Why fake the SoC path?

[Bobert]

No you haven't, because the answer to the OP is in the presentation! None of you have watched it, or you wouldn't be asking this question. Calling CIT "brainless loonies" without viewing the evidence only demonstrates your bias.

Hi Craig!

 

[roundhead]

Here is a chronological order of events at the Pentagon on 9/11:

1.) The NWO flew the plane NoC.
2.) All the wittnesses must therefore have seen the plane fly NoC.
3.) Then the NWO faked the SoC path, by knocking over some lightpoles and staging the cab scene.
4.) Then they plant fake wittnesses to further convince the real wittnesses and the rest of the world that the plane flew SoC.

???

You dont have things quite right there.

I know of NO witnesses who have come forward who stated they saw the plane South of the gas station.

If there are, post them, and where they were standing when the plane went by the South side of the station.

 

[Brainache]

No you haven't, because the answer to the OP is in the presentation! None of you have watched it, or you wouldn't be asking this question. Calling CIT "brainless loonies" without viewing the evidence only demonstrates your bias.

I've already seen one CIT "presentation" thank you very much, I'm not about to subject myself to another immersion in their noisome suffocating dribble.

The evidence that CIT are a couple of brainless loonies is not really in question. If they weren't brainless loonies they wouldn't believe the stupid and insane things that they do.

 

[bje]

I've already seen one CIT "presentation" thank you very much, I'm not about to subject myself to another immersion in their noisome suffocating dribble.

The evidence that CIT are a couple of brainless loonies is not really in question. If they weren't brainless loonies they wouldn't believe the stupid and insane things that they do.

Anyway, Ranke and Marquis have much smarter competition:

 

[Brainache]

Anyway, Ranke and Marquis have much smarter competition:

[qimg]http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/bjebje/Chimp2.jpg[/qimg]

Primates for Truth?

North Of Chimpgo?

The PentaCongo?

Lacelot Link to the evidence?


I'm sorry, morning coffee hasn't kicked in yet...

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

So it would be close enough to the damage to fool people but also a bit off track to more easily be written off as a "2nd plane".

The only point that even tried to address the question. But it still ignores the fact that the flight path was so different that it inherently contained all the evidence needed to prove the "official" path was a fake. Why wouldn't their "a bit off track" be a bit less off track, so that it was at least conceivable that the plane as reported by CIT's witnesses was the same plane as that which supposedly hit the light poles?

The attack on the Pentagon was a psyop. If the plane flew south of the Citgo, over the lightpoles, it couldn't be written off as a second plane and would expose the flyover. Who cares if the flightpath contradicts the official data if it can be written off as a C130/E4B, etc. Concealing the flyover was of paramount importance.

 

[Horatius]

The attack on the Pentagon was a psyop. If the plane flew south of the Citgo, over the lightpoles, it couldn't be written off as a second plane and would expose the flyover. Who cares if the flightpath contradicts the official data if it can be written off as a C130/E4B, etc. Concealing the flyover was of paramount importance.

So, your theory is, a flightpath consistent with what they faked, is less credible than one that is inherently inconsistent with the faked path?



At this point, if you can really believe that, there's no more point in discussing this with you.

 

[Brainache]

The attack on the Pentagon was a psyop. If the plane flew south of the Citgo, over the lightpoles, it couldn't be written off as a second plane and would expose the flyover. Who cares if the flightpath contradicts the official data if it can be written off as a C130/E4B, etc. Concealing the flyover was of paramount importance.

There is no way to conceal a flyover, no matter how important you imagine it to be. The fact that you refuse to accept this is just more evidence of the intellectual bankrupcy of the CIT NoC account.

 

[Bell]

You dont have things quite right there.

I know of NO witnesses who have come forward who stated they saw the plane South of the gas station.

If there are, post them, and where they were standing when the plane went by the South side of the station.

Bolding mine.
That was exactly the point I made. Thank you.

 

[JimBenArm]

A "psy-op". Yeah. I like that.

They hijack a 757, fly it to who-knows-where, off the passengers and crew, and dispose of the plane.
Then they fly another plane over the Pentagon, explode bombs to make it look like a plane hit it. Plant bodies they killed just that very day in the rubble, unseen by anyone. Light poles are knocked over with explosives, but not on the flight path flown, but people are fooled into thinking the plane they saw knocked them over, even though it didn't fly there. No one notices the plane pulling up and flying away after the explosion anywhere in the area. They plant a "black box" in the rubble with the wrong flight path on it, unseen by anyone.
All this to fool people into thinking the missing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

Excuse me while I laugh at how stupid this is. I just cannot wrap my mind around how anyone can believe this pile of steaming stupidity! Really. Someone actually can generate enough brain power to walk, and still believes this? They can operate a computer, but cannot see how genuinely stupid this idea is? Cannot see the huge, gaping holes you could fly a 757 through? Really? Really and truly?

People never cease to amaze me with how ignorant they can be when they try hard enough.

Please continue to believe this, though. I would never think of talking you out of it. It makes for some very entertaining posts! Thank you for a good belly laugh!

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

So, your theory is, a flightpath consistent with what they faked, is less credible than one that is inherently inconsistent with the faked path?

Again, who cares if the flightpath is inconsistent with the official story if they can write the plane off as the C130 or a "mystery plane". Those who saw the plane fly away called it a "second jet", so your argument from ignorance is particularly ridiculous.

 

[roundhead]

Bolding mine.
That was exactly the point I made. Thank you.

Thanks for making my arguement.

Many saw the plane NOC(fatal to the OCT) none saw it SOC(in support of the OCT

You fail, and very horribly, in fact

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I know of NO witnesses who have come forward who stated they saw the plane South of the gas station.

Bolding mine.
That was exactly the point I made. Thank you.

Can't argue with you there, Bell. I'm glad you pseudoskeptics finally admitted it.

 

[Alt+F4]

doesn't it bother any of you pseudoskeptics that you haven't even taken the time to view the evidence?

I recently finished reading "Firefight: Inside The Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11" by Patrick Creed and Rick Newman. So yes, I've viewed the evidence: AA77 hit the Pentagon.

 

[Bell]

Thanks for making my arguement.

Many saw the plane NOC(fatal to the OCT) none saw it SOC(in support of the OCT

You fail, and very horribly, in fact

Actually, no, I don't fail.
Let's see, what was the question again?

Why fake the SoC path?

According to CIT/PfT:

1.) The NWO flew the plane NoC.
2.) All the wittnesses must therefore have seen the plane fly NoC.
3.) Then the NWO faked the SoC path, by knocking over some lightpoles and staging the cab scene.
4.) Then they plant fake wittnesses to further convince the real wittnesses and the rest of the world that the plane flew SoC.

???

You may have noticed I striked out step 4 now.

To sum up, CIT/PfT claim that all the wittnesses who saw the plane, saw it fly NoC. That is to be expected with the NoC theory. That is also what the NWO would have expected before they pulled (it/up?) this stunt.

So why fake the SoC path?

???

 

[beachnut]

... 77 didnt hit the Pentagon, then the damage done to that building was caused by some sort of bomb damage.
...
The "photo op" of the taxi cab was in fact so powerful, it was even used in the 9/11 piece right before McCain came on stage at the Republican convention.
...
Applying Occams Razor to both sides of the issue, clearly awards reason and common sense to the NOC path and the staging of the poles

Einstein will give you great insight into what you call “common sense” and the way you apply it.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein

The simplest solution is 19 terrorists took 4 planes. And it is the correct solution to what happen on 9/11, only 9/11 truth can take a 14th century principal and mess up the principal beyond all recognition.

Occam's razor clearly makes your ridiculous scenario of fake planes, and bombs the solution for people who would believe in complete idiotic ideas. Occam's razor makes your solution FAILED! Occam's razor says - All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. Your solution is pure insanity, overly complex and nonsensical, rational people are able to dismiss it as insane rant.

Why do truthers use a 14th century principle to try and explain their insane ideas?

Your post would be humorous if you did not believe it to be true.

 

[beachnut]

Can't argue with you there, Bell. I'm glad you pseudoskeptics finally admitted it.

He was pointing out truthers do not seek the truth; they glom onto the dumbest ideas and repeat them without seeking knowledge or evidence to support them.

Bell is operating at a level of abstraction well above understanding by 9/11 truth believers. (even me)

I think Bell was trying to say you truthers are not seeking witnesses who support the real path of Flight 77, you are happy with the nonsensical insane NoC failed flight path made up by idiots from CIT.

I could be wrong. But then I don’t believe idiotic ideas proposed by failed pilots with paranoid minds, and the worse investigators on the planet earth, CIT.

Why would anyone fake a SoC path? All the CIT witnesses actually point to the south path. CIT gifs prove south flight path was the real path. Watch the CIT video where all witnesses point south. I think it was classic failure on CIT part to film their own rebuttal. CIT is self-debunking.

 

[roundhead]

Einstein will give you great insight into what you call “common sense” and the way you apply it.

The simplest solution is 19 terrorists took 4 planes. And it is the correct solution to what happen on 9/11, only 9/11 truth can take a 14th century principal and mess up the principal beyond all recognition.

Occam's razor clearly makes your ridiculous scenario of fake planes, and bombs the solution for people who would believe in complete idiotic ideas. Occam's razor makes your solution FAILED! Occam's razor says - All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. Your solution is pure insanity, overly complex and nonsensical, rational people are able to dismiss it as insane rant.

Why do truthers use a 14th century principle to try and explain their insane ideas?

Your post would be humorous if you did not believe it to be true.

Of everybody who posts on here(some i agree with, most i dont)your ramblings are the easiest by far of anybody on either side of the 9/11 issue to dismiss out of hand as mean spirited, personal attack ridden, incoherant ramblings.
The above represents giveing you the benefit of the doubt, which you definately havent earned...but, i am a nice guy.

 

[Horatius]

Again, who cares if the flightpath is inconsistent with the official story if they can write the plane off as the C130 or a "mystery plane". Those who saw the plane fly away called it a "second jet", so your argument from ignorance is particularly ridiculous.

And have you noticed, you've assumed the antecedent, in asserting that those who reported a "second jet" actually saw the "flyover"?


Where's SPreston's "Circular Reasoning" graphic when we need it?

 

[DGM]

No you haven't, because the answer to the OP is in the presentation! None of you have watched it, or you wouldn't be asking this question. Calling CIT "brainless loonies" without viewing the evidence only demonstrates your bias.

I've seen their "presentation". Their problem is I have a functioning brain and I'm willing to examine ALL of the evidence. That said I find that I'm not paranoid (or deluded) enough to disregard the mountains of data that proves they're nuts.

I think the way to deal with them would be put all their witnesses in the same room with them and play one of their videos, then let the litigation begin.