lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
Why, are you going to fly me out there and pay all my expenses?
You weren't there either.
Flyover Witnesses
- Thread starter pomeroo
- Start date
You weren't there either.
The explosives were planted INSIDE the building to simulate the damage of a 757 impact limited to underneath the 1st two floors and ending with the suspicious perfectly round c-ring hole.
The fireball was NOT a detonation but a deflagration and was likely created with pyrotechnics meant to simulate a jet fuel explosion and cause a massive diversion to the plane flying over the building.
There is no reason to suggest there was any debris in the fireball.
Par
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,768
Neither.
Keith Wheelhouse's account has been proven a fabrication by the C-130 pilot himself.
I have never said we know for sure whether or not Keith was really there but since we know that his account is a fabrication to cover-up for the plane that flew over we know that he is correct about *a* plane flying over the building whether or not he was actually present.
Apart from the debris which can be seen in the footage of the fireball you just posted.
You're unbelievably deluded.
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
There is no reason to suggest there was any debris in the fireball.
You're absolutely right. Oh, except for all the debris being thrown from the fireball...
Change the word "perp" to "suspect" and the point stands without the fallacy.
There are two choices here.....
Either the official story is correct or the truth movement is correct in that it was an inside job.
For the sake of discussion if you can step outside of your bias for 2 seconds and hypothetically consider it was an inside job you will understand how all video data would have been vetted and/or manipulated.
lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
Except for all the debris that is clearly seen in the last frame including the big chunk of debris that is right over the Pentagon. Naw, an airplane would be able to fly through that with no problem. Why don't you talk to some WWII, Korean war and Vietnam war fighter pilots on flying through explosions. Show them the fireball and see what they say.
Ahh, the usual copout. Proof of this is where?
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
Prove it.
ETA: on second thought, don't prove it. you're derailing the thread. go ahead and produce a flyover witness. Six pages so far, and you don't have one.
nicepants
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,723
And as you put it earlier...
If "he didn't see anything" then he's obviously lying about seeing a plane fly over the pentagon.
How can he be correct about something that he didn't see?
Besides,
The plane would be past the fireball by the time it rose.
Whatever minimal debris was within the fireball wouldn't have necessarily affected the plane that would already have passed the facade of the building.
Oh and I notice how you guys have abandoned your argument of the latent vortices of the plane affecting the fireball now that Ace had you argue against this happening at the towers!
The plane would be past the fireball by the time it rose.
Whatever minimal debris was within the fireball wouldn't have necessarily affected the plane that would already have passed the facade of the building.
Oh and I notice how you guys have abandoned your argument of the latent vortices of the plane affecting the fireball now that Ace had you argue against this happening at the towers!
And as you put it earlier...
If "he didn't see anything" then he's obviously lying about seeing a plane fly over the pentagon.
How can he be correct about something that he didn't see?
What don't you get?
His account is a proven fabrication as a result of comments from the C-130 pilot.
There can only be one purpose of this which is to COVER-UP for the flyover.
Obviously he knew the plane flew over the building if he asserted a fabricated story to cover-up this fact.
nicepants
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,723
So you're using a fabricated account to support your flyover theory. Now I get it.
Last edited:
lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
So you are saying that a round object would not have created a round hole, especially when it has a huge fuel-air explosion propelling it? So, should it have been a heart shaped hole or may be it should look like Jesus' face?
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
What flyover? There is not one person on earth who saw the flyover. The whole point of this thread is for you to provide witnesses and you couldn't provide one witness who said he saw the flyover.
There is zero evidence for a flyover, why do you insist on claiming there was?
Last edited:
Diazo
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 140
One thing I just thought of for the 3 Citgo witnesses, did they actually see the plane or only hear it and are using the word "saw" in their reports?
The reason I ask this is that looking at the pictures I can find of the station, it looks like the station has a significant awning and these 3 witnesses were probably standing underneath. It also looks the attendant's kiosk (where the have the pop and snacks and you go into to pay) was on the south side of the station, therefore these witnesses would have been standing to the north of the kiosk. (I'm basing this completely off pictures I can find online, corrections are welcome.)
I would contend that the gas station awning blocked them from seeing the actual flyover of the plane itself, so they are relying on what they hear to determine where they thought it was. Remember that the plane was going extreamly fast, by the time they look up and around, the plane has already crashed into the pentagon.
If you add to this the fact that the kiosk was between them and the flight path to the south, the sound from the plane is going to go around the kiosk to reach them from the west and east. As you then look up, you will then most likely look to the northern direction since to the south is a solid building so you instinctively look towards the open area, north, to try and find what is making this huge noise.
By this time the impact noise is going to reach you and you will see the actual impact and be dealing with that event for the rest of the day, not thinking at all about the flyover at the station.
It's not until some point in the days after where you are doing reports that you remember the huge noise and go "that was the plane flying over me" and since you looked the north first, regardless of the fact you didn't actually see the plane, you are going to report that the plane flew on a path to the north of you because that was the direction you looked in the instant before the crash would have grabbed your attention.
Having said all that, I do need to make it clear that I have not talked to any of these witnesses, rather, what I am trying to do is show Lyte that it is easily possible that his witnesses are wrong in what they remember by providing the scenario above.
Which is the point I am trying to make, EVERY witness is just as likely to be wrong as they are to be right, you have to decide which witnesses, and which details they remember, are right and which are wrong by comparing them to other witness statements and find the actual events based on the common story that emerges from ALL the witness reports. (Physical evidence also plays a part, but I'm leaving that issue out of this post.)
Edit: Also, if there is this massive cover-up of this flyover happening? Why are 2 of your star witnesses Police Officers?? Wouldn't they be in on it themselves? Having two of the people who would be part of the ones managing the cover-up saying stuff like this is a big strike against a cover-up in my eyes.
The reason I ask this is that looking at the pictures I can find of the station, it looks like the station has a significant awning and these 3 witnesses were probably standing underneath. It also looks the attendant's kiosk (where the have the pop and snacks and you go into to pay) was on the south side of the station, therefore these witnesses would have been standing to the north of the kiosk. (I'm basing this completely off pictures I can find online, corrections are welcome.)
I would contend that the gas station awning blocked them from seeing the actual flyover of the plane itself, so they are relying on what they hear to determine where they thought it was. Remember that the plane was going extreamly fast, by the time they look up and around, the plane has already crashed into the pentagon.
If you add to this the fact that the kiosk was between them and the flight path to the south, the sound from the plane is going to go around the kiosk to reach them from the west and east. As you then look up, you will then most likely look to the northern direction since to the south is a solid building so you instinctively look towards the open area, north, to try and find what is making this huge noise.
By this time the impact noise is going to reach you and you will see the actual impact and be dealing with that event for the rest of the day, not thinking at all about the flyover at the station.
It's not until some point in the days after where you are doing reports that you remember the huge noise and go "that was the plane flying over me" and since you looked the north first, regardless of the fact you didn't actually see the plane, you are going to report that the plane flew on a path to the north of you because that was the direction you looked in the instant before the crash would have grabbed your attention.
Having said all that, I do need to make it clear that I have not talked to any of these witnesses, rather, what I am trying to do is show Lyte that it is easily possible that his witnesses are wrong in what they remember by providing the scenario above.
Which is the point I am trying to make, EVERY witness is just as likely to be wrong as they are to be right, you have to decide which witnesses, and which details they remember, are right and which are wrong by comparing them to other witness statements and find the actual events based on the common story that emerges from ALL the witness reports. (Physical evidence also plays a part, but I'm leaving that issue out of this post.)
Edit: Also, if there is this massive cover-up of this flyover happening? Why are 2 of your star witnesses Police Officers?? Wouldn't they be in on it themselves? Having two of the people who would be part of the ones managing the cover-up saying stuff like this is a big strike against a cover-up in my eyes.
Last edited:
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Oh really?
Look at this image of the hole left after the impact.
Explain why the columns in the image are bent towards the point where witnesses and engineers say the 757 hit the building. They are also bent a little inward, too. Wouldn't explosives on the inside of the building bend them in the opposite direction and outward? Obviously, more than pyrotechnics was involved in doing that damage and the damage they found through the building. What's your theory, genius?
Par
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,768
Well, it stands without that fallacy. But then it commits the unfalsifiability fallacy.
False dichotomy fallacy. (Oh, and even if what you say were true, it’s two options and one choice.)
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
This is quite possibly the biggest OWNED thread I have ever seen
give up man, you cant possibly think you can get away with suggesting that there are no debris in a gif that you post and then when it is pointed out to you that there is in fact debris, you claim it has been manipulated?
this is why you have no credibilty or dignity left
give up man, you cant possibly think you can get away with suggesting that there are no debris in a gif that you post and then when it is pointed out to you that there is in fact debris, you claim it has been manipulated?
this is why you have no credibilty or dignity left