CIT/Air America Debate Challenge

I'm confused by the CIT claim. It seems like their new witness saw TWO planes while the rest of their witnesses only saw one.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
I'm confused by the CIT claim. It seems like their new witness saw TWO planes while the rest of their witnesses only saw one.
Click to expand...

When they try to pin him down if it was a 'jet'
In one sentence he says 'a large commercial airliner fifty feet away from me". , then a bit after that he says TWO planes. with emphasis. then again. TWO planes.
 
theauthor said:
You might like to explain why the report differs from the 16ft hole we see in all the photos, videos and witness testimonies.
Click to expand...

Even the majority of your fellow twoofers would beg to differ.

Not sure exactly what part of which photo(s) you are looking at but, you might want to try this one out -- can't post links yet so I will exclude the http ---

911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage_files/hole11.jpg

They actually included an honest review of the impact damage over at 911 Review. I am surprised because it is tough to find twoofers being honest about much. You for instance are holding on to an obviously false statement in order to encourage discussion where you will immediately change the subject once your original claim is shot down - and then mysteriously forget that you were ever proved wrong and continue right on pushing your falsehoods.

Just in case you are interested, I will post the partial link for that entire article. 911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html
 
So, I wake up this morning, the ground is not shattered, the Earth is still spinning and the things still don't look good for Generalissimo. At least TC only got suspended, so perhaps he'll be able to answer questions next time he comes back.

Levi Stephens was a courier for the Armed Forces Information Service at the time, driving away from the Pentagon. I don't think he can be their flyover witness.
http://www.stripes.com/01/sep01/ed091201i.html

Does the show eventually provide transcripts?

ETA: nothing really to edit, just a note that Stephenson=/=Stephens and that I should probably wake up first and then go posting on online forums...
 
Last edited:
Craig made the mistake of playing that on the show because now he cant go back and edit out that last statement about 2 planes.
Green tried to stop him and if only he listened he wouldnt be in the pickle he is about to be in.
Craig is AGAIN stuck and I think this time the Truthers are going to jump ship even more then they have been.
 
Last edited:
Hilarious!

This was going to be CIT's big coming out party and instead they get "drowned out."

I'm surprised the TM isn't up in arms over these morons being allowed to embarrass themselves publicly like that, what with them being "disinfo" and all....
 
why would someone in the South parking lot see a plane fly over, if they are going to follow the direction of gtravel of the plane? the South Parking lot isn't even on the direct path of any paht of travel for any plane
 
it was not on the show but they are going with the girl in the Arlington band as their second "new" flyover witness on their air America thread over at LC. The girl who had the impression that the plane hit on the far side but admits her view was blocked by trees. These are the trees Keith Wheelhouse, who does not support their version cant see through. But amazingly. The female band member CAN see through these trees.

flightpathnotvisable.jpg
 
T.A.M. said:
Please show me a posting by a "debunker" that admits that the hole made by AA77 was 16 feet across? (oh, and a post stating that the portion of the hole on the second floor is 16 feet across doesn't count...it must admit that the entire hole is 16 feet across).

I'll go run around the world a dozen times while I am waiting.

TAM:)
Click to expand...


Here

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

How far round the world did you get?
 
theauthor said:
Here

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

How far round the world did you get?
Click to expand...

Can you point out the admission, please?

I read the document, and he clearly says "it's been reported... to be". Then he goes into some analysis of this description. He does not 'admit' that the hole made by AA77 was 16 feet across, which was what you were asked.

Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the [COLOR=#d0d060! important][COLOR=#d0d060! important]wheels[/COLOR][/COLOR]-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.
Click to expand...

The next paragraph moves on to discuss the height of the plane, not the width.

Look at the nose-on view of a 757
Click to expand...
- you can see the body is slightly less than 1/3 the size of the height of the aircraft. The tail certainly isn't going to punch a hole through a reinforced concrete wall; that is why there is no 40 foot hole in the front of the Pentagon in any photos. A 40 foot object didn't hit it, a 13 foot object did.
Click to expand...

In the conclusion he refers again to the hole, and the way I read it in that statement he is again referring to the plane size and what size of hole it would be expected to create when it doesn't hit straight on at 90 degrees to the wall face.

Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)
Click to expand...
 
chillzero said:
Can you point out the admission, please?

I read the document, and he clearly says "it's been reported... to be". Then he goes into some analysis of this description. He does not 'admit' that the hole made by AA77 was 16 feet across, which was what you were asked.



The next paragraph moves on to discuss the height of the plane, not the width.



In the conclusion he refers again to the hole, and the way I read it in that statement he is again referring to the plane size and what size of hole it would be expected to create when it doesn't hit straight on at 90 degrees to the wall face.
Click to expand...



Nice spin, but it doesn't wash.

He says it is reported as a 16 - 20 foot hole. Then says that is what you would expect from a 13ft fuselage. He goes on to say that the fuselage punched the hole.
 
theauthor said:
He says it is reported as a 16 - 20 foot hole. Then says that is what you would expect from a 13ft fuselage. He goes on to say that the fuselage punched the hole.
Click to expand...

Yeah ... I just pointed that out to you. He doesn't admit it was a 16 foot hole.
 
chillzero said:
Yeah ... I just pointed that out to you. He doesn't admit it was a 16 foot hole.
Click to expand...

Yes he does. He states that a hole that size was reported. He then says that that would be what you would expect from a 13 ft fuselage. Then he categorically states that the 13 ft fuselage punched that hole. You can play semantics all day but you and I both know I provided exactly what TAM asked for.
 
Heres a similar example:

The Pentagon, by contrast, has an exterior wall made of three feet of high-compression concrete reinforced with steel. It was designed to withstand missile strikes, yet, it still bore a distinct hole where the fuselage penetrated clear through the first ring of the building. The wings apparently folded up along side the fuselage, or disintegrated, as the plane went through. That's not at all implausible, considering the strength of the Pentagon's walls.
Click to expand...

This guy doesn't mention the whole size specifically but it is obvious what he means.

http://www.takingflight.us/forums/archive/index.php/t-900.html
 
theauthor said:
Yes he does. He states that a hole that size was reported. He then says that that would be what you would expect from a 13 ft fuselage. Then he categorically states that the 13 ft fuselage punched that hole. You can play semantics all day but you and I both know I provided exactly what TAM asked for.
Click to expand...

He states what size the hole was reported. Then he works on that report to examine possibilities.

Where does he undertake any measurement of the hole himself, and admit (which is what TAM asked for) that he measured it at 16 feet?
 
pomeroo said:
Well, I tried!
Click to expand...

Unless I'm confused... you did well. I listened to the 7-part stream, all but the last part I was listening for but ain't working. He sure squished you in there between a whole clown brigade... debunkers TBA - Tiny Blocks Allowed. It was a very interestingly boring show, what I heard.
 
chillzero said:
He states what size the hole was reported. Then he works on that report to examine possibilities.

Where does he undertake any measurement of the hole himself, and admit (which is what TAM asked for) that he measured it at 16 feet?
Click to expand...

Who mentions measured? Moving goalposts much?

He says the hole was reported at 16 - 20 feet then agrees with that assessment by saying it is what you would expect and the fuselage punched the hole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom