• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Some simple Tower 7 questions

I dont think any of those deliberately lie



Claim: An air traffic controller reported that they thought flight 77 was a military plane.

Truth: The full quote was referring to the unsafe way the plane was flying, not that it was impossible for a civilian plane to fly like that. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

That's a lie by ommission.

Claim, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground,
Without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves.

Truth: We don’t know that the wings were undamaged, since they crashed into the Pentagon fractions of a second later. There are pictures of the light poles, however, which show them broken and twisted

Its lieing if you just make it up.

Claim: The only damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon was a single hole, no more than 16 feet in diameter.

Truth: The hole was approximately 90 feet wide. The 16 foot measurement was only achieved by looking at pictures where the rest of the hole was obscured by smoke and foam from the firefighters.

My favorite since the 90-100 feet of missing first floor wall is so bloody obvious that using only photos that obscure it has to be dishonest.
Do I have to go on?
 
Last edited:
Was there any need for that? Don't worry. I won't lower myself to your level by hurling insults.

If you are so convinced they are lying, name some specific deliberate lies they have told

Are you related to Submersible?

Do you work for LC or Alex Jones?
 
Maccy,

Christophere has just claimed over the Realistice thread that the US is still effectively a UK colony. Reckon we can have him beheaded and get the rest of 'em to call us "sir"?

I seem to recall a comedy piece that ran around the internet some years ago of the demands that Britain would make should America become a colony again. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Doesn't matter. They were lied to so if they can be lied to about one thing I can't trust the official version

By this logic, you should be living a very rough life right now. You see, I guarantee that at least 90% of the people in your life have been lied to at some point in their lives. Which means, by your logic, that you can't trust anything they say. So tell me: what's it like to live in a world where nobody you know can be trusted at all? I imagine it's quite horrible.
 

The first is an omission, which may have been from a secondary source and not known by the makers of the film.

The other two are opinions based on their interpretation of the photographs which they show in the film
 
I wouldn't call those lies

What would you call them? A deliberate misrepresentation of what people said, by omitting part of what they said to make it seem like they said something else, is what?

And that's just one of his points.
 
The first is an omission, which may have been from a secondary source and not known by the makers of the film.

The other two are opinions based on their interpretation of the photographs which they show in the film

Do you agree with Submersible?
 
What standard of proof would you apply to ascertaining if his statement was true or not?

A lot more than just saying 'it sounded sarcastic'. To me it sounded like really, really bad spin over the massive flaws and jaw-dropping errors they made in their multiple efforts. In other words, its like Pee-Wee jumping up from his crashed bicycle and saying 'I meant to do that', except that it was funny when Pee Wee did it.
 
A lot more than just saying 'it sounded sarcastic'. To me it sounded like really, really bad spin over the massive flaws and jaw-dropping errors they made in their multiple efforts. In other words, its like Pee-Wee jumping up from his crashed bicycle and saying 'I meant to do that', except that it was funny when Pee Wee did it.


Flaws and errors then. Not lies.
 
.

If they are simple error then Avery and Bermas are grossly incompetant. Bermas is supposed to be the researcher and yet his ommission completely changes the quote.

More incompetance then since Bermas used only the photos that obscure the missing wall.

So you have decided that A&B don't lie. You must then agree that they are incompetant.
 
.

If they are simple error then Avery and Bermas are grossly incompetant. Bermas is supposed to be the researcher and yet his ommission completely changes the quote.

More incompetance then since Bermas used only the photos that obscure the missing wall.

So you have decided that A&B don't lie. You must then agree that they are incompetant.

Incompetence is forgivable. It is what you think the government were with regard to 9/11
 
Assuming that the wing suffered no damage is not misinterpreting a photo. It is pure fiction on A&B's part btw.

It is also widely believed that the luminary of pole 5 damaged the starboard engine.
 

Back
Top Bottom