NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[BigAl]

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

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

MM

Please produce the unedited tape of the interviews with these 10 people if you think is will explain your hypothesis, that the evidence found in the Pentagon was planted. If it doesn't address that, it's off-topic.

I'll give you the words of about 250 people plus all the bodies and the entire aircraft and more that can be explained by an Arab pilot flying the plane into the building.

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 90 minutes after takeoff. 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 incudes my work-mate, Ed Felt (flight 93.)

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"You proposed a hypotheses: "the evidence in the Pentagon was planted."

What I proposed was that it was logically impossible for those 5 light poles to have been knocked
down by an aircraft with a flightpath north of the Citgo.

Logically, that means those light poles had to have been "planted" intentionally.

Once we address that point, we can move on to what happened after.

You can't put the "cart before the horse".

MM

 

[BigAl]

What I proposed was that it was logically impossible for those 5 light poles to have been knocked
down by an aircraft with a flightpath north of the Citgo.

Logically, that means those light poles had to have been "planted" intentionally.

Once we address that point, we can move on to what happened after.

You can't put the "cart before the horse".

MM

Do you have any eyewitnesses that say how the lamp posts were damaged? There were hundreds of people watching the Pentagon at the time. About 100 people describe events consistent with Flight 93 being flown into the Pentagon.

How does this support your hypothesis, that evidence was planted in the Pentagon?

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?

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 90 minutes after takeoff. 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]

"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."

"Please produce the unedited tape of the interviews with these 10 people if you think is will explain your hypothesis, that the evidence found in the Pentagon was planted. If it doesn't address that, it's off-topic."

So you are finally acknowledging the significance of eyewitness testimony Al?

I believe you can find those statements here;
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

To obtain unedited material;

E-mail: CIT (at) CitizenInvestigationTeam.com
Phone: 949.682.4060
Mail: PO Box 216 San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92693

MM

 

[uk_dave]

What I proposed was that it was logically impossible for those 5 light poles to have been knocked
down by an aircraft with a flightpath north of the Citgo.

Logically, that means those light poles had to have been "planted" intentionally.
Logically, that means the plane must have flown south of CITGO.

Given that one of the witnesses who 'truthers' depend upon for their impossible 'North of CITGO' fantasy actually scribbled on a photograph a path which would have taken the plane south of CITGO; given that someone who witnesses a completely unexpected event may get some facts wrong (especially if lead to those incorrect facts by dishonest 'investigators') regarding the initial few seconds of that event but who then get absolutely correct the finality of the event (you know, the bit where they are fully involved and paying complete attention, like the final resting place of a *********** great jet which had suddenly flown over them); that the idea of fake lightpoles being planted without anyone outside of the conspiracy noticing is absurd; that trees and other landscape obstacles can be incorporated into such an intricate conspricacy that the evil do'ers can be so certain no one will see the sbterfuge; that if anyone does see the sleight of hand they will report it just the one time and then spend the rest of their lives in some kind of bubble where the accepted narrative so very at odds with their own experience never intrudes into their conciousness...... Once we address that those point(s), we can move on to what happened after.
You just can't go around with a preconceived idea and try to make the facts fit it....or even.....

You can't put the "cart before the horse".

MM

uh huh.

 

[BigAl]

So you are finally acknowledging the significance of eyewitness testimony Al?

I believe you can find those statements here;
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

To obtain unedited material;

E-mail: CIT (at) CitizenInvestigationTeam.com
Phone: 949.682.4060
Mail: PO Box 216 San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92693

MM

Do you have any eyewitnesses that say how the lamp posts were damaged? There were hundreds of people watching the Pentagon at the time. About 100 people describe events consistent with Flight 93 being flown into the Pentagon.

 

[uk_dave]

Do you have any eyewitnesses that say how the lamp posts were damaged? There were hundreds of people watching the Pentagon at the time. About 100 people describe events consistent with Flight 93 being flown into the Pentagon.

Their views were obscured by carefully placed trees....apparently.

 

[BigAl]

So you are finally acknowledging the significance of eyewitness testimony Al?

I believe you can find those statements here;
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

To obtain unedited material;

E-mail: CIT (at) CitizenInvestigationTeam.com
Phone: 949.682.4060
Mail: PO Box 216 San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92693

MM

Since I haven't seen the unedited testimony of your 10 witnesses, I don't have an opinion. If you think it will help prove your hypothesis, that the evidence was planted in the burning Pentagon, please produce it. Put it on YouTube like all the rest of the "Truth Movement" material.

Do you have any eyewitnesses that say how the lamp posts were damaged? There were hundreds of people watching the Pentagon at the time. About 250 people describe events consistent with Flight 93 being flown into the Pentagon.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"You proposed a hypotheses: "the evidence in the Pentagon was planted."

What I proposed was that it was logically impossible for those 5 light poles to have been knocked
down by an aircraft with a flightpath north of the Citgo.

Logically, that means those light poles had to have been "planted" intentionally.

Once we address that point, we can move on to what happened after.

You can't put the "cart before the horse".

"How does this support your hypothesis, that evidence was planted in the Pentagon?"

Al if you don't wish to have an adult discussion than just say so and I'll stop attempting to
reason with you?

The planting of evidence which is clearly designed to support a very specific belief, is strong argument that the belief must be false.

If the belief was true, it would not be necessary to support it with false evidence.

