Lincoln Leibner: NoC flighpath?

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

Lincoln Leibner: NoC flighpath?; But Domenick wanted to change the topic.
Topic Started: Aug 23 2008, 09:26 PM (1,290 Views)
JFK	Sep 1 2008, 11:51 AM Post #26
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	FWIW 2 MB plot for 77's spiral.
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Sep 1 2008, 12:28 PM Post #27
Posts: 1,437 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Stinkey Puh Sep 1 2008, 10:52 AM How does NoC prove a flyover? The witnesses say it impacted. This statement exposes the false premise you are using as an excuse for your intellectual dishonesty. If you still actually believe a plane on the north side can cause the physical damage then you are deluding yourself. None of our jref detractors are even willing to go there. NoC proves the witnesses were deceived in regards to the impact. If you believe NoC you believe in a flyover. I am finished talking with you.
Posts: 1,437 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Stinkey Puh	Sep 1 2008, 01:58 PM Post #28
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08	Craig Ranke This statement exposes the false premise you are using as an excuse for your intellectual dishonesty. If you still actually believe a plane on the north side can cause the physical damage then you are deluding yourself. If you still actually believe that I've said a plane on the north side can cause the physical damage, then I hope you can show us a quote of it. Quote: None of our jref detractors are even willing to go there. Probably because they too figure it isn't really possible. Quote: NoC proves the witnesses were deceived in regards to the impact. I would be closer to agreeing with that if it weren't for the fact that there are multiple witnesses (IMO, too many) who do not appear to have been in a position to be deceived in regards to the impact -- and afaik they still testify that it impacted. These would include, Joel Sucherman, Stephen McGraw, Sean Boger (an NoC witness himself), and others. Quote: If you believe NoC you believe in a flyover. I am finished talking with you. That's all right.
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Sep 1 2008, 02:36 PM Post #29
Posts: 1,437 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	I SHOULD be done with you but it seems like you would have to understand how you are now completely caught in your own logic so I have to take it the next step. If you believe the physical damage can not be caused by NoC, and you believe the plane flew NoC, you MUST believe the plane did not hit. There is no escaping the logic. This implicates a psychological military black operation on an unprecedented level. THIS is the nature of the crime we are investigating. Crime investigations do not look at evidence completely out of context of the crime they are investigating. If it's a murder they look at the patterns involved from historical data regarding murders when pursuing leads. The crime we are investigating is a world wide psychological military black operation. Therefore it is reasonable to look at the crime in that context and understand how historically, operatives and assets are typically utilized to sell the story to the public and pull the operation off. If you truly believed NoC, none of this should be a leap of logic for you. It's common sense and intellectual honesty. Discuss the information in context of the crime or you are doing nothing but semantic masturbation and being disruptive to the productive team work that it will take to help expose this horrible deception. (that you claim you agree was a deception. right?) Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Sep 1 2008, 02:37 PM.
Posts: 1,437 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Sep 1 2008, 03:21 PM Post #30
Posts: 1,437 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	You see stink.....you are working off the assumption that all witness accounts should be automatically considered valid unless you have hard proof they were involved. (what that could be I don't know, a notarized document of them admitting it?) But this isn't how it works in crime investigations. People lie during crimes. It is expected and assumed. Investigators know this and it's their job to root out the liars. They do this by gathering data. Independent accounts from eyewitnesses are usually a major part of all crime investigations. They bring people in for questioning and the ones whose stories check out and are independently corroborated, and seem genuine and relaxed to the investigator are typically cleared of being suspects. But the ones whose stories don't add up, or exhibit contradictions, or have curious body language, or are implicated by association or circumstantial evidence, stay suspects whether or not the investigator has proof they were involved. We most certainly have found enough contradictions and dubious details in the various accounts of Walter, McGraw, Sucherman, Wheelhouse, and England to fairly consider them suspects. NoC implicates them as well. There is no way around it. To suggest otherwise is to deny the true implications of NoC.
