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
Why a Flyover?
Topic Started: Jan 21 2008, 10:27 PM (1,473 Views)
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 02:03 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 01:58 PM
Aster
Jan 22 2008, 01:53 PM
We need a new category:

NCT

No Crash Theories/Theorists


The government flew a plane into the area just so they could crash another object into The Pentagon and claim it was the aircraft which was in the area anyway...within inches of The Pentagon, even according to Lyte Trip, et. al.


LOL
Asster,

Personal Incredulity does not constitute proof.

They didn't crash anything.
That's not personal incredulity. Don't use words if you don't understand what they mean, it only hurts your argument.
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...

Quote:
 
The government flew a plane into the area just so they could crash another object into The Pentagon and claim it was the aircraft which was in the area anyway...within inches of The Pentagon, even according to Lyte Trip, et. al.


...simply because he can't believe that...


Quote:
 
The government flew a plane into the area just so they could crash another object into The Pentagon and claim it was the aircraft which was in the area anyway...within inches of The Pentagon, even according to Lyte Trip, et. al.


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 02:03 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 01:58 PM
Aster
Jan 22 2008, 01:53 PM
We need a new category:

NCT

No Crash Theories/Theorists


The government flew a plane into the area just so they could crash another object into The Pentagon and claim it was the aircraft which was in the area anyway...within inches of The Pentagon, even according to Lyte Trip, et. al.


LOL
Asster,

Personal Incredulity does not constitute proof.

They didn't crash anything.
That's not personal incredulity. Don't use words if you don't understand what they mean, it only hurts your argument.
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...
Quote:
 
The government flew a plane into the area just so they could crash another object into The Pentagon and claim it was the aircraft which was in the area anyway...within inches of The Pentagon, even according to Lyte Trip, et. al.


Is that not personal incredulity?


No. Where does he state that his disbelief of same is evidence that it did not occur?

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
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?


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 01:57 PM
Aster
Jan 22 2008, 01:33 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 12:56 PM
Bongo Thud
Jan 22 2008, 01:11 AM
How many people witnessed a flyover?
How many people saw a plane/jet that was along the same flight path over/near the Pentagon veering away/peeling off into the sky as there was an explosion at the Pentagon, Bongo Thud?
Here, I'll answer Bongo Thud's question for you.


Bongo Thud;

There were no people who reported seeing a plane fly over The Pentagon.
Quote:
 
Vin Naranayan:
-"I hopped out of my car [...] nearly oblivious to a [...] *jet* hovering in the skies".





Joel Sucherman:
-Sucherman saw "a" plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn...."a" plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space...




Kelly Knowles:
-...she saw a [...] plane in the air *over the Pentagon* *as* [the explosion happened]...some sort of plane followed [...] toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion. "



Keith Wheelhouse:
the [...] plane banked off to the west."


There are some people who saw a plane/jet over or near the Pentagon veering away as the explosion happened.


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.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr_Gullible

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.....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
Mr_Gullible
Jan 22 2008, 03:47 PM
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.....
Ok, so CIT is disinfo?

Is that what you're saying because if you are, you better read the rules again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Mr_Gullible
Jan 22 2008, 03:47 PM
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.....
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.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Caustic Logic
Jan 22 2008, 03:52 PM
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.
No. To my knowledge, CIT has never claimed to have any witnesses of a flyover.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Caustic Logic
Jan 22 2008, 03:52 PM


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.
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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 03:57 PM
Caustic Logic
Jan 22 2008, 03:52 PM
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.
No. To my knowledge, CIT has never claimed to have any witnesses of a flyover.
Yup, I've only claimed that April Gallop believes she spoke with people at ANC who thought the plane went over the building.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Nicepants:
Quote:
 
To my knowledge, CIT has never claimed to have any witnesses of a flyover.

last page:
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 03:12 PM
Bongo Thud
Jan 22 2008, 02:11 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 12:56 PM
Bongo Thud
Jan 22 2008, 01:11 AM
How many people witnessed a flyover?
How many people saw a plane/jet that was along the same flight path over/near the Pentagon veering away/peeling off into the sky as there was an explosion at the Pentagon, Bongo Thud?
Wouldn't that be the same thing as a flyover? :cool:
Yup. so how many?


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.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr_Gullible

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 !
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
Mr_Gullible
Jan 22 2008, 04:23 PM
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 !
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Caustic Logic
Jan 22 2008, 04:12 PM
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
How many people saw a plane/jet that was along the same flight path over/near the Pentagon veering away/peeling off into the sky as there was an explosion at the Pentagon, Bongo Thud?
Wouldn't that be the same thing as a flyover? :cool:
Yup. so how many?

Seeing a plane veering off is not the same as seeing flight 77 veer off and miss the Pentagon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 04:39 PM
Caustic Logic
Jan 22 2008, 04:12 PM
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
How many people saw a plane/jet that was along the same flight path over/near the Pentagon veering away/peeling off into the sky as there was an explosion at the Pentagon, Bongo Thud?
Wouldn't that be the same thing as a flyover? :cool:
Yup. so how many?

Seeing a plane veering off is not the same as seeing flight 77 veer off and miss the Pentagon.
Oh it's not? How so?

And it wasn't flight 77, so please stop saying it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr_Gullible

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 :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 04:42 PM
nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 04:39 PM

Seeing a plane veering off is not the same as seeing flight 77 veer off and miss the Pentagon.
Oh it's not? How so?

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.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
And it wasn't flight 77, so please stop saying it.


It was the American Airlines Boeing 757-223, registered N644AA.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

Caustic Logic
Jan 22 2008, 03:10 AM
It was very precise. The perfect descending loop, hitting the ground floor without scuffin the lawn, all this said too precise to have happened - and now it's not precise enough? So why not plane plus some bombs for the tight spots? They just needed to keep that plane, they were just too cheap? They just wanted to be all 'deceptive' in a random and needless way? And then cover for it with altered video, radar, FDR, planted witnesses, planted light poles, pre-fabriacted damage outside the Pentagon, the pyrotechnics of flyover masking, the enforced silence of all flyover witnesses, etc. A million points of co-ordinated fakery and all the hundreds of mechanics involved kept silent, and still their work fucked up enough that CIT has discovered like 50 seams that 'unravel the plot', And you dismiss a 757 impact because "the whole thing could easily be ruined by the simplest of pilot error."
:ermm:

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.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 03:23 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
Jan 22 2008, 02:03 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 22 2008, 01:58 PM
Aster
Jan 22 2008, 01:53 PM
We need a new category:

NCT

No Crash Theories/Theorists


The government flew a plane into the area just so they could crash another object into The Pentagon and claim it was the aircraft which was in the area anyway...within inches of The Pentagon, even according to Lyte Trip, et. al.


LOL
Asster,

Personal Incredulity does not constitute proof.

They didn't crash anything.
That's not personal incredulity. Don't use words if you don't understand what they mean, it only hurts your argument.
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...
Quote:
 
The government flew a plane into the area just so they could crash another object into The Pentagon and claim it was the aircraft which was in the area anyway...within inches of The Pentagon, even according to Lyte Trip, et. al.


Is that not personal incredulity?


No. Where does he state that his disbelief of same is evidence that it did not occur?

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
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?


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.
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....... ^o)
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