The purpose of this topic and thread is to ask myself, and you all here, honestly and openly, how much you weigh the importance, either intellectually or emotionally.
of discerning, discoverying, proving, or denying, whether AA77 (or any other 757)
struck the Pentagon as reported in the 9/11 Commission Report, in various newsmedia accounts, per ASCE report and backed up by Purdue Simulation, "aka Official Pentagon Theory" --

OR the alternative theory which I'll call

the "757 overfly and Rt 27 Hoax con-job psy-op"

Does plumping for one, or the other, make 9/11 official account "basically true" or
"yeah, it was still an inside job"

so far I have learned this much, 80% from Jim Hoffman and his San Diego & SF contacts -- http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/index.html

then maybe 15% from pinnacle and 2% my own investigation.... please indulge me and read on.....

1) WTC 2 (south tower) was intentionally demolished through unconventional demolition, possibly involving thermate and/or thermobaric or high velocity explosives, explosions registered via seismic, eyewitness, video and audio records from 9:02 am -- 9:58 am.

2) WTC 1 (north tower) was intentionally demolished through unconventional demolition, possibly involving thermate and/or thermobaric or high velocity explosives, explosions registered via seismic, eyewitness, video and audio records from 8:46 am -- 10:29am

3) WTC 7, ("salomon barney building") -- was intentionally demolished through conventional demolition, possibly involving thermate and/or thermobaric or high velocity explosives, explosions registered via eyewitness, video and audio records from 10:15am --5:20pm. One EMT reported a "countdown" on the building collapse.
In a lapse of judgment, or a rare moment of candor, or alzheimers-confusion, the leaseholder of the building affirmed that he had participated in a decision to "pull" the building, and then watched it "collapse"

4) multiple military exercises, some coordinated by private defense contractor companies, which simulated off-course and/or hijacked commercial airliners, or airliners crashing into buildings, were happening in the same airspace at the same time as some of the real-world events.

5) No one has been formally accused or tried in a court of law for crimes of 9/11, and no murder investigations have been opened.

6) a 747-200 E4B kneecap plane, the airborne nuclear launch platform and command-and-control overflew restricted airspace above the White House, at low altitude, during and after the Pentagon attacks -- causing great alarm to the Secret Service personnel, who ordered an evacuation. no one in the military, or SS, has acknowledged that this happened, even though it was taped on CNN!!

7) explosions and fire occured somewhere within the Pentagon B, C, or D rings at 9:30am, as reported on CNN and confirmed by eyewitnesses and stopped clocks.

8) much, in some cases nearly all, crime scene evidence was either A) confiscated by FBI, and remains unreleased to independent investigators or cool.gif confiscated and destroyed intentionally or C) hosed down NYC sidewalks .

9) the official 9/11 commission deliberately accepted testimony they knew to be false or fraudulent, and failed utterly in its mission, and yet remains uncorrected.

The above set of evidence constitutes a prima facie case for a coordinated terror attack by single or linked parties, some of whom with very high military clearances, with various entities, though not witting to any conspiracy, choosing to actively engage in a deliberate obfuscation or coverup of the matter, or simply ignore the issue.

crude shorthand for the above is "inside job"

Notwithstanding the above, certain of the 9/11 research community who do not dispute the "inside job" evidence and prima facie case presented above, ....

nonetheless get caught up in somewhat emotional, occasionally irrational, debate over whether the Pentagon's E ring facade was struck, or was overflown, by AA77 757 aircraft at 9:37 AM, despite the fact that the Pentagon was already on fire at 9:30am.

If the E ring facade was struck by AA77, or if it was not struck by AA77, or any 757 for that matter, how does that affect your belief about the cumulative argument built by points 1-9 above?

If AA77 , or another 757, in fact, folded neatly into the Pentagon at 9:37 am, does that make 9/11 AN INSIDE JOB or does that establish that 9/11 was NOT an inside job?

Does acceptance of plane strike vs plane overfly invalidate any of points 1-9, and if so, which ones?



Curious as to your opinion.... be as brutal, blunt, polite or funny as you wish -- but the question is serious.

indeed, how much does the minutiae of Pentagon incident matter in the scheme?

