NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[Miragememories]

"There is no credibility when people [FBI], who by profession and public duty show no interest (curiosity) about 10 eyewitnesses, including 2 police officers, who have given emphatic testimony for the public record and on camera.

Testimony which is incredibly damaging to the FBI's investigative conclusions behind the so-called Pentagon attack.

These same, surprisingly uninterested professionals, are the source of all the supposed evidence that you are using as counter-argument."

"Don't change the topic.

How did someone deposit 140 tons of aircraft debris and all 64 bodies (all last seen only 90 minutes earlier) inside a burning building under the continuous observation of a bunch of random people?"

"You are simply ignoring my explanation Al because you can't refute
its logic."

"Don't change the topic.

Everything has to considered in the context of the physical evidence. In this case, the physical evidence is 140 tons of Flight 77 and the bodily remains of everyone that boarded 90 minutes earlier."

I am on top of this subject Al. It is all about the physical evidence.

You are trying to the steer away from the essential truth.

The physical evidence and the eyewitnessed order of events tell the true story.

In a courtroom, your case would be torn to shreds by the excellent corroborating testimony of those
10 eyewitnesses.

Certain inescapable conclusions are revealed no matter how unpleasant they are to face.

If the light poles were planted evidence, and based on the eyewitness testimony, they must have been,
then all the physical evidence that followed becomes suspect, along with those people who supposedly collected it.

This is really serious Al.

And the fact that the F.B.I. have chosen to ignore these witnesses is particular damning to their credibility as the frontline investigators.

Stop kneejerk reacting Al and start thinking!

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Why would you even have "knocking over light poles" as part of your evil plan? Did they think that it wouldn't be believed unless they included that minor detail? There would of been way to much risk for too little benefit to even consider doing something that illogical.

Not my plan Woody.

The fact remains the light poles were taken down.

They provided reinforcement for a bogus pre-determined south of the Citgo flightpath.

After making its difficult final maneuver, had the actual flight not been off a few degrees and on a north of Citgo flightpath, no one would have noticed any contradiction.

MM

 

[Disbelief]

I am on top of this subject Al. It is all about the physical evidence.

You are trying to the steer away from the essential truth.

The physical evidence and the eyewitnessed order of events tell the true story.

In a courtroom, your case would be torn to shreds by the excellent corroborating testimony of those
10 eyewitnesses.

MM

Another idiotic concept. Eyewitnesses would never trump physical evidence.

 

[triforcharity]

I am on top of this subject Al. It is all about the physical evidence.

You are trying to the steer away from the essential truth.

The physical evidence and the eyewitnessed order of events tell the true story.

In a courtroom, your case would be torn to shreds by the excellent corroborating testimony of those
10 eyewitnesses.

Certain inescapable conclusions are revealed no matter how unpleasant they are to face.

If the light poles were planted evidence, and based on the eyewitness testimony, they must have been,
then all the physical evidence that followed becomes suspect, along with those people who supposedly collected it.

This is really serious Al.

And the fact that the F.B.I. have chosen to ignore these witnesses is particular damning to their credibility as the frontline investigators.

Stop kneejerk reacting Al and start thinking!

MM

But yet, whenever someone quotes any of the FDNY about the events at GZ, they are just giving their opinion.

Remember that MM?

Your accusation of lying is simply based on the anecdotal impressions (opinions) of firefighters caught up in the drama of 9/11.
THE FDNY firefighters were not liars, they were simply mistaken and giving their opinions. I'm sure the NIST would have loved to agree with all the FDNY firefighter's sensationalistic opinions, but based on the NIST WTC7 Collapse Report, even they could not!

So, we have hundreds of firefighters whom give their eyewitness accounts, and they are opinions. But, you have 10 people that say the plane flew NOC, and they are giving fact.

So, because they support your delusions, they are giving fact, but if they destroy your beliefs, they are just giving their "sensationalistic opinions".

Right......Gotcha!!

 

[Miragememories]

"Eyewitnesses have the greatest difficulty identifying people in a police lineup.

Have you seen the Citgo setting?

You look north, one view.

You turn 180 degrees and look south, a completely different view.

Now it is 9/11.

A day that only the brain dead could forget.

You are at the CItgo gas station.

You hear the loud roar of a Boeing 767 approaching at high speed and very low altitude.

You look to the north and this dramatic vision of this close up fly by is permanently etched in your memory.

A second later a huge conflagration occurs at the Pentagon.

Years later, someone suggests that you and 9 others were not likely
to remember such an event very well.

I still remember exactly where I was the day JFK was assassinated!

You sir are afraid of the truth and deep in denial!"

"Were you in Dealey Plaza? No.

Were you involved in a very traumatic experience? Not like this.

Can eyewitnesses be inaccurate? Sure. Happens all the time.

Didn't you say so yourself? Absolutely. Right here."

Do you always make a habit of answering your own questions?

Recalling a stranger's face after an event is difficult.

Recalling the memory of a low-flying 767, approaching at high speed and close to the ground, very close to your viewpoint, followed immediately by a huge conflagration at the Pentagon, on 9/11 no less, would not be difficult at all!

"So, the FDNY, who have been involved with hundreds of high-stress situations are wrong, but your CIT witnesses are absolutely correct??

Hardly."

I was not aware that the FDNY were in attendance during the supposed attack on the Pentagon?

MM

 

[BigAl]

Not my plan Woody.

The fact remains the light poles were taken down.

They provided reinforcement for a bogus pre-determined south of the Citgo flightpath.

After making its difficult final maneuver, had the actual flight not been off a few degrees and on a north of Citgo flightpath, no one would have noticed any contradiction.

MM

So what?

How did 140 tons of aircraft and the identified bodily remains of all 64 people that boarded it get inside the Pentagon 90 minutes after taking off from Dulles airport? The approach, the crash and the forensic recovery were under continuous observation by countless people. We know the names and have the statements of about 250.

 

[BigAl]

I am on top of this subject Al. It is all about the physical evidence.

You are trying to the steer away from the essential truth.

The physical evidence and the eyewitnessed order of events tell the true story.

In a courtroom, your case would be torn to shreds by the excellent corroborating testimony of those
10 eyewitnesses.

Does your explanation show how 140 tons of aircraft and the identified bodily remains of all 64 people that boarded it was found inside the Pentagon 90 minutes after taking off from Dulles airport?

Please tell.

The approach, the crash and the forensic recovery was under continuous observation by countless people. We know the names and have the statements of about 250.

 

[triforcharity]

Do you always make a habit of answering your own questions?

Recalling a stranger's face after an event is difficult.

Recalling the memory of a low-flying 767, approaching at high speed and close to the ground, very close to your viewpoint, followed immediately by a huge conflagration at the Pentagon, on 9/11 no less, would not be difficult at all!




I was not aware that the FDNY were in attendance during the supposed attack on the Pentagon?

MM

You're not getting my point MM. Stop being dense.

FDNY says something, and you call it an opinion.

But, yet, someone else, 2 cops and 8 civillians, say something, and you call it fact.

So, which one is it? Are eyewitness accounts facts, or opinions?

Pick one.

 

[Miragememories]

But yet, whenever someone quotes any of the FDNY about the events at GZ, they are just giving their opinion.

You are totally off topic.

If you wish to discuss the FDNY and their impressions about the WTC, than I suggest you start a new thread.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

You are totally off topic.

If you wish to discuss the FDNY and their impressions about the WTC, than I suggest you start a new thread.

MM

I am not off topic. I am asking you to clarify, and stop dodging.

Are eyewitness accounts of the events of 9/11 OPINIONS, or are they FACTS. Choose one.

 

[BigAl]

So you obviously don't care.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Now we all know how concerned you are about the truth.

MM

I've seen nothing from you that explains how did someone deposit 140 tons of aircraft debris and all 64 bodies (all last seen only 90 minutes earlier) inside a burning building under the continuous observation of a bunch of random people?

An estimated 7,000 first responders and forensic investigators worked on the Flight 77 hijacking. They would all be very surprised to find it was the wrong plane.

How do you explain the fact that the bodies of everyone that boarded Flight 77 were identified in the debris of essentially the entire airplane buried inside the Pentagon. All of this was witnessed by hundred of people, we have the statements of about 250. The black boxes were recovered. The audio box records Arabic language and a hijacking. The data box shows a flight path that agrees with the FAA radar track and the cellphone/airphone data and shows that the plane was being flown on manual control by the hijackers control right to the end. We have the boarding manifest. We have video of them boarding. Like Flt 93, 11 and 175, the plane and occupants have never been since that day. This includes my work-mate, Ed Felt (flight 93.)

 

[Miragememories]

"Recalling a stranger's face after an event is difficult.

Recalling the memory of a low-flying 767, approaching at high speed and close to the ground, very close to your viewpoint, followed immediately by a huge conflagration at the Pentagon, on 9/11 no less, would not be difficult at all!

I was not aware that the FDNY were in attendance during the supposed attack on the Pentagon?"

"You're not getting my point MM. Stop being dense.

FDNY says something, and you call it an opinion.

But, yet, someone else, 2 cops and 8 civillians, say something, and you call it fact.

So, which one is it? Are eyewitness accounts facts, or opinions?

Pick one."

I do get your point only too well.

You are trying to steer the topic.

Two totally different events being eyewitnessed.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss how the FDNY firefighters
perceived the events at the WTC in NYC.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

I've seen nothing from you that explains how did someone deposit 140 tons of aircraft debris and all 64 bodies (all last seen only 90 minutes earlier) inside a burning building under the continuous observation of a bunch of random people?

An estimated 7,000 first responders and forensic investigators worked on the Flight 77 hijacking. They would all be very surprised to find it was the wrong plane.

How do you explain the fact that the bodies of everyone that boarded Flight 77 were identified in the debris of essentially the entire airplane buried inside the Pentagon. All of this was witnessed by hundred of people, we have the statements of about 250. The black boxes were recovered. The audio box records Arabic language and a hijacking. The data box shows a flight path that agrees with the FAA radar track and the cellphone/airphone data and shows that the plane was being flown on manual control by the hijackers control right to the end. We have the boarding manifest. We have video of them boarding. Like Flt 93, 11 and 175, the plane and occupants have never been since that day. This includes my work-mate, Ed Felt (flight 93.)

Just in case you missed it MM.

 

[triforcharity]

I do get your point only too well.

You are trying to steer the topic.

Two totally different events being eyewitnessed.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss how the FDNY firefighters
perceived the events at the WTC in NYC.

MM

No, it is not. Answer the ******* question, and stop dodging.

Are eyewitness accounts opinions, or are they fact. This is VERY much relevant, and on topic.

Are eyewitness account opinions, as you have stated, or are they facts?? One word answer.

 

[Miragememories]

"I've seen nothing from you that explains how did someone deposit 140 tons of aircraft debris ..."

I've seen nothing from you that explains how prior to your "deposited 140 tons of aircraft debris", 5 light poles were also "planted"?

Since your event supposedly occurred in partnership with the light poles which supposedly were knocked down earlier in the event's timeline, it is essential that they be satisfactorily explained before examining later events.

To do so, you have to discredit those 10 eyewitnesses.

MM

 

[uk_dave]

He won't come back...I think someone must have hurt his feelings.

TAM

You know, 'hurt feelings' is a major obstacle to getting the 'truth' about 9/11 out there.

If feelings weren't hurt so easily, the real culprits would be cooling their heels in jail by now.

But, as it is, you hurt a 'truthers' feelings and they just aint gonna expose the evil conspiracy which keeps us all enslaved.

Our feelings just don't count, I guess.

 

[TJM]

To do so, you have to discredit those 10 eyewitnesses.

MM

The approach, the crash and the forensic recovery was under continuous observation by countless people. We know the names and have the statements of about 250.

Carry on.

 

[BigAl]

Now we all know how concerned you are about the truth.

MM

My motivation is irrelevant. Don't try to change the topic.

You proposed a hypotheses:

"the evidence in the Pentagon was planted."​

The test of a hypotheses is how well it explains known facts.

My hypotheses is

Flight 77 was flown into the Pentagon by a trained hijacker-pilot.​

Here is a summary of a fraction of the evidence I can present:

The fact that the bodies of everyone that boarded Flight 77 were identified in the debris of essentially the entire airplane buried inside the Pentagon. All of this was witnessed by hundred of people, we have the statements of about 250. The black boxes were recovered. The audio box records Arabic language and a hijacking. The data box shows a flight path that agrees with the FAA radar track and the cellphone/airphone data and shows that the plane was being flown on manual control by the hijackers control right to the end. We have the boarding manifest. We have video of them boarding. Like Flt 93, 11 and 175, the plane and occupants have never been since that day.​

Please present the evidence you have for your hypotheses .....

 

[uk_dave]

Please present the evidence you have for your hypotheses .....

Harsh...very harsh.

 

[Miragememories]

"I do get your point only too well.

You are trying to steer the topic.

Two totally different events being eyewitnessed.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss how the FDNY firefighters
perceived the events at the WTC in NYC."

"No, it is not. Answer the ******* question, and stop dodging.
Are eyewitness accounts opinions, or are they fact. This is VERY much relevant, and on topic.
Are eyewitness account opinions, as you have stated, or are they facts?? One word answer."

It clearly depends on the kind of response being given.

An eyewitness can state something as an observed fact or than can state something as being their opinion.

The 10 north of Citgo eyewitnesses, testified to the location of the aircraft flying by them as an "observed fact".

Many of the FDNY firefighters eyewitnessed as an "observed fact" that WTC7 had fires burning within it.

Many of the FDNY firefighters gave opinions as eyewitnesses that WTC7 was fully engulfed by fire.

In this case, we know the FDNY "observed fact" was true, but we also know that their "opinion" was proven false.

MM