Flyover Witnesses
- Thread starter pomeroo
- Start date
TheLoneBedouin
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 733
Yes. Cit has interviewed Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts who describes a "commercial airliner with jet engines" banking over the lightpoles immediately after the explosion.
They have also interviewed Erik Dihle who confirmed his CMH account of flyover witnesses immediately following the attack.
No million for you!
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
So you do accept second hand evidence when it fits your whim. How do you decide when. Be careful you confirmation bias is showing.
Last edited:
You continue to lie about Erik's account?
Why is that?
He NEVER reported a plane flyong over!
He NEVER reported that a specific person reported a flyover.
What he did was comment about how some unknown person said to another person how it sounded like it kept on going.
You are now cherry picking what he said and lying about it to somehow show support for your DELUSION FILLED HEAD and your insane theories that ARE NOT BACKED BY A SHRED OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE!
You are like a bigfoot believer.
So a normal sane human being who believed that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon would be happy I am sure to testify in a court about this.
When will you be bringing Roberts to a court of law?
I am certain that there are attorney's out there just waiting for this golden opportunity!
Not to mention 1000's of reporters.
Which reporter will you bring Roberts to?
Which attorney will you get to take the case?
His a tip....
PLENTY OF ATTORNEYS out there would potentially take on this case FOR FREE because of the fame that they would then receive.
TheLoneBedouin
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 733
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
TLB, are you really this dense?
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
Nope.
I know its hard for you to not lie.
Erik NEVER SAID he say a flyover.
Anyone can listen to him here and draw their own conclusions though
http://www.thepentacon.com/ErikDihle.WMA
have you ever been diagnosed with antilsocial disorder?
TheLoneBedouin
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 733
bonavada said:
It is not hearsay.
I didn't say he is a first-hand flyover witness.
It is a first-hand account that the C-130 came from the northwest corroborating all other ANC witnesses proving the RADES data fraudulent and it is also a first-hand account that that a flyover was the first thing some people reported immediately after the attack.
I know that you and lying are like bread and butter but lets give it a go and stop lying!
A flyover is not the "first thing" that some people reported immediately after the attack!
Do you know the difference between a lie and the truth?
Do you know what a lie is?
Last edited:
? I didn't say he was a first-hand flyover witness either.
But his is a first-hand account which includes something someone else said. IE HEARSAY. You are using this hearsay in a first-hand account as evidence of a flyover.
Do you agree with that definition? If so, you must also agree that the claims by the witness in question include hearsay. Hearsay you use in your body of "evidence" of a flyover.
So is hearsay acceptable or not?
BV
Last edited:
Your witness has no clue what time it is your flight path and CIT are a fraud.
FRAUD - Roberts has no clue what happen on 911. Time is messed up! Good job! You can throw out Roberts. What a waste.
You are telling another lie, the RADES data is correct you are wrong; and you don’t have any evidence to prove the RADES wrong. CIT faulty analysis is your hearsay, lies and fantasy to base your lie on.
CIT has no evidence that the RADES data is fraudulent. There is other RADAR data confirming the RADES data, ATC confirms RADES, and the C-130 pilots confirms the RADES. So you are making up another lie.
LIES told by TLB:
77 did not impact the Pentagon (refuted by DNA, FDR, and 77 parts)
77 did a flyover (refuted by RADAR, video)
RADES is fraudulent (refuted by the fact TLB has no hard evidence)
How many delusions do you have on 911? You have zero hard evidence.
Last edited:
TLB, you cannot be serious. This is how I know that you guys don't believe any of this retardedness. You are dubbing this witness a flyover witness because he saw a low flying plane 10 seconds(!!!) after the explosion. Uhhh, do you need the obvious pointed out to you?
Rhetorical question not directed to CIT: Is anyone in the world dumb enough to mistake an explosion and a flyover 10 seconds later with an impact?
x one trillionDGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Un-believable.
Why don't you just come out and say you only accept evidence that confirms your conclusion. You do know that you are the only one that doesn't see this?
lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
Wow. What a complete lie. He specifically stated that it was a plane that always flew over at that time and it was "a minute or two" after the crash. That does not qualify as a flyover witness.
I don't think that TLB isn't claiming that Erik is a flyover witness. Only that Erik heard others claim the aircraft flew over the Pentagon (from the CMH interview) He (Erik) heard others say that the plane "just kept going" and TLB is using this hearsay as an indication of a flyover.
The use of hearsay is a two-edged sword though. Erik also claims people told him that the plane "smacked into" the Pentagon, "No if's or but's", listen to the audio of the telephone interview between Craig and Erik that TLB links to above, it's all there.
This is as blatant an example of cherry-picking I have ever read.
TLB has set a precedent here, hearsay is now acceptable.
BV
The use of hearsay is a two-edged sword though. Erik also claims people told him that the plane "smacked into" the Pentagon, "No if's or but's", listen to the audio of the telephone interview between Craig and Erik that TLB links to above, it's all there.
This is as blatant an example of cherry-picking I have ever read.
TLB has set a precedent here, hearsay is now acceptable.
BV