Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

how/where can i see/hear them tell their accounts?

You mean you know all about the Pentagon attack but you don't even know where to locate all the Witness statments?

Dave Winslow
"I heard this enormous sound of turbulence. . .As I turned to my right, I saw a jumbo tail go by me along Route 395. It was like the rear end of the fuselage was riding on 395. I just saw the tail go whoosh right past me. In a split second, you heard this boom. A combination of a crack and a thud. It rattled my windows. I thought they were going to blow out. Then came an enormous fireball."

Michael Tinyk
he saw a dark orange and blue commercial airliner just above the tree line "coming in lower and lower" on what he instantly registered as the "wrong side" of the flight path to the airport. "There was no reason for a plane to come in that low, that fast" ... The plane took "a flight path straight up 395,"

Steve Patterson
Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said.

Mitch Mitchell
"Just as we got even with the Pentagon, I looked out to the front and saw, coming straight down the road (I-395) at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it, and it looked like it was coming in to hit us. I told my wife, 'It's going to hit the Pentagon.' It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon, and there was no indication whatever that it was doing anything other than performing a direct attack on that building. The landing gear was up. There were no flaps down and it looked like a deadly missile on the final phase of its mission into the building."
"We saw what I estimate to be about the last seven seconds of the flight. It was a straight-in flight, angled slightly down, and there was--there was no intent to turn or to maneuver in any way. It was headed straight for its target and we were helpless to do anything about it but watch."


Barbara Ensor
It was coming on less than a 45 degree angle, and coming down towards the side of the -- of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us, and then you saw the boom -- the fire come up from it.

Tim Timmerman
I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.

And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.
 
ehm sorry, i asumed RAF is Royal Air Force. And this is for me Army, propably this is wrong.

and i clearly said that i do belive you, and i dont think you would fake it, but i cannot confirm it for you, sorry.
you didnt like that answer and wanted me to decide between 2 things, and i decided, and now your not happy again.

i really think you can handle TF without me.

Royal Air Force = military

Royal Air Force does not = Army

Could be seen as an insult by a lot of RAF lads;)


It was not about handling TF, that you fail to see it does not surprise me. Its a question of faith. I gave you what you asked for and would be happy with and you back away from what it tells you.
 
Royal Air Force = military

Royal Air Force does not = Army

Could be seen as an insult by a lot of RAF lads;)


It was not about handling TF, that you fail to see it does not surprise me. Its a question of faith. I gave you what you asked for and would be happy with and you back away from what it tells you.

I am a Pacifist :)
I even refused to go to the Swiss Army.
and military and Army was the same for me, but i will now go read the exact differences so i dont offend the top guns anymore :D
I am already happy i did not confuse it with the "Rote Armee Fraktion" :D

it is you that does not get my point :)
I have faith in you and your papers, it is enough for me personaly, i even excused for even doubting it, while i actually said i will not do that, because noone ever excuse him for doubting that i am swiss etc.
I belive you was Airplane Technican in the RAF as far i can read from the Papers, to me it even looks as if you had a higher or even leading position. but i cannot confirm it, because it is faith based.
as a sceptic, you just have to understand it.
there is no way i can check those papers and your ID. So i cannot be 100% sure it is real.
propably i dont express my self in a proper way you would understand it. If someone else can understand my point, i would be happy if he can write it in proper english :)
 
On the subject of derailing the thread, you were asked to provide your best evidence. You provided no evidence at all, even by the laughable standards of your evil movement. Care to take another crack at it?

Column 79 is my best evidence. The exercise is simple. If I claim this iis the best evidence which proves my theory(ies), do you think I should have to produce this crucial piece of evidence?
 
Column 79 is my best evidence. The exercise is simple. If I claim this iis the best evidence which proves my theory(ies), do you think I should have to produce this crucial piece of evidence?


No. Now please go away.
 
Column 79 is my best evidence. The exercise is simple. If I claim this iis the best evidence which proves my theory(ies), do you think I should have to produce this crucial piece of evidence?

You should at the very least state what your theory is and how column 79 proves it. But you won't do that for some reason.
 
No. Now please go away.

I know how much you'd like that, but it's not going to happen. I stay within the rules, and appreciate the jref very much.

I don't mind saying I've learned a great deal here, and appreciate when the discourse is sincere, civil and productive.
 
You should at the very least state what your theory is and how column 79 proves it. But you won't do that for some reason.

There are competing theories. Column 79 is central to NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.
 
I know how much you'd like that, but it's not going to happen. I stay within the rules, and appreciate the jref very much.

I don't mind saying I've learned a great deal here, and appreciate when the discourse is sincere, civil and productive.

I'm indifferent. You're presumption is wrong. But you offer no probative value to this thread and your participation is unnecessary. That is all. Ignoring repeated requests to clarify your position could be considered trolling...against the rules. You're nothing more than dead weight to this thread, that is why I told you to go away...from the thread, not the message board.
 
Last edited:
I'm indifferent. You're presumption is wrong. But you offer no probative value to this thread and your participation is unnecessary. That is all. Ignoring repeated requests to clarify your position could be considered trolling...against the rules. You're nothing more than dead weight to this thread, that is why I told you to go away...from the thread, not the message board.

oops i must have missed the part about trolling in tha MA. can you show me that pls?
 
Last edited:
There are competing theories. Column 79 is central to NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.


Ah. We might be getting somewhere with the intellectually stubborn one.

Could you provide a cite for this assertion?

Thanks.
 
oops i must have missed the part about trolling in tha MA. can you show me that pls?


There is no clause in the Constitution of the United States of America that guarantees Americans the right to breath oxygen. So, we have no right to breath oxygen?


Anyway, I said it could be considered trolling. At best, it is very rude and unseemly.
 
Last edited:
There are competing theories. Column 79 is central to NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.

That's rather a disingenuous answer. NIST's WTC7 collapse theory is based on predictions of the behaviour of Column 79 by computer modelling. NIST are not therefore claiming that Column 79 is evidence for their theory; rather, they are claiming their computer models for evidence. However unsatisfactory you personally may consider that, it's still incorrect to claim that NIST is using Column 79 as evidence.

Can I suggest that the evidence offered be either a physical object or a piece of information that is actually known to exist, rather than an unproven hypothesis or a physical object that is known not to exist? It would seem reasonable, for example, to claim the destruction without analysis of Column 79 as a piece of evidence. Otherwise, claiming an object that doesn't exist as your best piece of evidence seems equivalent to a claim that you have no evidence.

It would be interesting to see what your theory is too.

Dave
 
That's rather a disingenuous answer. NIST's WTC7 collapse theory is based on predictions of the behaviour of Column 79 by computer modelling. NIST are not therefore claiming that Column 79 is evidence for their theory; rather, they are claiming their computer models for evidence. However unsatisfactory you personally may consider that, it's still incorrect to claim that NIST is using Column 79 as evidence.

So you would agree that NIST's theory is not based on any physical evidence?

Can I suggest that the evidence offered be either a physical object or a piece of information that is actually known to exist, rather than an unproven hypothesis or a physical object that is known not to exist? It would seem reasonable, for example, to claim the destruction without analysis of Column 79 as a piece of evidence. Otherwise, claiming an object that doesn't exist as your best piece of evidence seems equivalent to a claim that you have no evidence.

I agree 100% and hope you would hold NIST to the same standard.
 
So you would agree that NIST's theory is not based on any physical evidence?

No, and as everyone can see I said nothing that gives any such impression. Your response is both dishonest and off-topic.

I agree 100% and hope you would hold NIST to the same standard.

I'm glad you agree 100% - does that mean that you withdraw your statement that the nonexistent column 79 is your best piece of evidence?

As far as I'm aware, NIST's computer models and their outputs are information that actually exists.

Dave
 

Back
Top Bottom