There are still no eyewitness reports of a flyover

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

There are still no eyewitness reports of a flyover
Topic Started: Nov 19 2008, 09:37 PM (1,364 Views)
Freq Band	Jan 26 2009, 09:22 PM Post #51
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08	Those audio interviews were quite interesting. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/911_archive/subjectP.html) Several eye-witnesses, light poles being knocked over, standing in jet fuel, plane parts......and no second plane flyover mentioned. Edited by Freq Band, Jan 26 2009, 09:24 PM.
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08


C.H.	Jan 26 2009, 10:49 PM Post #52
Posts: 57 Group: Members Member #634 Joined: 06/04/08	Freqband Those audio interviews were quite interesting. Several eye-witnesses To what? Have they been confirmed? What was there point of view? Quote: light poles being knocked over Who? Have they been confirmed on location? Two interviewees have (Brooks and Laggasse), and both admitted that they didn't see the lightpoles get hit. Quote: standing in jet fuel, plane parts...... Who? Have they been confirmed? What type of plane parts? Could they even positively identify them. Quote: and no second plane flyover mentioned. Well, you'll love to hear this then! Edited by C.H., Jan 26 2009, 10:54 PM.
Posts: 57 Group: Members Member #634 Joined: 06/04/08


Freq Band	Jan 26 2009, 11:40 PM Post #53
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08	C.H. Jan 26 2009, 10:49 PM Well, you'll love to hear this then! What am I supposed to gather from that ? The "other plane" mentioned that diverted from the smoke ball was noticed after they had exited the building.....not immediately after the pentagon explosion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brooks, Chadwick B. Created/Published November 25, 2001 http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr335a01.mp3 "...nose dive into the pentagon....." "....to see that plane literally clip the lamp pole..... " "....as if I had a rock, I could hit it.." =FB= Edited by Freq Band, Jan 26 2009, 11:40 PM.
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Jan 27 2009, 12:16 AM Post #54
Posts: 1,939 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	wow they must have been standing in the non flammable jet fuel. lucky for them!
Posts: 1,939 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


albion	Jan 27 2009, 09:51 AM Post #55
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	C.H. Jan 26 2009, 10:49 PM Well, you'll love to hear this then! CH, Tell us what you don't understand that the C-130 is not the low-flying, fast-moving, twin-engine jet that CIT has claimed flew over and away from the the Pentagon? Tell us why there are absolutely NO eyewitnesses to any such flyover and why NO one can produce any? Finally, tell us all why you have to actually sit hit here and blatantly DENY the massive evidence you have been incapable of refuting in seven years that AA77 hit the Pentagon? Seven whole years. Edited by albion, Jan 27 2009, 09:51 AM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


albion	Jan 27 2009, 09:54 AM Post #56
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	Someone tell DOM that we are still waiting for him to produce eyewitnesses to a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon? Is he afraid to? Edited by albion, Jan 27 2009, 09:55 AM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


JFK	Jan 27 2009, 10:00 AM Post #57
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	albion Jan 27 2009, 09:54 AM Someone tell DOM that we are still waiting for him to produce eyewitnesses to a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon? Is he afraid to? Or perhaps the witnesses are afraid to come forward after what happened to Barry Jennings. I suggest you troll elsewhere.
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


C.H.	Jan 27 2009, 04:02 PM Post #58
Posts: 57 Group: Members Member #634 Joined: 06/04/08	Albion Tell us what you don't understand that the C-130 is not the low-flying, fast-moving, twin-engine jet that CIT has claimed flew over and away from the the Pentagon? Huh? What part of "some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and the plane kept on going" do you and FreqBand not understand? Quote: Tell us why there are absolutely NO eyewitnesses to any such flyover and why NO one can produce any? I just provided some (admittedly second hand) accounts of the flyover. Nevertheless, these accounts are extremely important because they corroborate all of the firsthand witnesses, including confirmed flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts. Would you care to tell us why you ignore a very specific claim recorded by the CMH, ie that the plane continued on over the Pentagon, that was accurately predicted by CIT based on firsthand testimony three years before it was released?
Posts: 57 Group: Members Member #634 Joined: 06/04/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Jan 27 2009, 05:30 PM Post #59
Posts: 1,939 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	JFK Jan 27 2009, 10:00 AM albion Jan 27 2009, 09:54 AM Someone tell DOM that we are still waiting for him to produce eyewitnesses to a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon? Is he afraid to? Or perhaps the witnesses are afraid to come forward after what happened to Barry Jennings. I suggest you troll elsewhere. least he's bright enough to figure out he's on ignore.......lol now if he were only bright enough to realize that wasn't a c130 flying away from the crash site over the parking lot with 2 engines and all silver like officer roberts described seconds after the alleged impact................
Posts: 1,939 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


albion	Jan 27 2009, 07:10 PM Post #60
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	JFK Jan 27 2009, 10:00 AM Or perhaps the witnesses are afraid to come forward after what happened to Barry Jennings. Why would you think the idea of anonymous witnesses on the freeways, roads, and bridges would have any fear of telling anyone? Why do you think that is even plausible? Edited by albion, Jan 27 2009, 07:11 PM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


JFK	Jan 27 2009, 07:20 PM Post #61
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	albion Jan 27 2009, 07:10 PM JFK Jan 27 2009, 10:00 AM Or perhaps the witnesses are afraid to come forward after what happened to Barry Jennings. Why would you think the idea of anonymous witnesses on the freeways, roads, and bridges would have any fear of telling anyone? Why do you think that is even plausible? I think it is plausable for the exact same reason that you fear and grace us with your neverending presence here JThomas.
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


albion	Jan 27 2009, 07:21 PM Post #62
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	Domenick DiMaggio Jan 27 2009, 05:30 PM least he's bright enough to figure out he's on ignore.......lol now if he were only bright enough to realize that wasn't a c130 flying away from the crash site over the parking lot with 2 engines and all silver like officer roberts described seconds after the alleged impact................ Would someone be kind enough to remind DOM that the MP3 referred to is the C-130? Thanks. And would someone be kind enough to remind everyone that Roosevelt Roberts contradicted himself, and CIT doesn't know what he meant by its own admission, BUT if Roberts had actually seen a "flyover" there would still be all those corroborating eyewitnesses that no one can produce? I will remind those here that if you intend to take this further to a court of law, you still have to abide by the Constitution of the United States of America which means you will have to abide by the Federal Rules of Evidence, that which CIT can't possibly meet even by Truther standards. [/quote]
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


albion	Jan 27 2009, 07:23 PM Post #63
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	JFK Jan 27 2009, 07:20 PM albion Jan 27 2009, 07:10 PM JFK Jan 27 2009, 10:00 AM Or perhaps the witnesses are afraid to come forward after what happened to Barry Jennings. Why would you think the idea of anonymous witnesses on the freeways, roads, and bridges would have any fear of telling anyone? Why do you think that is even plausible? I think it is plausable Plausible? Your evidence? [/quote]
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


JFK	Jan 27 2009, 07:24 PM Post #64
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	albion Jan 27 2009, 07:23 PM JFK Jan 27 2009, 07:20 PM albion Jan 27 2009, 07:10 PM JFK Jan 27 2009, 10:00 AM Or perhaps the witnesses are afraid to come forward after what happened to Barry Jennings. Why would you think the idea of anonymous witnesses on the freeways, roads, and bridges would have any fear of telling anyone? Why do you think that is even plausible? I think it is plausable Plausible? Your evidence? First warning ( again ). Do not change what I say. Edit to add - And learn how to properly quote. Edited by JFK, Jan 27 2009, 07:26 PM.
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


albion	Jan 27 2009, 07:30 PM Post #65
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	JFK Jan 27 2009, 07:24 PM First warning ( again ). Do not change what I say. I was not changing what you said since it is written clearly in your post. I shortened your post in my reply to get to the essence: I am honestly trying to ascertain why you would think it's plausible no matter what your reasons. Edited by albion, Jan 27 2009, 07:31 PM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


JFK	Jan 27 2009, 07:36 PM Post #66
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	albion Jan 27 2009, 07:30 PM JFK Jan 27 2009, 07:24 PM First warning ( again ). Do not change what I say. I was not changing what you said since it is written clearly in your post. I shortened your post in my reply to get to the essence: I am honestly trying to ascertain why you would think it's plausible no matter what your reasons. Well then, perhaps you should unshorten my response and decipher exactly what I clearly said.
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


albion	Jan 27 2009, 07:38 PM Post #67
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	JFK Jan 27 2009, 07:36 PM albion Jan 27 2009, 07:30 PM JFK Jan 27 2009, 07:24 PM First warning ( again ). Do not change what I say. I was not changing what you said since it is written clearly in your post. I shortened your post in my reply to get to the essence: I am honestly trying to ascertain why you would think it's plausible no matter what your reasons. Well then, perhaps you should unshorten my response and decipher exactly what I clearly said. I don't fear you. Edited by albion, Jan 27 2009, 07:38 PM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


JFK	Jan 27 2009, 07:41 PM Post #68
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	albion Jan 27 2009, 07:38 PM JFK Jan 27 2009, 07:36 PM albion Jan 27 2009, 07:30 PM JFK Jan 27 2009, 07:24 PM First warning ( again ). Do not change what I say. I was not changing what you said since it is written clearly in your post. I shortened your post in my reply to get to the essence: I am honestly trying to ascertain why you would think it's plausible no matter what your reasons. Well then, perhaps you should unshorten my response and decipher exactly what I clearly said. I don't fear you. I suggest you try again... On both rereading what it is that I wrote, and learning how to quote properly.
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


BoneZ	Jan 27 2009, 07:44 PM Post #69
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	albion Jan 27 2009, 07:38 PM I don't fear you. Good come-back. Very well researched.
Posts: 705 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


albion	Jan 28 2009, 09:40 AM Post #70
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	BoneZ Jan 27 2009, 07:44 PM Good come-back. Very well researched. Hi Bone Z. How are you resolving the contradiction that you are not a "no-planer" in respect to the WTC towers but are a "no-planer" in respect to AA77? Edited by albion, Jan 28 2009, 09:40 AM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


JFK	Jan 28 2009, 12:40 PM Post #71
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	albion Jan 28 2009, 09:40 AM BoneZ Jan 27 2009, 07:44 PM Good come-back. Very well researched. Hi Bone Z. How are you resolving the contradiction that you are not a "no-planer" in respect to the WTC towers but are a "no-planer" in respect to AA77? Second warning for trolling JThomas.
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


22205	Jan 28 2009, 04:06 PM Post #72
Arlingtonian Posts: 443 Group: Members Member #24 Joined: 01/14/08	jthomasockpuppet cmh/neit428 (erik dihle) blah, blah, denial, blah, ignorance, blah, blah, retarded comprehension skills, blah, blah... the guy describes the c130 in detail LATER in that account, but FIRTS he mentions coming outside and hearing at least one witness who said the plane bombed the pentagon and kept going. but as usual the best you can do is show us how blindly faithful you are to the official lies, by intentionally misinterpreting facts so that they fit within the confines of your biased and flawed view. you realize jthomas, that no one - save a handful of sheople-minded skeptics here - believes or accepts a word of your disinformation, dont you?



albion	Jan 28 2009, 04:52 PM Post #73
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	22205 Jan 28 2009, 04:06 PM but as usual the best you can do is show us how blindly faithful you are to the official lies,... "Official Story" fallacy noted again. Boy, you really do hate evidence, just like your partner at CIT. Quote: ...by intentionally misinterpreting facts so that they fit within the confines of your biased and flawed view. There is no bias in the fact that you have yet to demonstrate any of your claims, including the bizarre notion that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon, and your silly flyover animation for which you can provide no evidence and no eyewitnesses. Quote: you realize jthomas, that no one - save a handful of sheople-minded skeptics here - believes or accepts a word of your disinformation, dont you? I know there are several here like you who suffer acute confirmation bias and that you just can't let go of your fairy tale conspiracy theory. Gosh. In the meantime, the world sits back and waits for you to demonstrate your claims. Maybe this will help you realize how marginalized your group and CIT have become in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Quote: The nature of paranoid conspiracy theories. These conspiracy theories are hard to counter. PCTs do not formulate their theories in a scientific manner, and so applying logic and reason to them is usually futile. The paranoia behind these theories manifests itself as: the hidden powers that be; the dark forces; the secret societies; the hidden agendas; that are believed to be behind them. It is the almost omnipotent ability, and the undetectable nature of these hidden forces that allows them to fool everyone. Everyone besides PCTs that is! Some common characteristics of paranoid conspiracy theorists include: * They assume that they are right. PCTs assume that their beliefs are correct and that those who don't see things the way they do have been duped or that they need to open their minds. This stance is an argument from ignorance (see: argumentum ad ignorantiam). They place the burden of proof firmly on their opponents; whose position is wrongly assumed to be to disprove the theories. In fact the PCTs' position does not change even if their theories are disproved: there's always a way of reaffirming their position. There is usually little or no real evidence to back their theories. Instead, PCTs rely on retrospective analysis: logic and reason don't matter; everything can be twisted to fit the plot. Events are simply interpreted to match the theory. * Their theories cannot be challenged. PCTs do not treat their theories the way a historian or scientist treats theirs, which is to welcome challenges to their theory which will either strengthen it or refute/amend it. PCTs vehemently oppose any challenges to their theories. The first line of defence is to issue personal attacks (see: ad hominem) against their opponents. These are generally in the form of ridicule; their opponents not having the ability to see "the real truth". The theories of PCTs are often unfalsifiable, such as: UFOs exist but the government is suppressing the evidence. Any counter-argument citing an official source is instantly dismissed, and any real evidence that refutes their claims is classed as contrived or planted by those "powers that be" who are out to fool us. * Any evidence will do. Any evidence that lends credence to their theories will be uncritically accepted as truth. Any evidence that opposes their theories is dismissed out of hand. The quality of evidence is not important as long as it supports the conspiracy theory. A recent example (November 2004) is a letter that a certain Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, USA (a highly respected company) sent to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) which has been used by PCTs to add credence to the claim that the twin towers were brought down in controlled explosions by the US government. (see: http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php). We contacted Underwriters Laboratories for a comment and received this response: UL comments. (PDF 77k - will open in a new window) We also received a copy of the NIST statement: NIST statement. (PDF 79k - will open in a new window) One simple email to the company concerned discredits the source of the letter, yet it will no doubt be used as "evidence" for years to come by PCTs who find no need to check out a source as long as the message fits the theory. This willingness to accept any source of information that fits the theory inevitably leads to an abundance of misinformation surrounding events. Paranoid conspiracy theories are very appealing to the uncritical or unstable mind. Those who are fantasy-prone, irrational thinkers, and those who may have psychological problems: paranoia, delusional disorder for example, can quickly get suckered into a strange world of fantasy and/or fear. Delusional disorder (grandiose) shows up as: an exaggerated idea of identity; knowledge; power; self-worth and importance; a special relationship to God or someone famous; the belief in having a special mission. Many PCTs exhibit these characteristics. Once critical thinking is applied, and a search for real evidence is sought, these extreme conspiracy theories are found to lack any credibility: they look like badly written science-fiction. In fact many of the leading proponents of these conspiracy theories, such as David Icke, are prolific authors: their books being classed under science-fiction or religion and spirituality. Paranoid conspiracy theories are a prime example of irrational thinking. Edited by albion, Jan 28 2009, 04:56 PM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


albion	Jan 28 2009, 04:54 PM Post #74
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	JFK Jan 28 2009, 12:40 PM Second warning for trolling JThomas. Make it a strike-out, JFK. I feel sorry for you blind, uneducated idiots. Ciao, baby. Edited by albion, Jan 28 2009, 04:55 PM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


JFK	Jan 28 2009, 05:30 PM Post #75
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	albion Jan 28 2009, 04:54 PM JFK Jan 28 2009, 12:40 PM Second warning for trolling JThomas. Make it a strike-out, JFK. I feel sorry for you blind, uneducated idiots. Ciao, baby. As you wish.
Posts: 4,111 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


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


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4