Why fake the SoC path?

[TheLoneBedouin]

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

I hadn't noticed, care to elaborate?

 

[Brainache]

I hadn't noticed, care to elaborate?

Would that be a begging question regarding begging the question?

Just how deep does this rabbit hole go?

 

[Baylor]

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.

Can you provide those person's names who "saw the plane fly away?"

 

[Brainache]

Can you provide those person's names who "saw the plane fly away?"

I'll get this one for TLB: Duh! Anyone who says they saw a different plane a few minutes later off in the distance flying in a different direction. WAKE UP!!!!!!!

 

[Bobert]

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.

How come in the latest CIT/PFTT cartoon does it appear that flight 77 crashed into 2 trees before this amazing flyover?

 

[Baylor]

TLB
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.

Don't have much of a background is psyops, huh? Because the most daring and spectacular psyop ever attempted was when the U.S. dropped some leaflets on a civilian population.

 

[Bobert]

The mental midgets at the CIT/PFTT think that they can string together any complete BS tale and call it a "psyops" as if using big words means it it true.

 

[jaydeehess]

Bedouin, Roundhead et al

The CiT/PfT contention is;
that an airliner was commandeered, spirited away to parts unknown, the aircraft and persons on board killed and all disposed of,

True or false?

a second aircraft sent to fly over the Pentagon and drop a bomb with pin point accuracy and timing

True or false?

to not only cause damage consistent with a large fast mass impacting the building and tearing through it, but also exploding such that it would create a fireball to mask the travel over the building,

True or false?


while allowing the aircraft to fly low enough to fool people into believing that it hit a ground floor,

True or false?

but not causing damage to this aircraft by its passage through such a fireball/debris cloud,

True or false?

nor cause any vortex action to that fireball that would give away the fact that it flew through it,

True or false?

and then having a third aircraft in the air nearby to allow for media reports of such an aircraft near the Pentagon to deceive all and sundry witnesses, from any angle, of the actual fly over, into thinking that this thrid aircraft is what they saw fly over the Pentagon.

True or false?

During all of this 'agents' are scrurrying about downing lamp posts which are not on the path of either of the two aircraft near the Pentagon


True or false?

No one at all, from any vantage point, notices these people downing these lamp posts and some people who see the posts go down somehow are deceived into believeing that they were downed by the passage of a plane that was high enough to fly over the Pentagon in a 45 degree bank (which requires the fuselage to be at least half again higher above the ground than the roofline of the Pentagon) and thus would have been easily three times the height of the lamp post.

True or false?

Other 'agents' scurry about planting aircraft parts consistent with the 757 that was caused to disappear. No one sees them do this.

True or false?


Furthermore the DNA of those on board is sent to the lab with the claim that it comes from investigations taking place at the Pentagon.

True or false?

Sooo, LoneBedouin and compatriots, does that sum up the CiT/PfT contentions

Yes, or no?

or should we include an FDR that was planted even though it supposedly describes yet another flight path inconsistent with either of the two aircraft that were flying towards or near the Pentagon nor, supposedly, consistent with the path described by the downed lamp posts, on 9/11/01?

Yes, or no?

 

[Horatius]

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

I hadn't noticed, care to elaborate?

I'm not surprised.


Sigh. Here it goes, as doomed to failure as it may be.

You said, and I quote, "Those who saw the plane fly away called it a "second jet", so your argument from ignorance is particularly ridiculous."

This assumes that anyone who reported seeing a second plane was actually seeing the flyover plane. So, essentially, your argument is, "We know the flyover was mistaken for a second plane, because everyone who saw the flyover reported it as a second plane."

You can't assume the flyover as fact, and then use that "fact" to prove that everyone mistook the flyover for the second plane. You have to prove the flyover took place before you can use that as an element in the argument that the "second plane" deception actually worked.

More than one person has posted mathematical analyses to suggest that the "flyover plane" theory is a physical impossibility. You have a large presumption of impossibility to overcome before you can treat the "flyover" as a fact. Until you do that, your whole argument is a failure.

 

[Bananaman]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for civility

 

[Bananaman]

One day...one day I'll write a post that isn't edited for civility, moved, or receives an official warning for rudeness. I will, you know.

It's my new goal.

I've just counted, I've got over 50 messages from mods in my inbox. I've only written 170 odd posts. Is this a record?

Bananaman (who blames it all on sheer frustration at the idiocy of troofers, and being unable to stop himself blowing up and going WAAAAAAAAAAAH.)

This post has been edited for civility.
(No, not really, but I didn't want to ruin your record. )

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

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Don't have much of a background is psyops, huh? Because the most daring and spectacular psyop ever attempted was when the U.S. dropped some leaflets on a civilian population.

No. That would be when I had to sort about 15000 assorted and mismatched "Rewards for Justice" leaflets into their respective written languages. Arabic, Pashto, Urdu, Hindi, and Farsi. Can't read 'em, but after that I can sure as hell tell them apart from one another.

Seriously, when did the term "psyops" become anything they want it to mean? TLB, misusing military terminology is not doing your movement's credibility any favors. But, by all means, continue. For the yuks.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

You said, and I quote, "Those who saw the plane fly away called it a "second jet", so your argument from ignorance is particularly ridiculous."

This assumes that anyone who reported seeing a second plane was actually seeing the flyover plane. So, essentially, your argument is, "We know the flyover was mistaken for a second plane, because everyone who saw the flyover reported it as a second plane."

No, your not reading what I said. You incorrectly translate it as:
If they reported a second plane => They saw the flyover
When it should be:
If they saw the flyover => They reported a second jet
(Plus you're conflating "second jet" with "second plane".).

You can't assume the flyover as fact, and then use that "fact" to prove that everyone mistook the flyover for the second plane. You have to prove the flyover took place before you can use that as an element in the argument that the "second plane" deception actually worked.

It isn't assumed as fact. Each case is examined in the full context of all the evidence. There is no evidence of a second jet flying over and around the Pentagon. The only possibility for what Roosevelt saw was the flyover. The NOC flight path is also evidence for a flyover.

More than one person has posted mathematical analyses to suggest that the "flyover plane" theory is a physical impossibility. You have a large presumption of impossibility to overcome before you can treat the "flyover" as a fact. Until you do that, your whole argument is a failure.

More than one? I'm only aware of Reheat's. Do you think his cherrypicking of Morin's internet statements and refusal to contact him directly indicate an unbiased approach to the question?
Specifically, do you think Reheat's refusal to model Morin's statment that the plane flew over the FOB is reasonable?

P.S. Its already been proven aerodynamically possible.

 

[jaydeehess]

LoneBeduoin, and others

I direct you attention to post 168

They are simple true/false and yes/no questions

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

For someone who claims CIT/PFT are "frauds", you don't seem to know even their most basic claims.

The CiT/PfT contention is;
that an airliner was commandeered, spirited away to parts unknown, the aircraft and persons on board killed and all disposed of,

True or false?

False.

a second aircraft sent to fly over the Pentagon and drop a bomb with pin point accuracy and timing

True or false?

False.

to not only cause damage consistent with a large fast mass impacting the building and tearing through it, but also exploding such that it would create a fireball to mask the travel over the building,

True or false?

False.

while allowing the aircraft to fly low enough to fool people into believing that it hit a ground floor,

True or false?

False.

but not causing damage to this aircraft by its passage through such a fireball/debris cloud,

True or false?

False.

nor cause any vortex action to that fireball that would give away the fact that it flew through it,

True or false?

False.

and then having a third aircraft in the air nearby to allow for media reports of such an aircraft near the Pentagon to deceive all and sundry witnesses, from any angle, of the actual fly over, into thinking that this thrid aircraft is what they saw fly over the Pentagon.

True or false?

False.

During all of this 'agents' are scrurrying about downing lamp posts which are not on the path of either of the two aircraft near the Pentagon


True or false?

False.

No one at all, from any vantage point, notices these people downing these lamp posts and some people who see the posts go down somehow are deceived into believeing that they were downed by the passage of a plane that was high enough to fly over the Pentagon in a 45 degree bank (which requires the fuselage to be at least half again higher above the ground than the roofline of the Pentagon) and thus would have been easily three times the height of the lamp post.

True or false?

False.

Other 'agents' scurry about planting aircraft parts consistent with the 757 that was caused to disappear. No one sees them do this.

True or false?

False.

Furthermore the DNA of those on board is sent to the lab with the claim that it comes from investigations taking place at the Pentagon.

True or false?

True, more or less.

Sooo, LoneBedouin and compatriots, does that sum up the CiT/PfT contentions

Yes, or no?

No.

or should we include an FDR that was planted even though it supposedly describes yet another flight path inconsistent with either of the two aircraft that were flying towards or near the Pentagon nor, supposedly, consistent with the path described by the downed lamp posts, on 9/11/01?

Yes, or no?

Sure. There are many reasons this may be (whistleblower, deliberately planting false and confusing information, etc.), but PFT refuses to speculate on why it is inconsistent.

All of these questions are answered in the presentations, or in a brief overview of CIT's or PFT's forums. That you are even asking these questions shows that you haven't even taken the time to view the evidence. Criticism with out viewing the evidence is pseudoskepticism.

 

[dtugg]

It isn't assumed as fact. Each case is examined in the full context of all the evidence. There is no evidence of a second jet flying over and around the Pentagon. The only possibility for what Roosevelt saw was the flyover. The NOC flight path is also evidence for a flyover.

There is evidence of another plane in the area, as you know. Just because someone described it as a jet doesn't mean it was.

Roosevelt was confused. How exactly did the flyover plane fly over the south parking lot? Does the NWO have a jet that can make a 90 degree turn over the Pentagon? Are you guys really this far gone?

Ranquis' prized, cherry picked, mutually exclusive witnesses aren't proof of anything except that eyewitness testimony isn't reliable and that Ranquis are frauds. The NoC witnesses, as you know, are a very small percentage of the people that saw this go down.

P.S. Its already been proven aerodynamically possible.

Nope. The people that made the video are idiots and liars. Perhaps you missed the thread that shows this.


How does it feel to fail all the time, Craig?

I don't even know why the hell you bother arguing with us GLs. You should be getting this "evidence" out to people that might not think you are crazy and can actually do something about it.

 

[beachnut]

For someone who claims CIT/PFT are "frauds", you don't seem to know even their most basic claims.

...

It is a fact Balsamo says he has no theories on 9/11. He only has implied lies.

Does this mean you have no theories? Do you have something to say about 9/11 that will be backed with evidence? You post hearsay, lies and fantasy; why?

CIT witnesses in a video and animated gifs, point to the south path. How ironic. Makes it hard to answer why fake the SoC. CIT posts testimony of people who pointed south to Flight 77. How can you answer the OP when your p4t leader Balsamo can't make a viable theory about 9/11 due to incompetence and/or stupidity?

 

[chillzero]

How come in the latest CIT/PFTT cartoon does it appear that flight 77 crashed into 2 trees before this amazing flyover?

Please stop asking this. The topic isn't the CIT film, it's why the government would need to fake a flight path.

 

[Horatius]

No, your not reading what I said. You incorrectly translate it as:
If they reported a second plane => They saw the flyover
When it should be:
If they saw the flyover => They reported a second jet

And how is inverting the order different from "anyone who reported seeing a second plane was actually seeing the flyover plane"?

Are you suggesting that there are some who saw the "second jet" who did not in fact see the flyover? If so, then what was it they saw?

In any case, you still are assuming the flyover to be an established fact.

It's entirely possible that everyone who reported a "second jet" was in fact reporting an actual, physical second plane, of whatever type, and that no flyover happened. You simply assume the flyover happened so that you can put forward all the "second jet" or "second plane" witnesses as "flyover witnesses".

It's also entirely possible that not everyone who would have seen the flyover would have been fooled by it. You still do not have a single witness who saw the flyover, and was not fooled by it. Even the best magicians in perfectly controlled settings cannot fool absolutely everybody, yet the 9/11 perps managed this?

 

[dtugg]

Even the best magicians in perfectly controlled settings cannot fool absolutely everybody, yet the 9/11 perps managed this?

Come on, this is the NWO we are talking about. They can do absolutely anything that is necessary for Ranquisamo's fantasy.