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

[Lyte Trip]

You're scared.

You're timid.

You're already worrying about corners and paint.

I can tell.

You don't have a shred of evidence that can be used to disprove what you call "The Official Story" and the rest of the world calls "reality".

Scared? ummmmmmmmm no.

Timid? Are you kidding??

Is it because I don't resort to sarcasm and name calling?

Sorry to disappoint you but you guys simply don't bother me.

 

[gumboot]

BTW, here is picture for my uninformed friend trying to blame the North side Citgo pass on the C-130.

Introducing the C-130:

Not the plane our witnesses saw.

Sorry.

That's not a C-130.

-Gumboot

 

[DavidJames]

Scared? ummmmmmmmm no.

Timid? Are you kidding??

Yes because instead of taking your accusations public you hide behind your anonymous internet facade and accuse innocent people of murder. But wait, you claim you don't do that. Instead your play coy, hint, wink. Why? Easy because your are scared and a coward.

You could be 6'5" 250 lbs and cut like an early Arnold. But you still act like a coward.

Sorry to disappoint you but you guys simply don't bother me.

I don't want to bother you, I feel sorry for you.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Yes because instead of taking your accusations public you hide behind your anonymous internet facade and accuse innocent people of murder. But wait, you claim you don't do that. Instead your play coy, hint, wink. Why? Easy because your are scared and a coward.

Incorrect.

I am quite open about my controversial beliefs.

It is my right to speculate as much as I like.

I will simply only blatantly assert what I can back up with evidence.

 

[Roger_Harris]

I have evidence to prove it and it's going to come down to every single one of you either calling Lloyd or the multiple corroborated witnesses we have at the citgo station liars.

Really? In view of the far greater number of witnesses who saw something else, the huge amount of physical evidence, not to mention the FDR data... I think your "multiple corroborated witnesses" will be called "WRONG" at least -- and it sounds like we'll probably add "manipulated" after Russell tells his side of the story. There probably won't be any need to add "liar" to that (but we'll have to wait and see how "manipulated" they were).

I've come to the conclusion that you're trying very hard to convince everyone that you "really believe" this crap, so it won't be quite so obvious that you're just running a scam on the gullible CTers who are more than willing to believe just about anything, no matter how absurd.

 

[beachnut]

Incorrect.

I am quite open about my controversial beliefs.

It is my right to speculate as much as I like.

I will simply only blatantly assert what I can back up with evidence.

When you get some come back. Real evidence this time Sherlock.

Do you have any?

 

[jamrat]

Incorrect.

I am quite open about my controversial beliefs.

It is my right to speculate as much as I like.

I will simply only blatantly assert what I can back up with evidence.

Just like the taxicab thread right?

 

[beachnut]

I've been a "truther" for a while now.

I have never bothered to come in here to "troll".

And I would never have chosen to waste my time in this wretched forum at all if it weren't for the fact that I personally now have strong evidence.

Since you guys are going to be the loudest critics (regardless of the evidence) I am simply doing my part to make sure you get your facts straight.

Strong evidence? And? What is your strong evidence? Hope it is not what you posted on the new thread.

Are you having problems keeping your pants dry?

 

[Dazed]

Another day passes, and Skeptic4Sure's earth shattering evidence is still hidden under his bed with the porn stash.

 

[celestrin]

FWIW, regarding my previous post about an American West Airline Airbus arriving at DCA at 9:39 on 9/11, the source appears to be the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/
Put more precisely, the source seems to be the CTer misunderstanding of provided statistics. Actual full data for plane with tail number N644AW also provides the wheels-on time and taxi time.

Carrier	|Date		|Flight	|Tail	|Origin	|Sched.	|Actual	|Wheels-on	|Taxi-in
Code	|		|Number	|Number	|Airprt	|Arrivl	|Arrivl	|Time		|Time
--------|---------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|---------------|--------------
HP	|09/11/2001	|0098	|N644AW	|CMH	|09:35	|09:39	|09:35		|0004

So, the N644AW plane actually landed at 9:35 and was taxiying in, when the AA77, with tail number N644AA, crashed in the Pentagon. At 9:35, AA77 was barely half way through its final turn, more than 5km/3miles away.

 

[H'ethetheth]

That's not a C-130.

-Gumboot

Why? I think it is actually, or better, the picture doesn't seem to give any clear hints that it isn't one: I see a stubby grey plane with straight wings and horizontal stabilisers.
And that C-130 is supposed to be the only other plane around at the time, no?

Not that it matters to anything relating to this yawn inducing torrent of promises though.

 

[tsig]

Incorrect.

I am quite open about my controversial beliefs.

It is my right to speculate as much as I like.

I will simply only blatantly assert what I can back up with evidence.

Please bring something to the table, we are dying to eat!

 

[Oliver]

This is what the C130 Pilot says:

 

[gumboot]

Why? I think it is actually, or better, the picture doesn't seem to give any clear hints that it isn't one: I see a stubby grey plane with straight wings and horizontal stabilisers.
And that C-130 is supposed to be the only other plane around at the time, no?

Not that it matters to anything relating to this yawn inducing torrent of promises though.

I haven't heard that the C-130 was the only aircraft around - reports would indicate there were others (and I am guessing it's likely SOME of the thousands of aircraft in the air landed at local DC airports).

However I have lived a good chunk of my life on air force bases that operate the C-130, and can identify one with confidence from far greater distances than this photo.

I'm about 99% sure the aircraft in the photograph is not a C-130.

You're right of course, however, it is totally irrelevant to the thread.

-Gumboot

 

[Horatius]

What happened to your promise about:

I think it applies here

That was a special plan for PD'oh's next sock, not just your random dumb guy. But hey, I never complain about another chance to see a cute cat.

 

[tsig]

Another day passes, and Skeptic4Sure's earth shattering evidence is still hidden under his bed with the porn stash.

My earth has been shattered many times. Each time is different.

Welcome to the club S4S.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I haven't heard that the C-130 was the only aircraft around - reports would indicate there were others (and I am guessing it's likely SOME of the thousands of aircraft in the air landed at local DC airports).

Consider me underinformed then. I'll go back to lurking in the background.

ETA:...though I would expect swept wings in almost all cases except among the slow and small civilian aircraft. And there aren't that many that fit this desciption.
But never mind, I just want that evidence, so no more side-tracking for me.

 

[gumboot]

Consider me underinformed then. I'll go back to lurking in the background.

ETA:...though I would expect swept wings in almost all cases except among the slow and small civilian aircraft. And there aren't that many that fit this desciption.
But never mind, I just want that evidence, so no more side-tracking for me.

You're right, I would expect most large aircraft in the area to be swept wing too. But we can't judge how far that aircraft is from the camera. It might be a smaller aircraft close up.

And I should admit right away I don't, obviously, have any evidence. All I have is my own assertion, and that shouldn't be taken as any sort of concrete evidence.

-Gumboot

 

[Regnad Kcin]

For the tenth time:

The screen name you are presently using may be "Skeptic4Sure," but have you ever used the screen name "JohnDoeX" (not to be confused with "John Doe X"), "Killtown" or "Merc?"

I've addressed these conspiracy theories many times.

I am Skeptic4Sure.

Do you understand?

Mine has been a straightforward question. Yours is a non-answer. So again:

Have you ever used any of the screen names I've listed?

(Also, interesting you attempt to poison the well by calling this a "conspiracy theory." It's simply a simple question.)

Well, it seems we have Russell Pickering fingering you as Merc:

...Merc and Lyte believed Lloyd was a liar back then before ever even going to DC in August...

 

[Bell]

But thanks for playing