Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bonavada said:
Fixed.

Thanks

BV
Click to expand...

bonevada....have you seen this video ? I am informed by tfk on another forum that it is hosted on the CNN website though I haven't found it. Can you comment on why they have reversed the sequence of the video ? To explain, at the 2:52 mark or therebouts they seamlessly switch to the original early broadcast made by Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, but first they run a longer sequence of what he later said. Do you have any explanation for that ? Do you think somebody should contact CNN to advise them of this glaring error ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
bonevada....have you seen this video ? I am informed by tfk on another forum that it is hosted on the CNN website though I haven't found it. Can you comment on why they have reversed the sequence of the video ? To explain, at the 2:52 mark or therebouts they switch to the early broadcast made by Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, but first they run a longer sequence of what he later said. Do you have any explanation for that ? Do you think somebody should contact CNN to advise them of this glaring error ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8
Click to expand...

Do you have a point given that he knows that a 757 had just crashed into the Pentagon?
 
BigAl said:
Do you have a point given that he knows that a 757 had just crashed into the Pentagon?
Click to expand...
Jamie McIntyre seemed to be much surer about that in the first part of the video than in the last part Al. Do you think it matters that the video sequence has been tampered with. What if it IS on the CNN website ? For a news organisation to be offering a forgery as hard news is kind of unusual to say the very least.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
bonevada....have you seen this video ? I am informed by tfk on another forum that it is hosted on the CNN website though I haven't found it. Can you comment on why they have reversed the sequence of the video ? To explain, at the 2:52 mark or therebouts they seamlessly switch to the original early broadcast made by Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, but first they run a longer sequence of what he later said. Do you have any explanation for that ? Do you think somebody should contact CNN to advise them of this glaring error ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8
Click to expand...

Face palm.

Bill, your complete misrepresentation of that video has been debunked before. It wasn't out of order, and if you think his statement that there is no evidence of plane crashing here mean that he thinks the plane did not crash there, I suggest that you grab a dictionary and look up cherry picking because in his next freaking sentence he says that he can see debris from the plane scattered all over the lawn.

FAIL!
 
16.5 said:
Face palm.

Bill, your complete misrepresentation of that video has been debunked before. It wasn't out of order, and if you think his statement that there is no evidence of plane crashing here mean that he thinks the plane did not crash there, I suggest that you grab a dictionary and look up cherry picking because in his next freaking sentence he says that he can see debris from the plane scattered all over the lawn.

FAIL!
Click to expand...
Really?....I thought that he said 'I can see no evidence that a plane had crashed anywhere NEAR the Pentagon'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8
 
bill smith said:
Really?....I thought that he said 'I can see no evidence that a plane had crashed anywhere NEAR the Pentagon'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8
Click to expand...

Umm... this isn't biblical writ. I believe he's still alive. You could probably drop him a polite email and ask him whether he intended to convey that the destruction of the aircraft was so complete that it no longer resembled an airplane, or rather his disbelief that an airplane had crashed there at all.

I have no idea, of course, whether he would reply.
 
bill smith said:
Really?....I thought that he said 'I can see no evidence that a plane had crashed anywhere NEAR the Pentagon'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8
Click to expand...

Really?.... I thought he then said that the only parts of the plane he could find were small enough to be picked up by hand.

So do you think he meant that no plane crashed or that no recognizable parts of the plane were visible?

C'mon Big Bill... you can do it, it is called context! USE IT.
 
16.5 said:
Really?.... I thought he then said that the only parts of the plane he could find were small enough to be picked up by hand.

So do you think he meant that no plane crashed or that no recognizable parts of the plane were visible?

C'mon Big Bill... you can do it, it is called context! USE IT.
Click to expand...

I would stake my life that Jamie McInyre meant that from what he saw he had no reason to believe a plane had hit the Pentagon. This is strongly backed up by the fact that 'in his close-up inspection' he never once mentions the powerful reek of jet fuel which should have been choking and blinding him. Don't forget a fully fuelled 757 was supposd to have impacted the stone wall of the Pentagon only a short tme before.

In the face of all these indicators why are you so adamant that McIntyre meant something else altoether ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I would stake my life that Jamie McInyre meant that from what he saw he had no reason to believe a plane had hit the Pentagon.
Click to expand...


But the very quote of his you keep pointing out clearly uses the phrase "near the Pentagon" in direct response to a question asking if it hit the ground. How in sanity's name do you interpret that to mean he believes no plane actually crashed into the building itself?

Is English not your primary language?
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
But the very quote of his you keep pointing out clearly uses the phrase "near the Pentagon" in direct response to a question asking if it hit the ground. How in sanity's name do you interpret that to mean he believes no plane actually crashed into the building itself?

Is English not your primary language?
Click to expand...

This is where he explained that I think. I'm sure many people lke yourself found it convincing.

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN, in which I, myself, appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building.

''But from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. ''

MCINTYRE: Wolf, in fact, and I was saying that there was no plane that fell short of the Pentagon, only the one that hit the Pentagon. But don't try telling that to the conspiracy theorists -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jamie, good report. Thank you very much.


Man oh man that's absolutely hilarious.lol
 
Last edited:
bonavada said:
Why not you? Go to it. get back to us. We're all ears (eyes).

BV

PS Anybody remember that image?
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that an honest person like yourself is not more curiuos about why the video sequence was reversed.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
This is where he explained that I think. I'm sure many people lke yourself found it convincing.
Click to expand...


...what?

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN, in which I, myself, appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building.

''But from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. ''

MCINTYRE: Wolf, in fact, and I was saying that there was no plane that fell short of the Pentagon, only the one that hit the Pentagon. But don't try telling that to the conspiracy theorists -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jamie, good report. Thank you very much.


Man oh man that's absolutely hilarious.lol
Click to expand...


I suspect you have a not-so-subtle problem comprehending and communicating in the English language. I don't think you've said what you meant in this post...

ETA: I think I originally misread your post, but if I am reading it correctly now... it doesn't answer my question at all.

bill smith said:
I would stake my life that Jamie McInyre meant that from what he saw he had no reason to believe a plane had hit the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
Cl1mh4224rd said:
But the very quote of his you keep pointing out clearly uses the phrase "near the Pentagon" in direct response to a question asking if it hit the ground. How in sanity's name do you interpret that to mean he believes no plane actually crashed into the building itself?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I would stake my life that Jamie McInyre meant that from what he saw he had no reason to believe a plane had hit the Pentagon. This is strongly backed up by the fact that 'in his close-up inspection' he never once mentions the powerful reek of jet fuel which should have been choking and blinding him. Don't forget a fully fuelled 757 was supposd to have impacted the stone wall of the Pentagon only a short tme before.

In the face of all these indicators why are you so adamant that McIntyre meant something else altoether ?
Click to expand...

But here we are in 2009 and only an idiot can deny a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Only and idiot can say Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and the idiots base that on their own made up delusions based on their ignorance.

The p4t are those idiots who try to imply Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. They are dolts who can’t do math, make up wild idea in physics with 30 G pull-ups, and flight paths that take 20 Gs to fly. Nuts. They sell DVDs to ignorant and gullible people on 911 issues.

Just like 911Truth to bring up first day junk to justify their delusional ideas on 911. Failure is 911Truth and p4t lead by Balsamo and CIT.
 
beachnut said:
But here we are in 2009 and only an idiot can deny a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Only and idiot can say Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and the idiots base that on their own made up delusions based on their ignorance.

The p4t are those idiots who try to imply Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. They are dolts who can’t do math, make up wild idea in physics with 30 G pull-ups, and flight paths that take 20 Gs to fly. Nuts. They sell DVDs to ignorant and gullible people on 911 issues.

Just like 911Truth to bring up first day junk to justify their delusional ideas on 911. Failure is 911Truth and p4t lead by Balsamo and CIT.
Click to expand...

If you are feeling uneasy about this Beachnut this video will put your mind to rest (maybe)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...84bXSafUMKe4qAOK2-ziBw&q=Jamie+Mcintyre&hl=en
 
bill smith said:
This is where he explained that I think. I'm sure many people lke yourself found it convincing.

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN, in which I, myself, appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building.

''But from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. ''

MCINTYRE: Wolf, in fact, and I was saying that there was no plane that fell short of the Pentagon, only the one that hit the Pentagon. But don't try telling that to the conspiracy theorists -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jamie, good report. Thank you very much.


Man oh man that's absolutely hilarious.lol
Click to expand...

"I would stake my life that Jamie McInyre meant that from what he saw he had no reason to believe a plane had hit the Pentagon."

Uh Oh, Bill.... You seemed to have lost that bet....

Que Sera sera, whatever will be will......

or perhaps...

We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when....

Ladies and Gentlemen, Bill Smith has left the building.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom