| 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
| Why a Flyover? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 21 2008, 10:27 PM (1,473 Views) | |
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 03:18 PM Post #26 |
![]()
|
Actually I do know what it means. As misinformed as he was or as confusing as his statement was, the basis of his argument was that he can't believe...
...simply because he can't believe that...
Is that not personal incredulity? I couldn't see any substance or point to his statement other than his own will to not want to believe it because he thinks it is impossible or silly, merely because he thinks it is impossible or silly. Isn't this a form of his proof, that supports his belief in the impact? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 22 2008, 03:19 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 03:23 PM Post #27 |
|
No. Where does he state that his disbelief of same is evidence that it did not occur?
It is never asserted as proof or evidence for or against a series of events, it is offered as a summary of the flyover theory. |
![]() |
|
| Nevermind | Jan 22 2008, 03:30 PM Post #28 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
Aldo, Aster, both of you knock off the name calling. As a matter of fact, Aster, you're banned because you have the exact IP as LUCUS, who is banned. No socks, please. Edited by Nevermind, Jan 22 2008, 03:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 22 2008, 03:46 PM Post #29 |
|
Deleted User
|
Sucherman ('seconds later'), a 'known liar,' and who else? Wheelhouse? His second plane was a C-130. Knowles? Too far away to see any kind of veer. I can't find it on your site, so feel free to name them here or give us an exact link. |
|
|
| Mr_Gullible | Jan 22 2008, 03:47 PM Post #30 |
|
Gideon 524.. As a lurker for over 5 years now...... Reason for flyover = ""intentional deception" ... creates illogical conclusions I think its quite obvious by reading this thread that it continues to a successful event that make people miss the necessary conclusions "REQUIRED" to make a accurate and "VALID" timeline/understanding of the whole PENTAGON scenario. A little leaven placed at he right spot ruins the whole loaf of bread..... |
![]() |
|
| Nevermind | Jan 22 2008, 03:49 PM Post #31 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
Ok, so CIT is disinfo? Is that what you're saying because if you are, you better read the rules again. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 22 2008, 03:52 PM Post #32 |
|
Deleted User
|
illogical indeed. thanks for that sir. So we have Aldo now insisting they DO have flyover witnesses, but isn't trotting out their names and accounts for us to examine. Previously they admitted no one saw the flyover (that's spoken yet) and only one says he saw the pull up to get that high. And this is smoking gun proof of... something. |
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 03:57 PM Post #33 |
|
No. To my knowledge, CIT has never claimed to have any witnesses of a flyover. |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 04:11 PM Post #34 |
![]()
|
That's rich. Caustic Logic calling us illogical. this coming from the guy who suspects that the gov't put out a disinfo team at the Pentagon disguised as Pentagon cops and a gas station employee to sit and wait for CIT to come along and beg them for interviews (yeah, we had to be very persistent) all so they can point out a detail that blows the whole Pentagon attack wide open, all the while blowing their cover and jeopardizing their job and freedom. Yeah, real logic there. "So we have Aldo now insisting they DO have flyover witnesses, but isn't trotting out their names and accounts for us to examine." Where did I insist that liar? |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 04:12 PM Post #35 |
![]()
|
Yup, I've only claimed that April Gallop believes she spoke with people at ANC who thought the plane went over the building. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 22 2008, 04:12 PM Post #36 |
|
Deleted User
|
Nicepants:
last page:
I'd like to see this list. All things considered from what I know there are a few that can be read that way but none that hold up. |
|
|
| Mr_Gullible | Jan 22 2008, 04:23 PM Post #37 |
|
Dear Gideon, You said "Ok, so CIT is disinfo? Is that what you're saying because if you are, you better read the rules again." I read the rules. Understand completely. You're response is more abrasive than anything I have written. I read that phrase as a threat for banning me. I see right thru "AGENDAS". Truth shines like a light in darkness, and cuts thru misinfo like a sharp knife. Errant research smells bad, and stinks. Noseplugs are becoming a needed commodity around here. I don't think ALL of CIT is disinfo....they just are missing some critical points. I put it thru my sifter --- and get some good tidbits that BOLSTER my research. On the otherhand, some research/ideas/explanations AREN"T credible and verifiable and USEFUL in common logic...and get tossed to the garbage pile accordingly! Start over ! Assume new data. Garbage in = Garbage out ! |
![]() |
|
| Nevermind | Jan 22 2008, 04:38 PM Post #38 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
So is CIT misinfo or disinfo? There is a BIG difference. And for everybody in this thread(or any other for that matter), STOP THE NAMECALLING. This includes changing somebody's name around to insult them. Edited by Nevermind, Jan 22 2008, 04:40 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 04:39 PM Post #39 |
|
Seeing a plane veering off is not the same as seeing flight 77 veer off and miss the Pentagon. |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 04:42 PM Post #40 |
![]()
|
Oh it's not? How so? And it wasn't flight 77, so please stop saying it. |
![]() |
|
| Mr_Gullible | Jan 22 2008, 04:51 PM Post #41 |
|
Gideon, Agree on difference. misinfo = accidental / uneducated / new disinfo= intentional / experienced / trained misinfo agents on this board = many disinfo agents = few but smart (along side many obserevers who watch the antics - and find the "diamond in the rough" pieces to the puzzle that complete our accurate picture i.e the fewer times a person posts = usually the wiser
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 05:01 PM Post #42 |
|
Because that would be a fallacy known as "Affirming the Consequent". "I saw a plane" is not the same as "I saw flight 77" Someone who saw flight 77 could say both. Someone seeing a plane other than flight 77 could not.
It was the American Airlines Boeing 757-223, registered N644AA. |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 22 2008, 05:35 PM Post #43 |
|
Don't get all condensending with me Mr. "I'll just throw things at PFT & CIT until something sticks".......... yawn. What if some half retarded Moussaoui is behind the controls of AA77 and hits the fucking sheraton or citgo or the ground and slides into the pentagon and leaves 90% of the plane outside. Then how are you going to explain the damage inside or do you call it off and write it off as a loss and go to jail for the embezzlement of over 3 trillion US taxpayer dollars? How many witnesses have you spoken to? 0 What is your aeronautical background? NONE I don't know who you think you are but I'm realizing that spending time with you is what hurts CIT's & PFT's credibility, not anything you actually bring to the table. It's the fact that we belittle ourselves to reply to your petty insults and sarcasm. |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 22 2008, 05:39 PM Post #44 |
|
Alex LUCUS Jones' attacking 9/11 Truthers????? No way!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe it, even if he got Chambers to permanently ban me from the TNR chat room.......
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








7:22 PM Jul 10