9/11 Pentagon Debate

Thanks.

It was weird. I know I sound weak there but I hope I came through.

As someone who's looked into the pretty solid evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon from the southwest and all that, the main thing I'd like to convey with my questioning of CIT is that there are different possibilities behind the thing that makes CIT tick - corroborated N-path witnesses.

1) They really did see the plane on the north side
1a) this was some kind of psyop second plane or hologram or whatever in addition to the real south-path impacting 757
1b) this was the one and only, non-impacting plane and flyover is proven

2) They were each mistaken somehow by coincidence – the plane came in south but each witness they talk to who directly supports the north path has, for each their own reason, remembered it to the north. Option 2) is most appealing to 'debunker' people first coming to awareness of this evidence, but on closer look has much against it. I consider it unlikely – they describe a fairly coherent flight path.

3) The witnesses are wrong on the flight path and perhaps other clues by something other than accident – ie, a disinformation campaign – perhaps organized from above, or perhaps just something that organically happened (ie - one guy sees the next telling the CTers just what they want to hear and senses they should do the same, and the trend snowballs).
---
Admittedly the list of witnesses is growing as CIT digs, and they say NO witnesses (except Lloyd I guess) support the south path - and so the plausibility of option 3) seems to shrink. Or does it grow? Either could be argued I guess. If there really are as many south path memories out there as I suspect, they'd have to be told where to dig. Otherwise, I'm plain wrong and it really was north and EVERYTHING indicating otherwise was engineered that way.

And I find it funny Craig dismissing my crazy conspiracy theory involving witnesses being organized by the military or whoever to promote lies about what happened – does anyone here recall that USA Today parade thing? Organized lies proven by company affiliation and support of the official tory? How about Lloyd, 'the first known accomplice?’ Etc... No problem believing it if its supports the ‘official story’ (if with discrediting flaws), but the notion is now ridiculous if the witness conspiracy is to support the flyover hypothesis and massive fakery - and with at least as serious of flaws.

Please, those of sound mind, think on that a bit.

Could they all be that wrong in a way that lins up but contradicts all other evidence?

Or is the PentaCon right?

Or is there a disinfo conspiracy with the witnesses that CIT is playing right into with full gusto?

All three sound kind of weird. Are there any other possibilities?


And why has CIT ignored option 3?, never even bothering to explain why they weren't considering it? Is it really that kooky? I do get a little nuts sometimes...

According to the witnesses, there was only one plane.

Sounds better. B)

The shills instinctively sensed that they should contradict the official story. So every other witness they interview would also be a shill? Witnesses not previously published? Who sought no publicity? What kind of shill just sits around just waiting for some random person to find them, then ask them for an interview?

Light pole damage does not indicate otherwise. Photographic evidence shows poles 1, 4, and 5 were pointed in the wrong direction.

Not even close. Lloyd England's account is not just flawed. It's physically impossible. Sucherman and Mike Walter had trees blocking their view. So THEIR accounts can not be true. Sucherman claimed there were no trees there at all. A complete lie. He claimed he saw the plane out of his passenger window. Another lie. He was too far down the road for that. The fact is he could not have seen what he claimed he saw.

I have not seen this debate on google ya just posted...

but I have to say, after a few years of being a hardcore anti Pentagon theory person, I
firmly believe the CIT guys may be onto something...something fierce.

I never liked the missile, global hawk, drone plane, etc theories. I long believed AA77 hit the Pentagon.

However, a flyover+explosion+fresh AA plane parts being ejected from the front of a trailer sounds plausible.

Check out the video here on the I-395, 15 seconds after the Pentagon attack. This guy would have been in perfect position to record it. The people on the highways would have seen it. Don't forget that anyone could have captured the attack on video, and it is basically a coincidence that it didn't happen. Witnesses can't be controlled.

Wow, amazing work Arabesque. You proved that a large plane going hundreds on miles per hour didn't continue circling the scene!!! You're a super sleuth!!!


1) So where is the proof that this pic was taken 15 seconds after impact?

2) Do you also really believe Pickering saying he knows people who were filming the Pentagon before the attack (who won't release the video for some odd reason) and didn't film a flyover is proof?

3) Would you accept the claim that CIT knows people who were filming the Pentagon before the attack and claim those people saw and filmed a flyover as a proof as well? Didn't think so.........

Using the same reasoning you would think by now you "AA77 hit the Pentagon" people would have been able to put this to rest since the amount of camera's and the belief that you're right surely could have proven a 757 impact by now.

What do you think about the FDR contradicting the faked videos you love? When does this plane level off at 5' above the ground and why doesnt the FDR support your ridiculous theory?

You're obviously way too brilliant for me. No way that the cameraman would take notice of a commercial airliner flying casually past the Pentagon. After all, how many seconds did it take him to get out his camera? He was much more interested in that tiny C-130 plane.... obviously that was MUCH more interesting that a commercial airliner passing by the Pentagon with a timed explosion.

As you can clearly see in the video, there is no way a plane would be hidden from witnesses. Which is why no one reported it--it didn't happen. Clear sky. Highways. ... nope.

Just because a plane crash doesn't look like what you thought it would look like, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Pentagon was a reinforced structure. Of course the edge of the wings would do less damage than the major parts like the fuselage. No one has ever convincingly explained the light poles, and I doubt anyone ever will, except by a plane impact. Sure, people will come up with theories, but they will never prove them. And then there is the fact that the structural damage inside of the Pentagon aligns perfectly with the light poles. I wonder how they did that?

But does attacking people for what they believe happened at the Pentagon solve anything? When most of the truth movement is divided over this issue? Nope.

It's not “15 seconds after the Pentagon attack”

Still from the video

If you look at the image (bottom right) you can see that it's 1 minute and 45 seconds after the video begins (105 seconds).

Since we “allegedly” have the C-130 radar track (Rades) we can put a time label to this event (C-130 flying away from the Pentagon)

Link to the analysis (John Farmer's blog)

C-130 radar tracks (Rades)

It's 9:39:23 (Rades time) (2 minutes after the attack).

Maybe you said “15 seconds after the attack” referring to the beginning of the video (105 second earlier – 9:39:38 (rades time).

Video still

1) The Pentagon has been already hit.

2) there are no planes visible in the area.

So .... we can rule out the last 2 radar blips attributed to “alleged flight 77”

Image.

The latter (9:37:48 Rades time) since it's 10 seconds after the video starts and the former (9:37:36 Rades time) since it's only 2 seconds before the beginning (the cloud of smoke is at least 10-15 seconds old). Note that the dot is north of Citgo too.

So the last “eligibile” radar return is the one recorder at 9:37:12 (Rades time) and probably the impact occurred 15 seconds before the beginning of the video (plenty of time for a flyover)

Image

and that dot does not rule out Pentacon witnesses (it's well before the Sheraton Hotel).

Are there any report of a plane flying “over” at the time of the impact?

Maybe yes

ABC video – 9:40

It's not referring to the E-4B since it only took off minutes later

Rades data M3 0310

maybe .... the Rades data doesn't show any plane over Washington at the time...

...it doesn't show any plane following the NRA as Monty Belger told Mineta, too. (neither before or after the impact)

Video

It was a “non existent” plane? Was it cancelled? I don't know...

”all I know is that I know nothing”

Ashoka


P.S. When you all will end this “Bellum omnium contra omnes” of yours?

Oh now it's flying casually past the Pentagon at 500MPH? That's casual? And how far away would the plane be by the time he noticed the explosion and get his camera out and started filming if it was traveling at 400-500MPH?

Where is the proof that this was taken 15 seconds after as you claim?

So your theory is he was staring at the Pentagon before anything happened? Any proof of that or do you just constantly make things up to support your pro-impact theories?

Oh yeah people did report it that's why there's a second plane cover story. CIT even went and interviewed one of those witnesses. :D

And just because someone says something is so does not make it not. Explain the exit hole and what happened to the entire tail section of the plane?

Staged is pretty convincing especially when you take into account the FDR.

Well in 6 years no one has proved AA77 hit the Pentagon.....

WOW!!!!!!!!!! Case Closed huh? What about the path that was in the grass outside the Pentagon days before the attack which also lines up with the light poles and the damage? Was that Hani Hanjour on a lawnmower marking his target?

Asks the man who does nothing but bad mouth CIT. Oh the irony.

No, sorry but despite some very vocal questionable truthers like Russell Pickering, it's 2007 and the majority of the truth movement still doesn't believe AA77 hit the Pentagon. This isn't a split.

In fact I would say it's more like 80/20 for non impact/impact.

hey, hey, we can all get along.

As exciting as the debate about Plane strike vs. no plane strike at Pentagon, that part is almost a "tastes great!! less filling!!" shouting match.

The plane strike alone is insufficient to explain the timing & pattern of the damage. so even if you feel you 'win' the plane strike argument, you still have to invoke a rather massive inside-job with incendiaries and explosions to create the damage done.

if you think you win on "no plane strike, it was flyover" or some such, great, you STILL have to explain the damage timing & pattern.


once you are tired of plane vs no plane strike, move on to question is how did the damage to Pentagon Inner Rings B, C, D occur -- the timing and pattern -- and particularly, what destroyed the Naval Command Center?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=14543


solving the crime -- 5 theories and pros/cons
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=14543

I believe Russell. I'm unsure if the video in question debunks your nonsense cause I havent seen it but now you got my interest..

Is that number 3 thing real or you are just farting hot air up a balloon?

Are you really making that claim?

Is this why you losers pathetically attempted to turn all of this into a credibility contest? Because you knew Russell knew?

You're not getting away from that one buddy..

Ok. You believe Russell because he has a way cool super groovy website full of disinfo and misinfo that promote sites that call Loose Change & The Pentacon disinfo and he refuses to look at evidence and then acts like he don't care where the witness he quotes really places the plane because "It's still a South side witness to me[him]."

So if on top of all that he says he talked to some people and they were set up before anything happened and they were filming the Pentagon prior to the attack but they don't want to release the footage and the rest of us needs to respect their decision so therefor no flyover took place. Cool.

And then Russell's statement to me that Leo Titus has more pictures of the Pentagon but won't disclose them because he doesn't want to fuel conspiracy theorists doesn't mean anything.

Once again everyone associated with AA77 hitting the Pentagon wants to withhold that evidence because they fear it is going to fuel conspiracy theorists even further. Answer me this because you can, How stupid do you have to be in order to believe that? Is it too much TV or what?

#3 was a hypothetical question intended to show the bias of the person being asked. There is a small vocal group of people intent on convincing people a 757 hit the Pentagon. They're very loud and quite annoying. But I'll tell you what the worst part is. They feel it is their duty not to expose government complicity in the 9/11 attacks but to focus completely on attacking the research of independent investigators and further reinforcing the government's fable.

You dodge the question whether or not you believe 9/11 was an inside job and yet CIT's work has to be questioned repeatedly on one of the best known Truth Forums on the internet and most people don't even know you're a second rate JREF.

I don't know if you're aware or not but the debate about whether 9/11 was an inside job or not is over. It's been done. Now if you have some legitimate research you're trying to present to people then let's see it. If you're just another neonazicon then shut the hell up and let the rest of us continue.

CIT did not try to turn anything into a credibility contest. CIT is getting evidence. CIT is asking questions. CIT is getting answers and CIT is presenting them. And on top of that CIT has to defend its work against a small irritating group of people who stare at pictures and yell proof all day when they appear wherever CIT's work is presented.

None of this information has anything to do with whether you like Russell Pickering or Aldo Marquis. NOT ONE SINGLE BIT OF IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

I personally don't care if you think Aldo & Craig are the 2 biggest assholes to ever show up it doesn't dismiss one bit of the eyewitness testimonials being presented which CONTINUALLY SHATTER THE OCT.


Guess what the biggest kicker is Racerx. IF A PLANE DID HIT THE PENTAGON IT STILL APPROACHED FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO MAKING THE MECHANICAL DAMAGE PATH STILL A FAKE SCENE SO YOU ARE STILL WRONG EVEN IF A FLYOVER DIDN'T OCCUR.

You act like you've never heard of the wall-breaching kit which fits perfectly for the exit hole, but I know that you have heard about that.

