The Flyover/Flyby Deception

Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit.

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!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5

The Flyover/Flyby Deception; Russell Pickering's 17 points
Tweet Topic Started: May 24 2010, 12:36 AM (2,305 Views)
shure	May 31 2010, 03:51 AM Post #46
Administrator Posts: 6,257 Group: Administrator Member #1 Joined: Feb 13, 2008	scott May 30 2010, 04:48 PM shure May 30 2010, 08:37 AM Here is a picture he took: So he saw the building from the opposite side of the crash. Don't you think it makes sense that he wouldn't see the plane? Ummmm, no, thats the side the plane hit on!



scott	May 31 2010, 12:43 PM Post #47
Posts: 58 Group: Members Member #371 Joined: May 18, 2010	shure May 31 2010, 03:51 AM scott May 30 2010, 04:48 PM shure May 30 2010, 08:37 AM Here is a picture he took: So he saw the building from the opposite side of the crash. Don't you think it makes sense that he wouldn't see the plane? Ummmm, no, thats the side the plane hit on! Oh :-p. Well, maybe he just didn't look up in time. We talking about the first crash or the second? The second was caught on video a fair amount.



shure	May 31 2010, 12:54 PM Post #48
Administrator Posts: 6,257 Group: Administrator Member #1 Joined: Feb 13, 2008	It was the second crash. People use what David Handschuh says as proof of no planes at the WTC. The same thing people do with Roosevelt Roberts to say a plane flew over the Pentagon. Do you see any similarities???



scott	May 31 2010, 03:34 PM Post #49
Posts: 58 Group: Members Member #371 Joined: May 18, 2010	shure May 31 2010, 12:54 PM It was the second crash. People use what David Handschuh says as proof of no planes at the WTC. The same thing people do with Roosevelt Roberts to say a plane flew over the Pentagon. Do you see any similarities??? Not really, no. In one case, you have a bunch of people who videotaped the second WTC plane go in, in living color. In the Pentagon case, you have this incredibly low resolution 5 frame video of an object that doesn't look much like a 757 to me, and a bunch of witnesses essentially refuting the video altogether because they saw the plane come in from a completely different angle. Meanwhile, the damage inside the pentagon is superficially plausible for an SoC approach (although even here it has problems), but again, all the credible witnesses place it on the NoC path. And Roosevelt Roberts -sees- a plane coming out from a place that only the pentaplane could have come out from. David, by contrast, looks to simply be a case of a lone guy who apparently didn't look up until the plane had already crashed into the building. Edited by scott, May 31 2010, 03:34 PM.



broken sticks	May 31 2010, 06:43 PM Post #50
Posts: 2,644 Group: Members Member #105 Joined: Jan 3, 2009	scott May 31 2010, 03:34 PM Roosevelt Roberts -sees- a plane coming out from a place that only the pentaplane could have come out from. Evidence please! Try bringing some to your argument. Don't worry if you don't get as far as bringing to this forum - just try to use some the next time you think about something.



Cams2	Jun 3 2010, 09:40 AM Post #51
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #376 Joined: May 28, 2010	Yougenedebs May 29 2010, 02:04 AM Cams2 May 29 2010, 01:50 AM Yougenedebs May 28 2010, 03:04 AM Welcome, Cams2! I would also like to see some proof of a flyover/flyby. Doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon, though. Debs Thanks Debs. No you wouldn't want to be holding your breath, although apparently we are dismissing the "scientific proof"....but then again at least we aren't ignorant to the fact that CIT dismiss evidence given by their own witnesses who said they actually saw the impact. Speaking of dismissing evidence... Was CIT able to get rid of the Wikipedia entry for the "scientific method of corroboration"? This may clarify things for you Debs Quote: However to be clear the actual "SCIENTIFIC" method that we cite proving a north side approach is simply CORROBORATION. That is a scientific process no matter how much you ignore this fact. Independently corroborated witness accounts amount to scientifically validated evidence. CORROBORATION = METHODICAL VALIDATION = SCIENCE Agreed? posted by Craig Ranke, Saturday, Aug 29, 2009. http://www.opednews.com/a/96234?show=votes#allcomments Edited by Cams2, Jun 3 2010, 09:41 AM.



broken sticks	Jun 3 2010, 08:37 PM Post #52
Posts: 2,644 Group: Members Member #105 Joined: Jan 3, 2009	LOL! Corroboration does not equal science. If that's the case, then the fact that every witness saw it hit is scientific proof that it hit! lol what a tool



elephant room	Jun 3 2010, 09:04 PM Post #53
Posts: 841 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: Oct 20, 2008	broken sticks Jun 3 2010, 08:37 PM LOL! Corroboration does not equal science. If that's the case, then the fact that every witness saw it hit is scientific proof that it hit! lol what a tool I believe they call that one ... "auto debunkery"



shure	Jun 7 2010, 08:58 AM Post #54
Administrator Posts: 6,257 Group: Administrator Member #1 Joined: Feb 13, 2008	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHAlUeJgE1c



elephant room	Jun 8 2010, 04:46 PM Post #55
Posts: 841 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: Oct 20, 2008	nice work debs. "we cool?, be cool!"



YougeneDebs	Jun 8 2010, 05:34 PM Post #56
Posts: 758 Group: Perspectivist Member #182 Joined: Mar 30, 2009	elephant room Jun 8 2010, 04:46 PM nice work debs. "we cool?, be cool!" Thanks, ER; I'll be able to get those white elephants now. We cool?



YougeneDebs	Jun 8 2010, 07:06 PM Post #57
Posts: 758 Group: Perspectivist Member #182 Joined: Mar 30, 2009	Thanks to Erik Larson for the pic! Attached to this post: DawnView.jpg (39.38 KB)



Matt	Jun 8 2010, 08:10 PM Post #58
Posts: 813 Group: Members Member #7 Joined: Sep 27, 2008	http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/2845968/1/ Craig bumped his thread a couple days ago. I thought you fellas might want to visit. Although I think the flyover is nearly to the point of accepted theory there. I don't know. We'll see if you get restricted to the Skeptics' section for commenting there.
Posts: 813 Group: Members Member #7 Joined: Sep 27, 2008


YougeneDebs	Jun 8 2010, 08:19 PM Post #59
Posts: 758 Group: Perspectivist Member #182 Joined: Mar 30, 2009	Matt Jun 8 2010, 08:10 PM http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/2845968/1/ Craig bumped his thread a couple days ago. I thought you fellas might want to visit. Although I think the flyover is nearly to the point of accepted theory there. I don't know. We'll see if you get restricted to the Skeptics' section for commenting there. Thanks, Matt. Maybe Craig lives in his own fantasy. That would explain a lot.



elephant room	Jun 8 2010, 08:19 PM Post #60
Posts: 841 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: Oct 20, 2008	those guys seemed impatient for debs video to come out ... hope they acknowledge it! Ranke uses the term "Scientific Proof" twice in just a two sentence post, so I guess Matt Although I think the flyover is nearly to the point of accepted theory there. would be an understatement.



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


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Drama Club · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5