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

[maccy]

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

The witnesses are supporting evidence.

 

[Pardalis]

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

You don't need to be an American to care for freedom and the people who where slaughtered that day.

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 pursue lies and distortions. Is that respectable?

This isn't going away. The best thing to try and do it play nicely, and try and understand and respect each other.

Respect each other? Who's sock puppet are you BTW?

If you have anything relevant to say about flight 77 say it now, this thread has been going on for almost 5 pages and still you have brought nothing of substance. Stop playing games.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

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:

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.

Oh goody, another conspiracy theorist who thinks I am JohnDoeX. Paranoia, it's a b.

Cool Mackey, glad you agree that the ASCE report damage and trajectory/flight path would conflict with the Citgo North side flight path.

I don't really care about Russell Pickering and his beliefs. That has nothing to do with what really happened. Nice debate tactic, appeal to authority. Well gee if Russell Pickering doesn't believe it, then it must not be true.

So you simply reduce it to a witness lying, being mistaken, or misinterpreted.

That's it? That's all you're going to accept?

So let me ask you then, if it is indepedently verified that the plane came on the North side, you obviouslywould admit something is wrong with the Pentagon scenario right?

 

[JFM]

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

.

HMM. You appear to be forgetting that 9/11 was just a part of a wider, ongolng war against the west in general.

Take the blinkers off.

 

[R.Mackey]

Oh goody, another conspiracy theorist who thinks I am JohnDoeX. Paranoia, it's a b.

Oh, it's not paranoia. I'm not the least bit afraid or threatened even if you are John Doe X. I merely think so because I've talked with you before, and you've posted as if you were him. weedwacker had a similar deficiency.

It's rather sad if true. Why should we trust someone who guards his identity so closely?

Cool Mackey, glad you agree that the ASCE report damage and trajectory/flight path would conflict with the Citgo North side flight path.

Yes, I do. I've looked at the flight path, FDR, ASCE report, and other witness statements, at the prompting of John Doe X and Russell Pickering. The evidence in my opinion is totally consistent with the official flight path, and inconsistent with your line diagram.

I don't really care about Russell Pickering and his beliefs. That has nothing to do with what really happened. Nice debate tactic, appeal to authority. Well gee if Russell Pickering doesn't believe it, then it must not be true.

I don't particularly care about Russell either. But it's not really an appeal to authority. I'm merely pointing out that your theory is quite exceptional, since not even the loons buy into it, and therefore demands exceptional evidence. So, let's see it already.

So you simply reduce it to a witness lying, being mistaken, or misinterpreted.

That's it? That's all you're going to accept?

So let me ask you then, if it is indepedently verified that the plane came on the North side, you obviouslywould admit something is wrong with the Pentagon scenario right?

If you can produce this "independent verification," then we can talk about it. So far, though, you haven't, so the question is academic. You haven't even presented us with a verifiable -- or even an unverifiable -- statement from this lone Citgo employee.

You have a lot of work to do before we can even begin to consider the merits of your position.

 

[Pardalis]

JFM, I see you are new here, welcome!

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

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.

The only one of those witnesses who actually said they "saw" the plane clip light poles with it's wing was Wanda Ramey. And I know for a fact, that another DPS officer exaggerted about seeing the plane hit the poles, and this officer actually had a better view than Wanda who was the Mall.

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, but they admittded that they later deduced it. Debra S. Khavkin, lives up on Columbia Pike, too far to see the poles get hit. Mary Owens also said the plane was 75 ft in the air over the highway (Rt 27), which is too high to hit the light poles in th e first place. Mike Walter didn't see the poles get hit either I know this for a fact. 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?

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?

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

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.)

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

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

HMM. You appear to be forgetting that 9/11 was just a part of a wider, ongolng war against the west in general.

Take the blinkers off.

Right. We all know how they blew up that building in Montreal.

 

[Pardalis]

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

If you only applied this to your own "investigation"...

 

[Trifikas]

TIME OUT!

Are they saying that they didn't SEE the plane hit the light poles, or are they specificly saying they saw the plane MISS the light poles. Seems to me that's a pretty important distinction.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

If you can produce this "independent verification," then we can talk about it.

Talk about what? There will be nothing more to talk about.

Do you mean then you can begin making this new flight path fit with the damage in order for it to make sense to you and your cohorts?

I can already see it, your denial will keep you from accepting this as a reality. You will rationalize, distort, and omit for this not to become true.

Published witness accounts from around 9/11 are meaningless, when you question unpublished individuals or even re-interview published accounts and their story changes or is more detailed when asked specifically about specific events.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

If you only applied this to your own "investigation"...

Oh toots, trust me. I do.

 

[Pardalis]

Published witness accounts from around 9/11 are meaningless, when you question unpublished individuals or even re-interview published accounts and their story changes or is more detailed when asked specifically about specific events.

What the f** is that?

 

[JFM]

JFM, I see you are new here, welcome!

Thanks .

Lurked for a long time. Thought "Damn. I need an avatar, better sign up and post 50."

 

[Pardalis]

Oh toots, trust me. I do.

You better not call me that again.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

TIME OUT!

Are they saying that they didn't SEE the plane hit the light poles, or are they specificly saying they saw the plane MISS the light poles. Seems to me that's a pretty important distinction.

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.

 

[JFM]

Right. We all know how they blew up that building in Montreal.

Riiight. We're getting to the point now.

Are you one of the folks that believe ALL terrorism is fake. Therefore the evil gubmint musta dun it?

 

[maccy]

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.

Which witness do you believe?

 

[R.Mackey]

Talk about what? There will be nothing more to talk about.

Do you mean then you can begin making this new flight path fit with the damage in order for it to make sense to you and your cohorts?

Not even close.

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

You say you have one witness -- one -- who saw a different flight path. You need to do better than that. We don't even have their words, just your interpretation and your say-so.

I can already see it, your denial will keep you from accepting this as a reality. You will rationalize, distort, and omit for this not to become true.

Published witness accounts from around 9/11 are meaningless, when you question unpublished individuals or even re-interview published accounts and their story changes or is more detailed when asked specifically about specific events.

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

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

You better not call me that again.

Or else what?

You better watch your tone and learn how to talk to people, that way we avoid any problems.

And I would suggest that you not make even implicit threats against other forum members.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson