[Moderated] So What Would You Think If This Were True?

[maccy]

Which witnesses?

I haven't found one witness that I have personally spoke with that actually saw the plane hit the light poles. Of course, they can and have fell back on the crutch of "it all happened so fast".

The north side flight path and undamaged light poles to the left of the bridge, would prove the light poles were staged. End of story.

Why should we belive any witness whose testmony contradicts the physical evidence?

 

[Pardalis]

Do you have anything of substance to say Skeptic4Sure?

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

Consider this:

A man is dead.

You have two witness.

One says he saw the man being stabbed.

The other says the man was shot.

The autopsy reveals the man died from a stab wound.

Why witness do you believe?

What if the autopsy has errors or inconsistencies?

Have you ever read the ASCE "autopsy"? I don't think you have.

Have a glance at a critical review of this report:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/asce_en.htm

 

[TjW]

So now it's down to a controlled demolition of lamp posts.
Oh my.

 

[R.Mackey]

What if the autopsy has errors or inconsistencies?

Have you ever read the ASCE "autopsy"? I don't think you have.

Have a glance at a critical review of this report:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/asce_en.htm

That review is a joke. Even its premise is wrong:

The key conclusion reached is that the Report fails in its attempt to show that the structural damage caused to the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 was caused by a crash by a Boeing 757 aircraft.

(emphasis in original)

That is not the purpose of the report. The cause was moot, since the aircraft was known to have been highjacked, was seen by witnesses, and debris recovered.

The purpose of the report was to understand how and why it collapsed, and specifically why the building fared much better than might have been expected. The author of this "review" lies outright in the opening paragraph.

I can destroy the rest of it if anybody's interested, but this already is disqualified as serious review.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

Not even close.

It means you haven't given us any reason whatsoever to listen to you.

I don't have any have any desire for you to "listen to me". You will have to hear it and deal with it eventually.

You say you have one witness -- one -- who saw a different flight path.

That's where you're wrong.

You need to do better than that. We don't even have their words, just your interpretation and your say-so.

Oh you will have their words and then some.

Ridiculous! You haven't even presented anything for us to deny!

I know. Never said I had anything other than these questions and a proposal, to get a simple idea of what you people know and how you think.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

So now it's down to a controlled demolition of lamp posts.
Oh my.

Oh my is right. Your reading comprehension is astounding. Where did you read the poles were brought down using explosives?

 

[Pardalis]

Never said I had anything other than these questions and a proposal, to get a simple idea of what you people know and how you think.

So what's your point?

You asked a question about if something that doesn't exist might be true?

What the hell was all this for?

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

That review is a joke. Even its premise is wrong:

(emphasis in original)

That is not the purpose of the report. The cause was moot, since the aircraft was known to have been highjacked, was seen by witnesses, and debris recovered.

The purpose of the report was to understand how and why it collapsed, and specifically why the building fared much better than might have been expected. The author of this "review" lies outright in the opening paragraph.

I can destroy the rest of it if anybody's interested, but this already is disqualified as serious review.

You are hilarious. So you are one those huh?

Do you always act like you are an expert on everything?

That was the quickest read I have ever seen.

 

[R.Mackey]

I don't have any have any desire for you to "listen to me". You will have to hear it and deal with it eventually.

...says the guy who's posted twenty times today...

That's where you're wrong.

Prove it.

I know. Never said I had anything other than these questions and a proposal, to get a simple idea of what you people know and how you think.

So... do you have the evidence you claim, or not? Sounds like "no."

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

K I gotta run folks.

Will be back. I know you'll be waiting.

 

[Pardalis]

Bring some evidence next time.

 

[R.Mackey]

You are hilarious. So you are one those huh?

Do you always act like you are an expert on everything?

That was the quickest read I have ever seen.

I didn't read the whole thing. I stopped after the first page. There was no point in reading further, since their conclusion is a textbook strawman.

I thought that would have been clear from my comments.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

...says the guy who's posted twenty times today...


Prove it.


So... do you have the evidence you claim, or not? Sounds like "no."

Mackey, I have it. And so will you all. Soon.

You are not messing with a typical run of the mill theorist/blogger.

You guy's will have your work cut out for you.

Then you guys can stalk me, track my every move and word, then make fun of me on these boards because it makes you all feel better.

 

[Pardalis]

Then you guys can stalk me, track my every move and word

Don't worry, the Illuminati will take care of that.

You are not messing with a typical run of the mill theorist/blogger.

Talk about ego...

 

[DanKirby]

That was quick.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, I have it. And so will you all. Soon.

Promises, promises. Just do it already. Or are you waiting for your mother's permission?

You are not messing with a typical run of the mill theorist/blogger.

Yes I am.

I already clobbered you and your "source" once before, on the subject of the Flight 77 FDR. Also, your "source" disgraced himself with a similar display of sockpuppetry.

Needless to say, I do not fear a rematch.

Then you guys can stalk me, track my every move and word, then make fun of me on these boards because it makes you all feel better.

Ooh, the drama!

Just bring your evidence. This high-school spy crap got old, like, two editions of "Loose Change" ago.

 

[Roger_Harris]

All of the other accounts could be interpreted as deducing that the light poles were hit by the plane after they see it laying on the ground. I know this for a fact, because one of those witnesses you listed I have actually spoke with in person and know for a fact that they didn't see hit the pole...

You know "for a fact" that no one saw the plane hit the posts because you talked to one of them? They "could be interpreted" that way, so you will, even though it contradicts what they actually said? I think you must have a peculiar notion of what the word "fact' means.

... but they admittded that they later deduced it.

"They" admitted it to the one guy you spoke to, and he passed that "fact" along to you? That's your story?

Debra S. Khavkin, lives up on Columbia Pike, too far to see the poles get hit.

But she lives on the 8th floor, with a balcony facing the Pentagon, right? How did you determine that her balcony is "too far to see the poles get hit," or is that just another "fact?" Why do you think she would say that if she didn't see it?

Mary Owens also said the plane was 75 ft in the air over the highways, which is too high to hit the light poles in th e first place.

She thought the plane was 75 ft in the air? Did you ask her how tall she thought the light posts were?

Mike Walter didn't see the poles get hit either I know this for a fact.

Well, he said he did, and I think we've already established what "for a fact" means to you.

Noel Sepulveda also said it lowered it's landing gear and hit the pole with it's landing gear. And we all know this didn't happen, so what did he really see?

But he said he saw the plane knock the pole down and we know that that did happen, don't we.

You seem to have left a few people off the list, including Stephen McGraw, who corroborated Lloyd England's account. Why is that?

Hundreds? Try again. Try and figure out how many peoplewere actually on that highway. It wasn't in the hundreds.

Having lived in that area for 30 years and been stuck in traffic around the Pentagon too many times to count, I assure you that I did "try and figure out how many people were actually on that highway" before I posted that. Don't try to blow smoke up my butt. And btw, I only posted the names of the people who specifically mentioned the light poles -- not everyone who saw the plane pass over the bridge.

Right, try using that as an argument in a court of law. Actually seeing something and deducing something are two seperate things.

Well, it appears that uk_dave was right. You are a total waste of time.

 

[Gravy]

Just back from Ground Zero with my brain still numb from the dumbardment there, and I made the mistake of checking this thread. I'm at a loss for words, so I'll use those of the ever-sensible regnad kcin:

Dear Skeptic4Sure,

You are 100% wrong.

Best regards,
Bing

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

You know "for a fact" that no one saw the plane hit the posts because you talked to one of them? They "could be interpreted" that way, so you will, even though it contradicts what they actually said? I think you must have a peculiar notion of what the word "fact' means.

Actually I've talked to more than one of them. Apparently "fact", is whatever you read that is "official".

"They" admitted it to the one guy you spoke to, and he passed that "fact" along to you? That's your story?

No Captain Comprehension, they, one of the people you mentioned, admitted to me ON CAMERA that they didn't actually see the pole get hit, that they actually deduced after the fact.

But she lives on the 8th floor, with a balcony facing the Pentagon, right? How did you determine that her balcony is "too far to see the poles get hit," or is that just another "fact?" Why do you think she would say that if she didn't see it?

Because I've been in the area and I know the plane didn't hit the light poles. I know Debra is deducing it as most everyone else had. What? You don't think she had her news on, when they flashed the image of the cab on the highway with the pole lying in next to it? You think she actually saw light poles get hit, from the 8th floor. Remember, Columbia Pike is on a hill and the Pentagon sits at the bottom of this hill with treeline blocking it.

Let's rephrase it. Have you spoke with Debra yourself and confirmed that actually SAW the plane hit light poles? Or are you simply grasping onto a line in her account that is not definitive one way or the other, in order to prove your point. You know what else, Debra said in her account. She called it a "small commercial" aircraft. Now what?

She thought the plane was 75 ft in the air? Did you ask her how tall she thought the light posts were?

No I didn't, but did YOU ask her if she ACTUALLY SAW the plane hit the light poles?

Well, he said he did, and I think we've already established what "for a fact" means to you.

Yeah and then he said he didn't. Have you spoke with Mike Walter? I have.

But he said he saw the plane knock the pole down and we know that that did happen, don't we.

He didn't see anything of the sort. And that didn't happen.

You seem to have left a few people off the list, including Stephen McGraw, who corroborated Lloyd England's account. Why is that?

Gee I don't know. Couldn't there be a good reason why I didn't mention him specifically? Think about it.

Having lived in that area for 30 years and been stuck in traffic around the Pentagon too many times to count, I assure you that I did "try and figure out how many people were actually on that highway" before I posted that. Don't try to blow smoke up my butt. And btw, I only posted the names of the people who specifically mentioned the light poles -- not everyone who saw the plane pass over the bridge.

Riiight. I don't care how long you've lived there or that you've been in traffic there. That is irrelevant. What isn't irrelevant is how many were published as being at the highway and seeing the plane, seeing it hit light poles, and actually seeing it impact the builiding.

Well, it appears that uk_dave was right. You are a total waste of time.

And you my friend, are a waste of bandwidth.