Now you are resorting to LYING about your own statements and what I agreed to.
You did not say anything about the poles being sabotaged with "magic".
Your clear intent to manipulate this discussion with dishonest language only exposes how you are losing the argument.
You're not very good at this, are you?
In fact even the word "sabotaged" is inaccurate and I shouldn't have agreed to it because it implies a real-time downing of some sort.
Not my problem. If you want to revise your hypothesis, by all means go ahead. That's what I've been trying to get you to do, although I have a more radical revision in mind.
The point, however, is that you cannot accuse me of simply not knowing or avoiding your hypothesis. I went through it with you. Now, interestingly, under scrutiny it seems to go rather soft. That's not surprising given its implausibility.
This is NOT what CIT has ever claimed and not what I believe either. I took the word "sabotaged" in a more general sense to simply mean "staged" in general, in other words, staged in advance of the event.
Same with Lloyde's cab. There was no real-time simulation of a pole entering his cab nor is there ANY evidence that a pole was ever in his cab at all. Your language implies this and I shouldn't have agreed to it.
Semantics. Planted ahead of time or triggered at the moment of simulated impact really doesn't bother me, both are pretty foolish.
If you had viewed the presentations and read their articles you would already understand how this is not what CIT claims so it gets tiresome explaining everything in detail for you just because you refuse to view the information you are desperately trying to refute.
Again, trying to attack me, rather than present a coherent story. Tut tut.
Except "what they believe" is not what I was referring to.
You believe different? I wouldn't ask so many "tiresome" questions if you were more lucid in your discussion.
The anomalous physical evidence is addressed and discussed in CIT's presentations and articles with photographic evidence provided. The photographs reveal that the physical evidence most certainly IS anomalous and questionable on many levels which is what got people questioning the attack to begin with. Hell even the State Dept website endorses the Integrated Consultants video where they ADMIT that the damage is "counter-intuitive"!
Quote-mining the State Department doesn't impress me.
Regarding "anomalous" evidence, we all know and admit the evidence isn't all 100% consistent. But your choice of which is anomalous, and which is baseline, is hard to fathom. To us, this element of a few isolated testimonials is the anomaly. To you, the Pentagon impact (common to virtually all testimonials) is the anomaly, along with reports of the "normal" flightpath, the impact damage, the light poles, damage to Lloyde's cab, the FDR record, the DNA evidence, radar and ACARS data, the NTSB conclusion, American Airlines's conclusion, the ATC audio logs, the limited video and still images of the event, recovered aircraft debris, building performance, martyrdom videos after the event, and so on, and so on.
This kind of asymmetric behavior is why you have so very few who will even listen to you in the first place. It's simply not rational.
But this thread is not about the physical damage, it is not about any complete "hypothesis" (or even the flyover for that matter), it is not about how the light poles were "sabotaged", nor is it about CIT. Your continuous efforts to derail threads by framing various points about CIT's hypothesis with your own deceptive language is transparent.
Sorry if your absurd hypothesis is inconvenient to your claims, but frankly, that's your problem.
It's a blatant attempt to avoid addressing the evidence and refute it with independent counter-evidence as true skeptics and scientists would require.
I've addressed it. I accept it. I just don't think it's particularly reliable. I've told you this numerous times on numerous threads.
This thread is about the FACT that Sean Boger has corroborated the north side approach first-hand.
You mean his words are consistent with such an approach. He is in no position to corroborate it.
Oddly, his words are also consistent with an impact, which according to you is inconsistent with a north side approach. So it isn't clear that he even provides that much.
Do you agree that Boger confirmed the north side approach first-hand? Yes or no?
You seem stuck on semantics. So I'll have to quibble and say "no." He cannot, no matter what he says, confirm this. His comments are, again,
consistent with such an approach -- but this is data, not proof. Data has uncertainties.
Do you agree that 12 others corroborated this first-hand? Yes or no?
Negative. Their comments, again, are consistent with such a flight path. But this is insufficient for corroboration. See also where Arabesque has
revealed potential sources of errors in their recollection, which are quite reasonable (scroll down to comments on William Lagasse's interview).
Do you agree that there is not a single first-hand account in the entire body of evidence that definitively has the plane on the southern as opposed to northern approach? Yes or no? (if no please provide account)
I vehemently disagree with this, and you've been shown repeated instances in your other many threads on this topic. Your own video contains, for instance, Mr. Wheelhouse's account, which is so damaging to your hypothesis that half of the video is dedicated to nitpicking his remarks.
I answered all of your yes or no questions so please answer mine.
A fair request. My answers are No to all of them.
That would be the official story as it is now 100% clear that this implausible explanation does not work, is contradicted by science, and proven false by the evidence.
You continue to confuse evidence and reasoning. You cannot label some evidence as "anomalous" until
after you've proven your theory. Yet you persist in doing this step first. This is circular reasoning. I've already explained this repeatedly. You falsely cloak yourself in science without understanding the concept.