It matters quite a bit. The flyover theory is debunked, period. CIT knows this and yet they continue spreading what they know to be false. THEY KNOW IT!

Liars cannot by truthers, ipso facto. Liars can say that they are truthers all day long, but in the end they are just lying.

CIT has created many who oppose 9/11 Truth simply because anyone with a brain the size of a worm or better can see right through the CIT lies. They hurt the truth movement everyday with their constant spamming of lies, lies, lies.

Comprende?

Says a troll who has nothing to offer the Truth movement but unsubstantiated delusional attacks on legitimate researchers who are bringing these interviews and information to the public.

Ask yourself why anonymous individuals who claim to be truthers like raven & racerx dedicate their time to attacking researchers who attach their real names to their work and are the only people brining any new evidence to the table.

It's common sense. Raven, etc are on a disinfo campaign in order to try and discredit the words of Pentagon eyewitnesses.

They don't want you to know CIT interviewed their top light pole witness Father McGraw and he admitted he really didn't see the event.

They don't want you to know Walter & Sucherman and the other Route 27 witnesses were in a position where they clearly could not see what happened let alone in the graphic detail that is claimed.

They don't want you to know how many eyewitnesses say the plane was white or that it approached from the North side of the Citgo station.

They want you to believe it was AA77, it did everything the government said it did and eventually these fakes will then try to convince you some amateur named Hani was doing the flying.

Even if a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, it was white and it approached from the North side of the Citgo station. This is why you can't see 80+ video tapes which had to capture images of it. This is why fakes like Russell Pickering have to invent stories that people were set up ahead of time and were filming it and there was no flyover and they refuse to release the proof so just take my word for it because I occassionaly say 9/11 was an inside job.

All Raven is trying to do is have me suspended from these forums yet again. Stopping the spreading of this information is his true intent.

I agree with that.

CIT and their "theories" are a cancer that only push rational people away.

TC is nothing more than a carrier.

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191

The people at the Pentagon died regardless of whether or not a plane impacted it.

So the government is equally guilty either way, because we know that hani Hanjour was not flying. Even if he wasn't flying it, they are still guilty, but it was clearly remote control.

So you're telling me they wouldn't even evacuate the building?
When they would risk getting themselves killed?
If it hit the wrong section of the Pentagon?
When they evacuated the White House?
When they saw it coming on radar?
Into the reinforced section?
Dick Cheney's orders?
The Wargames?

It doesn't matter if a plane hit the Pentagon or not. So don't insult and deride people with the laughable insult "supporting the official story". The "official story" is absurd enough as it is.

THE TOP 40
REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

9/11 = inside job.

as to whether the cause of the 100+ deaths inside the Pentagon were caused by a plane impact, or explosives, or a combination of both, EVERY PIECE OF PENTAGON DATA endorses the theory that 9/11-at-Pentagon-involved-inside-players.

What is often misunderstood in the forums is how any particular piece of data (say, lloyd pole situation, B ring deaths, Rumsfeld's actions, the 'stand down' of Pentagon defenses) -- holds up.

The point to emphasize is that even though we may disagree over which end of the pole went in the cab, etc -- I have never seen anyone, including the formidable JREF minds (there are many very smart people there, say what you will about their manners) -- no one but no one has been able to successfully articulate a defense of the official theory -- in toto. at best, there are sharp minds that can cast some doubt on the "alternate 9/11 thinkers"

thus, even the best "debunking 9/11 myths" proponents utterly fail to back up the offiical story with anything remotely plausible.

when your best "Defense" consists of offensive sniping, you know you've lost the argument, but you can still win the "debate"

I agree it doeesn't matter nearly as much as some will have you believe. I still think there's some kind of cover-up with the pentagon, but I just don't waste precious time and energy trying to figure it out.

If you want to know who's responsible, and if you want those people to be actually HELD responsible, then it matters a great deal. How can people ever be brought to justice if you don't even know or even care to find out what happened?

As far as holding people "responsible", I think that the CIT nonsense does more to hurt the movement than help.

I've researched it enough to come to the conclusion that the theory they come up with is ridiculous.

There are no witnesses to a flyover. Not one.

That's impossible of there was one.

Can someone explain to me how two Pentagon Police officers' testimony can be a lie? When CIT asks them: "What's the percentage, chance that the plane was actually on the south side of the station?" (AKA the offical story) and their response is "uh ZERO chance........is there less than zero percent?".

So, call me crazy here but they sound pretty certain about where the plane came from. How can that be a lie or hurt the cause? Not sure how you come to that decision.

Is this kind of information NOT what we're looking for?

I think what really doesn't matter are the theories on how it happened because we can't FULLY know for sure. What IS important is, we know the information the 9/11 commission submits to us has been totally contradicted by 4 people. That is important. That is the reason CIT did the interview.

Maybe I heard wrong, but not likely. See? I'm watching it again, yep they say the same thing! How about that!!! lol why anyone would try and convince me that what I hear is a "lie" in it's entirety. Go tell another one.

Ah good, they do still have supporters.
Certainty rules out lies, huh?

"Tommy, Did you steal money out of my purse? You and your friend Jose have both been eating candy all day today, and I know your allowance is spent."
"Of course not, Mom. 100% sure, bet my life on it. We earned this money mowing lawns."
"And how about your friend Jose here? He slept over last night when the money went missing, Jose, did you see Tommy going into my purse, or did you take the money?"
"Absolutely not, ma'am. We earned this money shoveling snow."
"In May? Well anyway, that seals it then. Double confirmation - however unlikely it seems, it's now proven that the FBI stole my money to fund its black ops, planted the candy on you guys to sow suspicion. I'm sorry I ever doubted you kids."

The only way any rational person would say that is sarcasm. So what's your excuse, Bitterman? Do you see how silly that is? Now add in dozens of fooled eyewitnesses who THINK it impacted, the planted poles, generator damage, building damage, the unseen flyover, the lack of apparent motive, faked FDR, faked radar, faked video, planted witnesses, etc. and it gets worse and worse. All because some people refuse to entertain the simple notion that a number of witnesses chose for some reason to lie about the flight path.

Eyewitness testimony contradicts the official flight path. If it flew north, it flew over. Can you come up with a plausible explanation for why these people are saying the plane flew north of the CITGO? Can you tell me why Jamal El Kournayti saw the plane fly over him on a driving range that is more than a third of a mile south of the official flight path?

Give us a break.

There is not a single witness to a flyover. None. Nada.

That makes the north side claim impossible. They are not liars. They were simply mistaken.

How does Lagasse mistakenly place the plane over Arlington National Cemetery? How does Brooks? How does Jamal mistakenly believe he saw the plane fly over a driving range when it was supposedly more than a third of a mile to the north of him? He said he could see the windows. The windows of an AA 757 are not very big so how does he see the windows from that far away?

And what about the charter boat captain? How does he mistakenly see the plane east of the Pentagon and even the Potomac where he was fishing?

Simple cop-put JREF stlye nothing odd anywhere ever answer: They were just wrong.

Reality: probably a mix of erred recollections, a few disinfo lies, and misreading of the accounts, perhaps confusing one plane with another to flesh out the complete flight path, perhaps just sloppy or perhaps on purpose. (I haven't seen the full accounts of Jamal or the Cap't yet so sorry if that's somehow ruled out).

You contradict yourself. A reality and a probability are not the same thing. And what you call a probability does not seem plausible to me. You can't say what the captain saw was a C-130 because he saw it well before the explosion. There should have been no other planes in the area.

I thought you were giving us reality. Now you say sorry if it's somehow ruled out.

Jamal is one of the white plane witnesses presented in a short presentation from CIT. You can find his account here.
http://www.thepentacon.com/Flight77.htm

Hahaha! I am smart enough to know I don't KNOW what rally happened. So I make a guess as to the reality, using words like 'probably.' This is not a contradiction. Should I pretend I do know and say the 'the reality clearly is...' ?

How did you know I was talking about my hypothetical C-130/Capt's White Plane mix-up? Did CIT already post my discussion I had with them? Or were you there, A-Dog?

BTW the C-130 crossed west at about the Capt's position well before the explosion, crossed paths with 77 - directly over - at about 9:36:?? - then headed west until about just before impact before turning sharply back to pass over the Pgon two min. after impact.

The first word in that sentence was REALITY. Then you put a colon behind it like this.

Reality:

He would have been traveling northwest and he would have been north of the Pentagon. At least that was the original story.

Jamal said the plane he saw was white with a red stripe. Did the C-130 match that description? Jamal saw this plane before the explosion, though. Was the C-130 really that close behind?

what I mean is that there are far better leads than looking at the size of the hole in the pentagon and how much debris was found.

all we have to do is prove to the masses that there was a cover up and a new investigation should ensue, and then the pentagon thing will be cleared up.

instead it's used as a means to divide us.

if we were all spreading the truth like we should be, instead of arguing with other truthers and debunkers, we'd have achieved our goals by now, or made great strides toward them.

instead we are just endlessly debating how credible certain witnesses are.

that just makes us look crazy and disrespectful to the masses... remember those are the people we're trying to reach.

additionally... have any of you ever stopped to think about why "they" won't release more frames of what hit the building?

it's because they love that we debate these physical anamolies, and they loathe that we investigate the links that the terrorists had to US, UK, Israeli, Pakistani, and Saudi Arabian officials and intelligence agencies.

a perfect analogy would be that measuring the width of a hole in a building does not tell us how deep the proverbial rabbit hole is.

Either way. Plane full of passengers was destroyed by international intelligence agency "terrorists".

How does matter, but only for historical record. The pentagon case will likely NOT help us bring anyone to justice.

The "Pentagon thing" will never be cleared up unless it's actually addressed.

No, trolls pretending to be truthers are used as a means to divide. That's not directed towards you, but there are people who come here claiming to be truthers, but love to hurl insults. It's not the issue that's divisive. There are trolls that try to create that impression.

You can spread truth without arguing? If only it was really that simple. Some people refuse to see what's right in front of them. I give solid reasons for why a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon. People can't debunk those arguments so they resort to insults, then people like you come along and say look at all this infighting. There IS no infighting. These people are trolls.

Certain witnesses are credible. Some are not. But it's really not just about the witnesses. The physical damage does not add up.

I tell you what. Show me how I make us look crazy. Pick out a post or a comment from me and show me how I make us look crazy and disrespectful to the masses.

Look at my siggy...it's a quote from you.

Satisfied?

Please stay on topic, people.

the topic is "does plane vs no plane matter?"

I believe that's what we're discussing.

Avenger, I am not saying we shouldn't discuss the pentagon. I just see whole groups of people who think that is THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect to investigate, and think to myself, "damn do they not know that we have solid proof that Government officials are directly linked to terrorists?"

I also do not think a 757 hit the pentagram, I mean gon. But what matters most is trying to convince people 9/11 as we know it is a lie, and looking at the size of the pentagon hole is not as important as looking at the depth of the rabbit hole itself.

That rabbit hole invovles Ptech, Guiliani, CIA, MI6, Mossad, and ISI, all working together to create terror from scratch, or manipulate existing hateful organizations around the globe to MAKE 9/11 happen.

Then, as a part of that sick plan, they did things like fake the pentagon crash and plant explosives in the towers and building 7 so that it would appear to be a horrific event planned solely by foreign groups, and that we were all taken by surprise.

You guys are focussing on how 9/11 was carried out on the day, and others are focussing on the who planned, financed, and coordinated things. If we chase the perpetrators themselves, we will find evidence that they faked the crashes and planted explosives. Until then, you will ALWAYS find trolls to argue with on this site and others.

Tell me, if everyone who disagrees with your (and my) position that a 757 did not hit the pentagram, then why are you wasting your time with them?

We now have a movement with many niches. Those who study mostly WTC stuff. Those who study mostly Pentagon holes and light poles. We have others who only study the ditch in Shanksville etc...

If all of them were really using all of their talents to the greatest ends, they would be focussing on the Ptech issue, presureing the U.S. media to cover the Sibel Edmonds story, etc.

I am working on a database that will help us organize that kind of activism. I'll be sharing things as it progresses.

Like I told you before, I can back up what I say. I don't need to resort to insults, like you.

Everybody on the same team can not play the same position. You can't have a football team with nothing but 300 pound dudes. Somebody has to play running back. Somebody has to play receiver. Everybody can't be the same or you'll lose.

I like football. I'm glad this truth movement is just a football game. Can I be the wide reciever? I like that position.

The physical evidence adds up precisely to a south of Citgo flightpath. You just don't like the fact that that's what the physical evidence adds up to.

So you must pick and choose small fractions of what a minority of witnesses say in order to come up with the north of Citgo flyover.

i always knew u were a catcher and not a pitcher! and dont forget, i before e, except after C. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5gMeXz2YMw
(replace the word love with truth in the song) :P

or maybe this conveys ur tactic more accurately:



:rolleyes:


but seriously, this is already getting old, and i've only been back a couple of weeks. so if we really must rehash the same evidence, i pose an old challenge:

find the other 9 wheels/tires at the pentagon. where are they? they are solid, can take great weight and high heat, and they're insulated from direct impact by way of tires. 2 up front, 8 in the back (arranged and physically held together by super strong axles, in a 2by2 configuration). do u have any reasonable explanation for the absence of these 9 wheels in the "wreckage"? can u explain how people like olson's remains made it to the c-ring hole, while these wheels that should have been under her and the others in tail section, have disappeared? find proof (for instance) that cranes and/or other heavy machinery was brought in to lift these heavier "plane" pieces for removal. post a pic of a bobcat or other piece of equipment thats small enough to get to the "wreckage" yet strong enough to lift it out of there.

surely if these "plane" parts existed the gov would love to put them on display to bloster their story, right? or can u find some ludicrous reversal-spin on why the gov would want to hide such parts? why are we stuck with titus's 2 or 3 pics of "plane parts"? oh yeah, thats right- cuz the rest melted. ok...

so find evidence of even one of these other wheels. do that and i will concede that a 757 crashed into the pentagon. deal?


***

re: the op/topic

on one level i dont think the plane no plane reality matters in the bigger scheme of things, where there is other worthwhile evidence of probable wrong doing. its unfortunate that the plane no plane thing has become so destructive and has created a divide amongst people who are supposed to have the same end agenda: exposing truth. so in that aspect the presence of such debate has been counter-productive. part of it sincere mistaken/uninformed belief by some, but a huge part of it is an architected cointelpro operation (imo).

but when it comes to trying to expose a crime in which conclusive (smoking gun) proof and an outright confession are absent, any forensic clue can indeed lead to a conviction of the guilty party. so in that way the pentagon presents a physical case which requires physical analysis. proof of any physical manipulation and or subversion at the pent scene then by proxy means that 19 arabs didNt do it. so its a big deal.

football is a good analogy, but a real investigation is a better one. what i mean is a crime, lets say a murder, has been comitted, but most of the evidence has been covered up. what do the police do? some of them comb the scene, some of them look up personal history, some of them dig up financial records, some of them examine the bodies, some of them do blood analysis, some of them go out and ask people questions,etc, etc, while on some other end attorneys and other experts figure out their best way to present this found evidence. so all tolled, a team of people, each with their own area of expertise, collectively contribute to finding, arresting, and ultimately convicting a would-be criminal.

so 911 is basically just such an investigation, minus of course, any real authority or access on our part to the actual evidence, especially the physical evidence.

just my 2 cents...

No, I am not gay. But that is very mature of you to call me gay.

You are attributing that tactic to me? OK, I guess. Nice pic, and the song is a winner too.

This is the first time you have ever posted to me as fedzcametogetme, and this is the first time I've responded to you, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Want something new? Here, chew on this...

Football is a horrible analogy, and an investigation is not an analogy since it describes what has been and is currently going on. If you mean "official investigation", that has been done also, but as we both can see, questions still remain.

As to the rest of your post, it's even less interesting than your attempt to insult me.

i was not calling u gay, but the "i am a wide receiver" statement had a queer ring to it, so i was just messing with you there (no malice intended). but now that u mention it, that avatar of urz is a bit on the homoerotic side, but whatever. ur sexuality is of little concern, i saw a punchline and had to make the joke...

yes round and round we go as far as tactics, rehashing the same arguments, and not making much progress.

as far as our history, i mentioned who i am in another pentagon thread that i was 99% sure u had been privy to, but perhaps i was wrong. u know me as killian from before, but i have forgotten the password to that account, and either i dont know what email i used, or the system here is faulty. i would love to have my old account back, but so far, after repeated attempts, no luck. but i thought maybe my challenge about the wheels/tires would refresh ur memory as would my verbose style.