I think your wrong about these numbers, but you state it as though you've taken a poll. But you live in CIT land, so maybe that explains things.

Since you like to attack Russell for no appearant reason, and then state that the majority of truthers think that nothing hit the Pentagon, then perhaps it is time for me to light up this Pentagon section again, and put all of you CIT groupies to shame once again?

Everyone of you CIT trolls who clutter up this section is obviously being disingenious. I do not even consider you truthers anymore because you are not honest and neither do you tell the truth.

I've been biting my tongue for quite some time in this section, but perhaps that should change. What do you think Terrorcell?

Well, no need to turn all emotional and stuff...

Maybe you need to watch final cut again to see how convincing you lunatics were/are?

I could see what I'm talking about in it but I couldnt see or hear much about your smelly pile of spun crap...

Thats right.. your shit was just to crazy to mention.. or maybe I got it wrong somehow?

I fail to see why you should hate me more than this best known Truth Forums place, you know Loose Change..

What would be the purpose in that? If a plane really slammed into the Pentagon.

Perhaps an exit hole? Perhaps the reponders needed access through there. :rolleyes:

Their own animation refutes the claim that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Look at the position of light pole 1. In fact, poles 4 and 5 are also in the wrong position.

Lloyd England's story. Now, THAT'S a crazy story.

Access for what? How long was it before they got to this access hole and what did they do when they got there?

Just to fuck with YOU.

It was exactly 5 days, 16 hours, 48 minutes, and 32 seconds. After they got access, they left and went to the bar for drinks. They never returned.

Is this the kind of "lighting up" the Pentagon section you plan on doing?


I also find it ironic that you claim to be a truther and disrespect CIT and then put out the conspiracy theory that workers made the exit hole in the Pentagon for access purposes. You're a total joke Raven.

The video cameraman on the I-395 would have seen the plane, and he would have pointed his camera at it. There would have been witnesses, and the best CIT can do is say "they were distracted by the C-130". Well that cameraman apparently was fooled by it. It was a tiny black dot in the sky, and he didn't bother to try and capture that other plane that flew by.

Good for them for doing the investigating and compiling witness testimony... but as for the conclusions...... believe what you want to believe, just don't force it on people. And don't insult people because they disagree.

the irony in your words is overwhelming.......lol

you assume you know what someone's actions would be but you still haven't even backed up your 15 seconds claim which is a total lie.

You can clearly see that the smoke has not even reached the top of the camera at the very beginning of the footage.

Please support your accusations of "lie" with evidence.

An accusation without evidence is disinformation.

Or is this sort of behavior tolerated by the moderators here? If so, I've got other places to spend my valuable time, troll free.

Please leave. You even link to that outdated John Farmer crap.

So I guess you couldn't tell that Avenger's questions were meaningless and that he was trolling being a smartass trying to bury my posts?

I am a truther and CIT are a bunch of liars. Proven to be liars. And you know it! What does that make you?

I did not put out any theory. You know where this theory came from. Stop being dishonest.

You couldn't come up with a counter-argument so YOU decided to be a smart-ass. It's obvious.

You are a provocative anonymous little troll at best. You believe a wall breeching kit was used to create access for responders and call CIT liars and claim to be a truther. CIT did not invent the North of Citgo flight path theory. That was corroborated repeatedly by eyewitnesses with no ties to the mainstream media or government affiliation. Average everyday Americans.

They were there. They saw the white plane you believe to be AA77 and they saw it approach on the North side of the Citgo. I believe there are now 5 public eyewitnesses who have confirmed this (I can't help if Russell Pickering is afraid to hear it verified CIT offered to share info with him). More will be forthcoming.

It is no longer theory.

CIT has not to this day been proven to be lying about anything. It is now your duty to positively identify and prove that AA77 hit the Pentagon or you need to apologize for your blatant unsubstantiated bullshit allegation that CIT are liars.

While you're at it Raven maybe you can remind everyone why you went into lurking in the first place. Or shall I dig up the thread?

Who's the troll, TeRrOrceLL?

Anyone who reads my posts knows that I'm a truther and that I am not a troll. You know this. Stop being dishonest.

What does the wall-breaching kit theory have to do with being a truther? Are you upset?

And it's been refuted by well over a hundred eye-witnesses who are also average everyday Americans. You know this and so does CIT.

You are right, this theory has been debunked ad infinitum. It's no longer a theory, just a repeated lie on the part of CIT and their groupies.

How many times do they have to be proven to be liars for you to get it? It's curious that they are no longer allowed to post here, don't you think?

I did not go into lurking. I simply quit debating in the Pentagon section because it was overrun by CIT and their groupies, and it was just endless dishonest debate coming from CIT and their groupies. Shortly after I stopped posting in this section, CIT was banned.

Dig up whatever thread you wish. I have nothing to hide or fear.

BTW, it's very high class of you to call someone a liar or a troll without reason, and without explanation (an email from Rob Balsamo doesn't count; Balsamo is another proven liar). When Arabesque asked why you called him a liar, your response was to tell him to leave the forum.

What a class act you are, TeRrOrceLL.

99% of your posts are trying to prove AA77 hit the Pentagon. Remember when you first came here and you spammed all the forums with that embellished little gif you made? You even started polls and proved you didn't convince anyone. I remember that....lol

So then why is the government lying about how the hole was made? And why would a Truther offer up such a pathetic explanations for the exit hole?

Upset? No, repulsed.

Walter's account has been proven impossible.

Sucherman's account has been proven impossible.

McGraw admits to not witnessing the plane clipping light poles and only deduced it after the fact.

Lloyd England's account is so bad that Russell Pickering had to invent one out of thin air in an attempt to make it more believable.

The Plane was white.

The Government even had CNN do damage control on this before CIT released it. And you know damn well everyone was caught off guard by it and asking what the fuck was CNN doing? Then you all found out and then you all just didn't say anything.

Then there are these 4 witnesses who not only didn't see the plane hit any light poles but saw it on the wrong side the gas station. 2 of them are Police sargeants.

Nothing has been refuted. And everytime CIT does an investigation somewhere they always come back with more evidence that the official story is a fraud. Your attempts to assassinate the character of CIT will fail now as in the past for you are an anonymous nobody who brings nothing new to the table whatsoever.

No witnesses have been debunked. The eyewitnesses presented to date from CIT have not been debunked of anything.

Once maybe?

Aldo is not allowed here for reasons other than the research of CIT.
I have no idea why Craig is banned, I never seen him do anything to merit such a punishment, perhaps I missed something but I never asked anyone either to be honest.

CIT and their groupies? lol
Maybe you should try bringing something to the table for once? How about instead of attacking CIT while waving your 9/11 = inside job flag you actually bring forth research proving how the Pentagon attack was an inside job?

So what do you think about AA77's FDR?

Arabesque made a claim. I asked him to prove it. He didn't. He then reiterated the claim. Therefor he is knowingly saying something to be true he cannot prove to be true. That constitutes being labeled a liar in my book.

That's a lie. I post here all of the time, and have not post in the Pentagon section hardly at all in several months.

And oh, how times have changed, huh? Are you sore that your piece of crap theory didn't get included. No mention of CIT's theory in LCFC either. Boo-hoo.

Ah shucks. Are your feelers hurt?

All of that is garbage. Everything CIT has been refuted.

Dude, CIT's star witnesses SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON! Are you that moronic? No, you are just lying.

Read above.

Use your brain.

Yes, that would be you.

More dishonesty from you. Why would I agree with CIT when they are proven liars? Liars masquerading as truthers are worse than OCT apologists. And you know what I think happened at the Pentagon. Why do you keep lying?

I think that you and PF911T are morons. Balsamo is also a proven liar. Jee, I wonder why he's no longer allowed to post here?

No he made his point, and you in return quoted a well-known liar who was obviously lying in his email, and I know that you know Balsamo is lying. So you are also a liar.

I know that you see the lie.

This is how you debate. You are dishonest and you ignore all facts contrary to your claims, and debate endlessly using lies until your opponent gives up. That's what makes you and others here dishonest CIT groupie trolls.

Alright Raven lets take a moment and entertain your plane impact theory.

The plane approached from the North side of the Citgo and impacted the Pentagon. The damage path is still fake.

Whether it hits or flies over it approached from the North side. It was white. Lloyd England's account is impossible. And 2 of your star witnesses accounts have been proven impossible. A 3rd admits to not seeing an event and deduced it after the fact.

The contents of LCFC has nothing to do with me and you Raven. Your attempts to drag other people into this are quite lame.

Everything in your entire post is absolute rubbish and everyone here minus a couple JREF knows it.

Wrong. Every evidence we have says the plane flew SOUTH of the Citgo, besides 3 witnesses which 2 were under a canopy, and one was in his car. Lagasse couldn't remember where he was that day, Brooks waved his hand indicating that the flightpath of the plane flew through the monument behind him (impossible), and wasn't Turcious running back towards the Citgo in the video? There are more witnesses to the SOUTH of the Citgo flightpath then the 3 that CIT has, you just refuse to acknowledge them and use crazy theories to try to debunk them.

You've got NOTHING!

Where did you get a white plane from? :rolleyes:

I'm not attempting to drag anyone into anything. You are the one who brought up Balsamo. <_<

Keep telling yourself that people believe your lies.

You are being exposed as we speak.

Wait a minute man.. theres so many things that are wrong here that its hilarious.

Impossible. It cant hit and have approached fromt the North side. (lol north written with capital N just like god or something? lmao)

Again, you provide a false choice, north + impact = impossible.

Most of the accounts are impossible if taken literally.. something you should've learned by now.. how dishonest of ye.

read above.

Lets completely dismiss what he says then... :rolleyes:
What about Lagasse in that case.. or Brooks.. they both are proven to have deduced stuff and ALL your witnesses are SUPPOSEDLY deducing a fucking Boeing 757 IMPACT.
..some nerves you got... :rolleyes:

The Pentagon segment of LCFC is a serious departure from 2nd cut. It looks like it has been influenced at least in part by Russell. You know... the guy who has video evidence that completely debunks you, but cant be released publically...

1+1= ?

I caught Ranke on a bold lie one time and to rub it in his face I easily deceived him for 6 or 7 long pages just by making on purpose a similar lie.

Ranke was talking to someone who was newer and had less knowledge about this stuff than him or me, he said to the guy that maybe Lagasse was really talking about the plane pulling up when he was describing CLEARLY the yaw of the plane as it impacted the Pentagon, any significant yaw from Lagasse's position is indicative of the SOUTH approach.

Read that last paragraph again to make sure you understand what kind of lie that was.

Immediately after that lie I lied too, on purpose. I said Lagasse was talking about banking or roll angle, just to fool Ranke. He went on and forgot he just lied to that other guy andcalled me a liar for pages and pages, because he knew full well that Lagasse was talking about a yaw angle that rules out a flyover. I know because he kept repeating that to me. How stupid can it get?

That for CIT is embellishment. Lagasse is embellishing his testimony... what a farce this.
The thread must still be there somewhere..
Think about this carefully guys... <_<

The only thing wrong is you which is par for the course.

Why can't the plane hit from the North side please elaborate? You have to prove it is impossible before you tell me it's a false choice.

And also a couple of questions for you :
1) What made the exit hole?
2) Were there secondary explosions inside the Pentagon?
3) Was 9/11 an Inside Job?

Not most. Just the ones proving the official story from the interviews with witnesses I have seen.

Admitting he didnt see an event take place when he is one of the heaviest referenced witnesses for the event is quite important. You disagree?

I said even if they didnt deduce an impact and the plane hit the building the approach still came North of the Citgo. That has been repeatedly corroborated. That is a fact.

At least in part by Russell? The whole section is Russell Pickering. I already told Dylan my feelings about his decision in that regard. I think the rest of the film is great. I was disappointed that when he mentioned the no impact theories he excluded the whole North side witness reports because of personal problems with Aldo. Its not the research but the researcher. So be it. The rest of the film is amazing. I was most fond of the hijackers/war games section. But this once again isn't about LCFC which you little trolls keep trying to make it about. Sorry, not going to happen.