MM

 

[BigAl]

What I proposed was that it was logically impossible for those 5 light poles to have been knocked
down by an aircraft with a flightpath north of the Citgo.

Logically, that means those light poles had to have been "planted" intentionally.

Once we address that point, we can move on to what happened after.

You can't put the "cart before the horse".

Al if you don't wish to have an adult discussion than just say so and I'll stop attempting to
reason with you?

The planting of evidence which is clearly designed to support a very specific belief, is strong argument that the belief must be false.

If the belief was true, it would not be necessary to support it with false evidence.

MM

None of the above supports your hypothesis, that evidence was planted inside the burning Pentagon.

Don't move the goalposts.

It's irrelevant to your hypothesis but you wouldn't have any eyewitness to support this assertion, would you? Hundreds of people were watching the Pentagon when it would have happened.

Logically, that means those light poles had to have been "planted" intentionally.

When "logic" and eyewitness statements seemingly conflicts with physical evidence, evidence wins.

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 90 minutes after takeoff. 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.

 

[triforcharity]

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

Finally, a freaking answer.

Now, since we know for a fact that the plane did not in fact fly NOC, than we can say without a doubt that the 10 eyewitnesses that saw a NOC flight path, are just asserting their opinions. So, since they are opinions, they cannot be used. Sorry. Just opinions.

 

[triforcharity]

So you are finally acknowledging the significance of eyewitness testimony Al?

I believe you can find those statements here;
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

To obtain unedited material;

E-mail: CIT (at) CitizenInvestigationTeam.com
Phone: 949.682.4060
Mail: PO Box 216 San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92693

MM

We've tried, to no avail.

Please, since you seem to be in tight with the CIT dolts, why don't you go ahead and just tell them to put it on their website. Thanks!

 

[DGM]

Refresh my memory, How many of these witnesses believe the light poles were planted?

 

[TjW]

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".

MM

So when the 10 "north of Citgo" eyewitnesses testify that the location of the aircraft was in the Pentagon ("into the Pentagon" is surely a location), is that a fact? Or merely an opinion? If it is merely an opinion, at what point in the few seconds their observations cover, does their testimony go from becoming observed fact to opinion, and why?

 

[uk_dave]

So when the 10 "north of Citgo" eyewitnesses testify that the location of the aircraft was in the Pentagon ("into the Pentagon" is surely a location), is that a fact? Or merely an opinion? If it is merely an opinion, at what point in the few seconds their observations cover, does their testimony go from becoming observed fact to opinion, and why?

C'mon it was the trees what obscured the impact site.

And for those who could see between the trees, a conspirator with a megaphone shouted "oi!" just before the plane hit just before the plane flew over the Pentagon.

It was all planned down to the millimetre....and they would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for a bunch of uneducated internet warriors who had a gut feeling that it just HAD to be something other than what the physical evidence was said to show, especially since they were not able to cast their inexpert opinion upon the physical evidence.

Damned unsporting of the government not to allow keyboard warriors a chance to inspect every piece of wreckage, every human body part. Must have been a conspiracy.

 

[beachnut]

Does Deets agree the lampposts were planted and all the military are in on it?

CIT guys look like they had a drug problem, and their moronic claims are evidence.

The dumbest, most moronic claims is planted lampposts on a very busy road, rush hour! CIT guys are stupid enough to believe their own lies, but other people have to be extra special dolts to adopt CIT lies.

Deets must know he is spewing BS and can't stand up to explain he has no evidence. Deets endorsed CIT. Will he love Judy too?


When I wasted my time watching CIT videos I was laughing as each witness pointed to the south flight path. CIT must be so stupid they have no clue where south is, or that flight 77 was up in the air, over there on the south flight path. Eye witnesses are great for direction, but not for distance from themselves since they have no idea how big Flight 77 is, or how far 77 is from them.

Here are CIT witnesses clearly pointing to the south. For the 911 truth directionally challenged, south is the where CIT witnesses point.

Why are people north of the flight path of 77 pointing south? funny stuff

Deets needs to do some research. A trained aircraft accident investigator would take a yard stick and have each witness aim to where they saw 77. The best part is each person in these videos does point the RADAR/FDR flight path, almost exactly the right elevation and direction.

Each witness agrees 77 knocked down the lampposts and impacted the Pentagon. CIT failed, Deets endorsed them. Deets failed.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"Now, since we know for a fact that the plane did not in fact fly NOC.."

That is a lie!

So much for your contribution to honest discussion.

MM

 

[Childlike Empress]

Here are CIT witnesses clearly pointing to the south. For the 911 truth directionally challenged, south is the where CIT witnesses point.

beachnut in a nutshell: Lies based on circular reasoning. Anti-Intellectual!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Day 3

No Answer to my Question

Here is my Shocked Face:

I doubt it'll happen... even if he returns the CIT guys hijacked the thread already.

 

[triforcharity]

That is a lie!

So much for your contribution to honest discussion.

MM

Show me the radar that plots the plane NOC. Got that? Nope, radar shows it SOC.

Show me the FDR that plots it NOC. Got that? OOPS!! Nope, not that either. FDR shows it SOC.

Show me the incredible turn it would have made to impact the Pentagon. OOPS!! Got nothing there either!

So, you have 10 eyewitness opinions that say NOC, but all the rest ofthe physical evidence goes SOC.

So, what do you have?