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 (8,694 Views)
Stundie

I got to step in here and speak to the pseudoskeptics in the hope to get the threadsand points moving on. I'm not naming any names but I'm sure they know who they are. You will see here a full demonstration of what is going off here with the tactics used in a debate by the psuedos.

The 1st question they need to ask themselves and explain to us before they go posting on this thread or at LC forums, is do they think it is possible there could be government complicity whether LIHOP or MIHOP?

If they can't answer this honestly, then it explains why we are having a problem communicating with them. If they do not think it is possible at all, then we are wasting our time. The reason being is they are their own personal beliefs and people will defend these beliefs any time they are threaten by anything that challenges them, an example would be trying to talk to a hardened Christian about evolution!

I think to move this thread along....I think it should be a mandatory question! As there is no arguing with peoples personal beliefs.

If you do think there is a possibility, even the slightest one, why don't you ever once agree that these things contradict the official story? Why do you not address all the points that are raised too in the replies to you, instead of ignoring them? Its not that hard to address each point adequately i.e. If you agree with something then why don't they just say so, if not, don't just say you don't and not explain why you don't. Because as far as I can see, your ignorance of every points that are made is a fact you concede it, but by ignoring it, you never have to admit it.

Its denial by ignorance, that way you can never be wrong.

Plus if you have a personal beliefs which can never be challenged, you will always be right, even when you are wrong!

I keep seeing the same patterns of psuedoskeptics, ignorance of ALL points or questions raised which puts them in a position, which might not fit their beliefs.

So please stop the antics! Let the thread continue.......

Edited by Stundie, Jan 29 2008, 09:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Brilliant post Stund.

They ooze confirmation bias with every word they post yet hypocritically accuse true skeptics of the official story of this.

Frankly I think the pre-requisite for the research forums should be more strict.

If they don't believe that building 7 is a controlled demo they should be limited to the skeptics forum.

Our nation is under siege.

We simply don't have time for spin, deception, and subversion.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
Stundie
Jan 29 2008, 09:44 PM
I got to step in here and speak to the pseudoskeptics in the hope to get the threadsand points moving on. I'm not naming any names but I'm sure they know who they are. You will see here a full demonstration of what is going off here with the tactics used in a debate by the psuedos.

The 1st question they need to ask themselves and explain to us before they go posting on this thread or at LC forums, is do they think it is possible there could be government complicity whether LIHOP or MIHOP?

If they can't answer this honestly, then it explains why we are having a problem communicating with them. If they do not think it is possible at all, then we are wasting our time. The reason being is they are their own personal beliefs and people will defend these beliefs any time they are threaten by anything that challenges them, an example would be trying to talk to a hardened Christian about evolution!

I think to move this thread along....I think it should be a mandatory question! As there is no arguing with peoples personal beliefs.

If you do think there is a possibility, even the slightest one, why don't you ever once agree that these things contradict the official story? Why do you not address all the points that are raised too in the replies to you, instead of ignoring them? Its not that hard to address each point adequately i.e. If you agree with something then why don't they just say so, if not, don't just say you don't and not explain why you don't. Because as far as I can see, your ignorance of every points that are made is a fact you concede it, but by ignoring it, you never have to admit it.

Its denial by ignorance, that way you can never be wrong.

Plus if you have a personal beliefs which can never be challenged, you will always be right, even when you are wrong!

I keep seeing the same patterns of psuedoskeptics, ignorance of ALL points or questions raised which puts them in a position, which might not fit their beliefs.

So please stop the antics! Let the thread continue.......

And yet, not one of you can explain how the flyover worked? We saw the planes crash into the WTC, then we saw the explosion. How could someone looking at the pentagon think the plane hit, when they would clearly see it going in. There is no explosion until the plane hits the building. How could the plane fly fast and low enough to appear to cause explosion, but still have enough time and distance to get up and over the building? There were hudreds of eyes on that crash from every pov.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
There were hudreds of eyes on that crash from every pov.

How do you know there were hundreds of eyes from every point of view? Because I don't know of many witnesses from every point of view. Show me these witnesses from every point of view.
Quote:
 
And yet, not one of you can explain how the flyover worked?

Can you explain how it hit from north of the CITGO? Because you keep missing the point that the plane could not have hit from that approach.
Quote:
 
We saw the planes crash into the WTC, then we saw the explosion.

You would not have seen the plane going in at the Pentagon, but, the explosion would have fooled you into believe you saw it hit. What else would you believe? You would be expecting it to hit.

Also, there is one major difference between the events at the Pentagon and the WTC. At the WTC, the planes were much higher, which means they were much farther away. The speed of the planes wouldn't have as much of an impact on the viewer from farther away. Meaning, a plane flying 1,000 feet AGL, at 500 miles an hour, is easier to see than a low flying plane at that same speed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
Avenger
Jan 30 2008, 09:03 PM
Quote:
 
There were hudreds of eyes on that crash from every pov.

How do you know there were hundreds of eyes from every point of view? Because I don't know of many witnesses from every point of view. Show me these witnesses from every point of view.
Quote:
 
And yet, not one of you can explain how the flyover worked?

Can you explain how it hit from north of the CITGO? Because you keep missing the point that the plane could not have hit from that approach.
Quote:
 
We saw the planes crash into the WTC, then we saw the explosion.

You would not have seen the plane going in at the Pentagon, but, the explosion would have fooled you into believe you saw it hit. What else would you believe? You would be expecting it to hit.

Also, there is one major difference between the events at the Pentagon and the WTC. At the WTC, the planes were much higher, which means they were much farther away. The speed of the planes wouldn't have as much of an impact on the viewer from farther away. Meaning, a plane flying 1,000 feet AGL, at 500 miles an hour, is easier to see than a low flying plane at that same speed.
What? There is no way to make people think that the plane hit the building. It is impossible to fly the plane that fast and close to the base of the pentagon and have it still make it up and over the building. It would have to fly that fast and low to appear as if it hit the building. Anyone watching, and many were, would see the plane go into the building and then the explosion. Lagasse says he saw the plane yaw into the building. He couldn't see that if the explosion hid it. Is he lying? That is not something he could be fooled into believing. He says he saw it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
What? There is no way to make people think that the plane hit the building. It is impossible to fly the plane that fast and close to the base of the pentagon and have it still make it up and over the building. It would have to fly that fast and low to appear as if it hit the building.

Why would you have to fly it near the base to make it seem to hit the building?
Quote:
 
Anyone watching, and many were, would see the plane go into the building and then the explosion.

People would see it going toward the building, then the explosion.
Quote:
 
Lagasse says he saw the plane yaw into the building.

Did it yaw into the building? Maybe it seemed to change its angle because it actually pulled up.
Quote:
 
He couldn't see that if the explosion hid it. Is he lying? That is not something he could be fooled into believing. He says he saw it.

I'm sure he believes that's what happened, but do you really believe he would've had time to see that? Just as it hits the building it yaws? He would have some pretty good eyes to see that. Maybe the "yaw" came well before it hit the building, but the plane was moving so fast he couldn't gauge time and distance very well. Maybe the plane made what he thought was a yaw, then a split second later came the explosion. In his mind, the two events would be almost simultaneous.

But, like I said before, he also said the plane flew north of the CITGO. How do you reconcile that?
Edited by Avenger, Jan 30 2008, 10:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
Avenger
Jan 30 2008, 10:05 PM
Quote:
 
What? There is no way to make people think that the plane hit the building. It is impossible to fly the plane that fast and close to the base of the pentagon and have it still make it up and over the building. It would have to fly that fast and low to appear as if it hit the building.

Why would you have to fly it near the base to make it seem to hit the building?
Quote:
 
Anyone watching, and many were, would see the plane go into the building and then the explosion.

People would see it going toward the building, then the explosion.
Quote:
 
Lagasse says he saw the plane yaw into the building.

Did it yaw into the building? Maybe it seemed to change its angle because it actually pulled up.
Quote:
 
He couldn't see that if the explosion hid it. Is he lying? That is not something he could be fooled into believing. He says he saw it.

I'm sure he believes that's what happened, but do you really believe he would've had time to see that? Just as it hits the building it yaws? He would have some pretty good eyes to see that. Maybe the "yaw" came well before it hit the building, but the plane was moving so fast he couldn't gauge time and distance very well. Maybe the plane made what he thought was a yaw, then a split second later came the explosion. In his mind, the two events would be almost simultaneous.

But, like I said before, he also said the plane flew north of the CITGO. How do you reconcile that?
As far as the north of Citgo goes, I think he was wrong. It is not impossible for them to be wrong on that point. I just think that the evidence shows that the plane crashed into the pentagon. If it couldn't do that and fly north of Citgo, then I go with it didn't fly north of Citgo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
As far as the north of Citgo goes, I think he was wrong. It is not impossible for them to be wrong on that point.

Why do you think he's wrong about seeing it north of the CITGO, but, right about impact? At least we can explain to you why they could've been fooled into believing the plane hit. You offer no explanation whatsoever for how they can believe they saw the plane flying on the wrong side. How can Lagasse be mistaken about seeing it over Arlington Cemetery? Brooks? Turcios? Stephens? Boger? All of these people just happened to be wrong about the same thing?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
Avenger
Jan 31 2008, 10:37 PM
Quote:
 
As far as the north of Citgo goes, I think he was wrong. It is not impossible for them to be wrong on that point.

Why do you think he's wrong about seeing it north of the CITGO, but, right about impact? At least we can explain to you why they could've been fooled into believing the plane hit. You offer no explanation whatsoever for how they can believe they saw the plane flying on the wrong side. How can Lagasse be mistaken about seeing it over Arlington Cemetery? Brooks? Turcios? Stephens? Boger? All of these people just happened to be wrong about the same thing?
Please explain how they were fooled. I have been waiting for one of you to expain how the flyover worked.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Bret08
Jan 31 2008, 10:47 PM
Please explain how they were fooled. I have been waiting for one of you to expain how the flyover worked.
oh don't worry.

You won't have to wait long for a complete and total explanation.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 31 2008, 10:50 PM
Bret08
Jan 31 2008, 10:47 PM
Please explain how they were fooled. I have been waiting for one of you to expain how the flyover worked.
oh don't worry.

You won't have to wait long for a complete and total explanation.

I can't wait. Once we have proof of a coverup and deception at the pentagon, it will be all over the world's media. When you have such proof, give me a heads up, so I can tune in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Bret08
Jan 31 2008, 11:08 PM
I can't wait. Once we have proof of a coverup and deception at the pentagon, it will be all over the world's media. When you have such proof, give me a heads up, so I can tune in.
Nice sarcasm.

I can do it too.

[sarcasm]
Yeah that will be great!

I'm sure the media had NOTHING to do with a black operation of mass murder that manipulated the minds of billions and has been used as justification by the worlds only superpower for permanent global war in a war based global economy.

I'm sure they will be JUMPING at the chance to prove everything they have been pushing for the past 6 years has been a complete lie.

[/endsarcasm]

The media IS the problem.

4th branch.
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 31 2008, 11:16 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Please explain how they were fooled.

Please explain how they could believe they saw the plane north of the CITGO, but really saw it south.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
Avenger
Jan 31 2008, 11:17 PM
Quote:
 
Please explain how they were fooled.

Please explain how they could believe they saw the plane north of the CITGO, but really saw it south.
Easy. First of all there probably wasn't much time to see anything. Do you remember the video that the Naudet bros. took of the firemen in the street when flight 11 crashed into the north tower? Sound travels slower than sight. They looked up and all around,until they finally saw the plane just before it hit the north tower. Lagasse was pumping gas. He probably heard the plane and looked all around to find out where it was. By the time he located it, it had already passed him. He probably just had enough time to see it 'yaw into the penatagon'. He probably deduce that it was on the north side of the CITGO because that is where he was, but it does not mean it is so. I don't understand how you can believe that the plane was noc without any real evidence that it was. A few people say one thing and you cling to it as fact. So many investigations are solved by evidence. Witnesses, a lot of the time, are all over the place. You have to look at the evidence. What evidence is there that it did not hit the building? If you think it could not have hit he building and been noc, then you have to make a choice. Go with the evidence or go with Lagasse and Brooks. You choose to believe Lagasse. I have to go with the evidence. In order to believe Lagasse, you have to come up with the flyover theory, and the planted poles and cab theory, and the witnesses planted and lying theory, and the planted 757-200 plane parts theory, and the AA fuselage theory, and the MSM is in on the plot theory, and Mike Walter and all USA today witnesses theory, and Popular Mechanics theory, and the Hisory Channel theory, and Lloyd England theory, and the DNA was faked theory, and the FDR was manupulated theory, and the Doubletree video was manupulated theory, etc. I mean it get pretty comical after a while.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
He probably heard the plane and looked all around to find out where it was.

Wrong. He saw it before he heard it.
Quote:
 
By the time he located it, it had already passed him. He probably just had enough time to see it 'yaw into the penatagon'.

That's not what he said. You are changing his story. He saw it over Arlington Cemetery. That's his story.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
Avenger
Jan 31 2008, 11:46 PM
Quote:
 
He probably heard the plane and looked all around to find out where it was.

Wrong. He saw it before he heard it.
Quote:
 
By the time he located it, it had already passed him. He probably just had enough time to see it 'yaw into the penatagon'.

That's not what he said. You are changing his story. He saw it over Arlington Cemetery. That's his story.
He said he saw the plane 'yaw into the pentagon'. You have decided that he was fooled, so I ask you to show how he was fooled. Lagasse has already showed that he will add to his story. He has said things that he could not have witnessed. He has disputed with indisputalbe facts. Why are you putting so much faith in this guy? He seems like the kind of person who wants to be a hero. He wants to be apart of the story. He said it was American Airlines. He said the shades were down on all the windows on the plane, which is a lie, because none of the people on the planes who contacted the ground said anything about the hijackers telling them to put the window shades down. Barbara Olson told her husband that they were over a residential area. She could clearly look out of the window. Lagasse is not simply reporting what he saw. He is putting together the best story from what he has read and or heard concerning the pentagon incident. That is why he looks so foolish when he challenges the inteviewer about where the cab and light poles were. If he never saw the cab or light poles, he wouldn't even be discussing them. That is something we like to call too much information.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
He said he saw the plane 'yaw into the pentagon'. You have decided that he was fooled, so I ask you to show how he was fooled. Lagasse has already showed that he will add to his story. He has said things that he could not have witnessed.

So, he lied when he said he saw it north of the CITGO. Along with Brooks, Turcios, Stephens, and Boger.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
Avenger
Feb 1 2008, 12:12 AM
Quote:
 
He said he saw the plane 'yaw into the pentagon'. You have decided that he was fooled, so I ask you to show how he was fooled. Lagasse has already showed that he will add to his story. He has said things that he could not have witnessed.

So, he lied when he said he saw it north of the CITGO. Along with Brooks, Turcios, Stephens, and Boger.
I didn't say he lied about noc, but he and the rest could be mistaken. I don't feel that their account of noc is proof positive that that is where the plane went. I will have to see some evidence coupled with testimony to tell me what really happened. The only way to dismiss all of the physical evidence, is to say that it was faked. I find it hard to believe that all of that evidence was faked.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Well, you DID change the man's story. You changed it pretty dramatically.
Quote:
 
The only way to dismiss all of the physical evidence, is to say that it was faked. I find it hard to believe that all of that evidence was faked.

Fine. Go on and believe in dancing light poles and fuselages with rivet holes, but no rivets.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply