| 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! |
| Are there any flyover witnesses? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 16 2008, 02:13 AM (8,686 Views) | |
| nicepants | Jan 28 2008, 02:25 PM Post #176 |
|
Your answer on post 154 was "through multiple eyewitness corroboration." That would mean that all of the witnesses could be wrong about a claim, but as long as they all make the same claim, you would conclude that their claim is 100% proven. Would you agree? |
![]() |
|
| Bret08 | Jan 28 2008, 02:55 PM Post #177 |
|
repeated trolling offender
|
They claimed to see a plane crash into the pentagon. Maybe CIT should sit down with them and tell them, that there is no way they could have seen that. They won't do it, because they want to stick to the noc claim. Brooks says he saw a United plane with 'United' written in blue. In 2001 United planes had 'United Airlines' written in white. In 2004 they changed their color scheme to 'United' written in blue. How did he see a United plane that didn't exist in 2001? You don't mistake something that you could not have seen. He is not a credible witness, you have to dismiss anything he says. Same with Lagasse, you say he is right about the north claim, but wrong about everything else. He would be laughed out of a courtroom, especially when he starts arguing with the facts. He doesn't know what he is talking about. We have DNA, boeing 757-200 parts, FDR ,many witnesses, including noc witnesses, who saw plane hit building. I think you are at the point of doing this for entertainment, you couldn't possibly believe the flyover theory. http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1316899 (United Airlines 2004-present) http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1315198 (United Airlines 1993-2004) |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 28 2008, 03:36 PM Post #178 |
|
Yes we did and yes we would. We had dinner at Mike Walter's house before we even knew about the north side witnesses. We have called him SINCE we obtained the north side evidence to discuss it with him direct. He won't return the call.
Omar Campos also called it United and said it was white with a blue bottom. We found many other witnesses who claim the plane was white corroborating Chad's claim.
Wrong. That is not how investigations work. Investigators assume that witnesses will be incorrect about some details. That is not a valid reason to completely dismiss their testimony. Investigators know that corroboration is how to determine what claims are correct and they also know that evidence is usually planted, covered up, and tampered with by the perpetrator to hide guilt.
Argument from personal incredulity. Consider this analogy: 100 written witness statements exist regarding a massive fatal car accident between a 4 door sedan and a truck on a particular corner of a busy intersection in the center of town. The accident was caused by a dog on the road. 7 credible witnesses who frequent the intersection on a daily basis before and since the accident were interviewed a few years later, most on location. 2 are local police officers. All 7 independently state the accident occurred on the same corner of the intersection. None of the other 93 written statements directly contradict this claim. Would a jury be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the 7 are correct about which corner of the intersection the accident was on? To expand on this........the 7 witnesses differed in regards to the exact color and make of the car and truck involved but all matched as far as more general details like the fact that it was a 4 door sedan and a truck. Would this cause the jury to completely dismiss all of their testimony? Also......none of the 7 witnesses saw the dog and were fully convinced that it was the fault of the truck driver. Does this mean the dog did not cause the accident, that the truck driver was at fault, or that their placement of the accident on the same corner should be dismissed? Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 28 2008, 03:54 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 28 2008, 04:05 PM Post #179 |
![]()
|
No you are afraid to face the facts. You afraid to believe them. This is just a game to you. This isn't a debate game of logic. This is one simple fact that supercedes another. This is what you refuse to accept publically. Do you notice you are the ONLY ONE here with this weak, practically psychotic, point? Do you think you've been trained in the art of "logic" by the likes of the geeky debate squad at J--F to the point where you have lost sight of a genuine problem in the official story? Is that all this is about? Your interpretation of knowledge? Is this a fucking hypothetical SAT question to you? Do you Lagasse Brooks and co actually exist to you, or are you so sick and demented that they are just values in a logic equation. Do they represent actual witnesses and human beinga who are scared about what they saw or are they just names and statements that you can play circle games with because you think you understand "logic" and feel you can utilize all the critical thinking/debate buzzwords? Which were they closer to? The gas station or the face of the wall where the plane allegedly impacted? Based on that which detail would you say they got right, the north side approach or the alleged impact or are you trying to imply they could get both right? Pick one. Based on the fact that they all saw the plane on the north side, is it safe to say that the plane was on the north side? |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 28 2008, 04:08 PM Post #180 |
![]()
|
Which were they closer to? The gas station or the face of the wall where the plane allegedly impacted? Based on that which detail would you say they got right, the north side approach or the alleged impact or are you trying to imply they could get both right? Pick one. Based on the fact that they all saw the plane on the north side, is it safe to say that the plane was on the north side? |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 28 2008, 04:28 PM Post #181 |
|
Expecting you to validate your witnesses is a "practically psychotic point?" I answered your 2 questions in the other thread where you posted them. You still haven't answered mine: 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? Edited by nicepants, Jan 28 2008, 04:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Bret08 | Jan 28 2008, 07:01 PM Post #182 |
|
repeated trolling offender
|
That is not how it works in court. A witness is not even called if he is not credible. Brooks describes the new United colors perfectly. There is no way he was mistaken. He just got caught lying. Why didn't CIT question Lagasse and explain to him that he was an idiot and the plane could not have hit the building? I would love to see that interview. |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 28 2008, 07:48 PM Post #183 |
|
Let's see we're in a court of a Law and John Doe is on trial for murder and the evidence is a gun which has his fingerprints on it. The defense brings in 7 eyewitnesses to the shooting. None of them work for or are related to Mr. Doe. All 7 eyewitnesses recall their story in all 7 cases they name Sheriff Johnson as the shooter and only shooter. So you would still convict John Doe instead and say all 7 eyewitnesses hallucinated who really fired the gun. Right? |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 28 2008, 08:15 PM Post #184 |
|
Now we understand why you are an armchair researcher and not a legitimate one.
When you interview someone, you ask them questions and then they answer. Then you make a decision whether or not you believe them. You do not insult, belittle, attack, and then explain to them how they are wrong about their own life experience. You're a joke.
Hmmmm.......... the question here is can someone read what is written on a plane while it is traveling pass at a high rate of speed. Since this aspect of his claim isn't corroborated by any other witnesses I'll choose to dismiss it as an embellishment most likely. Now if 6 or 7 people corroborated that I would defend it.
So let me get this straight, you don't believe a Police Sargeant is a credible witness to tell his tale of his life experience and then match up what parts of his story corroborate with others? Yep, you're a JOKE and the furthest thing from a real researcher. You're probably waiting for The O'Reilly Factor as I type..............
So what you are asking people to believe is that government don't deceive their people and no one has ever faked a crime in the history of mankind. Because the "facts" might look like Suspect A is guilty of the crime but the Truth is that Suspect B is the one who really did it. Happens more often than you apparently are aware of, especially inside America.
No, you have someone's word. The same people who dreamt up operations Northwoods and Mockingbird. The people who brought us the Gulf of Tonkin, Arming Al Qaeda & Saddam, Iran-Contra, WMD lies, Lies about secret CIA prisons, routine tortures, and loss of liberties for American Citizens. But I'm sure 9/11 is the time they aren't just crying wolf, right?
Really? Because I've seen those same parts used to prove a Skywarrior (which I also don't believe) rather convincingly.
Which despite somes claims, conclusively proves light poles could not have been hit and that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon. Some people say fdr's sometimes are missing 5-6 seconds. This is a total fabrication invented by people who have no knowledge in that field what so ever.
So you believe Mike Walter and the USA Today saw what they say they saw despite the fact it has been proven there is no physical possibility on this planet they could see what they described from their perspectives?
I think you are solely doing this for entertainment or financial reasons. Congratulations!!!!! You and "nicepants" are now going onto my ignore list. God I am going to love this feature!!!!!!!! |
![]() |
|
| Bret08 | Jan 28 2008, 08:41 PM Post #185 |
|
repeated trolling offender
|
You are the joke dude. A credible witness will only testify to what he saw, not what someone told them, or what they read in the paper, or what they deduced. Witnesses like Lagasse and Brooks who are willing to take it 2,3,4 steps beyond what they actually witnessed can't be trusted. Brooks never saw a United plane that looked like that that day. Why did he say he did? Brooks and Lagasse say they saw the plane hit the building. You say they didn't, so that is another point they are wrong on. Lagasse insists that the cab and light poles were where they weren't. When do we decide that these are credible witnesses? You say Mike Walters can't be believed, because you don't think he could have seen what he said from his point of view. Lagasse and Brooks can't be believed either. |
![]() |
|
| Reddawn | Jan 28 2008, 09:06 PM Post #186 |
|
I'm late to the thread but I had to comment on this. The "fact" they said they remembered the path on the north side does not make it a "fact" that the plane was actually there. Using your logic the "fact" that they said it impacted the Pentagon makes the noc calim "irrelevant" as well. You can't have it both ways. You can choose to believe one or the other, but don't go throwing around words like "facts" when they are anything but. |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 28 2008, 11:27 PM Post #187 |
![]()
|
What makes it "fact" then? The approval of some anonymous, goal post moving, dishonest, illogical, reachy, desperate, psychotic scumbags on a forum? Were you there? Can you point out the gov't response to these witnesses? Or are they just ignoring us and relying the confusion created by anonymous goal post moving, dishonest, illogical, reachy, desperate, psychotic scumbags on a forum to cast enough doubt and confusion that it might just cause people to give up on the info? When does it become fact? When you say so? When we get your approval? Again, the impact is irrelevant in comparison to the fact that the plane was on the north side. Your stupid jedi mind tricks aren't working. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 29 2008, 10:00 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 29 2008, 09:46 AM Post #188 |
|
No....it's a FACT if it's true. And something doesn't become true just because a bunch of people say it is.. FYI: the personal attacks don't help get your point across. (unless your point is that you don't have the facts to back up your claims so you must resort to personal attacks instead) Edited by nicepants, Jan 29 2008, 09:47 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Reddawn | Jan 29 2008, 09:55 AM Post #189 |
|
Brilliant retort. Here's a reminder re: the OP. 104 people directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon. 6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact. 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet. 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner. 2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size. 7 said it was a Boeing 757. 8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief. 2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport. 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon. 10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole). 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit. 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts. 2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats. 15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel. 3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged. 3 took photographs of the aftermath. Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings." And of course, 0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon. 0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away. |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 29 2008, 10:09 AM Post #190 |
![]()
|
The witnesses were "validated", "confirmed", "proven" when they were corroborated 7 times over. |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 29 2008, 10:15 AM Post #191 |
|
argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all (or 7) people believe it It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 29 2008, 11:14 AM Post #192 |
![]()
|
No, here's a briiliant retort:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/43429/ That's not true, around and realistically less than 30 witnesses were in a position to actually see an "impact". Those accounts still do not constitute proof against the north side, since they do not directly contradict it nor have most of their claims been thoroughly investigated by questioning them in person. Not to mention some are simply dubious witnesses with very deceptive accounts and serious holes in their story.
Can you be a little more vague and ambiguous? Are referring to people like Alan Wallace and Mark Skipper? They only thought they were going to get hit and began to run, I would too. Doesn't mean they witnessed an impact. Alan Wallace: So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT. We only saw it approach for an instant. I would estimate not longer than half a second. Others didn’t understand why we didn’t hear it sooner. We did not hear it until right after we saw it. I estimate that the plane hit the building only 1½-2 seconds after we saw it. What I am saying is, immediately after we saw it, we heard the noise; the engines, I’m sure. I described that as a terrible noise – loud, scary, and horrible. At the time we saw the plane I said, “LET’S GO!” and Mark and I ran away from the area. I turned and ran to my right, going north. (I do not remember which way Mark went, since I did not see him until I crawled out from under the Ford Van.)
So? And many others described and were adamant it was something else. I'd say we have a conflict.
Yup, can't disagree there.
That's a pile of hooey. It was actually closer to 4-5. Why can't Gravy ever get his poop straight?
Maybe it was. A handful of witnesses also said it looked like a or said it was a 737.
Really? You verified that? All of it? Does it make a differenc? did you ask them about the north side of the Citgo approach? Oh you didn't? hmm ok. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief ALSO told us the plane approached on the NORTH SIDE of the CITGO and placed it near Robert's overhead sign.
So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT. LOL.
Did you ask them which side of the gas station the plane approached on? Oh you didn't? Isn't it possible that they were fooled too and that simply typing "4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon" doesn't mean that they actually saw an impact?
Wow. Talk about irrelevant minutia. This is the catherder technique Joe Quinn highlighted. Meaningless information mean to bulk up the information. Then you (gravy) contradict yourself by saying that the landing gear struck a light pole. WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN. Of course the flaps weren't deployed it was trying get in and out of there pretty damn fast.
That is not true at all. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51 Why don't you list the names and accounts hmmmm? BETTER YET, WHY ARE YOU AND MARK ROBERTS SO COWARDLY THAT YOU WON'T ACTUALLY SPEAK WITH WITNESSES AND CONFIRM WHAT THEY SAID AND SAW??? Because clowns like Gravy rely on ambiguity and over confident statements. Knowing the disinformation will flourish regardless and most people will simply want to believe versus actually scrutinize them critically.
So???? We have asserted that any plane debris could have been and more than likely was planted in advance due to the "renovation" which left unoccupied areas. Why weren't airline seats and engines visible on outside of the building? Why not luggage, clothing, mail? Where was the seats, seat mounts, overhead cabins that were located on the other side of this piece? Why didn't this piece of fuselage skin ever have rivets in it? Do they make planes without rivets now? ![]() ![]() Are you saying that the members of the US military would not consider planting debris to simulate a plane crash? ![]()
That's nice. Did you speak with them and confirm what they saw? Did you confirm that they saw that and not an office worker in a chair? Could they be lying? Yep. Could those bodies strapped in seats have been planted cadavers used as the final piece of convincing evidence used to sell the impact, no matter how bizarre or "counter-intuitive" the impact hole and debris pattern looked?
Um that's because their was a generator trailer filled with diesel fuel that was burning oh and um... this: Lt Col Ted Anderson: Nearby, tanks full of propane and aviation fuel had begun igniting, and they soon began exploding, one by one. You forgot that 2 smelled cordite.
Nice way to ambiguously blend that part about the light poles. Which cars were damaged by aircraft debris? Show me where Gravy confirmed that. Lloyd's account is preposterous and there is NO evidence to support it other than a photo of his cab and a light pole on the ground. Oh and did I mention that the plane was the NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO and could NOT have hit any of those light poles, ESPECIALLY Lloyd's pole?
So? What does that prove?
So? What does that prove?
Totally agree.
No. Not true, the media and authorities never reported witnesses who "saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away". -Reporter Dave Statter interviewed but didn't REPORT a witness or witnesses who said "the pilot tried to avert the building" and "the plane went to the side of the building and not directly in". -Robert Turcios said multiple times the plane pulled up into an ascent right before the Pentagon. -Skarlet of Punkprincess.com wanted to say the plane "banked up at the very last minute." -Bob Hunt reported witnesses saying the plane was 'over the Washington Mall at the height of the Washington Monument', that sounds like exactly where the plane would be after the flyover. -The JEMS report stated: there was "a split-second decision by an air-traffic controller. When the hijacked plane turned into the Pentagon, it was on a collision course with an airliner leaving Reagan National Airport as scheduled. Without the data from Flight 77’s transponder and not knowing the intention of the hijacked plane, the controller ordered the departing aircraft to take a hard right, into the protected airspace above the White House" http://info.jems.com/911/pdf/jems0402.pdf This could only be an excuse for the flyover/away since planes were gounded because of national groundstop by 9:38 and could only be referring to the approach of the alleged impact plane as it reaches the Pentagon. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 29 2008, 11:22 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 29 2008, 11:20 AM Post #193 |
![]()
|
104 people directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum LOL. You guys should read this post, it is priceless: http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=26624&t=49055 You'd think that when we reach the point where it boils down to a latin debate term, that confirmation of specific details would be key, accepted and welcome. That confirmation coming in the form of multiple eyewitnesses on camera ON LOCATION nearest the event. But naaaah, we've got Latin debate terms to tell us what happened at the Pentagon.
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 29 2008, 11:50 AM Post #194 |
|
Oh yes, Stundie pulls out another strawman argument. Priceless, indeed. Stundie still doesn't understand that his statement: "They all agree, that is the proof that this claim is correct." is based on faulty logic.
The latin term describes the flaw in your logic. (And Stundie's, for that matter) The whole point being, just because people agree doesn't mean that what they agree on is true. If Latin bothers you, we can stick to English words like Red Herring. Edited by nicepants, Jan 29 2008, 11:53 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| IVXX | Jan 29 2008, 01:02 PM Post #195 |
![]()
MDCCLXXVI
|
A warning to all in this thread. The personal attacks continue an suspensions will be handed out to all involved. |
![]() |
|
| IVXX | Jan 29 2008, 01:22 PM Post #196 |
![]()
MDCCLXXVI
|
I look at the Pentagon from many different angles but I have to ask Bret08, you collected all the evidence listed above yourself?? I mean you did say "we have". Have you ever seen this evidence with your own eyes?? And I don't mean in a picture.
We go over this all the time. Please provide a list of people who actually saw impact. Many witnesses assumed impact because they were in no position to see it. Edited by IVXX, Jan 29 2008, 01:22 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 29 2008, 02:20 PM Post #197 |
|
Exactly! The alleged DNA evidence is completely invalid for this investigation as all evidence is that was controlled solely by the suspect. And that does not mean the entire forensic team who analyzed the DNA had to be in on the operation. They were simply handed plastic baggies with ashes in them and told to analyze it. Nobody knows for sure where it came from. |
![]() |
|
| Bret08 | Jan 29 2008, 07:44 PM Post #198 |
|
repeated trolling offender
|
Lagasse and Brooks saw impact. Please explain how they can think a plane crashed into the pentagon, if it really didn't. The plane hits the building before the explosion, so they have a clear view. No one would assume the plane hit the building, if it really didn't. |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 29 2008, 08:55 PM Post #199 |
|
"please explain" "please explain" "please explain" Since I already gave you a full rebuttal to which you did not reply in any shape or form can we all assume that you concede that I am correct in my counter arguments or will I receive a due reply? Until you answer this I have no intentions of 'entertaining' you any further......... edit : correction - you did reply. can i get a legitimate reply to each statement or do you agree with it as a whole? Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Jan 29 2008, 08:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Reddawn | Jan 29 2008, 09:31 PM Post #200 |
|
And this is where your entire argument goes to shreds. You're basically saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you won't accept ANY evidence as accurate from the people you are accusing of the "crime." But, who are you accusing? The "Gubmint"?? That's not an accusation. That's simply a sweeping generalized statement. Hell, even some some of your star witnesses work for the "Gubmint." And, again, are you accusing EVERYONE in the chain of custody of the DNA evidence as being part of the plot? Or just some? Which ones? How would that work exactly? Back to your comment which I find so intereresting. It was, "The alleged DNA evidence is completely invalid for this investigation as all evidence is that was controlled solely by the suspect." What exactly do you mean by the word "alleged"? Do you mean they didn't have any evidence or that it was forged? This is an important distinction. Does everyone who you decide is a "suspect" then make any and all evidence thay might have "invalid?" Hell, just blame everyone and you can exclude their testimony/witnesses, right? So, can you provide a hypothesis as to how they could have pulled off the DNA fraud? I'm not talking about all of the other details, just the DNA fraud. Extradordinary claims require extraordinary proof. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |












7:27 PM Jul 10