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

[332nd]

So yeah. He is either lying about seeing the plane come in at an "unrecoverable angle" or else he has proven the official story false which requires it to come in low and level to the ground.

Or he is not familiar with pilot terms and YOU are wrong.... How's that case that will bring the evil admin who really did this down coming? Didn't you promise indictments?

 

[Lyte Trip]

There is not a sane person on earth let alone a critical thinker who can watch the testimony of Lloyd England and then the citgo witnesses (without bias) and suggest that Lloyd is more correct or believable.

You are in denial and your critical thinking hearts know it.

ETA: I say hearts because you are clearly not using your brains.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Or he is not familiar with pilot terms and YOU are wrong.... How's that case that will bring the evil admin who really did this down coming? Didn't you promise indictments?

You are still sadly missing the point.

If the official story is true it would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to see it from across the Potomac.

No I did not ever "promise indictments".

 

[PhantomWolf]

EXACTLY!

Lloyd and his dubious account is the best they've got!

It really boils down to whether or not you believe Lloyd the lone cabby and the indestructible hood.......

So I guess that what you are saying is that it's impossible for a large object to go through a windshield without damaging the bonnet, right?

 

[332nd]

There is not a sane person on earth let alone a critical thinker who can watch the testimony of Lloyd England and then the citgo witnesses (without bias) and suggest that Lloyd is more correct or believable.

You are in denial and your critical thinking hearts know it.

ETA: I say hearts because you are clearly not using your brains.

But a sane critical thinker can watch the testimony of your other witnesses and suggest that EVEN THOUGH THEY SAY THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON that is not believeable even when the physical evidence says otherwise...

 

[332nd]

You are still sadly missing the point.

If the official story is true it would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to see it from across the Potomac.

No I did not ever "promise indictments".

Maybe promise is too strong a word. Imply then?

 

[PhantomWolf]

BTW, "unrecoverable angle" doesn't mean divebomb. Flight 175 come in at an unrecoverable angle, and it didn't divebomb anything. Had it missed WTC 2 it still would have crashed because it would have stalled out.

 

[Lyte Trip]

So I guess that what you are saying is that it's impossible for a large object to go through a windshield without damaging the bonnet, right?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1557946809433188ec.jpg

1. That "bonnet" is visibly damaged. (thanks for proving my point).

2. It is an utter logical fallacy to compare a fawn to an over 30 foot long 200lb metal light pole that was hit by a 757 going over 500 mph.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Yawn.

 

[Lyte Trip]

But a sane critical thinker can watch the testimony of your other witnesses and suggest that EVEN THOUGH THEY SAY THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON that is not believeable even when the physical evidence says otherwise...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/12044467af2cd27d18.gif

Circular logic.

Their independently corroborated placement of the plane proves it didn't hit and that they were deliberately deceived.

 

[Lyte Trip]

BTW, "unrecoverable angle" doesn't mean divebomb. Flight 175 come in at an unrecoverable angle, and it didn't divebomb anything. Had it missed WTC 2 it still would have crashed because it would have stalled out.

Perhaps it means both but both contradict the official Pentagon story 100% and it does not change the fact that it would have been impossible for James Robbins to see the plane from across the Potomac.

 

[PhantomWolf]

1. That "bonnet" is visibly damaged. (thanks for proving my point).

I think I might have to log this one next to Rocky/David's the white pointed nose is clearly an F-108 statment over at ApolloHoax. It's funny that CT's can clearly see things that aren't there.

2. It is an utter logical fallacy to compare a fawn to an over 30 foot long 200lb metal light pole that was hit by a 757 going over 500 mph.

Well yeah I guess so, considering that a 300lb deer is going to get a lot more damage than the end of a pole as it falls down.

 

[332nd]

1. That "bonnet" is visibly damaged. (thanks for proving my point).

2. It is an utter logical fallacy to compare a fawn to an over 30 foot long 200lb metal light pole that was hit by a 757 going over 500 mph.

And yet there is no logical fallacy when one uses eyewitness testimony over physical evidence?

 

[beachnut]

He has it angled more towards the north. Fair enough though. I will give you the notion that it is hypothetically POSSIBLE for the plane to have moved back over to the south side. Unfortunately for you none of the other evidence (FDR or eyewitnesses) support this so it will forever remain hypothetical.

He was estimating both times and in my interview he ADMITTED that the plane may have been closer to the station. Minor differences about how far north of the station are IRRELEVANT to the point because Lagasse specifically said it was "debatable" how far north but NOT debatable that it was north.

PLUS for some reason you are forgetting that this is 100% corroborated by Brooks AND Turcios who happen to ALSO put the plane to the north side while slightly varying in how far to the north side.

We don't have to rely on Lagasse.

Nobody said any of them were 100% accurate. But the very general claim of the north side has been corroborated strong enough to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

What?

You're kidding right?

There is not ONE witness statement that directly contradicts them.

Not one.

Either back up your statement or retract it.

There are hundreds and thousands pieces of evidence that directly contradict what you conclude. If you are unable to find one, then you are disrespectful liar. You say 77 flew over the Pentagon. Wrong 77 hit the Pentagon. Go ahead lie about the day many were killed, sell some DVDs to idiots and be happy the people you disgrace are the very ones who protect you!

And let us not forget your witnesses contradict your conclusion. LOL, listen and weep.

The main problem with the Pentacon, and the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) is their own witnesses. Tape conversations in 2001 proves the conclusions of the 9/11 fraud of Merc and Craig Ranke of CIT about the Pentagon. Like the 9/11 truth movement, PFT, Dylan of Loose Change, the Pentacon is more fraud and no facts to support ideas about 9/11. (when will I start hearing chants of "inside job") Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, and the CIT wants you to believe flight 77 flew over the Pentagon, and the lies grow from there.

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collecti...1/history.html


Of course William Lagasse, and Chadwick Brooks were Pentagon police officers on duty at the time of the attack. Lagasse was in the process of refueling his police car when the American Airliner flew past him so low that its wind blast knocked him into his vehicle. In an interview conducted in December 2001 , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.

Now who is telling lies?

Why are your own witnesses debunking you 5 years ago? What is going on?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Ok since nobody has been able to come up with one example I'm sure we can all agree that it is fair to say that not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence directly contradicts the citgo witnesses.

If you REALLY have that much faith in Lloyd's extremely questionable indirect contradiction to discount all the citgo witnesses I think you need to get you heads checked.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Perhaps it means both but both contradict the official Pentagon story 100% and it does not change the fact that it would have been impossible for James Robbins to see the plane from across the Potomac.

1) How does it contridict the Offical story? Where in the official story does it say that Flight 77 was in a recoverable flight mode prior to it hitting the Pentagon?

2) Have you been in his office and seen what he can and can't see from it?

 

[332nd]

Circular logic.

Their independently corroborated placement of the plane proves it didn't hit and that they were deliberately deceived.

The funny thing is, it is circular logic, but you don't realize that you are the one using it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Ok since nobody has been able to come up with one example I'm sure we can all agree that it is fair to say that not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence directly contradicts the citgo witnesses.

Umm, there have been several mentioned here, in this thread. YOU just refuse to accept them. Saying that no one saw X because you refuse to accept anyone who says they saw X as correct has to be some sort of major falacy.

 

[Lyte Trip]

There are hundreds and thousands pieces of evidence that directly contradict what you conclude. If you are unable to find one, then you are disrespectful liar. You say 77 flew over the Pentagon. Wrong 77 hit the Pentagon. Go ahead lie about the day many were killed, sell some DVDs to idiots and be happy the people you disgrace are the very ones who protect you!

Appeal to emotion. One of the lamest logical fallacies and a typical one to use when you know you are wrong.

And let us not forget your witnesses contradict your conclusion. LOL, listen and weep.
Why are your own witnesses debunking you 5 years ago? What is going on?

Perhaps you didn't watch where he clarified for the world on camera exactly what he saw.

Witnesses often deduce and embellish things and certainly make mistakes and Brooks AND Lagasse were both man enough to admit it what specific details are really true and what aren't.

This is why you have to CONFIRM published statements because reporters embellish too.

The north side claim was NEVER contradicted and it has been fully corroborated.

INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION is the only way for investigators to find the real truth from eyewitnesses.

 

[DavidJames]

Craig:
I'm curious, you now want to use your real name when posting. Is it because you're not getting the level of attention you crave? Is your personal notoriety gained from the blood of the victims insufficient to satisfy your ego, or you wallet? Why did you lie to us when you said you submitted your "evidence" to the media and authorities. Clearly you didn't or you would either be a) touting the results or b) claiming they are covering it up.