• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy

WildCat said:
It takes a special kind of paranoia to think that anyone who doesn't buy the ridiculous CIT flyover nonsense is a government agent.
Click to expand...

I guess that means that the vast majority of the truth movement are really government agents, including Dylan Avery, Jon Gold, and many others.

lol.

TAM:)
 
TC329 said:
i have already addressed this in this thread. please read through as i don't enjoy repeating myself.
Click to expand...



You think people only drive down that roadway during rush hour in the morning? If the poles were dismantled in the night, someone driving by would still have seen the process.
 
T.A.M. said:
Do you really think anyone in the legal/justice system will EVER take you seriously? really?
Click to expand...

Of course they don't. These people have no intention of doing anything with their "evidence" other than making a little money and creating a false sense of self-importance.

Is it any coincidence that all of these supporters of a flyover theory are coming out of the woodwork right around the time they have a new DVD to hawk?

At this point, we're the only ones paying attention to them. How sad that the only venue they have left to pimp their wares is a forum full of people who think they're delusional frauds.
 
Last edited:
TheLoneBedouin said:
Again, if they needed to destroy targets that could only be destroyed at a precise angle. Another reason could be to add verisimilitude to the psy-op by faking interaction with physical objects (ie the light poles).
Click to expand...

Please explain this further. Destroy targets at a precise angle? What? A bomb will do damage necessary at any angle required.

Add verisimilitude? Interaction with the Pentagon isn't enough?

None of this makes any sense.
 
Hellbound said:
So.

Light poles taken down at night, and no one noticed them.

Light poles. Along a road. At night.

LIGHT poles. Road. Night.

LIGHT POLE.

Let's try it larger, and in red: LIGHT POLE

Please tell me I don't have to explain farther?
Click to expand...

IMO you have been very clear but I would like to add something else that occured to me.

Light poles, on a road, at night, next to the PENTAGON!
 
Good point, Greg. I was waiting to bring up that not only is it at night, along a road, and light poles; it's also next to a building that is occupied 24-hours a day and that has manned guards in and around it at all times.

Not to mention that Citgo. Anyone checked to see if it was open 24 hours?
 
John Blonn said:
Please explain this further. Destroy targets at a precise angle? What? A bomb will do damage necessary at any angle required.
Click to expand...
Suppose you had two necessary targets and a limited width of damage (roughly equivalent to the wingspan of a 757)- there would be a specific angle required to hit both targets.
Add verisimilitude? Interaction with the Pentagon isn't enough?
Click to expand...
Apparently not, since no one knew a plane hit the building until they were told that's what happened.
 
Last edited:
nicepants said:
"A Sizeable portion" is not a number. (Note the wording of the question..."how many".)

Express your answer in the form of a number, or explain why you are afraid to do so.
Click to expand...


i gave you the link jason.

why are you being so intentionally dishonest?

i answered your question the first time you asked it in this thread.

this is how you conmen work. you ask a question. someone answers it. you ignore it. and then you ask another person the same question hoping they didn't see the first ones answer.

wow. you're a work of art.
 
NoC flight path impossible, researcher edition free at JREF! So far TC can not present a single flight path possible for NoC.

CIT conmen found to make up lies about 9/11.
CIT own witnesses see 77 hit the pentagon. TC lies about people not seeing 77 hit lamppost and fails to comment name by name to explain. Why?

Witnesses used by CIT conmen saw 77 impact the Pentagon! Conmen debunked for the nth time since 2001.

So what is the path?
Who saw 77 fly over the Pentagon? (oops not one person, is this the giant hole in the CIT non-story?)

Who did see 77 fly over? Any names yet?

Why did Roosevelt Roberts see the C-130 at 9:11 or 9:12? What does this mean with his newest over 6 year old testimony? Do any of the 13 original CIT witnesses know they are used to sell BIG lies on DVD?

I have a witness who confirms seeing an aircraft like Roosevelt just after impact! Confirmation! You lost, the witness knows it is a C-130 and has to stop people from running off the expressway cause he knows it is military. Roosevelt did see an aircraft, he tells us in 2001, and it is confirmed to be a C-130 by witnesses, and RADES, the radar data showing only 77 and the C-130 near the Pentagon at the time of impact!

End of NoC
 
D'rok said:
I wonder how many of these lucky 13 witnesses witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon?
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Not to mention, it's easy to be mistaken about some aspect of a traumatic event you've witnessed. That's why real investigators rely on witness testimony as a supplement to physical evidence only, unless there's none available.

But, furthermore, the why question as to how these witnesses might be mistaken or mis-remembering has already been explained on these forums. If you're under the canopy of the Citgo at 9-ish AM on Sept, 11, you're likely to hear the plane, then see the shadow on the ground as it passed, before witnessing the crash / fireball. Now, if your initial memory is the noise and the shadow made you think this thing was directly overhead, at 9AM on a September morning, where would the shadow be in relation to the aircraft / gas station?

Finally, as to CIT being the "real" skeptics, I must take a moment to laugh out loud. They've cherry picked, twisted and bent every piece of witness testimony that could have even remotely supported their 'theory' in any way, completely throwing out the ones that can't, they have no physical evidence at all, and they have ignored the resounding absense of any witnesses to what must occur to bear out their theory - namely the fly-over. Short of the 9-11 perps using a Star-Trek style cloaking device, (one that hides the sound, too, maybe they used the same on the Twin Towers to produce the Hush-a-boom effect?) these witnesses must exist.
 
John Blonn said:
Government's plan: Fly the plane North of the Citgo. Flyover coordinated with explosion to hide the plane.

But then...fake physical damage along a DIFFERENT flight path? Why? Why ever do this? This makes NO SENSE whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Better yet, why stage a flyover at all? Why not just actually crash a jet into the Pentagon? It's much easier and simpler than engaging in all this complicated flying over and setting off timed explosives and staging fallen lightpoles and arranging hundreds of fake eyewitnesses stuff.

But perhaps the nefarious folks behind this supposed conspiracy are huge fans of Rube Goldberg and just can't use a simple, direct plan when a fantastically overcomplicated plan will do...
 
On May 18, 1980, I was visiting some friends of mine in southwestern Washington State when Mt. St. Helens erupted. At the time of the eruption, I was walking down a Forest Service road. I saw the entire northwest side of the mountain just kind of slide off, followed by an enormous explosion.

Now, as it turned out, it was the northeast side of the mountain that collapsed. I would have sworn in court that it was the northwest side. I spent many, many hours of my youth on those Forest Service roads, and I knew exactly where I was in relation to the mountain. Still and all, I was simply... wait for it... mistaken.

What can we conclude from this little story? Eyewitnesses, even to dramatic events, are not infallible and should not be treated as such.
 
jhunter1163 said:
On May 18, 1980, I was visiting some friends of mine in southwestern Washington State when Mt. St. Helens erupted. At the time of the eruption, I was walking down a Forest Service road. I saw the entire northwest side of the mountain just kind of slide off, followed by an enormous explosion.

Now, as it turned out, it was the northeast side of the mountain that collapsed. I would have sworn in court that it was the northwest side. I spent many, many hours of my youth on those Forest Service roads, and I knew exactly where I was in relation to the mountain. Still and all, I was simply... wait for it... mistaken.

What can we conclude from this little story? Eyewitnesses, even to dramatic events, are not infallible and should not be treated as such.
Click to expand...

In Twooferville, that's impossible. You could not possibly have been mistaken.

Conclusion: The government planted explosives on the northwest side in order to avoid making mistakes on the northeast side where the "official story" takes place, and in order to deliberately cast doubt upon your observations in the event that you might mention them some time in the future.

Ergo, Mt. St. Helens was an inside job!





In the real world, however, people make mistakes and witnesses to dramatic and traumatic events get things wrong - even to the point of diametric opposition to reality - all the time.
 
realitybites said:
Not only would it have to enter the fireball to be hidden, it would've had to have slammed on its air-breaks so as not to pop out the other side.

I've never understood how CIT can be so nonchalant in dismissing the folks who live across the river not having reported seeing any low flying plane screaming away from the smoking Pentagon.
Click to expand...


Especially since their attention would most likely be drawn in that direction.
 
Only insane people believe in a Pentagon fly over. It's really not worth discussing.

I've used the analogy before, but when I see groups like CIT proudly start a thread on JREF promoting their latest video I'm reminded of a 2-year old proudly running to his mommy to show her the amazing pie he made out of Play-Doh.

Mommy isn't impressed by your Play-Doh pie.
 
why must this topic be brought up over and over and over again? why must we repeat what was stated 3 years ago? why?


tc, witnesses ARE NOT RELIABLE.

Please have CIT present PHYSICAL evidence that support their claims

7 years, and no physical evidence

sorry you lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom