Does evidence contradicting the official story....

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!

Pages:
1
2
3
4

Does evidence contradicting the official story....; hold more weight?
Topic Started: Jan 17 2008, 06:47 PM (760 Views)
nicepants	Jan 21 2008, 05:03 PM Post #76
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 21 2008, 04:40 PM nicepants Jan 21 2008, 04:32 PM What evidence would you accept that would prove that the plane impacted the Pentagon. Be detailed, please. If someone provided more confirmed corroborated first hand accounts of witnesses (who had a vantage point allowing them to tell) who all specifically place the plane on the south side of the citgo station. So since we have 7 directly supporting the north side there would need to be at least 8 directly supporting the south side. So far there are none. I think you misunderstood. My question was: "What evidence would you accept that would prove that the plane impacted the Pentagon.". Nothing about Citgo in that question.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 21 2008, 05:11 PM Post #77
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 21 2008, 05:03 PM What evidence would you accept that would prove that the plane impacted the Pentagon.". Nothing about Citgo in that question. I understood it perfectly. We provide evidence proving the plane did not cause the physical damage. In order for me to doubt that evidence you would have to provide evidence that directly counters what we provide. That is an absolute fair and logical requirement and demonstrates perfectly how our claims are falsifiable.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 21 2008, 05:35 PM Post #78
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 21 2008, 05:11 PM nicepants Jan 21 2008, 05:03 PM What evidence would you accept that would prove that the plane impacted the Pentagon.". Nothing about Citgo in that question. I understood it perfectly. We provide evidence proving the plane did not cause the physical damage. In order for me to doubt that evidence you would have to provide evidence that directly counters what we provide. That is an absolute fair and logical requirement and demonstrates perfectly how our claims are falsifiable. So, the only evidence which you would accept of the plane impacting the pentagon is eyewitness testimony from 8 people stating that the flight path was South of the citgo? Is that what you are saying? Even if none of these eyewitness accounts included anything about an impact? Edited by nicepants, Jan 21 2008, 05:40 PM.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 21 2008, 05:42 PM Post #79
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 21 2008, 05:35 PM So, the only evidence which you would accept of the plane impacting the pentagon is eyewitness testimony from 8 people stating that the flight path was South of the citgo? Is that what you are saying? Direct eyewitness testimony with at least 4 of them being filmed on location. Yes. Since this is exactly what we have provided proving the north side claim it is not unreasonable to require stronger evidence of the same nature to directly counter it. In fact this should be quite simple if the plane was really on the south side. Unfortunately for the official story everyone who was in a position to tell claims the opposite. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 21 2008, 05:43 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 21 2008, 05:44 PM Post #80
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 21 2008, 05:42 PM nicepants Jan 21 2008, 05:35 PM So, the only evidence which you would accept of the plane impacting the pentagon is eyewitness testimony from 8 people stating that the flight path was South of the citgo? Is that what you are saying? Direct eyewitness testimony with at least 4 of them being filmed on location. Yes. Since this is exactly what we have provided proving the north side claim it is not unreasonable to require stronger evidence of the same nature to directly counter it. In fact this should be quite simple if the plane was really on the south side. Unfortunately for the official story everyone who was in a position to tell claims the opposite. Do all of them have to have been able to see the citgo? Or, like your video, can we use witnesses who report a flight path which would have resulted in the plane flying south of the citgo?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 21 2008, 05:55 PM Post #81
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 21 2008, 05:44 PM Do all of them have to have been able to see the citgo? Or, like your video, can we use witnesses who report a flight path which would have resulted in the plane flying south of the citgo? We provide 5 that could see the citgo and one that had the plane on direct course to be north of citgo and the new one is from route 27. I would accept no less than 6 that could see the citgo with 2 more that were close to it but had the plane directly on course with the south of citgo path. All would have to be interviewed directly but at least 5 of the 8 would have to be interviewed on location. This would be the only way that the evidence would be stronger than what we provide.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 21 2008, 06:04 PM Post #82
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 21 2008, 05:55 PM nicepants Jan 21 2008, 05:44 PM Do all of them have to have been able to see the citgo? Or, like your video, can we use witnesses who report a flight path which would have resulted in the plane flying south of the citgo? We provide 5 that could see the citgo and one that had the plane on direct course to be north of citgo and the new one is from route 27. I would accept no less than 6 that could see the citgo with 2 more that were close to it but had the plane directly on course with the south of citgo path. All would have to be interviewed directly but at least 5 of the 8 would have to be interviewed on location. This would be the only way that the evidence would be stronger than what we provide. The only problem with that is the even if those are provided, this only would prove that the plane was south of the Citgo. Does this mean that if someone proves to you that the plane was south of the citgo that it subsequently proves to you that the impact occurred? (Even if none of these witnesses saw or made any statements about the impact)? Edited by nicepants, Jan 21 2008, 06:11 PM.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 21 2008, 06:39 PM Post #83
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 21 2008, 06:04 PM The only problem with that is the even if those are provided, this only would prove that the plane was south of the Citgo. Does this mean that if someone proves to you that the plane was south of the citgo that it subsequently proves to you that the impact occurred? (Even if none of these witnesses saw or made any statements about the impact)? Why are you asking the same question? I already said that's what it would take. You have to directly refute the evidence we provide proving otherwise.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 21 2008, 08:02 PM Post #84
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 21 2008, 06:39 PM nicepants Jan 21 2008, 06:04 PM The only problem with that is the even if those are provided, this only would prove that the plane was south of the Citgo. Does this mean that if someone proves to you that the plane was south of the citgo that it subsequently proves to you that the impact occurred? (Even if none of these witnesses saw or made any statements about the impact)? Why are you asking the same question? I already said that's what it would take. You have to directly refute the evidence we provide proving otherwise. If it was proven that the plane impacted the Pentagon, it would prove your flyover theory wrong, regardless of what side of the citgo the plane passed.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4