Posts: 1,437 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Stinkey Puh	Sep 1 2008, 04:48 PM Post #31
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08	Craig Ranke If you believe the physical damage can not be caused by NoC, and you believe the plane flew NoC, you MUST believe the plane did not hit. I am not arguing that a plane hit the Pentagon because I don't think one did. Quote: You see stink.....you are working off the assumption that all witness accounts should be automatically considered valid unless you have hard proof they were involved. (what that could be I don't know, a notarized document of them admitting it?) What I'm saying is that we should not just take certain parts of the witness testimony, disregard other parts, and call some witnesses liars based off nothing. If you don't have evidence or proof someone is dishonest, why are you claiming they are dishonest? Quote: They bring people in for questioning and the ones whose stories check out and are independently corroborated, and seem genuine and relaxed to the investigator are typically cleared of being suspects. But the ones whose stories don't add up, or exhibit contradictions, or have curious body language, or are implicated by association or circumstantial evidence, stay suspects whether or not the investigator has proof they were involved. We most certainly have found enough contradictions and dubious details in the various accounts of Walter, McGraw, Sucherman, Wheelhouse, and England to fairly consider them suspects. All right, can you (or any part of CIT) list the, "contradictions and dubious details" which implicate Walter, McGraw, Sucherman, Wheelhouse, and England? What exactly is it that makes you suspicious of them? Quote: NoC implicates them as well. There is no way around it. To suggest otherwise is to deny the true implications of NoC. If the NoC evidence implicates those people, why does it not implicate (for example) Lagasse, Brooks, or Sean Boger? Edited by Stinkey Puh, Sep 1 2008, 05:08 PM.
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Sep 1 2008, 05:51 PM Post #32
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Stinkey Puh Sep 1 2008, 04:48 PM Craig Ranke If you believe the physical damage can not be caused by NoC, and you believe the plane flew NoC, you MUST believe the plane did not hit. I am not arguing that a plane hit the Pentagon because I don't think one did. Then why are you more interested in spending your time on forums splitting hairs against the research of CIT than helping to expose the deception? Quote: What I'm saying is that we should not just take certain parts of the witness testimony, disregard other parts, and call some witnesses liars based off nothing. Yeah so? That sure isn't something that CIT has done so why bring it up? Quote: If you don't have evidence or proof someone is dishonest, why are you claiming they are dishonest? Quote please. We have evidence against everyone we have claimed is dishonest. Quote: All right, can you (or any part of CIT) list the, "contradictions and dubious details" which implicate Walter, McGraw, Sucherman, Wheelhouse, and England? They are layed out in all our presentations. I don't feel like listing them all, there are too many. Please go watch them again. Quote: What exactly is it that makes you suspicious of them? 1. The very notion that they were central figures in the propaganda supporting the official story when even YOU believe the plane didn't hit meaning 9/11 was a world wide psychological back op. 2. The blatant contradictions, dubious details, questionable circumstances, and impossibilities in their accounts. 3. The NoC evidence automatically implicating anyone used to sell the official story. 4. Their strange demeanor when interviewed. Quote: If the NoC evidence implicates those people, why does it not implicate (for example) Lagasse, Brooks, or Sean Boger? Because they unwittingly expose the crime by independently corroborating each other and all the other witnesses regarding NoC. But yes we did initially consider all 3 of them suspects (as any previously published witness is) until we talked with them and they clarified their stories, they admitted errors on camera, contradictions were cleared up, and we saw how they had a relaxed honest demeanor while doing it all. If you don't believe a plane hit....you believe it was a global psychological military black op and that a lot of people lied. There is no way around it stink. Please contribute productively to the movement and work as a team to help figure out WHO the peprs really are instead of focusing on arguing against the research/evidence of CIT. If you can't even agree that the witnesses in question are "suspects" then you simply aren't interested in looking at this crime from an investigative level.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Sep 1 2008, 05:53 PM Post #33
Posts: 1,437 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	That last post was me, I guess Aldo had logged in on my computer.
Posts: 1,437 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


streetcar304	Sep 1 2008, 07:15 PM Post #34
Posts: 21 Group: BANNED! Member #788 Joined: 08/06/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Sep 1 2008, 05:51 PM Stinkey What I'm saying is that we should not just take certain parts of the witness testimony, disregard other parts, and call some witnesses liars based off nothing. Yeah so? That sure isn't something that CIT has done so why bring it up? You took the "NOC" part of Lagasse's testimony and disregarded the "it hit the building" part. You took the "NoC" part of Brook's testimony and disregarded the "I saw the plane just go nose dive into the Pentagon." part. You took the "NoC" part of Boger's testimony and disregarded the "...and I just watched it hit the building" part. You took the parts of George Aman's testimony that you liked and disregarded his "And I'm just watching and I'm just amazed that it, it happened pretty quick, too. And it hit the thing..." part. You took the part of Robert Turcios testimony and disregarded his "...“it went in a direct line into the Pentagon—it collided.” part. What was that part you said about not taking just certain parts and disregarding other parts? Is that like your "We never ask leading questions" thing?
Posts: 21 Group: BANNED! Member #788 Joined: 08/06/08


JFK	Sep 1 2008, 07:42 PM Post #35
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	pinch JFK, If you want me to leave, I will do so, Too bad he lies, eh streetcar ?
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Stinkey Puh	Sep 2 2008, 09:37 PM Post #36
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08	Craig Ranke Quote: I am not arguing that a plane hit the Pentagon because I don't think one did. Then why are you more interested in spending your time on forums splitting hairs against the research of CIT than helping to expose the deception? I don't think I'll answer that question because it appears to make too many assumptions which have yet to be proven. Quote: Stinkey Puh What I'm saying is that we should not just take certain parts of the witness testimony, disregard other parts, and call some witnesses liars based off nothing. Yeah so? That sure isn't something that CIT has done so why bring it up? I think streetcar explained it well. And if you say certain witnesses (mentioned before) are dishonest about the plane's impact, isn't that basically saying they are lying? Quote: Quote: If you don't have evidence or proof someone is dishonest, why are you claiming they are dishonest? Quote please. We have evidence against everyone we have claimed is dishonest. If you want, I can post the quote from the email you sent to bc and me. And anyway, I think CIT's videos against the witnesses is rather clear without saying the words outright. Quote: Quote: All right, can you (or any part of CIT) list the, "contradictions and dubious details" which implicate Walter, McGraw, Sucherman, Wheelhouse, and England? They are layed out in all our presentations. I don't feel like listing them all, there are too many. Please go watch them again. Well then maybe someone else can list the suspicious aspects of those witnesses or something because I don't remember seeing any that would conclusively convince me that those people are less trustworthy than the other witnesses. Quote: 1. The very notion that they were central figures in the propaganda supporting the official story when even YOU believe the plane didn't hit meaning 9/11 was a world wide psychological back op. Why does it matter how their witness testimony was used? Quote: 2. The blatant contradictions, dubious details, questionable circumstances, and impossibilities in their accounts. And those would be. . .? Quote: 3. The NoC evidence automatically implicating anyone used to sell the official story. How? Quote: 4. Their strange demeanor when interviewed. Ah, now that's intereresting. What was strange about their demeanor? Quote: Quote: If the NoC evidence implicates those people, why does it not implicate (for example) Lagasse, Brooks, or Sean Boger? Because they unwittingly expose the crime by independently corroborating each other and all the other witnesses regarding NoC. How do you know Walter, McGraw, England, Wheelhouse, and/or Sucherman wouldn't expose the crime similarly? Did you try to determine if the plane they say they saw was NoC (Wheelhouse says he is not familiar with the area, so I'm not sure the path he drew can be relied upon as what he saw)? Quote: Please contribute productively to the movement and work as a team to help figure out WHO the peprs really are instead of focusing on arguing against the research/evidence of CIT. Look here. What's the title of this thread? I'm not the one who started this discussion. It looks more like CIT decided to focus on Biscuit Cough and Stinkey Puh personally rather than discuss the evidence at hand. Quote: If you can't even agree that the witnesses in question are "suspects" then you simply aren't interested in looking at this crime from an investigative level. If you can't present the evidence that implicates these witnesses, why should anyone just agree with you that they are "suspects"? The questions written on the screen in CIT's "hit pieces" on these witnesses --which for some reason you apparently did not attempt to clear up with each individual-- are not solid enough. Edited by Stinkey Puh, Sep 3 2008, 10:44 AM.
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08


SPreston	Sep 2 2008, 10:06 PM Post #37
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	streetcar304 Sep 1 2008, 11:42 AM Stinkey Puh Sep 1 2008, 10:52 AM So it seems if a Pentagon flyover occured, the plane would have flown NoC, then over the impact point, and then about 10 seconds later (because Roosevelt says it was "ten seconds tops" from when he heard the explosion to when he saw the plane) it was flying away from the Pentagon over the South Parking Lot Lane 1 area, southwest, and across Rt 27. Very interesting. Thanks to CIT for the interview, btw. Good point. I was giving the CIT Boys the benefit of the doubt by not bringing up Robert's comments and descriptions of where the aircraft came from...or was headed. I didn't want to muddle up an already muddled situation. As far as the speed is concerned (784 feet per second, or 534 mph), I obtained that from a post by SPreston, so a tip o' the hat goes to that individual for helping out with the speed. Hey Bill Paisley aka Pinch aka Sweet Pea aka streetcar304 aka spinning man of a thousand usernames. That 784 feet per second or 534 mph was taken from the official flight path speed through the light poles, which is totally impossible from over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo. It didn't happen pinch. Can you comprehend the term impossible? Are you still slithering around here pushing that fantasy tale like a cocaine pusher in a high school? Impossible Impossible



22205	Jun 1 2009, 01:19 AM Post #38
Arlingtonian Posts: 443 Group: Members Member #24 Joined: 01/14/08	i cant believe this thread went as far as it did without including these liebner quotes: http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=384&issueID=38 LincolnLeibner A tree and the backend of a crash truck at the heliport near the crash site were on fire and the ground was scorched, Maj. Leibner recounted. "The plane went into the building like a toy into a birthday cake," he said. "The aircraft went in between the second and third floors." some other quotes (same source): LincolnLeibner Maj. Leibner drove in and made it as far as the south parking lot, where he got out on foot. "I heard the plane first," he said. "I thought it was a flyover Arlington cemetery." LincolnLeibner I immediately ran towards the point of impact. I passed some construction workers, who were running the other way. I got to the building. Remarkably, there was no debris from the airplane. In the immediate area around the Pentagon, the grass was all scorched and blackened. Windows were obviously knocked out and you could hear a fire inside the building but the fires weren’t that prevalent at that point. It was just smoke, and it wasn’t even all that bad... MaryannRamos As victims staggered from the building, Ramos couldn't tell what had wrought the destruction. There were no signs of a plane. "All I could see was a giant hole in the building," she said. "I thought it was a Piper cub (small plane). I found a couple little, thin pieces of twisted aluminum, that's all, on the ground. I gave it to the FBI. There were lots of flames at the top, a black hole and smoke." other sources: http://history.amedd.army.mil/memoirs/soldiers/responding.pdf LincolnLeibner I told them what I had seen and what I gather is that I was the first personal account that he had. Even at this point, I don’t believe the Secretary was confident that, in fact, a civilian airliner had hit the building. I think they still speculated about a bomb, a cruise missile, a small aircraft, but I was glad I was able to give useful information. I told them the plane came in full throttle, level, flaps up, wheels up, wasn’t crashed into the building, was flown into the building. The Secretary was essentially incredulous, but, then again, maybe that was just his manner. He asked me if I was sure. http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/globe_stories/090802_sixlives_leibner.htm LincolnLeibner Then he heard the noise. Leibner had grown up in Arlington, Va., not far from Reagan National Airport, and he knew the jetliners' flight paths. For him, it was a sixth sense, and this sense told him this roar was coming from a very unusual direction. It was, he surmised in the fraction of a second that these calculations sometimes take, probably a military flyover for a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, ground-attack aircraft or fighters sent aloft as a tribute to a fallen soldier. Pretty routine stuff. But then it struck him: No, this was no A10 or F15. This was a passenger jet. LincolnLeibner And when he got there, in direct contradiction to the air-crash scenes he had watched on film or imagined a hundred times, there was no debris. No tail. No piece of the fuselage. There was nothing. There was only the fire in the grass and bits of the building strewn about, with a cruel randomness that made as little sense as the crash itself.



22205	Jul 21 2009, 12:22 AM Post #39
Arlingtonian Posts: 443 Group: Members Member #24 Joined: 01/14/08	edited post due to inaccuracy and (my) poor/flawed observation. thanks aldo for the correction. Edited by 22205, Jul 22 2009, 02:39 PM.



Aldo Marquis CIT	Jul 22 2009, 12:00 PM Post #40
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	bumbaclot Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jul 22 2009, 03:07 PM.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Flippy	Jul 22 2009, 03:43 PM Post #41
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	Lloyd England: "Those guys drove up with me. We planned it. They helped me move the light pole." Inside Job. Period. End of story. If ANY aspect of 9/11 had plotters of US decent than the entire thing is a lie. Edited to add: plotters "Of U.S. Decent" Edited by Flippy, Jul 22 2009, 05:52 PM.
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


roundhead	Jul 29 2009, 04:56 PM Post #42
Posts: 39 Group: Members Member #781 Joined: 08/01/08	Flippy Jul 22 2009, 03:43 PM Lloyd England: "Those guys drove up with me. We planned it. They helped me move the light pole." Inside Job. Period. End of story. If ANY aspect of 9/11 had plotters of US decent than the entire thing is a lie. Edited to add: plotters "Of U.S. Decent" Where did you get that LLoyd quote from???????
Posts: 39 Group: Members Member #781 Joined: 08/01/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Jul 29 2009, 06:37 PM Post #43
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	he misquoted it.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Flippy	Jul 29 2009, 07:52 PM Post #44
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	I did. Craig posted a video that highlights exactly what he said here
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


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


« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2