Why fake the SoC path?

[Baylor]

Flyover witness revealed!

Guess who it is?

Helen Keller...

 

[Baylor]

Lucky for me that you didn't give any rational answer so I don't have to kill myself.

LOL! He ripped a page right out of Homeland Insurgency's playbook.

Whether it makes sense or not doesn't matter, all that matters is you relieve your cognitive dissonance.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Lucky for me that you didn't give any rational answer

How so?

 

[Baylor]

How so?

For starters....

The gist of it is that the decoy jet was meant to fool most people into believing that it hit the building but the 2nd plane cover story would be out there as an explanation for the people who actually saw it fly over or away from the building.

This violates virtually everything we know about human perception.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

For starters....


This violates virtually everything we know about human perception.

Could you explain? That quote has virtually nothing to do with perception.

 

[Baylor]

The gist of it is that the decoy jet was meant to fool most people into believing that it hit the building but the 2nd plane cover story would be out there as an explanation for the people who actually saw it fly over or away from the building.
.

Could you explain? That quote has virtually nothing to do with perception.

Vision is a human perception. If they saw it fly over or away from the building, they would say it flew over or away from the building.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Vision is a human perception. If they saw it fly over or away from the building, they would say it flew over or away from the building.

Right. If people saw a plane buzz the Pentagon, they're not going to say, "Ahh, OK, that explains everything," when they hear about an entirely different type of plane making a U-turn way up in the sky above the Pentagon.

I don't know exactly how dumb TheLoneBedouin thinks the general public is, but he must think they're pretty damn stupid if he thinks he perceives things, through the mists of time and while not being a witness himself, more clearly than those that were there.

 

[The Big Dog]

Great question!

The fact that you are even asking it is indicative of 2 things...

1. Your noggin is working over-time now that you've realized that you lost the "math" debate.

.

hee hee! Ha, sheep! I love it when the sheep dance!

How are your witnesses doing under the bus, TLB?

I still can't believe they took the bait!

Idiots!

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Vision is a human perception. If they saw it fly over or away from the building, they would say it flew over or away from the building.

Wrong. There would be no way for them to tell if the plane they saw was "the plane". If they saw a plane fly over or away from the building, they would say a plane flew over or away from the building.

In fact, this is exatly what witnesses say happened.

See Aldo's post in "Witness List Broken Down".

 

[Baylor]

Wrong. There would be no way for them to tell if the plane they saw was "the plane".

By "the plane" I assume you mean AA 757, or what you call, the "decoy plane."

So how exactly were they not able to process the visual information into their Striate cortex?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So the planners obviously wanted complete control of the damage to their own building and clearly this would be achieved most efficiently with pre-planted explosives. This is the obvious reason why they would "fake" the damage. The plane was a psychological tool and while most believed it hit the building, others were quite deliberately fooled into thinking it was a "2nd plane". Roosevelt Roberts Jr. is a prime example.

Unfortunately using explosives to do the work of the "faked" plane impact would have been as obvious as any postulated fly over or change in the planes track toward its intended target. Having seen the documentation of the impact damage, I see NOTHING remotely characteristic of pre planted devices. Instead, I see every characteristic of damaged incurred by a mass moving in one general path inside the building. Twist your flight paths and light poll speculation in any direction you want, the speculation on the use of explosives to simulate a plane impact fell flat on its face before it ever reached the front door

As far as the SoC path, I see no discernable reason for the "conspirators" to have faked it or gone with anything else OTHER than that path. I constantl;y am left having to ask why -- if this were a conspiracy -- any of this would have to be complicated to the point of insanity. For a "well planned" cover up trying to take every measure to hide itself it sure pulled an epic fail on itself

 

[Horatius]

Nice knowing you dtugg!

Except you still haven't said why they did it this way. Why? What was the point? Why create an overly-elaborate plan that inherently contains the evidence needed to unravel the whole plot?

What was the point?

What was the point?

What was the point?

What was the point?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Right. If people saw a plane buzz the Pentagon, they're not going to say, "Ahh, OK, that explains everything," when they hear about an entirely different type of plane making a U-turn way up in the sky above the Pentagon.

Here are more weak assumptions used to "debunk" reasonable explanations. The media outlets right after the attack reported that either "a plane" (unspecified) or the "C-130" shadowed AA77 up to impact. No one knows about the RADEs data that was quitely released years after the event. If someone heard about a plane that flew over the Pentagon (Wheelhouse's testimony parroted in the media) then that would be enough to convince most people that that plane is what they saw.
The vast majority of people know literally nothing about the official story anyway. Your assumptions are made all the more irrelevant when we have instances of witnesses who have complained that "second explosions" or "a second jet flying away from the Pentagon" have not been reported in the mainstream media, and have merely written them off as uninteresting historical footnotes (e.g. see Margaret McBride's account of a "second exposion" not being reported).

 

[apathoid]

Wrong. There would be no way for them to tell if the plane they saw was "the plane". If they saw a plane fly over or away from the building, they would say a plane flew over or away from the building.

I guess it still boggles my mind that someone with a halfway functioning brain of relative sanity could seriously posit such a theory.

Let me see if I have this right. A witness(actually many witnesses form varying vantage points) sees a plane on a collision course with the Pentagon, and by your logic automatically assumes it crashed even though it flew up, up, and away...? What are you smoking bro?

Do you truly and honestly believe people are that stupid? And do you believe the Jews/Masons/Illuminati/NWO/Reptoids would be that stupid to have control of an aircraft, put it on a collision course with The Pentagon and then for some inexplicable reason have it pull up and fly over in broad daylight during rushhour traffic and expect no one to notice??

You believe that?!?!



Seriously?!

 

[Baylor]

If someone heard about a plane that flew over the Pentagon (Wheelhouse's testimony parroted in the media) then that would be enough to convince most people that that plane is what they saw.

I gave you the opportunity to explain this, you haven't done so. You didn't even try.

 

[apathoid]

TheLoneBedouin,

You and your Pentagon pals have my curiosity piqued. I'm kinda wondering how it is that you think, so I want you to answer one question for me. You can give a simple yes/no answer, or answer in as much detail as you like. I'm putting you in charge of the Pentagon attack in the 9/11 Conspiracy War Room. What you say goes....its your baby. So, here's my question: Crash or Flyover?

 

[Mangoose]

Rescuing a post from AAH:

Surely you are aware of how a magician sets a stage? Of course you are; this is the James Randi Forum. The light poles are the stage props. The generator trailer is another stage prop. The decoy aircraft flying towards the Pentagon is a stage prop.

This is what is so idiotic about CIT's fantasy. When David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear, the illusion wasn't seen by everyone all around Ellis Island. It was only seen by people in one particular location and the props were useful for people only in that one location. Everyone else all around saw something very different. All the props in the vicinity of the West wall of the Pentagon meant nothing to people on the other side. The supposed illusion of a plane crashing into the Pentagon by flying slightly ahead of the fireball would not have been perceived that way by people on the opposite side. They would have thought that this plane they saw screaming over the Pentagon had dropped a bomb on the building. Is that the kind of story that the perps wanted people to relate to the news media, on the internet, to their friends, etc.? Your claim about the FBI seizing all cameras and video cameras is also idiotic. No one seized Steve Riskus' camera and no one was going to stop him from uploading his photos to the internet a few hours later. N one seized Anthony Tribby's camera, and if he had his video camera running a little earlier, he would have caught the supposed "flyover". There were potential cameras in the high rises in Pentagon City, in the high rises in Crystal City, across the Potomac in D.C., along the Beltway, and the perps decided to go ahead with their plan with the full knowledge that someone somewhere beyond their power could post on the internet complete and utter proof of the fraud? Faking a SOC path makes no sense.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Since I have explained how the witnesses are fooled with deceptive media reports (e.g. Wheelehose's parroted account (more info in the Second Plane Coverstory)), and have given evidence that many people who report anomolies write them off as unimportant and do not pursue them (e.g. Margaret McBride's account), UnLovedRebel's claim that my post "violates everything we know about human perception" is utterly false.

So why would dtugg say that my answer is "not rational"?

It comes down to an argument from incredulity. This is a completely irrational argument, but fortunately for dtugg, he'll never realize it.

 

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by SPreston
Surely you are aware of how a magician sets a stage? Of course you are; this is the James Randi Forum. The light poles are the stage props. The generator trailer is another stage prop. The decoy aircraft flying towards the Pentagon is a stage prop.

Good god, he really said that? There are so many holes in this theory it's impossible go to through all of them. The one that I can't get over is CIT ACTS LIKE VISION IS THE ONLY HUMAN PERCEPTION. Humans can only see in front of them, but they can hear all around them. Also, humans respond faster to an audio stimulus than a visual one. That's why sprinters start the race off with a gunshot, rather than a light. When we go to sleep at night, we rely on our ears to warn us of any potentially dangerous stimuli. Having said that, hearing is our "best" perception. The engines of a 757 would be about 172 dBs (source). Kinda hard to hide a 150 ton object in broad daylight, especially when it exceeds 170 dBs.

So, no one saw the plane fly over the pentagon, but better yet, no one HEARD the plane fly over the pentagon. So much for doing an optical illusion with a flying plane.

 

[Baylor]

Since I have explained how the witnesses are fooled with deceptive media reports (e.g. Wheelehose's parroted account (more info in the Second Plane Coverstory)), and have given evidence that many people who report anomolies write them off as unimportant and do not pursue them (e.g. Margaret McBride's account), UnLovedRebel's claim that my post "violates everything we know about human perception" is utterly false

See above comment. I'll elaborate more later.