I already told you.
He did not see the light poles clipped.
We have him telling us this on camera.
[Moderated] So What Would You Think If This Were True?
- Thread starter Skeptic4Sure
- Start date
I already told you.
He did not see the light poles clipped.
We have him telling us this on camera.
That thread and post was created BEFORE my trip to DC where I obtained the new evidence we are referring to.
I returned on November 8th.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
1) Anecdotal evidence
2) Whether he saw, or did not see, them get clipped is moot. The only thing of value to you would be if he saw something other than the plane causing the damage to them; and, even then, it is stil only anecdotal in nature.
Last edited:
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Lyte Trip: No disrespect intended, but why are you wasting your valuable time here trying to convince skeptics of your unsupported views instead of working on presenting the earth shattering evidence that you claim to have?
I mean, come on, if you have - as you claim - earth shattering evidence that will blow the whole "conspiracy" wide open, why on earth are you here posting banalities instead of working on presenting the earth shattering evidence that you and your fellow CTers claim to have?
JAQ, of course.
I mean, come on, if you have - as you claim - earth shattering evidence that will blow the whole "conspiracy" wide open, why on earth are you here posting banalities instead of working on presenting the earth shattering evidence that you and your fellow CTers claim to have?
JAQ, of course.
Roger_Harris
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2005
- Messages
- 114
Yeah, well, what I'm having trouble with is that the animation shows a heading of 70 on the compass, but when I go to Google Earth and align the Pentagon as it is in that animation, with the plane passing north of the Citgo, the heading is just about 90. But when I align the image on a heading of about 70 (it's hard to be exact in Google because it isn't marked), the path into the Pentagon goes pretty close to the "official" path, south of the Navy Annex and south of the Citgo, and right over the bridge. In other words, it looks like the alignment of the of the map in the animation is just plain wrong -- it doesn't agree with the compass. How do you explain that? Does any of your "amazing" information depend on that map being right?
Incorrect.
The poles had to be staged before the event.
I have also interviewed 2 other high profile route 27 witnesses with a perfect view of the poles but they still will not claim they saw the poles hit.
None of what I am claiming is based on the NTSB animation.
I guarantee you can not demonstrate with ANY map a flight path north of the citgo that still hits all 5 poles.
Feel free to consider that a challenge.
Okay, I have Google Earth open and I'm looking at the Citgo. The official flight path has the 757 just South of the station and this witness is stating he/she saw it on the North side. So I guess my question is how far to the north of the Citgo was it? Where exactly was this witness?
A follow up. How many of your witnesses saw the plane fly directly over their heads, meaning they didnt see anything but the belly?
Will you put these witnesses on a map and show us where they were?
A follow up. How many of your witnesses saw the plane fly directly over their heads, meaning they didnt see anything but the belly?
Will you put these witnesses on a map and show us where they were?
Fair question.
Because I don't have the technical expertise nor the equipment to compile the information appropriately.
That is lined up.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Prove it.
Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc logical fallacy
It does not matter if witness (anecdotal) testimony will not "claim they saw the poles hit". Unless they claim they saw something else cause the damage, or that the poles were damaged prior to the crash it is of no value. Even if they do make either of those claims it is still of little value unless there is objective corroborating evidence to back the claim.
There will be no doubt of the exact placement of the plane by all witnesses.
This I promise you.
But in the mean time if you want to take the challenge too and pull up a map or google earth image and try to create a flight path on the north of the citgo at all and demonstrate how it can hit all 5 poles by all means please do.
We will prove that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo which in turn proves it couldn't have hit the poles.
We will also demonstrate how the evidence that the poles were hit is beyond dubious.
This will be sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the light poles therefore rest of the physical damage was staged.
Roger_Harris
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2005
- Messages
- 114
But, that's totally irrelevant if the plane DIDN'T pass north of the Citgo. You just said the "official path" can't be changed. Are you saying that the indicated heading is wrong -- that the real heading was about 90? Because if the actual wasn't about 90 -- if it was 70 -- then it didn't pass north of the Citgo, and I'm not too interested in how "adamant" your witnesses are.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Huh?
It doesn't scare me in the least.
It won't show much at all.
There wasn't a very good view from the double tree.
So a plane hitting the pentagon is not in dispute, but the path the plane took to hit the pentagon is the thing the woowoos are teasing us about being able to prove different to the official version?
And the woowoos would have us believe that their eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the pentagon but not hitting the light poles means the light poles must have been staged?
And if the lightpoles were staged it is because the perps knew the plane couldn't take that path, otherwise they would have left the lightpoles alone and allowed them to be knocked down by the plane in accordance with the story they want the world to believe.
So the fact that a plane hit the pentagon, but a few eyewitnesses are now willing to testify 5 years later that the plane they saw passed north of the citgo station and therefore could not have hit the lightpoles, means the conspirators knew their plane wasn't going to hit the lightpoles but they decided to knock them down anyway just to....ummmmmm ....... ermmmmm just to make themselves look silly by claiming a different path for the plane than the woowoo's witnesses will claim and ummmmmm.... ermmmmm... create a whole load of work for themselves on the day by knocking down poles which didn't need to be knocked down because the woowoo witnesses still confirm that a plane hit the pentagon.
The only logical reason for faking the light poles would be if there was no plane. So does mr lytetrip and mr skeptic say a plane or a missile hit the pentagon?
And the woowoos would have us believe that their eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the pentagon but not hitting the light poles means the light poles must have been staged?
And if the lightpoles were staged it is because the perps knew the plane couldn't take that path, otherwise they would have left the lightpoles alone and allowed them to be knocked down by the plane in accordance with the story they want the world to believe.
So the fact that a plane hit the pentagon, but a few eyewitnesses are now willing to testify 5 years later that the plane they saw passed north of the citgo station and therefore could not have hit the lightpoles, means the conspirators knew their plane wasn't going to hit the lightpoles but they decided to knock them down anyway just to....ummmmmm ....... ermmmmm just to make themselves look silly by claiming a different path for the plane than the woowoo's witnesses will claim and ummmmmm.... ermmmmm... create a whole load of work for themselves on the day by knocking down poles which didn't need to be knocked down because the woowoo witnesses still confirm that a plane hit the pentagon.
The only logical reason for faking the light poles would be if there was no plane. So does mr lytetrip and mr skeptic say a plane or a missile hit the pentagon?
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Looks like these CTers aren't at all sure of their supposedly earth shattering evidence, after all, and they're here trying to ascertain what objections might be made to their nonsense in advance. What other reason for them to be here posting "hypothetical" questions in advance of their latest woo theory?
It appears that they realize that they have zero credible and zero meaningful or credible evidence and that they are hoping to goad skeptics and critical thinkers into giving them pointers on what they need to address to make their arguments sound, because they have no idea how to do so themselves.
It also appears that they are hoping for skeptics and critical thinkers to draw them a roadmap about how to present cogent and credible evidence, which they do not have, in order to make them look less foolish and less idiotic than they already appear.
I say, leave them to their own devices, and continue to ask them to present their alleged "evidence" which they seem oh, so, reluctant to do thusfar. I think they know that it won't stand up to scrutiny.
It appears that they realize that they have zero credible and zero meaningful or credible evidence and that they are hoping to goad skeptics and critical thinkers into giving them pointers on what they need to address to make their arguments sound, because they have no idea how to do so themselves.
It also appears that they are hoping for skeptics and critical thinkers to draw them a roadmap about how to present cogent and credible evidence, which they do not have, in order to make them look less foolish and less idiotic than they already appear.
I say, leave them to their own devices, and continue to ask them to present their alleged "evidence" which they seem oh, so, reluctant to do thusfar. I think they know that it won't stand up to scrutiny.
Okay.
That wasnt really what I was getting at. I am wondering how far to the north the plane was seen because the possibility the witness could be in error. The error would only have to be about 75 meters. That is why I asked who saw nothing but belly and where they were.
Growing up, my family lived really close to an airport, more or less in line with the runway. Before GE, I wouldve sworn we were directly on the runways centerline, right under the landing aircrafts flightpath. Now that I look at our old house in GE, our house is about 80 meters to the West of the centerline.....
I guess I'll just wait to see what you have.