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

[uk_dave]

Tinman, and the cowardly lion.

You're a waste of time

 

[Trifikas]

I seriously doubt your ability to "Figure me out". You're not listening at all, something you've accused everyone else of doing.

What you are proposing is that there are witness who are willing to tell you something that CANNOT be true. It's not because of what any official document said, it's not because of some NIST document, but because the actual physical evidence is too strong for any other possiblity. You can imply i've got my fingers in my ears all you want, it won't change that fact. Maybe you can ask Santa Clause for reality to be different so you can be right for once, but I'll bet you'll still get coal.

Seriously, WHY do you believe those so-called witnesses? What is it about them that makes you think they are correct? Anything other than "Because they say the official document is wrong?

 

[maccy]

Afraid? Who's afraid?

I know what it means. You don't. Figure it out.

If it approached from the north side of the gas station and pulled up over the highway, which theory makes the most sense at that point?

OK if your flightpath is correct and flight 77 pulls up and misses the pentagon. I'd want to know:

1. how were the lamposts damaged?

2. why did eyewitnesses report seeing the plane hit the pentagon?

3. where is the plane now?

4. where are the passengers and crew?

5. what did hit the pentagon, if it wasn't the plane?

6. where did the back box recorder that was recovered come from?

7. is the flght data recovered from this black box recorder of any value at all?

8. where did the plane wreckage come from?

9. where did the bodies of the passengers come from, how come they were positive ID'd?

10. how did the official report get it so wrong?

What are your answers to these questions?

Without a plausible alternative theory eyewitness testimony claiming an alternative flight path doesn't make sense and so is suspect.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

Jeez, I gave you a list of 10 other people that I got just from one website, including one guy who was right next to the cab. But we don't have to take their word for it when there's the physical evidence of the light poles themselves, and those poles lining up with the path of damage inside the Pentagon. Sorry, but I don't think we need to call in Sherlock Holmes to solve this one.

Really?

Post them, Watson.

Yeah why would we have to take their word for it, or even the damage? We have the 911 commission report.

Roger, you're going to be in for big surprise. But I am so VERY glad that you believe "the physical evidence of the light poles themselves, and those poles lining up with the path of damage inside the Pentagon".

That is exactly what I wanted to hear someone state. So if a witness or witnesses provide testimony that the plane was on the North side and pulled up over the highway-left of the overpass bridge, then the damage and the light pole downing was caused by something else. Correct?

 

[uk_dave]

OK if your flightpath is correct and flight 77 pulls up and misses the pentagon. I'd want to know:

1. how were the lamposts damaged?

2. why did eyewitnesses report seeing the plane hit the pentagon?

3. where is the plane now?

4. where are the passengers and crew?

5. what did hit the pentagon, if it wasn't the plane?

6. where did the back box recorder that was recovered come from?

7. is the flght data recovered from this black box recorder of any value at all?

8. where did the plane wreckage come from?

9. where did the bodies of the passengers come from, how come they were positive ID'd?

10. how did the official report get it so wrong?

What are your answers to these questions?

Without a plausible alternative theory eyewitness testimony claiming an alternative flight path doesn't make sense and so is suspect.

Ohhhhh stop being so sensible....you're spoiling the woowoo's fun

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

You're a waste of time

And just think, you're the one who sat here and wasted your time. What does that say about you?

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

That's the common term for someone who starts a totally factless thread for no apparent reason other than to see if he can call attention to himself or start a flame war. If the shoe fits...

Oh please Rog. I know what troll is, and I wasn't the person coming in here to antagonize and get a rise out of people by calling them names. I posted a thread asking a question and proposing a scenario. How many threads in here are "fact-filled".

The doesn't fit,the shoe doesn't even have laces.

 

[uk_dave]

And just think, you're the one who sat here and wasted your time. What does that say about you?

You mean I wasted my time responding to your waste of time which in itsself was a waste of your time?

Hey, I'm working and drinking here, or drinking and working...either way the building will probably fall down anyway....what's your excuse?

 

[uk_dave]

I'm sorry but I personally will not believe any testimony contrary to the bulk of eyewitness testimony and physical evidence unless it is backed up with verifiable photographs/video of the plane passing along the route claimed by the minority witnesses.

And trust me..... I will not be alone in this.

Respond to that, big boy

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

OK if your flightpath is correct and flight 77 pulls up and misses the pentagon. I'd want to know:

1. how were the lamposts damaged?

2. why did eyewitnesses report seeing the plane hit the pentagon?

3. where is the plane now?

4. where are the passengers and crew?

5. what did hit the pentagon, if it wasn't the plane?

6. where did the back box recorder that was recovered come from?

7. is the flght data recovered from this black box recorder of any value at all?

8. where did the plane wreckage come from?

9. where did the bodies of the passengers come from, how come they were positive ID'd?

10. how did the official report get it so wrong?

What are your answers to these questions?

Without a plausible alternative theory eyewitness testimony claiming an alternative flight path doesn't make sense and so is suspect.

Why would I answer all that? So you clowns can berate me for my opinion on what may have happened if the damage and event was staged or simulated.

I can have my opinions or theories, but those aren't as good as facts.

 

[Pardalis]

And just think, you're the one who sat here and wasted your time. What does that say about you?

People here actually care about 9/11, and what it represents, our way of life that was attacked and the innocent people who were murdered, their families. We actually care about the truth, about the real facts, about reality. We care about what our world has become, what it could become if scum like you get their way.

You are the antithesis of all this. You're no better than al Qaida, you lie, you cheat, you desecrate the memories of the victims, you help the enemies of freedom. You pollute the truth.

Show us your evidence or go back to the sewer you came from, scum.

 

[maccy]

Why would I answer all that? So you clowns can berate me for my opinion on what may have happened if the damage and event was staged or simulated.

I can have my opinions or theories, but those aren't as good as facts.

Witness testimony is not facts.

 

[R.Mackey]

Go read the ASCE report, learn the impact damage, and understand the trajectory of the plane and position of the poles according the official story.

For those of you unfamiliar with JohnD -- I mean, Skeptic4Sure, he is always quick to present, if unable to defend, the ravings of veteran Looser and Original Pilot For Trooth John Doe X.

maccy, your questions are right on target. I boldly predict you will get no answer. I tangled with Skeptic4Sure in this exchange, culminating when he confused himself with JohnDoeX, failed to answer a single question correctly, and then promptly disappeared, abandoning that argument to fellow dirty sock weedwacker.

ETA: Wow, that prediction came true faster than I thought:

Why would I answer all that? So you clowns can berate me for my opinion on what may have happened if the damage and event was staged or simulated.

I can have my opinions or theories, but those aren't as good as facts.

To address your complaints directly, Skeptic4Sure, I have thoroughly read the ASCE report, and it is utterly inconsistent with your alleged witness's recollection, which I might add is valuless since you haven't told us who this person is, what he or she actually said, or why we have any reason to trust it. I document the ASCE report in detail in this refutation of Russell Pickering's wild theories -- included are links to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report, along with diagrams and photographs of the damage.

I further add that not even such credulous, died-in-the-wool Troothers as Russell Pickering believe your theory. If you can't convince people like him, doesn't that suggest that you haven't done your homework?

The answer to your original question is (1) the witness is mistaken, (2) the witness was misinterpreted, or (3) the witness is lying. There really aren't any other credible options. But thanks for caring.

 

[uk_dave]

Why would I answer all that? So you clowns can berate me for my opinion on what may have happened if the damage and event was staged or simulated.

I can have my opinions or theories, but those aren't as good as facts.

Jeeez, we thought maybe you have some bloody facts and evidence instead on the insane fantasies of your mind.....I reiterate, you ARE a waste of time.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

Respond to that, big boy

Ok little boy,

You all can believe what you want. What you will be doing is calling witnesses liars, calling them liars without proof. Which is no different thatn CT's who do it.

Asking for video of proof of this is no different than CT's asking for clear video of a silver American Airlines 757 impacting the building.


You can do what you want-believe what you want. Hold your breath, plug your ears. If you thought the "truth movement" was dying or growing. One thing is for sure, this will reinvigorate the movement one way or the other.

 

[Pardalis]

I make no difference between PDoherty, Roxdog, Skeptic4Sure, Killtown, Truthseeker1234 or geggy. A turd is a turd, no matter what shape it came out.

 

[uk_dave]

Ahhhhh skeptic is the ms flight sim guy...ok

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

People here actually care about 9/11, and what it represents, our way of life that was attacked and the innocent people who were murdered, their families. We actually care about the truth, about the real facts, about reality. We care about what our world has become, what it could become if scum like you get their way.

You are the antithesis of all this. You're no better than al Qaida, you lie, you cheat, you desecrate the memories of the victims, you help the enemies of freedom. You pollute the truth.

Show us your evidence or go back to the sewer you came from, scum.

You don't care about 9/11. You aren't even American first off.

You don't care about the truth either. You care about what other people are doing and saying. You care about your enormous ego and portrayal of a superior intellect compared to others who believe and persue something different than you do.

You are the scum. You are an emotional basket case, as most of the people on this section are. Look, you actually finished your reply with an angry face, you need help. Anger management, or something.

I am not desecrating anything. I am looking for answers as anyone.
I know victims and witnesses from 9/11. They don't feel the same way as you, which is why your opinion and beliefs are not important. We are moving forward with you "people" or without you. This isn't going away. The best thing to try and do it play nicely, and try and understand and respect each other.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

Witness testimony is not facts.

Oh really? So then there is no fact in or proof that Flight 77 actually hit the building according to witnesses?

 

[Roger_Harris]

Really?

Post them, Watson.

Again? Okay: Mark Bright, Afework Hagos, D.S. Khavkin, Stephen McGraw (was within a few feet of the cab), Mary Ann Owens, Wanda Ramey, Steve Riskus, Noel Sepulveda, Mike Walter, and Rodney Washington.

Yeah why would we have to take their word for it, or even the damage?

Oooooooh, so the light post damage was faked too, huh? Right in front of hundreds of witnesses? I take it that you've never been in that area at that time of morning?

So if a witness or witnesses provide testimony that the plane was on the North side and pulled up over the highway-left of the overpass bridge, then the damage and the light pole downing was caused by something else. Correct?

Um... well, no. The light post damage, the damage inside the building, and the other witnesses all together would prove to a rational person that your witnesses are simply mistaken. (You'll have to take my word on that.)