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

[Pardalis]

I told you what I will prove.

That the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.

That is enough to show that 9/11 was an inside job.

Either you demonstrate how this is incorrect or you ultimately lose this debate.

Please stay on topic.

 

[Pardalis]

The only thing we are asking you to have an honest discussion about is the hypothetical question of whether or not you would accept that 9/11 was an inside job if you were convinced the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.

Care to participate?

I already said it wouldn't convince me that 9/11 was an inside job.

Satisfied?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Well personaly I would think that the official report made a mistake. But the problems there are, eyewitness that agree with the official report, physical evidence that agrees with the official report, and the utter lack of any evidence that goes against the official report.

Good start.

Thanks for participating.

The ASCE report demonstrates how they could NOT be mistaken because of the direction that all of the physical damage lines up.

Next 3 images from ASCE report:

Light poles:

There is zero room for error on the part of the official story in regards to the flight path.

 

[Lyte Trip]

I already said it wouldn't convince me that 9/11 was an inside job.

Satisfied?

Nope.

Because now you must provide an explanation for the physical damage from a plane on that trajectory.

Get crackin.

 

[maccy]

The only thing we are asking you to have an honest discussion about is the hypothetical question of whether or not you would accept that 9/11 was an inside job if you were convinced the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.

Care to participate?

In order to convince me that a plane flew over the north side of citgo you have to account for the physical evidence. If you can't do that then I will assume your witnesses are not correct.

In order for 9/11 to be an inside job you need a plausible hypothesis and overwhelming evidence that supports it.

An apparent discrepancy in witness testimony is neither of these things.

 

[Gravy]

Keep your fingers out of them?

It starts with ass?

When you're in one, stop digging.

 

[Pardalis]

Nope.

Because now you must provide an explanation for the physical damage from a plane on that trajectory.

Get crackin.

Stay on topic.

I answered your question.

 

[Bell]

There is zero room for error on the part of the official story in regards to the flight path.

So, how much room for error is there on the part of the witnesses?

 

[Arus808]

Nope.

Because now you must provide an explanation for the physical damage from a plane on that trajectory.

Get crackin.

i dont know where you've been the but the ASCE report provides the physical evidence you ask for, based on the trajectory that everyone saw the plane take (everyone but the two witnesses at a citgo station half a mile away)

 

[Oliver]

The only thing we are asking you to have an honest discussion about is the hypothetical question of whether or not you would accept that 9/11 was an inside job if you were convinced the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.

Care to participate?

Here is your inside job scenario ...
Please make some sense out of it:

The problem i have is this:

I try to be the conspirator right now and i´m planning
to destroy the WTC:

How can i execute my plans the best way? Let´s see:
the 93 bombing is still in peoples mind and people believe
it was AQ.

The best thing would be to blow it with bombs, film the
whole mess by installing a crew at the building making
a documentary and say AQ did it again.

No one would doubt it.

But this is to easy. We need some planes for no
reason to attract the whole world and as much
cameras as possible to hide our secret inside job.

Then we crash no plane into nowhere at shanksville
and we say nevertheless it was a plane.

We blow up the highest buildings at the WTC-site
and make it look like controlled demolitions.

We also crash no plane into the pentagon but to
make it as authentic and believable as possible we
say it was a plane nevertheless.

Then we forget to involve our CIA-Osama and because
we forgot it and because we forgot that he is available
to make some cool footage, we have to fake some lousy,
doubtable video-evidence.

We also forget to start an own investigation that
affirms that the AQ-Gang did it without doubts...

We forget to put Osama on top of the FBI-most
wanted list and we forget the Hijackers that are
well and alive.

We also forget to think about why we are blowing
up the WTC and therefore we need to fake the
WMD evidence to go to war.

Seriously: Who writes this stuff?

Nothing personal at all. I simply don´t get it.

 

[maccy]

Good start.

Thanks for participating.

The ASCE report demonstrates how they could NOT be mistaken because of the direction that all of the physical damage lines up.

Next 3 images from ASCE report:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/ASCEsatellitegraphicwithplaneapproa.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/ASCEsatellitegraphicwithplaneapproa.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/ASCEdamagepath.jpg

Light poles:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/impactedandnon-impactedpoles.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/positionoffallenpoles.jpg

There is zero room for error on the part of the official story in regards to the flight path.

In other words the physical evidence indicates that the flight path must be where the report says it is.

Witness statements are not reliable enough to be taken over physical evidence. The unreliability of witnesses is well established.

 

[332nd]

Good start.

Thanks for participating.

The ASCE report demonstrates how they could NOT be mistaken because of the direction that all of the physical damage lines up.

Next 3 images from ASCE report:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/ASCEsatellitegraphicwithplaneapproa.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/ASCEsatellitegraphicwithplaneapproa.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/ASCEdamagepath.jpg

Light poles:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/impactedandnon-impactedpoles.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/positionoffallenpoles.jpg

There is zero room for error on the part of the official story in regards to the flight path.

So the question becomes what knocked the light poles over, not what hit the Pentagon.

 

[Kent1]

Do you have any new physical evidence such as photos or video from 9/11?
Do you have a new damage report from the Pentagon better supporting your claims?

 

[Pardalis]

So the question becomes what knocked the light poles over, not what hit the Pentagon.

Exactly

It doesn't prove 9/11 was an inside job, it only furthers the mystery.

 

[gumboot]

If 9/11 was an inside job as we are set to prove.....some witnesses had to be lying.

...

You will be forced to admit 9/11 was an inside job or call witnesses liars.

-Gumboot

 

[Dog Town]

Here is your inside job scenario ...
Please make some sense out of it:

This one's better!

Via Matt Taibbi

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ****, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

From RS
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic..._the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies/1

 

[gumboot]

This one's better!

Via Matt Taibbi

Always loved that piece...

our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme

Priceless!

-Gumboot

 

[Alt+F4]

Lyte, are you going to retract what you said about those three witnesses on your MySpace page?

Come on Gravy.....if he's got a MySpace page (especially if it has music playing in the background) he can't be much over 18.

 

[Dog Town]

Always loved that piece...
Priceless!

-Gumboot

Would have killed to see his run in with Nico H ( that albatross of diction)!
I envision a smackdown of consonants!

 

[Alt+F4]

What happened to the passengers, crew and plane of AA77?

Bell, you know these conspiracy liars can't ever come to a conclusion about that. It landed in Cleveland, it never existed to begin with, it was taken to Area 51, all the passengers were government agents (including the five children) who went on to further covert assignments,...take your pick.

As for the 184 people who's remains were identified at the Pentagon crash site....well of, that was planted!

Why do these liars intentionally make their lies so much more complicated? Since "the conspiracy" had to get rid of AA77 anyway, why NOT crash it into the Pentagon?