC?
"What if"? You don't sound so sure about that Nicepants.
Explain how them "believing" the plane hit the building cancels out the north side of the Citgo approach.
If NOC + Impact are impossible (as you claim).
If impact is true, then NOC cannot be true.
Quote:
Aldo Marquis CIT
Do you believe the plane approached on the north AND hit the building? Is that what you believe?
No, that's what your witnesses claim.
Yup, and that's what they are. Witnesses. Witnesses to the plane approching on the north side of the Citgo.
q
...and Witnesses to the plane impacting the pentagon...you keep forgetting that part ;-)
Aldo Marquis CIT
Remind me again, were you there at the Citgo on 9/11? Tell me, who would have a better idea of which side of the gas station the plane flew on, the witnesses at or near the Citgo or um, you?
The witnesses theoretically would have had a better view, but that doesn't mean that they're correct.
Since you want to play that game: Were you there at the Citgo on 9/11? Tell me, who would have a better idea of whether the plane hit the pentagon, the witnesses near the Citgo, or um, you?[/quote]More circles from Nicepants. Big surprise.
Nicepants, why can't you stop this nonsense? Are you actually reading what you are writing?
You are trying to imply that they could see the plane on the north side AND see an actual impact. Then you switch and imply that they are only correct about the impact based on absolutely nothing but YOUR belief in the impact.
Do you think they would have given us an interview where they highlighted the north side approach if they believed the plane did not hit?
This is getting so incredibly stupid.
Can the admins please do something about this? Is there an ignore button?
How were you able to determine that the eyewitnesses who reported the plane NOC were correct?
through multiple eyewitness corroboration.
ok, your turn.
If that is your answer, then you must believe that they are correct about their impact claim, since they all corroborate that as well.
Do you believe that? Or do you wish to change your answer?
Now let's all reflect on post #152, my first post to you :
Quote:
Watch, this is how you silence these fake skeptics.............
ready?
(for arguments sake)
Ok, it came North of the Citgo and impacted.
Now let's go over the damage and discuss the implications of this on the cab, security videos, damage to the building, and confiscated 911 calls.
Are you game?
And here we are playing a game of circles.
Too bad for you the majority of the members of this forum are intelligent people and can easily see what it is that you are attempting to do.
Then you want me to answer a question first and I do. I ask you to return the favor and we're back at post #152.
Anytime impacted is conceded for argument sake the fake skeptics fall apart. I know I personally have demonstrated this again and again and again on forums (including the last LCF).
I am done wasting my time with someone who is obviously trolling. Return back to JREF and hang your head there in shame..........
That is a false argument to say that it went north of the CITGO and impacted. You choose to believe that it went north of Citgo. You are saying that it is fact that it went noc. That is not a fact. There is way more evidence that it impacted the building rather than it went noc.
...aaand You choose to believe it impacted.
The witnesses saw it on the north side, that is FACT. If they saw it on the north side, their belief (Sgt Brooks changed his belief) that it hit the building is irrelevant.
Just saying there is "evidence that it impacted the building" is not proof of it hitting the building. We have already illustrated how the that "evidence" is fraudelant and dubious at best.
I don't choose to believe the impact, there is evidence of the impact. There is zero evidence that the plane was north of the citgo and did a flyover. A handful of witnesses can be wrong. It happens in every investigation in the world. You have to let the evidence guide you to the truth. You choose to believe the noc witnesses. There are many witnesses who say without a doubt the plane hit the building.
blah blah blah.
Heard it all before. Let me know when you come up with something specific and original, that can actually counter the evidence at hand.
Until then, you are just another random poster posting the same general BS we've heard over and over and over.
Realize you are wasting your time, as most everyone here is. The plane was on the north side, you can't change that. Especially with vague general declarations.
That just proves that you will stick to your theory, even though not one shred of proof supports it, while evidence upon evidence supports AA77 sticking pentagon killing 189 people. Lagasse and Brooks are the worst witnesses I have ever seen in my life. They are wrong on so many of the facts, that it is laughable that anyone takes them seriously.
Do you think they would have given us an interview where they highlighted the north side approach if they believed the plane did not hit?
This is getting so incredibly stupid.
Can the admins please do something about this? Is there an ignore button?
Aldo Marquis CIT
More circles from Nicepants. Big surprise.
Nicepants, why can't you stop this nonsense? Are you actually reading what you are writing?
You are trying to imply that they could see the plane on the north side AND see an actual impact.
That's what they claim.
Aldo Marquis CIT
Then you switch and imply that they are only correct about the impact based on absolutely nothing but YOUR belief in the impact.
I'm showing you how your logic works both ways.
I'm reading what I'm writing, and I'm reading what you're writing. You're obviously afraid to face the facts.
The facts are:
Your witnesses report NOC AND an impact.
You simply reject their impact claim because you believe their NOC claim has been "proven" simply because they agree. This is faulty logic to say the least. To claim that something is proven merely on agreement alone is the reason that the rest of your reasoning suffers.
Now you complain to the admins because you can't continue to support your fact-less arguments in the face of criticism?
You have still not answered my question truthfully:
How were you able to determine that the North-of-citgo claims were not wrong? Or, if it helps to think of it another way: If the NOC claims were wrong, how would you know?
How were you able to determine that the eyewitnesses who reported the plane NOC were correct?
through multiple eyewitness corroboration.
ok, your turn.
If that is your answer, then you must believe that they are correct about their impact claim, since they all corroborate that as well.
Do you believe that? Or do you wish to change your answer?
Now let's all reflect on post #152, my first post to you :
Quote:
Watch, this is how you silence these fake skeptics.............
ready?
(for arguments sake)
Ok, it came North of the Citgo and impacted.
Now let's go over the damage and discuss the implications of this on the cab, security videos, damage to the building, and confiscated 911 calls.
Are you game?
And here we are playing a game of circles.
Too bad for you the majority of the members of this forum are intelligent people and can easily see what it is that you are attempting to do.
Then you want me to answer a question first and I do. I ask you to return the favor and we're back at post #152.
Anytime impacted is conceded for argument sake the fake skeptics fall apart. I know I personally have demonstrated this again and again and again on forums (including the last LCF).
I am done wasting my time with someone who is obviously trolling. Return back to JREF and hang your head there in shame..........
The reason I ask the question again is because you have not answered it truthfully. If agreement alone proves them correct, then we have a problem, because they agree on 2 different things.
North of citgo Pentagon impact
If agreement alone proves them correct, then by your logic, both claims above are "100% proven".
But the fact remains you choose one claim over the other, so there obviously is more to proving their claim correct than agreement alone.
That is a false argument to say that it went north of the CITGO and impacted. You choose to believe that it went north of Citgo. You are saying that it is fact that it went noc. That is not a fact. There is way more evidence that it impacted the building rather than it went noc.
...aaand You choose to believe it impacted.
The witnesses saw it on the north side, that is FACT. If they saw it on the north side, their belief (Sgt Brooks changed his belief) that it hit the building is irrelevant.
Just saying there is "evidence that it impacted the building" is not proof of it hitting the building. We have already illustrated how the that "evidence" is fraudelant and dubious at best.
I don't choose to believe the impact, there is evidence of the impact. There is zero evidence that the plane was north of the citgo and did a flyover. A handful of witnesses can be wrong. It happens in every investigation in the world. You have to let the evidence guide you to the truth. You choose to believe the noc witnesses. There are many witnesses who say without a doubt the plane hit the building.
blah blah blah.
Heard it all before. Let me know when you come up with something specific and original, that can actually counter the evidence at hand.
Until then, you are just another random poster posting the same general BS we've heard over and over and over.
Realize you are wasting your time, as most everyone here is. The plane was on the north side, you can't change that. Especially with vague general declarations.
That just proves that you will stick to your theory, even though not one shred of proof supports it, while evidence upon evidence supports AA77 sticking pentagon killing 189 people. Lagasse and Brooks are the worst witnesses I have ever seen in my life. They are wrong on so many of the facts, that it is laughable that anyone takes them seriously.
The reason I ask the question again is because you have not answered it truthfully. If agreement alone proves them correct, then we have a problem, because they agree on 2 different things.
North of citgo Pentagon impact
If agreement alone proves them correct, then by your logic, both claims above are "100% proven".
But the fact remains you choose one claim over the other, so there obviously is more to proving their claim correct than agreement alone.
In post #152 I conceded to impact for the sake of debate. This means, for the sake of argument, I agree that the witnesses saw the plane approach NOC and impacted.
I proceeded to ask you how if you cared to address the damage, cab scene, and other relevant issues in regard to this heavily corroborated accounts.
Because I know the bottom line is the word 'flyover' is all you have. It is all you can attack.
Otherwise we're left to letting people decide if they want to believe USA Today Reporters and PNAC members or Police Officers and Gas Station Attendants....... and well it doesn't take long for those playing along at home to make a decision over who would be more honest out of those groups..........
How many posts since #152?
And yet we're right back to #152.
I hope to see some admin intervention before long involving your membership as I believe it to be clearly evident that you are solely here for the purpose of being a troll.
That just proves that you will stick to your theory, even though not one shred of proof supports it, while evidence upon evidence supports AA77 sticking pentagon killing 189 people. Lagasse and Brooks are the worst witnesses I have ever seen in my life. They are wrong on so many of the facts, that it is laughable that anyone takes them seriously.
LaGasse and Brooks are "wrong on so many facts". This isn't a fucking quiz.
LaGasse and Brooks are right on what they saw. As are all the other witnesses who corroborate their claims. Do you need the list posted in every response to you to remind you of this FACT?
Feel free to go to the CITGO station and prove LaGasse and Brooks weren't in position to see what they claim they saw.
Kind of like what has been done to Mike Walter (I'm sure one of your heros) :
The reason I ask the question again is because you have not answered it truthfully. If agreement alone proves them correct, then we have a problem, because they agree on 2 different things.
North of citgo Pentagon impact
If agreement alone proves them correct, then by your logic, both claims above are "100% proven".
But the fact remains you choose one claim over the other, so there obviously is more to proving their claim correct than agreement alone.
In post #152 I conceded to impact for the sake of debate. This means, for the sake of argument, I agree that the witnesses saw the plane approach NOC and impacted.
I proceeded to ask you how if you cared to address the damage, cab scene, and other relevant issues in regard to this heavily corroborated accounts.
The damage, cab scene, etc all agree with the impact claim, but not the NOC claim.
Aldo Marquis CIT
Because I know the bottom line is the word 'flyover' is all you have. It is all you can attack.
Otherwise we're left to letting people decide if they want to believe USA Today Reporters and PNAC members or Police Officers and Gas Station Attendants....... and well it doesn't take long for those playing along at home to make a decision over who would be more honest out of those groups..........
How many posts since #152?
And yet we're right back to #152.
I hope to see some admin intervention before long involving your membership as I believe it to be clearly evident that you are solely here for the purpose of being a troll.
? Because I disagree with you? You still haven't told us how you determined that the NOC claim was true, or how you would know if your witnesses were wrong.
? Because I disagree with you? You still haven't told us how you determined that the NOC claim was true, or how you would know if your witnesses were wrong.
please see post #154
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)