What a weak response...

The first part of your post I wont mention since you completely failed to address the points in question. You have double standards when it comes to witnesses and no the north-side-of-citgo approach isnt conclusive because ALL the physical evidence contradicts it, amongst other things..

The last part of your rant is strange. Its as if Dylan was hypnotised by external factors into not making a film about your insane theories. I'm not under the impression he is excessively naive or careless...

Will you please find people who saw THE plane OVER or on the OTHER side of the Pentagon already? or find someone who is able to say flyover on his own? You like making comparisons with NYC? could anyone here hide a Boeing behind the much larger fireball of the second WTC impact? honestly? Boeing disappears. Behind it? No impact? oh yeah really..

What if someone who was on the road who saw the plane hit wanted to speak about it? what if the person has the fucking internet at home and read the crap as the years went by? ...would that person want to come out and speak to you or anyone here?

Would anyone want to be slandered and be accused of mass murder in movies all over the net? You CIT retards are working against the truth by putting 'FLYOVER' stickers on people's foreheads. Wouldnt you like to have Lagasse, Brooks and the others here? Discussing how they lived that day in details and in an open exchange? You can forget about that, you opened the door, slapped a flyover sticker on their foreheads and by doing so the door got shut sealed tight. When April Gallop came here it was all about you and your stupid flyover and your stupid egos. She was inside the building, she has no business talking about a flyover! You totally introduced this and now it is associated to her. To my knowledge she never mentionned anything like this before she met you. This has implications you careless clowns. You are ultimately shifting the blame away from the guilty by mocking witnesses. Nobody saw a flyover and everyone is innocent until proven guilty by someone other than you kooks, k?

Get a fucking life.

My response was not weak.

All the eyewitnesses place the plane in the same place. That is conclusive. None of the eyewitnesses, even McGraw say they really saw a plane hitting light poles. That is conclusive. A 757 didnt vaporize once it hit the building. Where's the tail section?

Why doesnt the FDR data match the government supplied videos? When does the plane level off 5' off of the ground?

Once again, I'm not here to discuss LCFC's interpetation of the Pentagon. Clearly Dylan pushed Russell's impact theory and then mentioned some of the arguments against it in brief and did not include the reference to any eyewitnesses. He also used Russell's theory that a small piece of pole #2 hit the cab. That theory is absolute rubbish as Russell Pickering invented it because the real claim is too unbelivable. I already spoke about this with Dylan so whatever you are trying to do isn't going to work agent provacatuer.

Everyone here knows you love Russell Pickering and the Pentagon section of LCFC.
Now answer a question for everyone here racerx : Was 9/11 an inside job?

I like making comparisons to NYC? So now you're comparing the Pentagon near Reagan International with 2 110 story skyscrapers? LOL........

Do you know about the 2nd plane story or are you going to act like you don't? The 2nd plane story is absolute garbage. There's your flyover stupid.

What if you and Raven and Russell Pickering actually did some research and went out and tried to find those people instead of smearing CIT? Oh I know, you guys won't because you all know they don't exist.

Instead you can all cling to Russell's super secret video confirmation of no flyover that no one is allowed to see. LMAO!

CIT retards? Oh thats gold.

April Gallop came here twice and chased your hero Russell Pickering off into hiding. Then when she stopped posting he returned and insulted her yet again. He

April Gallop was quoted in LC2 as saying that no plane hit the Pentagon and that story was created to try and brainwash people and she was told to take the comp money and shut up.

CIT didnot even exist then. Are you now going to accuse Dylan of the same things you accuse CIT? Of course not, because you're a little ass kissing troll.

Usually full stops are sufficient to punctuate a post. :)

Well, if this is all it comes down to for you, maybe you should look whoose threads were locked and deleted in masses. You can since your an admin.

People come here, not many, and if they scroll back to previous dates they cant get a full grasp how extensively twisted CIT is about ethics in general.

Its a blessing, in some ridiculously sad and sick way, that some people were here to watch these fools evolve in real time. Besause this is why they are thouroughly exposed now.

Afterall... having to go through Terrorcell to address the CIT propaganda isnt my problem. Its yours.