CIT/Air America Debate Challenge

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...

Sorry I missed the sub-debate, but they're right. The hole was 90 feet-plus, walls, columns removed the whole way. Panels gone but columns left for an even wider area. Have you even seen the ground floor? Many people got confused and mean the smaller portion of damage on the second floor. A LOT of people pretend that's THE damage, for some reason...
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/01/obscured-by-foam.html
Even Craig and CIT know not to argue 16-foot hole, as Greene knows and calls him in between eick and Neson, capt. of the Pod People.

And man, how about that Barbara. April just pushed a simple button and the COMPUTER SCREENS blew up! That's new! The screens blew a 90-foot wide hole in the building's outer wall while bending 50+ columns inwards, scattering heavy plane debris and bodies along a path towards and into the A-E Drive... and all from inside computer monitors, rather than the masonry like CIT says...

best quote: The stupid! It hurts!
 
theauthor said:
Who mentions measured? Moving goalposts much?
Click to expand...

For something to be considered an admission, I would expect to see something other than responding to other people's reports. He wasn't discussing whether the hole was or was not 16 feet. He was discussing whether or not it would be possible for the plane to have made a 16 foot hole. There's a difference.
 
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...

Much though I appreciate that you may have a burning need for trivial pwnage, this entire discussion centres on whether one specific person made one specific claim as to the size of one specific hole in the Pentagon. This has little or no bearing on the fact, frequently disputed but clearly obvious to anyone who actually views the evidence critically, that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon extended over exactly the area that would be expected from the impact of a Boeing 757 at the angle that flight 77 struck the building. The fact that a 90 foot section of the building collapsed is itself completely inconsistent with the neat 16-20 foot single circular hole that exists only in the fantasies of the truth movement. So what exactly is the point of obsessing over the fact that one debunker's account could be carefully misinterpreted to suggest that this one specific individual may have been mistaken over the extent of the damage?

Dave
 
Heres another debunker who admits it was 16 feet, he even says its a fact:

How do you explain the following facts?

# Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)
# Rims found in building match those of a 757
# Small turbine engine outside is an APU
# Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine
# Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos
# Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo
# Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211
# Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes
# Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object
# Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon
# 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

A 757 Hit the Pentagon
Click to expand...

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=38269&t=99740
 
chillzero said:
lol - that's a CTist quoting the same guy we are discussing... and he's still referring to the reported size of the hole. The facts he outlines are detailed in the rest of the paper; the actual dimensions of the plane, etc. Use the original link, not some CTists cherry pick of it.
Click to expand...


No its a debunker. He describes all the points as facts then goes on to argue the case for a plane hitting the pentagon.
 
I have provided exactly what TAM asked for. A debunker states categorically as a fact that the hole was 13 - 16 feet.:)
 
theauthor said:
No its a debunker. He describes all the points as facts then goes on to argue the case for a plane hitting the pentagon.
Click to expand...

OK. I have to take your word for it that he's a debunker, because I only have access to that one individual post, where he makes no further argument at all.

Nonetheless, he has plagiarised that exact list from your original link, which I already discussed.
If there is any point further in that thread where he reviews the hole itself to draw a conclusion about its size (not the plane's), then that's more what TAM asked for.
 
theauthor said:
I have provided exactly what TAM asked for. A debunker states categorically as a fact that the hole was 13 - 16 feet.:)
Click to expand...

I doubt TAM will accept that, because all you have shown is someone discussing whether a plane can make a hole 13 - 16 feet wide / high. There's no examination of the hole to determine what size he thinks it is.
 
No, TAM asked for a debunker who admits the hole is 16 feet. Nobody can measure the size because the hole doesn't exist anymore. I provided what TAM asked for.
 
chillzero said:
I doubt TAM will accept that, because all you have shown is someone discussing whether a plane can make a hole 13 - 16 feet wide / high. There's no examination of the hole to determine what size he thinks it is.
Click to expand...


No, he states as a FACT that the hole was 13 - 16 feet. He doesn't discuss possibilities. He starts his post with "how do you explain the following facts?"
 
Last edited:
theauthor said:
Here

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

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

He is right, that section of the hole is 16 feet. However, the majority of the hole, ONE FLOOR BELOW (In the photo in the link it is covered in hose spray, smoke etc...) is 70-90 feet across.

I got once around the world.

TAM;)

Edit: The person in question is dealing with the top section of the hole only. You know this. You also know there are photos that show the bottom section hole to be at least 4-5 times wider than the 16 feet approximately for the top section of the hole, which is what the debunker in questsion was focused on (as shown through the box he inserted to point out the hole he was talking about).
 
Last edited:
theauthor said:
I have provided exactly what TAM asked for. A debunker states categorically as a fact that the hole was 13 - 16 feet.:)
Click to expand...
NEAT-O!

Yes, Cat Herder is a debunker more or less - he e-mailed me recently, until then I wasn't clear on that. And he does use that bogus evidence in an otherwise good piece - i've called him on it, it's part of what made his thread so commented-on. 98,000 repetitions of "then where did the wings and engines go?' Theauthor is correct here. Can we move on?

Anyone score a recording of the last portion? as Rob ever on?
 
T.A.M. said:
He is right, that section of the hole is 16 feet. However, the majority of the hole, ONE FLOOR BELOW (In the photo in the link it is covered in hose spray, smoke etc...) is 70-90 feet across.

I got once around the world.

TAM;)
Click to expand...


That section of the hole? I think a hole, by definition, is a continuum. Are you saying there were several holes?

I did provide what you asked for didn't I?
 
How many showers does it take to wash Air America off of me?
sweatdrop.gif


I think I need some steel wool.
 
theauthor said:
That section of the hole? I think a hole, by definition, is a continuum. Are you saying there were several holes?

I did provide what you asked for didn't I?
Click to expand...

Well yes, I think you provided a debunker who called "A hole in the pentagon made by AA77" 16 feet...sure.

It is my fault really, I was not specific enough in what I wanted...but that is ok...you can do a high five, call me PWNed...:)

I kind of meant a debunker here on JREF, but I didn't say that. It is funny that some people even on the right side (the debunker side) are still arguing that falsehood.

Clearly, there are photos that show the entire hole (yes there are sections to the hole, as a section of the hole in that picture is covered by smoke and hose spray) to be about 70-90 feet at the bottom, extending up to about 8 feet high, and then that 16-20 foot area of the hole, on the SECOND FLOOR.

Are you purposely being obtuse on this, or what?

TAM:)
 
Did any one call in and mention how ridiculous it is to believe the broken light poles were planted on the busy highway.
 
So their new witnesses are:

1. Someone who was inside the Pentagon’s South Parking Lot Loading Dock, believes a plane hit the Pentagon, and believes that there were two planes. Let us assume everything he says he believes is true. His story directly contradicts the rest of the CIT’s NOC crowd (because none of them mention two planes, and certainly not one that passed over the SOUTH PARKING LOT LOADING RAMP!), with the notable exception that he agrees that a plane hit the Pentagon.

2. Our Army band member, who was in Arlington. She looked up expecting to see a ceremonial fly by over the Cemetery overhead and instead saw the plane heading toward the Pentagon. Lyte is clearly and intentionally misrepresenting her testimony:

“I hear what I think is a fly over, over my head because that's standard.

[LYTE removes some testimony here...]

And I looked, I looked directly up for it, and I also had some tree cover so i wasn't able to see, but I was facing the Pentagon and I saw something really fast going to the Pentagon with the swoosh.”

She look s up expecting a typical flyover THE CEMETERY, does not see one, instead sees the plane heading toward the Pentagon.

Again, CIT, a question: assume that see did see a plane directly over head, please plot your flight paths (yes, plural, guys) Make sure you include Morin’s testimony you were so proud of a few weeks ago, and make sure that your witnesses at the Citgo could not see the “second plane.”

/These guys are grossly incompetent. They have cherry picked themselves into a story that has perhaps surpassed the No Planers in idiocy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom