# 911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???



## LaDexter (Jun 8, 2016)

Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...

911 pentagon - YouTube


Honestly, if the 757 nose hit the first floor of the Pentagon, wouldn't the engines of the plane be about halfway under the ground???


----------



## candycorn (Jun 8, 2016)

no


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 8, 2016)

I seen on the news the back end of a 757 in the pentagon. No question it was.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 8, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...
> 
> 911 pentagon - YouTube
> 
> ...




Cruise missile.....no doubt about it.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 8, 2016)

DaleSmith said:
			
		

> Cruise missile.....no doubt about it.


See, now that's exactly the kind of statement that makes me wonder about you, Dale. 

*Fact:* in terms of the 2 choices offered in the OP, there's no shortage of reasonable doubt for _either_ option!

Several eyewitnesses, including a groundskeeper who got a good close-up look at the plane as it was coming in, described a small commuter type jet.

One very much like this (paint scheme included):







I know you're not stupid, so it's hard for me to believe that you don't see how potentially damaging MANY of your unsupported proclamations have been to the truth-seeking community as a whole. The SAYIT's of the world would absolutely love to paint you as the CT poster child! You might wanna reflect on why that is, assuming, of course, you're not already fully cognizant of the answer.


----------



## westwall (Jun 8, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...
> 
> 911 pentagon - YouTube
> 
> ...








Nope.  Modern aircraft are both incredibly strong, but remarkably fragile in a impact.  Here's an F-4 Phantom hitting a wall at 500 mph.  It simply disappears.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 8, 2016)

Capstone said:


> DaleSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As a diehard denier that wouldn't even contemplate the  fact that 9/11/01 was a fraud for 11 years? It took a lot of proof for me to change my mind but it made me an information junkie so reading and researching is what I do. I will not be fooled again so I will whittle away at an issue until I have reached a satisfying conclusion and convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt. It sickened me to the point that I could not eat much or barley sleep for a month once the scales from my eyes. I went through a depression that I could not explain with words...then it pissed me off and that anger still burns to this day Once I was able to open my mind, things started becoming very clear to me. When I put the TV on the curb, things got even clearer. I know what I know because I have invested the time and effort to discern information. I will GLADLY debate anyone about the WTC buildings and the Pentagon bombing.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Jun 8, 2016)

It was actually an extraterrestrial laser blast.  The cruise missile was photoshopped in later, and they were too lazy to redo it as a plane after some idiot wrote "plane" on the press release.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 8, 2016)

TheOldSchool said:


> It was actually an extraterrestrial laser blast.  The cruise missile was photoshopped in later, and they were too lazy to redo it as a plane after some idiot wrote "plane" on the press release.



 Actual news report......


----------



## candycorn (Jun 8, 2016)

There is a special place in hell for 9/11 truthers.  If there isn't there should be.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 9, 2016)

candycorn said:


> There is a special place in hell for 9/11 truthers.  If there isn't there should be.





Candycorn SEZ??? "Listen to me you truthers my gubermint would never lie to me do you hear me do you????"

Yeah, hang onto that dream and illusion......


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 9, 2016)

candycorn said:


> There is a special place in hell for 9/11 truthers.  If there isn't there should be.



It appears that you enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid and remaining ignorant as usual.  

Carry on.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 9, 2016)

A special place in hell....yes sir.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 9, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...
> ...



A cruise missile?

A global hawk drone seems more plausible.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 9, 2016)

candycorn said:


> A special place in hell....yes sir.




Debate it, asswipe......please explain to me how 19 box cutting welding "terrorists" bent NORAD, the CIA, the NSA, FBI, NRC over the table and buttfucked them on a world stage with a combined budget of over 1 TRILLION dollars per year but yet they were able to identify these alleged "terrorists" within a few hours....one of which had his alleged passport float gently down to the ground and just happened to be picked up by a passerby that just HAPPENED to be in a position of  finding those in authority that could get take this crucial piece of evidence and place it in the hands of the right people in such chaos. I defy you to explain that, asswipe....come at me with the best you have got because as a former denier? I am armed to the fucking hilt and I will destroy your argument....bring it on. I am loaded for bear.....I will make mincemeat out of you and your lame argument. I am more patriotic than you could ever hope to be.....fucking dare me....


----------



## Capstone (Jun 9, 2016)

candycorn said:


> There is a special place in hell for 9/11 truthers.  If there isn't there should be.


There is. For some of us anyway. We've gotten to experience it right here on Earth. Nobody with an ounce of humanity _wants_ to believe in monsters, but among the unluckies who know they exist, some of us have come to appreciate the beauty of our former nescience in that regard...and to wish that we'd never lost that _American Pie_ innocence. For me, that's usually about when I begin to question things like my own integrity and level of courage. Weighing the pros and cons of silence vs. speaking out at the risk of dragging others into that "special place" to stand beside me. To what end? It's enough to tear you up inside sometimes.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 9, 2016)

First you guys can start with a* plausible* explanation of the Amerian Airlines wreckage found at the Pentagon. 

Next, you can move on to the Air Traffic Controllers that tracked the aircraft into Pentagon Airspace but not out....explain that please.

After you explain that...  The lightpoles that were knocked down will be the next hurdle.  Explain how a missile would hit the light poles and the transformer, knocking it off it's moorings.  Keep in mind that when a missile hits something; it explodes. How would a missile hit 5 objects THEN explode?  

Plausible (i.e. believeable) explainations are required to be *written* by *those who are presenting* the argument. 

I will need a good chuckle around then so I'll look in on it around 3PM MST today.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 9, 2016)

candycorn said:


> There is a special place in hell for 9/11 truthers.  If there isn't there should be.




LOL!!

Why, because "The Holy Alliance for Treason" was behind it, meaning Zionist Jews and Christians who think "God's Will" justified the murder of thousands of innocent Americans, billions of taxdollars, the looting of the financial markets by the CHOSEN who knew to buy gold, oil, and defense stocks before the cruise missile hit the Pentagon???

You are the worst evil on the planet today...  The sooner you folks are wiped out, the better off humanity will be...


----------



## candycorn (Jun 9, 2016)

Well, to absolutely nobody’s surprise, the high and mighty twoofers were shut out 3-0 by 3 questions  concerning the 9/11 Attacks on the Pentagon.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 9, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Well, to absolutely nobody’s surprise, the high and mighty twoofers were shut out 3-0 by 3 questions  concerning the 9/11 Attacks on the Pentagon.




Nah, I am having to work late but I will be more than happy to show that you are wrong here in a couple of hours.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jun 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Why, because "The Holy Alliance for Treason" was behind it, meaning Zionist Jews and Christians who think "God's Will" justified the murder of thousands of innocent Americans, billions of taxdollars, the looting of the financial markets by the CHOSEN who knew to buy gold, oil, and defense stocks before the cruise missile hit the Pentagon???
> 
> You are the worst evil on the planet today...  The sooner you folks are wiped out, the better off humanity will be...


Who are you again?


----------



## Capstone (Jun 9, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Well, to absolutely nobody’s surprise, the high and mighty twoofers were shut out 3-0 by 3 questions  concerning the 9/11 Attacks on the Pentagon.


Yeah, shut out by virtue of our failure to dance at the other end of your strings. 

I'm sure none of those questions have been handled ad nauseam on this board over the years; but let me go ahead and concede that no prospective answer that didn't first and foremost affirm the patently ridiculous _Official Conspiracy Theory_™ would be very likely to meet your standard (such as it is) of "plausibility".

But by all means, keep on prodding, CC. You might eventually get the opened can of whoopass you seem so desperate for.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jun 9, 2016)

candycorn said:


> First you guys can start with a* plausible* explanation of the Amerian Airlines wreckage found at the Pentagon.
> 
> Next, you can move on to the Air Traffic Controllers that tracked the aircraft into Pentagon Airspace but not out....explain that please.
> 
> ...


Agreed.  Don't forget the funerals. 

CNN.com Specials
*CREW*
_

*Charles Burlingame* of Herndon, Virginia, was the plane's captain. He is survived by a wife, a daughter and a grandson. He had more than 20 years of experience flying with American Airlines and was a former U.S. Navy pilot.

*David Charlebois*, who lived in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood, was the first officer on the flight. "He was handsome and happy and very centered," his neighbor Travis White, told The Washington Post. "His life was the kind of life I wanted to have some day."

*Michele Heidenberger *of Chevy Chase, Maryland, was a flight attendant for 30 years. She left behind a husband, a pilot, and a daughter and son.

Flight attendant *Jennifer Lewis*, 38, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the wife of flight attendant Kenneth Lewis.

Flight attendant *Kenneth Lewis*, 49, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the husband of flight attendant Jennifer Lewis.

*Renee May*, 39, of Baltimore, Maryland, was a flight attendant.




_
*PASSENGERS*
_

*Paul Ambrose*, 32, of Washington, was a physician who worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the surgeon general to address racial and ethnic disparities in health. A 1995 graduate of Marshall University School of Medicine, Ambrose last year was named the Luther Terry Fellow of the Association of Teachers of Preventative Medicine.

*Yeneneh Betru*, 35, was from Burbank, California.
_
*M.J. Booth*
_
*Bernard Brown*, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

*Suzanne Calley*, 42, of San Martin, California, was an employee of Cisco Systems Inc.
_
*William Caswell*
_
*Sarah Clark*, 65, of Columbia, Maryland, was a sixth-grade teacher at Backus Middle School in Washington. She was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

*Asia Cottom*, 11, was a student at Backus Middle School in Washington. Asia was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

*James Debeuneure*, 58, of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, was a fifth-grade teacher at Ketcham Elementary School in Washington. He was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

*Rodney Dickens*, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.
_
*Eddie Dillard*

*Charles Droz*
_
*Barbara Edwards*, 58, of Las Vegas, Nevada, was a teacher at Palo Verde High School in Las Vegas.

*Charles S. Falkenberg*, 45, of University Park, Maryland, was the director of research at ECOlogic Corp., a software engineering firm. He worked on data systems for NASA and also developed data systems for the study of global and regional environmental issues. Falkenburg was traveling with his wife, Leslie Whittingham, and their two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3.

*Zoe Falkenberg*, 8, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham.

*Dana Falkenberg*, 3, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham.

*Joe Ferguson* was the director of the National Geographic Society's geography education outreach program in Washington. He was accompanying a group of students and teachers on an educational trip to the Channel Islands in California. A Mississippi native, he joined the society in 1987. "Joe Feguson's final hours at the Geographic reveal the depth of his commitment to one of the things he really loved," said John Fahey Jr., the society's president. "Joe was here at the office until late Monday evening preparing for this trip. It was his goal to make this trip perfect in every way."

*Wilson "Bud" Flagg* of Millwood, Virginia, was a retired Navy admiral and retired American Airlines pilot.
_
*Dee Flagg*

*Richard Gabriel*
_
*Ian Gray*, 55, of Washington was the president of a health-care consulting firm.

*Stanley Hall*, 68, was from Rancho Palos Verdes, California.

*Bryan Jack*, 48, of Alexandria, Virginia, was a senior executive at the Defense Department.

*Steven D. "Jake" Jacoby*, 43, of Alexandria, Virginia, was the chief operating officer of Metrocall Inc., a wireless data and messaging company.

*Ann Judge*, 49, of Virginia was the travel office manager for the National Geographic Society. She was accompanying a group of students and teachers on an educational trip to the Channel Islands in California. Society President John Fahey Jr. said one of his fondest memories of Judge is a voice mail she and a colleague once left him while they were rafting the Monkey River in Belize. "This was quintessential Ann -- living life to the fullest and wanting to share it with others," he said.

*Chandler Keller*, 29, was a Boeing propulsion engineer from El Segundo, California.
_
*Yvonne Kennedy*
_
*Norma Khan*, 45, from Reston, Virginia was a nonprofit organization manager........._


----------



## candycorn (Jun 9, 2016)

Capstone said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Well, to absolutely nobody’s surprise, the high and mighty twoofers were shut out 3-0 by 3 questions  concerning the 9/11 Attacks on the Pentagon.
> ...



Your surrender is accepted.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Your surrender is accepted.


Thanks for the chuckle. I needed that. 

Seriously though, "surrender" was a great choice. It's a word with sex appeal.


----------



## Faun (Jun 10, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...
> 
> 911 pentagon - YouTube
> 
> ...


*Not this shit again??*


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I could write a long dissertation on the Penta-con attack but for the sake of time, watch this 5 minute video and if you can only say that none of this raises any questions? Well, I just saved some serious time.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...
> ...



Really? You believe the shit that was shoveled to you concerning the mother of all false flag events? I admit, I bought it but at least I woke up to it. Hell, when you realize that the Patriot Act was written in advance of 9/11/01? Well....what more do you really need to know before your bullshit detector goes off?


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> First you guys can start with a* plausible* explanation of the Amerian Airlines wreckage found at the Pentagon.
> 
> Next, you can move on to the Air Traffic Controllers that tracked the aircraft into Pentagon Airspace but not out....explain that please.
> 
> ...



Your ignorance is really starting to bore me.


> First you guys can start with a* plausible* explanation of the Amerian Airlines wreckage found at the Pentagon.



Since you believe so much that a "plane" did hit the Pentagon, please point out the "plane" in the following image.  Take as much time as you need.  






People claim that the "plane" was sticking out the side of Pentagon after impact, and yet there is not one picture or even video for that matter to validate the claim.

There was wreckage found at the Pentagon, that much you're right, but not from an American Airlines Flight 77.  There was no fuselage, no tail section, no vertical stabilizer, no wings , no major identifiable parts from a Boeing 757 of any kind EVER recovered from the site. If a "plane" did hit the Pentagon, there would be a hell of a lot more wreckage then just a few scraps of metal, but we're all supposed to drink the Kool-Aid like you have and pretend that it did happen.



> Next, you can move on to the Air Traffic Controllers that tracked the aircraft into Pentagon Airspace but not out....explain that please.


It certainly possible that Flight 77 was switched when contact was initially lost and, whatever replaced it and struck the Pentagon, was not the plane that left Washington Dulles that morning.



> After you explain that...  The lightpoles that were knocked down



As the official story has it, the "plane" flight 77 hit several light poles  as it was bearing down on its target.  The thin aluminum wings hit these light poles, knocked them down, and the "plane" continued on its attack with no interruption. The problem is, it isn't that easy.

A plane going 500mph a few feet off the ground would make it almost impossible to fly, even for an experienced pilot, the ground effect alone, would create a huge problem.  The topography of the area creates another problem, there are raises and dips in the ground level. For the plane to "hug" the ground would create another huge problem.

That said, this  "plane", (piloted by someone who had trouble flying a one-engine Cessna),kept control of the "plane" after hitting 5 light posts.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 10, 2016)

Wildcard said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > First you guys can start with a* plausible* explanation of the Amerian Airlines wreckage found at the Pentagon.
> ...




What people do not understand is that a passenger plane is nothing but a bus with wings and does not have the ability to move like a jet fighter which is exactly what this amatuer pilot (that couldn't even fly a Cessna) did but yet he was able to make a 270 degree turn and fly this bus with wings just a foot off the ground while allegedly hitting lamp posts that didn't knock it off course or deter it's mission right into the area where people were trying to figure out where 2.3 trillion dollars disappeared to as said by Donald Rumsfeld the day before.....seriously? People just eat this bullshit like it was manna from heaven.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 10, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



3 questions.

Explain how the wreckage got there.
Explain how a missile knocked down the light poles
Explain how the air traffic controllers saw something enter Pentagon Airspace but not leave it.  

Your move.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 10, 2016)

Wildcard said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > First you guys can start with a* plausible* explanation of the Amerian Airlines wreckage found at the Pentagon.
> ...


Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77.  What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?  



Wildcard said:


> > Next, you can move on to the Air Traffic Controllers that tracked the aircraft into Pentagon Airspace but not out....explain that please.
> 
> 
> It certainly possible that Flight 77 was switched when contact was initially lost and, whatever replaced it and struck the Pentagon, was not the plane that left Washington Dulles that morning.


Oh so instead of going through the trouble of hijacking one air craft, for some reason whomever was behind this hijacked two aircraft, had them rendezvous at a point, had the 2nd aircraft continue to the Pentagon while the first went somewhere else.  Seems like something you would not want to put on your to-do list.  

In other words, sounds really implausible.  



Wildcard said:


> > After you explain that...  The lightpoles that were knocked down
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your job is to explain how a missile could take down the light poles, hit a transformer, then continue on to the Pentagon and then blow up.  

As for what you wrote, are you saying that Hani Hanjour was an inferior pilot?  You’re right.  What happens to inferior pilots making high-risk maneuvers?  They crash.  Exactly what Hani did.  

Back to the drawing board you go.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jun 10, 2016)




----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2016)

Doesn't look like a cruise missile to me


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2016)

Cruise missiles have wheels?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2016)

Personal effects of the passengers on the plane. There were also human remains


----------



## Faun (Jun 10, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...


Sorry, but time nd time again, you've proven to be too deranged to bother with. When you tried peddling an Internet hoax video as yet another conspiracy, despite the evidence proving it was a hoax, you convinced everyone reading your posts that you're fucking nuts. Best to just laugh at your insanity and move onto more interesting threads.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 10, 2016)

There are two types of individuals here.

1. Patriotic Americans who notice the truth that the 757 couldn't possibly be the small object in the video that smashes right through steel reinforced concrete at 400 mph

2. Traitors who know "the cause of Greater Israel" did it, believe it was "God's Will," and will shout down and deny for eternity...


BTW - many of the light poles are intact, NOT BENT AT ALL, because what sucked them out of the ground was the suction of the vacuum behind the missile.  A wing would have bent the crap out of those poles....


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 10, 2016)

Fudge pictures from the traitors, just like fudge charts for Global Warming, the two great Zionist backed frauds of our time.

How about some REAL photos...


















If you believe the above photo is what happened, you are not a credible human being.  An amateur pilot flying a 757 6 feet off the ground at 400 mph - almost as dumb as those who think the Marshall Islands are "sinking" because the sea is rising...


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Fudge pictures from the traitors, just like fudge charts for Global Warming, the two great Zionist backed frauds of our time.
> 
> How about some REAL photos...
> 
> ...



Hate to ask...but where did the people go?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 10, 2016)

All four planes that did not crash on 911, I do not know where they landed.  Some say Cleveland.  As for the passengers, they were, in Biblical terms, likely "smitten" unless they were CHOSEN... just like those dancing around the golden calf...

The plane we all saw hit the South Tower was the CARGO version of the 767, not the passenger,...


----------



## Capstone (Jun 10, 2016)

candycorn said:
			
		

> Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77. What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?...


I wonder whether some of that wreckage might have come from the aircraft described by eyewitness Steve Patterson as a "commuter jet"_._

Then again, I guess it could have been from the one characterized by eyewitness Donald Wright as a "commuter plane, twin engine...".

Of course, there's also the distinct possibility it could have come from the "20 passenger corporate jet" spoken of by eyewitness Steven Gerard.

Not to discount the "small commerical aircraft" seen by D.S. Khavkin... OR the "mid-size plane" witnessed by Meseidy Rodriguez, mind you.

However, the plane described by Pentagon groundskeeper Omar Campos as a "business type jet, white up top and blue downstairs" with "United States of America" markings on it, ... now THAT one seems like a very good candidate to me!

Hey, come to think of it, I suppose it might well have been all of the above. 

ABC - Pentagon attack eyewitness describes Flight 77 as a commuter plane


----------



## Capstone (Jun 10, 2016)

rightwinger said:
			
		

> Hate to ask...but where did the people go?


Great question.

I assume you're ready to point us to the mountain of evidence that supports _your_ belief(s) in that regard?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2016)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All my evidence points to they were killed when AA77 crashed into the Pentagon

Where does your evidence point to?


----------



## Capstone (Jun 10, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> All my evidence points to they were killed when AA77 crashed into the Pentagon...


Well, what the hell are you waiting for? Let's see it!


			
				rightwinger said:
			
		

> ...Where does your evidence point to?


Why, to Arlington,Va., of course, and to a 5-sided grave marker inscribed with the names of ALL of the victims from the Pentagon attack, ... beneath which lie the remains of only 25 positively identified individuals -- where else?!


----------



## PredFan (Jun 10, 2016)

It was a 757.

/THREAD


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2016)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > All my evidence points to they were killed when AA77 crashed into the Pentagon...
> ...



Interesting.....how did those 25 individuals die?
Where were their remains recovered from?

My evidence shows remains recovered from the pentagon crash site...where did yours come from?
My evidence shows luggage and personal effects recovered at the Pentagon crash site....where does your evidence show?


----------



## candycorn (Jun 10, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> There are two types of individuals here.
> 
> 1. Patriotic Americans who notice the truth that the 757 couldn't possibly be the small object in the video that smashes right through steel reinforced concrete at 400 mph
> 
> ...



Israel…

Suction….

How did the transformer get knocked off it’s moorings by the “missile”


----------



## Desperado (Jun 10, 2016)

westwall said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...
> ...


Same thing happened to the Air Florida jet that went down in the Everglades.
Nothing bigger than a soda can was left.  And the plane hit nose first into a swamp and not a concrete building!


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2016)

USATODAY.com - Pentagon searchers encounter grisly scenes

_When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.
_
Cruise missile my ass


----------



## candycorn (Jun 10, 2016)

Capstone said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Irrational.

So the powers that be now not only had one plane hijacked but crashed a second plane into the building itself.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 10, 2016)

The CHOSEN are absolutely obsessed with covering up 911, to the point of planting easily discredited "conspiracy theorists" who then "lose" the debate (they do the same thing with the tens of billions of taxdollars for the Global Warming hoax too)

Any "truther" articulating anything other than this is a FRAUD of a truther.

1. Only one plane, a 767 cargo plane, was used on 911, the one we saw hit the South Tower
2. A US made bunker buster cruise missile hit the Pentagon
3. NOTHING happened in Shanksville - a ditch was dug, some metal junk tossed in the ditch was set on fire
4. The north Tower blows up from inside

Anyone saying "no planes" or one was hijacked etc. is a Zionist FRAUD of a truther..


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The CHOSEN are absolutely obsessed with covering up 911, to the point of planting easily discredited "conspiracy theorists" who then "lose" the debate (they do the same thing with the tens of billions of taxdollars for the Global Warming hoax too)
> 
> Any "truther" articulating anything other than this is a FRAUD of a truther.
> 
> ...


You forgot the part about A-RABS dancing in the streets of NJ


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 10, 2016)

LOL!!!

Not a Trump supporter, sorry.

But we do know who was celebrating 911 in real time...

Here's Netanyahu saying "911 is very good for Israel" nevermind those unchosen victims...


And here are the Mossad dancing right after the 767 cargo drone hit the South Tower...

911 dancing israelis - YouTube

The more you get smart with me, the more truth you open up about you...


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> Not a Trump supporter, sorry.
> 
> ...


You do realize you are batshit crazy don't you?

But you are fun to play with...Now.....tell me more about them JOOOS


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 10, 2016)

And then the CHOSEN hurl insults galore...

BTW, why did the ADL give George Tenet its "highest award" in 2005 when it was perfectly clear Tenet had lied to the US Senate right before the war vote about Iraq WMD??

Former CIA Director George Tenet Presented With ADL'S Highest Honor


----------



## candycorn (Jun 10, 2016)

Strange…

You provide a blank page for twoofers to write down exactly how they explain away the wreckage, the light poles, and the air traffic controllers; and none of them are willing to simply write down what they think happened?  

I think the stipulation that the explanation be credible is too much to overcome.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 10, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...





> Great. You admit wreckage was found but not of AA77.  What aircraft, pray tell, did it come from then?


Please refer to post # 14.



> Oh so instead of going through the trouble of hijacking one air craft, for some reason whomever was behind this hijacked two aircraft, had them rendezvous at a point, had the 2nd aircraft continue to the Pentagon while the first went somewhere else.  Seems like something you would not want to put on your to-do list.
> 
> In other words, sounds really implausible.



I'll explain it like this.  According to the theory, the attack combined a hit by a small attack aircraft with an overflight by Flight 77. The attack aircraft, flew in at treetop level, clipping light poles on the highway overpass, and smashing into the Pentagon's west wall.  Meanwhile AA77, approached on a slightly more northerly trajectory, flying over the Pentagon and disappearing behind a blinding flash and fireball.

Take it or leave it makes no difference to me.  But it is more plausible then the so-called "Official Story of 9/11" which is nothing more then an "Official Lie".  



> Your job is to explain how a missile could take down the light poles, hit a transformer, then continue on to the Pentagon and then blow up.


Why should I offer an explanation on something that I don't entirely agree with?



> As for what you wrote, are you saying that Hani Hanjour was an inferior pilot?  You’re right.  What happens to inferior pilots making high-risk maneuvers?  They crash.  Exactly what Hani did.



So I guess you're content on believing the spoon-fed garbage that Hani Hanjour as inferior of a pilot as he was supposedly pulled off "high-risk" maneuvers in a Boeing 757 no less, that experienced pilots can't even do and crashing the plane into the Pentagon leaving no evidence to support the claim.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 11, 2016)

Wildcard said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



And there you have it. 

3 simple questions for the conspiracy whack jobs.

Not one explanation that makes a lick of sense…now we have “overflight by AA77” 

s


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 11, 2016)

" According to the theory, the attack combined a hit by a small attack aircraft with an overflight by Flight 77"


The individual who wrote this is a Zionist Traitor.  Nobody is that stupid.  Flight 77 never got near the Pentagon.  It was a cruise missile.  There was no plane wreckage, but there has been plenty of Chosen PhotoShopping.

The light poles really are a "smoking gun" as to just how ridiculous the Traitors' BS here is.  If the wing clipped some of those poles that have no mark or bend at all, then the engines of the 757 would be ....

*IN THE GROUND
*


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 11, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> " According to the theory, the attack combined a hit by a small attack aircraft with an overflight by Flight 77"
> 
> 
> The individual who wrote this is a Zionist Traitor.  Nobody is that stupid.  Flight 77 never got near the Pentagon.  It was a cruise missile.  There was no plane wreckage, but there has been plenty of Chosen PhotoShopping.
> ...


What about the hundreds of reporters who were on the ground and saw the wreckage?  Were they photoshopped too?

What about the dead bodies still strapped in their seats?  Were they photoshopped also?


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The CHOSEN are absolutely obsessed with covering up 911, to the point of planting easily discredited "conspiracy theorists" who then "lose" the debate (they do the same thing with the tens of billions of taxdollars for the Global Warming hoax too)
> 
> Any "truther" articulating anything other than this is a FRAUD of a truther.
> 
> ...


Sounds to me like you're a Zionist fraud; trying desperately to steer honest folks away from the truth.


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > " According to the theory, the attack combined a hit by a small attack aircraft with an overflight by Flight 77"
> ...


Crash test dummies.

Oh, sorry -- that would be truthers.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 11, 2016)

"What about the hundreds of reporters who were on the ground and saw the wreckage? "

I am completely convinced that you will lie until the end of time about this issue, because that is what your rabbi told you to do... NOBODY saw any plane wreckage, because it was not a plane...


"What about the dead bodies still strapped in their seats? Were they photoshopped also?

What about a video of the actual 757 flying into the Pentagon, why can't the American people see that?  All we've seen is the actual cruise missile...


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 11, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> "What about the hundreds of reporters who were on the ground and saw the wreckage? "
> 
> I am completely convinced that you will lie until the end of time about this issue, because that is what your rabbi told you to do... NOBODY saw any plane wreckage, because it was not a plane...
> 
> ...



You dodged the question 
Dead bodies and human remains from AA 77 were recovered inside the pentagon. They did not come from a cruise missile


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 11, 2016)

Dead bodies "were recovered" because your chosen rear says so...

Video of the 757 please...

Start the Jeopardy! music


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 11, 2016)

Is it just my imagination or do most of these 9/11 CTs end (or begin and end) with "the Jooos did it!"?

*"In essence, the modern conspiracy narrative* is the same as the one that has existed since at least the 19th century: that the few (often termed the “Illuminati”) control the many. This, of course, is the nucleus of the dangerous anti-Jewish myth. When he was an insider, did he experience anti-Semitism? His eyes open wide: “Loads. Loads. I was once accused of being a Jew because of my olive skin and my nose. They said, ‘We can’t trust him’.” And when they say the ‘Illuminati’ or ‘Reptiles’, do they actually mean Jews? “It’s slightly complicated but, mostly, yes,” he says."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...z8KHiP4tI_4IZGlW6DV9qw&bvm=bv.124272578,d.dmo


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 11, 2016)

Indeed, just think of the conspiracy of saying the Levites took Midianite Moses up Mt. Sinai to off him and replace him with a Levite who needed 40 days to grow a beard...


----------



## candycorn (Jun 11, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> Is it just my imagination or do most of these 9/11 CTs end (or begin and end) with "the Jooos did it!"?
> 
> *"In essence, the modern conspiracy narrative* is the same as the one that has existed since at least the 19th century: that the few (often termed the “Illuminati”) control the many. This, of course, is the nucleus of the dangerous anti-Jewish myth. When he was an insider, did he experience anti-Semitism? His eyes open wide: “Loads. Loads. I was once accused of being a Jew because of my olive skin and my nose. They said, ‘We can’t trust him’.” And when they say the ‘Illuminati’ or ‘Reptiles’, do they actually mean Jews? “It’s slightly complicated but, mostly, yes,” he says."
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj3w7WX4qDNAhUUT1IKHVNTACMQFggsMAM&url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/10079244/The-911-conspiracy-theorist-who-changed-his-mind.html&usg=AFQjCNHz3Uj1z8KHiP4tI_4IZGlW6DV9qw&bvm=bv.124272578,d.dmo



Almost all do.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 11, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Oh, like the bullshit that the so-called Official Story of 9/11 is comprised of makes a lick of sense?  

Like I said before, enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid and remaining ignorant.  

After all, it's what gullible idiots like yourself do best.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 11, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Dead bodies "were recovered" because your chosen rear says so...
> 
> Video of the 757 please...
> 
> Start the Jeopardy! music


Yes, dead bodies were recovered

Those who recovered them will live with the horror the rest f their lives. The family of the dead mourned the remains and sought solace


You laugh at them and call them suckers...you are a despicable human being


----------



## ranfunck (Jun 11, 2016)

Holy shit there is a lot of paid government fuck wads around here. You fuck wads make it clear why you are here. You are all a peace of shit. They must pay you well to stick up for there bs story's fuck off


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2016)

ranfunck said:


> Holy shit there is a lot of paid government fuck wads around here. You fuck wads make it clear why you are here. You are all a peace of shit. They must pay you well to stick up for there bs story's fuck off


Hey, it pays the bills ya know.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 11, 2016)

Wildcard said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Actually it does make sense.  There are flight manifests with the suspected terrorists names on them.  
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/Flight77.png
Hani Hanjour’s flight school attendance was documented:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/OG00020-09.pdf
Air traffic controllers tracked AA77 into Pentagon airspace but not leaving the airspace:
Photo by Craig Ranke
We know the light poles were knocked down moments before the explosion because one hit a taxi cab
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3...Bjo/zreD66gO7_o/s1600/Pentagon_Lamppost_L.JPG

There were no reports of poles blocking traffic during the busy rush-hour times before the attacks.

Quite clearly you and your horde of twoofers cannot explain away.  Its very simple. Come up with a violable explanation for the wreckage.  How did it get there?  Plane tires are not “small” amounts of wreckage as you stated earlier.  




How did they get there?  

Explain the tracking of the flight into Pentagon airspace but not out of it. 

Explain how a missile hit 4 light poles and a large transformer before exploding in the Pentagon.  

Very simple, all of it backed up by facts from the 9/11 commission report.  

Instead of just calling people names…why not explain how these things happened?  And just so you know, the real knock-out punch is yet to come.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 12, 2016)

Cmon guys, defend your thesis.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 12, 2016)

If a 757 hit a street light pole with its wing, its engine would be 5 feet IN THE GROUND.... and the pole would be dented or bent, and many of the poles are not bent or dent at all, because they were sucked out of the ground by the wake of the missile...


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 12, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...





> Actually it does make sense.


Of course it does to someone like yourself.  After all you were just gullible enough to accept the spoon-fed garbage as truth, and didn't think twice about questioning it.  

FBI Claims 84 Videos Show NO Flight 77 Impact


> all of it backed up by facts from the 9/11 commission report.



Yeah like the government has NEVER lied or NEVER withheld information from the American people about what really happened on 9/11.  Facts you say?  That's laughable.  

WOT on Earth?: 9/11 Commission Report: a 571 page FRAUD. updated!


----------



## candycorn (Jun 12, 2016)

Wildcard said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...




See, here we go again.  No mention of how the wreckage got there, no mention of the ATC viewing the flight path and no mention of the poles.

Defend your thesis, if you can...


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 13, 2016)

Still waiting for the CHOSEN here or in the "US media" to show the video of the 757....


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 13, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Dead bodies "were recovered" because your chosen rear says so...
> 
> Video of the 757 please...
> 
> Start the Jeopardy! music



Videos?

Who needs videos if you have the remains of passengers who were on that 757

Are you going to tell the families of those dead passengers that the remains they buried and mourned are fake?  Are you really that despicable an individual?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 13, 2016)

"Who needs videos if you have the remains of passengers who were on that 757"

LMAO!!!

I do not accept your word that such bodies were recovered.  That you and the "US media" cannot show us a video of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon should be a wake-up call for every patriotic American.  There were hundreds of cameras on that building.  None show a 757.  Why?  Tell us, without bragging about the Chosen "smittening" of the passengers in Cleveland or wherever the plane actually landed.

SHOW US THE VIDEO OF THE PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON...


----------



## Faun (Jun 13, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> "Who needs videos if you have the remains of passengers who were on that 757"
> 
> LMAO!!!
> 
> ...


Too fucking deranged.  There's video of the two jets crashing into the Twin Towers and you don't believe those were commercial airliners either. So who knows why you _think_ anyone believes videos will convince you.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 13, 2016)

The one that hits the South Tower has a CARGO HATCH on the bottom center of the fuselage...


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 13, 2016)

As for the North Tower, it blows up from within.

The "Naudet video" is from, yeah, a CHOSEN PHOTOSHOPPING LIAR...


----------



## Faun (Jun 13, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> As for the North Tower, it blows up from within.
> 
> The "Naudet video" is from, yeah, a CHOSEN PHOTOSHOPPING LIAR...


See what I mean? No one needs to show you video because you're not going to believe it any. Best response to you lunatics is what I said in post #37. Though I aimed it at Dale Smith, it's equally as accurate for you...


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 13, 2016)

Faun said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > As for the North Tower, it blows up from within.
> ...




 Faun Sez???? " My beloved gubermint would never lie to me do you hear me do you????"

Hey, moron...they lie to you with great gusto and enthusiasm and have done so for over 100 years.


----------



## Faun (Jun 13, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...


Great, your dementia worsens.

Where on Earth did you see me post that the government never lies to me?

The real question is ... are you sane enough to know just how insane you are?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 13, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Well, they lied to you about 9/11/01, OKC, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Warren Commission, etc, etc. Insane? Hardly......pissed off that we are treated like chattel? Damn straight.......


----------



## Faun (Jun 13, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


I hope you realize you didn't address either of my questions. But then, that's what you do. Go off on wild tangents just to avoid what others ask.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 13, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Ummm, yeah, I addressed them both...are you dense or just being obtuse?


----------



## candycorn (Jun 13, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 
Right you are.  I simply asked the twoofers to explain 3 things from one aircraft hitting the Pentagon and all have either balked at the questions, or ran away, or changed the subject to something else immediately.  I mean, see above; OKC, Gulf of Tonkin, Warren commission....


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 13, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




Sooooooo? How many cameras did the FBi confiscate and how many frames did they release showing nothing? Talk amongst yourselves.....(snicker)


----------



## candycorn (Jun 14, 2016)

cameras....blah blah blah....frames....blah blah blah.... 

Sort of sad what the 9/11 Truth "movement" has been reduced to. You ask them to answer 3 very basic questions and you get nothing but diversions and name calling. 

Actually I did lie...the 9/11 Truth movement has always been this pathetic.  There was no reduction.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 14, 2016)

candycorn said:


> cameras....blah blah blah....frames....blah blah blah....
> 
> Sort of sad what the 9/11 Truth "movement" has been reduced to. You ask them to answer 3 very basic questions and you get nothing but diversions and name calling.
> 
> Actually I did lie...the 9/11 Truth movement has always been this pathetic.  There was no reduction.





84 confiscated cameras....and all they could release was a few frames that shows NO plane.....I am right....you are w-r-o-n-g.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 14, 2016)

candycorn said:


> no



EEGGAAADDSS!!!  Remember when me and GHook went round and round on this subject?  You partook also as a detractor.  Being a pilot and studying hundreds of airplane crashes to become a safer pilot I had to agree that the damage at the Pentagon was a lot less than should have occurred from a "heavy" airliner.  When one looks at the initial impacts at the towers and compares them to the Pentagon there is an enormous discrepancy. The central hole is just too small and there is no massive damage where the wings and engines should have impacted.  It just isn't there.  I only look at the facts.  The explanations are for others.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 14, 2016)

The questions are:

Explain how the wreckage got there.
Explain the ATCs seeing AA77 fly into Pentagon airspace but not out of it.
Explain how a missile took down 5 light poles and knocked a large transformer off of it's moorings before exploding.

3 up; 3 down.  I win; you lose.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 14, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > no
> ...


 
We know there is wreckage at the Pentagon.
We know there was ATC tracking a plane to the Pentagon
We know there were downed lightpoles and a transformer knocked off it's moorings outside of the Pentagon.

What we don't know (for sure) is that a loaded 757 should look like if it hit the Pentagon.  Using other crashes is a false narrative since, in almost all other cases, the pilot is trying to preserve life and not ram the aircraft into a hard target.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 14, 2016)

candycorn said:


> The questions are:
> 
> Explain how the wreckage got there.
> Explain the ATCs seeing AA77 fly into Pentagon airspace but not out of it.
> ...



There was little to no "wreckage" at the Pentagon......
People saw the jet that fly over the Pentagon took a different path that couldn't have taken down any light poles. The taxi driver that was involved in the photo-op where they moved a lamp post from his cab 's front window admitted that this incident was over his head and that he shouldn't even be involved in this.....want me to post his testimony?

Here ya go.......


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


You're hallucinating.

I asked... _Where on Earth did you see me post that the government never lies to me?_

You never did say where you saw me post that. And you can't as I never did.

Then I asked, _The real question is ... are you sane enough to know just how insane you are?_

You never answered that one either. Instead, you ranted about how the government lies.


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Like the other brain-dead twoofer, cameras mean nothing to your delusions. Videos mean nothing to your hallucinations. This is proven time and time again with a mountain of photos and videos, mostly from NYC, which you reject because you really are crazy.

But you should consider yourself lucky. Had Reagan not shut down mental asylums, that would be your home today.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 14, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > The questions are:
> ...


 
There was wreckage.  You have to account for how it got there.  We're waiting.

Air traffic controllers tracked it into the Pentagon.  But not leaving.  You have to account for that. 
We're waiting.

Lastly, the light poles had to have been knocked down by something.  Obviously a missile could not do that, hit the transformer, and then explode.  You have to account for the light poles.
Again; we're waiting.

Your move.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 14, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So where do you believe your "gubermint" lied to you and since you know that they can and will? Why do you believe the utter bullshit of 9/11 where 17 boxcutter wielding terrorists buttfucked the Pentagon, the CIA, NORAD, NSA, NRC with combined budgets of over 1 trillion dollars per fucking year???? Yeah, I know more than you and I am VERY sane...but to a blithering idiot like you? I am sure that you can't wrap your mind around what I know. Deal with it.......


----------



## candycorn (Jun 14, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


 
I'm really sort of surprised they are going with the "flyover" nonsense.  It's probably the most convoluted and idiotic of all 9/11 theories.  The idea is that you hijack a plane to fly over another plane but don't crash that plane into anything...apparently the conspirators had a fetish for hijacking aircraft and not using them.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 14, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




The whole event was staged in advance...show me footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.....your move. I just gave you eye-witness account of a man that was involved that had to play his part and was scared shit-less. The burden is on you to prove it happened and all we have is corporate media claiming it did....that and your beloved "gubermint".


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 14, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Wow....the most securitized building on the planet but the best the Pentagon and "da gubermint" can come up with is a few flimsy frames that shows no plane? A pilot that couldn't even fly a Cessna made incredible aeronautical moves that would make an experienced fighter jet pilot gush with awe? A passenger plane is nothing but a bus with wings. Do you think a school bus would stand a chance of winning the Indy 500?


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


I believe the government lied us into the Vietnam war. I believe they lied us into the Iraq war. I believe there have been many lies told by the government.

That doesn't mean everything you think is a lie, is. Like that Internet hoax video you posted. Despite showing you a copy which didn't have subliminal messages, you still can't let go of your delusions. You're a sick pup. I feel sorry for you, you're so stricken with chronic paranoia.


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Not to mention ... hijacking a plane full of passengers -- but then landing them safely somewhere, killing them, and then flying a different planes into buildings. Why not just fly the hostages into the buildings if your intent is to kill all the passengers and use a plane as a missile?

That's where these lunatics go off the rails. They don't possess enough lucidity to think these common sense things through.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 14, 2016)

Faun said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...





Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Wrong again.....that video is 100 percent legit and the subliminal messages used now are much more sophisticated using mnemonics and bright light patterns. You never debunked the video, the slowed down version that showed the words being ever so cleverly changing to appeal to the subconscious mind cleverly developed by the Brookings and Tavistock institutes. Yoiu cannot win this argument because subliminal messaging has been around even since the days of radio. MKNaomi was a CIA mind control program and that is a declassified fact.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 14, 2016)

Faun said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You were saying??????


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 14, 2016)

Faun said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Here are some hard facts for you to mull over.....for such huge passenger planes? They had soooo few people on those flights....pause for thought????


September 11 - Flight Manifests and Passenger Lists


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 14, 2016)

candycorn said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Those are all good points.  Big jet engines make big holes though.  They are made of titanium mostly and they are spinning wildly.  The evidence of two extra huge holes at the Pentagon are non existent.  That troubles me greatly.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 14, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


 
Well, it couldn't have been staged in advance since the light poles would be blocking traffic.  No reports of such were made on the busy highways outside of the Pentagon. 

Air traffic control happens in real time.  That could not have been staged. 

Are you stating that someone placed multi-hundred pound wheel rims and tires in the Pentagon prior to the attack?  And nobody would have said anything about this either before or in the 15 years after? 

Words have meanings.  Just saying "they're lying" or "they did it" only meanst that you have zero proof.  When you have the facts on your side, the evidence does the talking for you.  Which is why, almost universally, your interactions end up with you having to call people names.  If you can, defend your thesis.  If you cannot, I suppose we can look forward to more internet links and other distractions...

Your job is to:


Explain how the wreckage got there
Explain how ATCs tracked AA77 into Pentagon airspace but not out of it
Explain how a supposed missile took out 5 light poles and a transformer THEN exploded in the Pentagon.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 14, 2016)

candycorn said:


> The questions are:
> 
> Explain how the wreckage got there.
> Explain the ATCs seeing AA77 fly into Pentagon airspace but not out of it.
> ...



Its all pretty simple really

Terrorists hijacked AA77, flew it to the Pentagon but didn't hit it because they had arranged with Bush that he would hit the Pentagon with a cruise missile as the 757 flew over

The 757 was then crashed at a remote site and the bodies and pieces of wreckage were transported to the Pentagon where they were carefully planted

The simplest explanation is usually the best explanation


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


Now you're lying. That's what you twoofers do. Here's the video you claim did not debunk your bullshit, *without subliminal messages*...

FuzzyMemories.TV -  - WMAQ Channel 5 - PSA's, Meditation, and Station Sign-Off (1989)


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 14, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



A 747 rim which is heavier than a 777's comes in at slightly over 150 lbs. One person could easily roll one into place.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 14, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



With the entire press corps covering the scene?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 14, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




ery slow
ROTFLMAO!! You went to a conspiracy website(to lamely attempt to debunk me even using the talking points of the posters there? You are SOOOO busted! BTW, that proves nothing because you could only see it faintly when it was played very slow.......kinda like you are?? You visit abovetopsecret.com much??? LMAO!!!


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 14, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




You mean the bought and paid for media????


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Sure. They could also sneak in wreckage without anyone noticing, don'tcha know? Look, here are super secret double knot agents planting evidence right under everyone's nose...






</sarcasm>


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


To demonstrate your advanced stages of derangement... you call fuzzymemories.tv, a website which collects vintage videos from TV, a _*"conspiracy website."*_



Did ya really think the forum needed more evidence you are batshit insane than from what you've already provided??

Even worse for you, you're now caught lying too. You claim the subliminal messages on the hoax video can only be seen in slo-motion.

That's a lie. Maybe they can only be read in slo-mo, but their blurred image is visible at regular speed. You even posted that. In the hoax video you posted, it starts off at regular speed where you can see text is quickly overwritten with the National Anthem lyrics. And while you moronically deny they can be seen at regular speed, after playing a segment at regular speed in the hoax video you posted, *a voice over asks, did you see that?*


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


So the media is in on it... the government is in on it... terrorists are in on it... investigators are in on it. The only ones NOT in on it are the nuttiest of the loons.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 14, 2016)

The Israelis are the TERRORISTS and THE MEDIA...

As for the sorry and despicable "government" folks, the strings attached to those puppets also originate in Israel...


----------



## candycorn (Jun 15, 2016)

Thanks for the laugh guys


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 15, 2016)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 15, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The Israelis are the TERRORISTS and THE MEDIA...
> 
> As for the sorry and despicable "government" folks, the strings attached to those puppets also originate in Israel...



and these paid zionist shills like candyass are worried you are getting this truth out the fact their handlers send them here to shit all over your thread.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



these paid shills really get desperate and grasp at straws when they are cornered and know they are getting their asses whipped.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



As in most major scams what should be the guide is following the money.  Who profited from allowing and even possibly partook in what happened on 9/11?  Was anyone in charge of let's say the radar tracking at the time who could have profited?  Was anyone in or close to power going to benefit from allowing what happened on 9/11?  Anyone come to mind?  Who ever could it be?  The guy must be a Dick.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 15, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Yeah, I have found evidence by a researcher by the name of E.P Heidner that that spent years researching the money trail and I have vetted the information and I can't disprove a word of it. Basically put, G H Bush and friends (probably the Carlyle Group) used funds from the Black Eagle Trust to piggyback off of  Leo Wanta's currency swaps that brought down the ruble and ended the USSR. Bush and friends used money from the Black Eagle Trust to buy up 240 billion dollars in Russian oil and gas 10 year securities. The Black Eagle Trust goes back to WWII and the stolen gold and other treasures that Japan had hidden in the Philippines because they couldn't get it to Japan due to the naval blockade. General Edward Lansdale, someone that later played a huge role in the death of JFK was in charge of torturing the driver of the Japanese general ( that directed the burying of 280,000 metric tonnes of gold) in order to find some of the hidden tombs. This was used to fund numerous black ops and it was the money used to buy up Russian oil and gas.

The problem was to how and get those securities passed through the SEC and have it pass their sniff test because a lot of questions would have to be answered. Cantor-Fitzgerald was one of the contractors that authenticated ownership of securities and they just happened to be in one of the WTC towers. The Federal Reserve declared a state of emergency thus allowing securities to pass through with no scrutiny. That is but one of the financial gains by the elites but it also accomplished many other goals of the globalists.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 15, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Thanks for the laugh guys


I was wondering if any of them has made it past clerk for a trade...


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


You're too fucking demented. fuzzymemories.tv is as much a conspiracy website as is cartoonnetwork.com. You only think fuzzymemories.tv is a conspiracy site because your so paranoid, you see conspiracies everywhere you look.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 15, 2016)

At least on cartoonnetwork.com has adult swim..


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> BTW, that proves nothing because you could only see it faintly when it was played very slow.......kinda like you are?? You visit abovetopsecret.com much??? LMAO!!!


You're either blind, lying or both to deny seeing letters quickly disappearing behind the lyrics at normal speed. At slow speed, you can read them. But they're still noticeable at regular speed. Especially when you know they're there are you're looking for them.

That you lie like that proves this video is a hoax...


You got duped because you're delusional paranoid fool.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




No, you got it from going to ATS.com which is a conspiracy website that had the link to "fuzzymemories.TV"....so why are you lying????


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The Israelis are the TERRORISTS and THE MEDIA...
> 
> As for the sorry and despicable "government" folks, the strings attached to those puppets also originate in Israel...


Be careful ... I have it on good intel, there's one hiding behind your door. You'd best not open it.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, that proves nothing because you could only see it faintly when it was played very slow.......kinda like you are?? You visit abovetopsecret.com much??? LMAO!!!
> ...




No, you are simply asleep and lack critical thinking skills. Subliminal messages are everywhere on TV. It's no coincidence that my short term memory returned with an incredible ability to retain information and my ability to think a LOT more clearly happened when I stopped watching TV. You believe in "gubermint" and you believe that they have your best interest at heart and that makes you a fucking fool. Believe it or not but you will find out and it will be the hard way.


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


I never even heard of ats.com. And I gave you a link to where I found it .... 

FuzzyMemories.TV -  - WMAQ Channel 5 - PSA's, Meditation, and Station Sign-Off (1989)

That's a website which collects vintage video clips from TV. Now I know you may be too delirious to fathom this ... but fuzzymemories.tv *is not* ats.com.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You never would have found that on Google without bypassing ATS.com. You are not fooling anyone. Why are you lying? Just admit that you looked up "National Anthem and hoax" and you clicked on the first site you came to that proved nothing.


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


You poor thing. You're venturing off into strawman land again. I never denied there aren't subliminal messages around.

I said the video you posted is a hoax video and I proved it by showing the video from before it was doctored with the subliminal messages. Many of which, came directly from the movie, "They Live"...


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




So what does this prove exactly????


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


What does someone putting text from a movie into that video mean? You really need that spelled out for you?

H-O-A-X


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Hey, dipshit....I have that movie and have watched it MANY times. John Carpenter was one of those directors that were "awake". Not every message that was in the movie was in that subliminal text. I know about subliminal messages and how they use mnemonics ...how they use color patterns. It's called "TV PROGRAM" because that is what it is. Your faith and trust in this POS "gubermint" simply astounds me...they really have a good little sheeple in you.


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Damn, you're lying again.

I never said "every message was in" both. I said "many" were. Look at how many lies you have to tell to convince people you're not crazy.


You lied when you said you can't see any sign of the subliminal messages at regular speed.

You lied when you said I got the video from ats.com even though I gave you a link to fuzzymemories.tv.

You lied when you inferred I said every message in the movie, _"They Live,"_ was in the hoax video.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I can't see any of them at all when shown at regular speed...so you lied.....

I did the "Google" search for National Anthem Hoax" and that link was posted by someone as clueless as you are. You clicked on his link and then did a "cut and paste"...so you lied.

You inferred that every message that was in the movie "They Live" was in the National Anthem that was shown in the 60's.....so that means you lied by omission. I can do this all night and all day, asswipe.


----------



## Faun (Jun 16, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Anyone who watches that video can see them. Like I said, you're either blind, lying or both.



Dale Smith said:


> I did the "Google" search for National Anthem Hoax" and that link was posted by someone as clueless as you are. You clicked on his link and then did a "cut and paste"...so you lied.


You're still lying. I used bing, not google....

national anthem channel signoff -subliminal - Bing

The 1st and 3rd link had nothing. The 2nd link proved fruitless despite searching though their site. The 4th link went to fuzzymemories.tv, but to a different video. But on that same page was a link to search their site for more related videos; and viola -- third video in the list.

And you'll note that none of the links from my search were to ats.com, whatever the fuck that is.



Dale Smith said:


> You inferred that every message that was in the movie "They Live" was in the National Anthem that was shown in the 60's.....so that means you lied by omission. I can do this all night and all day, asswipe.


You're still lying. What else can you do after being made a fool, eh?

I did not _"infer that every message"_ was in both.

In fact, my exact words were, _"I said the video you posted is a hoax video and I proved it by showing the video from before it was doctored with the subliminal messages. *Many of which*, came directly from the movie, "They Live"..."_

What a pity you have to lie because you so much want to believe that video was real.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 16, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You proved nothing at all.....nada, zero, zilch. What is hilarious to me is that you know nothing about the history of the Tavistock and Brookings Institutes and the Frankfort School and how they were behind the science of propaganda and how the mind works. I know so much more than you due to reading and research that you couldn't comprehend on the best day you ever had. Your beloved "gubermint" and the CIA used trauma based mind control on little children and adults in attempts to brain wash and make "super soldiers" out of them. YOUR "gubermint" allowed children to be sexually abused and tortured to the point that their minds fragmented and developed split personalities that could be used for covert operations. Some of this came out during the Church Committee hearings in the mid 70's but the CIA destroyed or hid the documents detailing what they did....and where did they get MK-Ultra and MK-Naomi from? Nazi scientists that were brought in under "Operation Paperclip" that used humans as experiment subjects of the cruelest variety and then put them in high places after they whitewashed their backgrounds....are ya proud yet????

So you REALLY believe that your beloved "gubermint" would not hide subliminal messages at sign off attempting to "brainwash" someone that has been watching TV so long that they are around for the sign off? You think that people would do a "sing along" at midnight and follow along with the lyrics? Seriously, you are one of the sheeple....gubermint is TRULY your god and you kiss it's ass each and every day you post here......disgusting.


----------



## Faun (Jun 16, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


For someone who claims to know more than me, as evidenced by all the lies you told, I'm bitch-slapping you silly.






.... and yeah, I proved the video is a hoax. I showed the video before it was altered. And the best part is -- your acceptance of that reality isn't even necessary.


----------



## Faun (Jun 16, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> So you REALLY believe that your beloved "gubermint" would not hide subliminal messages at sign off attempting to "brainwash" someone that has been watching TV so long that they are around for the sign off? You think that people would do a "sing along" at midnight and follow along with the lyrics? Seriously, you are one of the sheeple....gubermint is TRULY your god and you kiss it's ass each and every day you post here......disgusting.


Add this to your ever growing list of lies...

You lied when you said you can't see any sign of the subliminal messages at regular speed.

You lied when you said I got the video from ats.com even though I gave you a link to fuzzymemories.tv.

You lied when you inferred I said every message in the movie, _"They Live,"_ was in the hoax video.

You lie when you claim I believe the government wouldn't do that.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 16, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





You proved nothing at all.....zero, nada, zilch....and you couldn't even bitchslap your ownself...I am your "daddy" . (snicker)


----------



## Faun (Jun 16, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


You're more like my grandmother. Old and senile.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 16, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > So you REALLY believe that your beloved "gubermint" would not hide subliminal messages at sign off attempting to "brainwash" someone that has been watching TV so long that they are around for the sign off? You think that people would do a "sing along" at midnight and follow along with the lyrics? Seriously, you are one of the sheeple....gubermint is TRULY your god and you kiss it's ass each and every day you post here......disgusting.
> ...