as far as the piece of plane u posted, can u source it and its date of release please? i have seen it before, and i find it quite peculiar, based on the same earlier premise. how convenient for a little piece like that (look ma! identification numbers! -that looked hand engraved, instead of stamped) to survive, yet much sturdier/indestructible parts are absent, especially at the scene, on the day in question.


but arent we already going in circles? didnt i post the NTSB crash investiagtion manual which showed how many specific teams are assigned to documenting EVERY PIECE OF PLANE, in meticulous detail? u show me a hand engraved plane part (possily a handwritten sticker) whose numbers are NOT legible, and even if they were, there's no telling if they identify flight 77 (since none of the work logs and mechanical logs have been made public).

so altho its a start, its far from proving a 757 crashed into the pentagon. a piece that small can be planted, practically undetectable to most eyes (and we arent even sure when this photo was taken or what lawn that is). show me the tail of a 757, or something else that would be DIFFICULT to plant, and then u have a substantial point.

so if the absence of major plane parts equals 1 point for me, and the presence of plane parts equals 1 point for you, then im still ahead. 2 engines, 10 wheel/tires, and one tail = 13 possible points. you have (including titus's pics) 1 engine, 1 wheel hub, 1 section of unriveted "AA" scrapmetal, and now this sliver of amazing junk, but we'll give it 1 point none the less (tho i still would like an original source for it). so u have a total of 4 points (maybe 5 - i might have missed something). so come up with 8 more pieces of plane, and then at least our contentions are TIED.

at this point i am beyond trying to convince or argue with u anymore. i'll post my "shit" and u post urz. people can decide for themselves what is what. u have already proven that u are not going to keep an open mind, and that u are firmly glued to ur beliefs, so therez no point in wasting each others' time. is there?


and tho i dont think football is the greatest analogy, it isnt by any means inaccurate either. the need for teamwork and each player having a unique individual role is indeed completely applicable to the search for truth. and u said urself u liked football, but i guess u were either being sarcastic/disingenuine or maybe u like the sport but hated the analogy. but whatever...

and no matter how UNinteresting u claim my post or my attempts to humor (not insult) you were, you didnt waste much time in reading and replying to it. so cmon, admit it - u love this shit. u love to post 20 times a day and bang heads with pentagon non-deniers all day long. u love to feel victorious and pat urself on the back like u've done such a kickass job as gatekeeper. so talk shit back to me if u want, but dont deny the fact that u enjoy it.

First, you are misquoting me, and second I was responding to Avenger's football analogy. Third, it was an obvious attempt to insult me. Fourth, to top it off, you again are continuing to insult me by saying my avatar is homoerotic.

EDIT: There, I changed my avatar for you.

You are the one trying to go back to an old argument and rehash old stuff. I, on the other hand, have posted an image that you have never addressed.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I remember you. You were the one who challenged me to respond to the Lloyd/lightpole thread where you were supposed to prove me wrong. When I took up your challenge, you disappeared for, oh, about 9 months. Welcome back.

http://911files.info/77/pentagon_911_book/...bris_serial.jpg

Find the rest for yourself. I'm not your lackey.

We? No, you might be going in circles, but I'm not.

Yes, everyone knows that you are going to say that it was planted/faked. So was all of the other debris, right? That includes the fuselage scraps w/ the American Airlines painting on them, the 757 engine, the passenger seat, and the wheel matching a 757, right? The lightpoles were accidentally planted in the wrong location, somebody trimmed the wrong tree to look like a 757 engine outline, and the FDR was a fake that was faked in the wrong location also. The fence pole and sign that was knocked down and bent in front of the generator was planted/fake, somebody made that fence look like an outline of a 757 engine, and, uh, somebody somehow climbed up and scuffed the VDOT mast in the shape of a wingtip. The generator was blown up, even though it was crushed downward and towards the Pentagon, and somebody has figured out how to make explosives unidirectional so that all of the building damage looks as though something devasted it in the direction of outside going towards the inner rings of the Pentagon. Oh, and of course the released videos are also fake.

There, I rehashed your argument for you.

No thanks, I don't want to play any of your games. You like to move goal posts like Lucy likes to remove the foootball just before Charlie Brown kicks it. Not very fun to play games with somebody who plays like that. Besides that, this isn't a game, and I'm not playing around.

I have an open mind, but you can't change solid real-world facts, as much as you would like to or think that you can.

You keep saying that you aren't insulting me, but then in the same breath you do exactly what you say you aren't doing, which is that you are insulting me.

I am not a gatekeeper. It's funny that you clearly insult me, deny that you do so, and then try to intice me to "talk shit back" to you. No thanks, it's not worth my time.

I do not like arguing with people in this section, but I do so to counter what I see as a major injustice to the truth movement.

thanks it's been a while since i had to bite my tongue so hard that it drew blood.... :rolleyes:

You don't like the fact that all the eyewitnesses reports a North of Citgo flight path and all miss the plane hitting light poles including McGraw. You prefer to embrace the government and mainstream media instead.

When will Raven stop being anonymous and make his presentation of all the eyewitnesses he spoke with who confirm the South of Citgo flight path and saw it tearing up light poles?

Ever?

Bite your tongue? I don't follow, care to explain?

You don't like the fact that all of the eyewitnesses, including the north of Citgo witnesses, ALL say the plane hit the Pentagon, and nobody saw a flyover. Nobody.

You don't like the fact that Lloyd, McGraw, Paik, and others condradict your theory and place the plane on the south of Citgo approach.

You don't like the fact that the physical evidence completely condradicts the north of Citgo flyover, and you have no plausible explaination whatsoever to explain the physical damage or in any way refute the damage that shows a south of Citgo impact.

I clearly have NOT embraced whatever the government or MSM propagates. You know this, and you are clearly out of line to say such a thing.

When will Terrorcell stop asking for people's personal information as if it matters or is in some way an argument? Clearly this is a personal attack, so why in the world would I give you my personal information? There are people here that you DO have their personal information who disagree with you just like I disagree with you. How does that matter to you?

Why is it my job to speak to witnesses of a south of Citgo impact? You present nothing plausible to be refuted, especially since ALL of your own witnesses refute your own theory and state that the plane hit the Pentagon. When will Terrorcell ackowledge what all of the physical evidence shows and realise that even his own witnesses contradict his theory?

Ever?

Oh, I don't mind that. It's the physical anomalies I have a problem with.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=6158

But, we've been over this before. The problem YOU have is that you can't explain any of the anomalies I've pointed out to you. You also have a problem with Lloyd's story, so you just push another story that you know is not his.

What small fractions are you referring to? What about Jamal? Can you explain to me how he saw that plane fly over that driving range? What about Sean Boger?

What? Now I have to debate a link to an old thread that I've never seen before and never responded in? You could have made new points or at least pasted your old points, but you want to act like I've never/can't explain these points to you? Nice try.

Rebuttal to:

Ten Reasons Why a 757 Did Not Hit the Pentagon.

1) Light pole number 1 could not have fallen to the left of plane's flight path.

Says who? You? Maybe you should look into Chaos Theory a bit.

2) Bend in pole 1 has no kink.

Aluminum is bendable. Look at the sign pole in front of the generator. It was also aluminum and it has a nice curve also.

3) End of pole supposedly hit by plane is not smushed in, but flared out.

The pole would be flared out on the end if the pole was abruptly snapped due to physical force applied.

4) The light and the shattered glass from globe are both to the left of flight path.

I guess you are saying they sprinkled broken glass all over the place in the wrong spot? According to you?

5) Front passenger seat was not knocked into rear as originally reported.

You can tell by looking at the seat in the pic that the seat has indeed been jostled around.

6) Upholstery is not torn, or scratched or even scuffed.

What is that big white circle in the middle of the seat? Is that a hole or a glare? Hmmm, I wonder.

7) Bottom half of light pole 5 on top of top half.

Wow, that's interesting. That indicates nothing.

8) Damage at impact zone not consistent with plane banked to the left (left wing down, right wing up).

It's not? That pic of yours doesn't show anything. Next time, post a pic that shows the full impact damage done to the building.

9) Fire from jet fuel can not melt glass.

Huh? You sure about that? I'd definitely say you are incorrect about that.

10) False original claim that the exit hole was created by the nose cone.

The exit hole is a good one which must be why you saved it for last. You have heard of the theory of a wall-breaching kit, I know you have.

So, will you now continue to state that these "physical anomalies" can't be explained (like you always do) now that I've provided you explanations?

I have not changed Lloyd's story. We've been over this. You are just being obtuse and repetitive.

I believe you know what fractions. What about Jamal and Boger? Didn't they see the plane impact the Pentagon? No flyover either, huh?

Not sure you realize what you just stepped into there...




and dont forget, i before e, except after C. ;)

And don't forget - follow-through after promise except after lies

You know I've brought up these points to you before. DIRECTLY to you.

Bringing up pole two doesn't address the issue of pole one.

The side that would have the kink would be the side facing away from the camera. Look at the pole beneath that one. You will see that it has more than one kink.

Might be flared on one side and smushed on the other. It wouldn't be flared virtually all around.

That's not a counter-argument.

Jostled around where? Because it's not in the rear.

It's a glare. You don't see any ripped upholstery, do you?

"The top half could not hit the ground before the bottom, so the only way to get this effect is if the pieces tumbled. One problem with that is that the grass is undamaged."

Well, why don't you post your own picture and prove me wrong.

You would need over 1000 degrees Celsius.

Why would they need a wall-breaching kit if they slammed a 757 into the Pentagon?

:huh:

I don't know who came up with the story, but it is definitely not Lloyd's story.

Can you please just answer the questions?

Yes, and I've answered you before. Why you feel I have to answer you over and over is indeed a curious thing.

I knew you would do that. That's why I editted it out of my post about 30 minutes prior to your post and only a couple of minutes after I orignally posted. You're kinda slow responding. Anyways, you always miss the point about Chaos Theory and the fact that just because things didn't act or respond exactly like YOU think they should have, doesn't mean it's impossible.

That pole does indeed have a pretty even curve, the diference being that the sign pole was cemented in the ground. Can you explain how the sign pole in front of the generator was damaged? Did somebody run over it with a truck? I don't see any tire tracks there. How'd they do that?

Sounds like you are grasping at straws with this argument. How would that pole have been flared out? How'd they do that?

Ditto. That's OK. You didn't have an argument in the first place which is why I speculated that you were saying somebody sprinkled glass somewhere that didn't match your expectations and was asking for clarification. I guess you don't wish to clarify your argument.

Look at how the seat is leaning crooked. Look at the folds/ripples in the leather. It was clearly jostled about.

If it is a glare, then it's still possible that there is a tear or hole were the glare would cover that up.

Umm, so? You still have no point. Why is it that you think you know exactly how lightpoles are supposed to react when clipped by a 757?

It is very possible and highly pheasible to concieve how the bottom part of the pole could have ended up on top. Why are you even arguing this point?

You've proven yourself wrong by using a picture that does not indicate what you claim. I don't need to post a picture. It is your job to post proper pics and be forthright with the information that's available. I don't post your posts for you.

To get access? It's a theory. You got an explanation? I'd love to hear it.

What story? I've never changed Lloyd's story, period. You can say it over and over, but the fact that you keep repeating it despite it being otherwise does not say much in favor of your debating tactics.

If you can answer my questions, then they may answer yours.

Here's the thing though; I've answered your posts and have addressed the info in this thread. You, however, have bypassed/over-looked/dismissed much of the physical evidence presented in this thread.

What is your explanation for the tree shaped like the outline of a 757 engine?

What about the fence that was also shaped like the outline of a 757 engine?

How did they climb up the VDOT mast and make the scuff mark in the shape of a wingtip at precisely the correct height?

How did they fake the fence pole and sign pole damage?

How did they fake the damage done to the generator?

Where did all of these damaged plane parts come from?

And of course, there are still the lightpoles. How where those faked?

How was Lloyd's taxi faked?

How did they get the building damage to line up with the outside lightpole damage and how was it that the interior building columns showed damage that indicates the cause from an outside force in one direction while the generator outside was crushed downward and push towards the Pentagon?

This thread is going in circles with debates that can be found in other threads.

Thread closed.