The link at ATS.com gave a link to "fuzzymemories.tv" which you copied and pasted here....so that proves that you lied.
Lying by omission is the same thing...fact. So if you believe that your beloved "gubermint" would subject citizens and little children to horrific abuse if the abused could serve "da gubermint"? Why is it such a stretch that they would not inject subliminal messages into a sign off? You are contradicting yourself....settle down and take a minute to "think"...it might be a liberating experience. You, we......all of us are neck deep in shit, dude......and it's worse than you could even wrap your mind around.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 16, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Your old and senile grandmother has more common sense than you....I would bet on that. You are an idiot with no abilty for critical thinkng.


----------



## Faun (Jun 16, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


It matters not if other websites link to that video. You think I'm the only one to find it?? Your brain is rotted from the inside to think that means the video I found on fuzzymemories.tv does not prove it's a hoax.

And just because I believe it's within the realm of possibilities that the government would, and possibly even has, used subliminal messages on the masses; doesn't mean THAT video therefore is real. Had there not been evidence to the contrary, I could have believed it was real. But unlike you, I use the brain in my head which G-d blessed me with and when I see proof that video was a hoax, which is very common on the Internet, I'm capable of discerning reality from dementia. You? Not so much.


----------



## Faun (Jun 16, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Spits the moron who was caught telling no less than 4 lies in a failed attempt to convince anyone with a functional brain that an Internet hoax was really a conspiracy.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 16, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Yeah, I am sure you are lying......finding "fuzzymemories.tv" does nothing to disprove what I contend but it was on ATS.com and that is where you got it from and it does not disprove anything at all. As I have stated before, I know more than you and my ability to discern information is superior to yours any day of the week. I KNOW this goes on and it goes on daily but they have learned to be more discreet but those that are awake catch them . I am a truth seeker and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that political parties don't mean shit because they are just different sides of the same coin. TV is the greatest propaganda tool ever created and they use it to this day. I opted out of TV and I am glad I did. Continue to be a sheeple and keep believing that your beloved "gubermint" loves you and governs from the ground up instead of passing down acts, statutes and codes from on high all designed to bring in revenue and to control your stupid ass.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 16, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Well,

We know 4 planes were destroyed.  I’m not sure what the going rate for a 757 or 767 class passenger jet is but it’s probably tens of millions of dollars each.  I would imagine AA and UA had the planes insured.  Not sure if hijacking was covered.  But if it was, the insurance companies paid out likely close to $200 million dollars.  If no planes were lost???  Well, the insurance companies have been defrauded.

Strange they are not screaming about losing so much money.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 16, 2016)

"We know 4 planes were destroyed"

CHOSEN LIAR who never quits.

We know ONE PLANE, the 767 CARGO version that hit the South Tower, that was destroyed.  No other planes were used by the CHOSEN TRAITORS on 911.

Keep the CHOSEN PHOTOSHHOPPING coming...


----------



## Faun (Jun 16, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> "We know 4 planes were destroyed"
> 
> CHOSEN LIAR who never quits.
> 
> ...


LOLOLOLOL

You twoofers are certifiably insane. 

....... but fun to watch, so please continue.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 16, 2016)

candycorn said:
			
		

> Irrational.
> 
> So the powers that be now not only had one plane hijacked but crashed a second plane into the building itself.


What's irrational at best and dubious at worst is ignoring the portions of the evidence that contradict _your_ preferred conspiracy theory.

We have conflicting eyewitness accounts as to the types of planes (yes, plural) seen near the Pentagon on the morning of the attack, with several close-up witnesses corroborating each others' descriptions of the plane that struck the Pentagon (yes, they actually SAW it fly into the side of the building) as a small commuter-type jet. The fact that other _not-so-close-up_ witnesses described one or more of the other planes seen by many in the area...actually SUPPORTS the flyover hypothesis.

What's more, AFTER the initial strike, there were a number of local news reports of mass evacuations in the area due to rumors of up to 3 additional airborne threats. Again, this is something that simultaneously supports my beliefs while contradicting yours.

I could list several other factoids that are inexplicable in terms of the official narrative but expected or even _predicted_ by alternative theories. In other words: while _your_ preferred theory holds no explanatory power whatsoever for a variety of widely reported facts, _my_ preferred theory holds that power in abundance (*including* WRT the three little aspects you've apparently hung your hat on).

As to why the flyover scenario may have been deemed necessary by the planners/perps of the 9/11 black operation, I can only speculate. My best guess would be that it was likely seen as the best way to *ensure* the deaths of the people on-board the remotely guided "commuter plane" that struck the Pentagon. It seems to me that someone may have wanted to remove ANY chance of _their_ survival in particular. Again, that's merely speculation on my part, but there's certainly nothing "irrational" about it. In fact, unlike _The Official Conspiracy Theory®_ in NUMEROUS respects, it fits the known facts of the day like a glove.

I'm not out to change anyone's mind, as if that were possible with some of the characters posting in this thread (lol), least of all yours. Truth be told, if you sincerely believe the official line without any intellectual honesty-driven pangs of conscience, I envy you.

I'm done in here. This thread has reeked to high heaven from the giddyup, and I'm fresh out of both patience and Lysol.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 16, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the laugh guys
> ...


the fact USMB's resident troll candyass liked your post,you lost your credibilty.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 16, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 16, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



oh the irony,HE is the paranoid delusional fool who is a dupe the fact he believes everything the media and tv tell him.

whats really funny is how he has fooled hiself into actually believing he proved anything.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 16, 2016)

Capstone said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dude WHY you would even bother to address a post by a well known paid shill on the zionists payroll and USMB's resident troll is beyond me.

Dude do you even realise USMB's resident troll candyass even defends the warren commission as well that oswald was the lone assassin? 

that speaks a shitload of his credibility.
same with USMB'S other paid troll rightwinger.

you got to remember him,rightwinger, and faun have all been sent here by their handlers to troll these 9/11  and other government corruption threads. It is so obvious they are on the payroll for Isreal.No way in hell would they constantly come back here everyday for FREE for the ass beatings they get here constantly.not a chance in hell.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 17, 2016)

Capstone said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ATC saw no aircraft vectoring out of the Pentagon airspace after AA77 hit the building.  




Capstone said:


> I could list several other factoids that are inexplicable in terms of the official narrative but expected or even _predicted_ by alternative theories. In other words: while _your_ preferred theory holds no explanatory power whatsoever for a variety of widely reported facts, _my_ preferred theory holds that power in abundance (*including* WRT the three little aspects you've apparently hung your hat on).


All I asked was to explain how the wreckage got there, the knocking down of the light poles and the ATC tracking AA77.  No twoofer has come close.  You’re no different.  



Capstone said:


> As to why the flyover scenario may have been deemed necessary by the planners/perps of the 9/11 black operation, I can only speculate.
> My best guess would be that it was likely seen as the best way to *ensure* the deaths of the people on-board the remotely guided "commuter plane" that struck the Pentagon. It seems to me that someone may have wanted to remove ANY chance of _their_ survival in particular. Again, that's merely speculation on my part, but there's certainly nothing "irrational" about it. In fact, unlike _The Official Conspiracy Theory®_ in NUMEROUS respects, it fits the known facts of the day like a glove.



Actually, it doesn’t fit any of the known facts.  The ATC traffic for one thing.  The AA77 wreckage.  The bodies found at the Pentagon.  The phone calls made from AA77.  How it hit the light poles.  

What is more bizarre is why the supposed planners/perps would add such a bizarre thing to their “to-do” list. 


Acquire the aircraft
Have a crew paint the aircraft to look like a plane they would hijack anyway
Pay the crew enough to where they remain silent 15 years later
Make a complicated rendezvous with a jet traveling 500 mph or so.  
Add a difficult 270 degree maneuver to the new aircraft in addition to the hijacked aircraft
Pay off dozens (if not hundreds) of first responders that found bodies, did DNA matching, etc…
Its about as ridiculous as you can make the scenario.



Capstone said:


> I’m not out to change anyone's mind,


Good, because you suck at it.



Capstone said:


> as if that were possible with some of the characters posting in this thread (lol), least of all yours. Truth be told, if you sincerely believe the official line without any intellectual honesty-driven pangs of conscience, I envy you.


You should.  



Capstone said:


> I'm done in here. This thread has reeked to high heaven from the giddyup, and I'm fresh out of both patience and Lysol.



And of course, when you can’t answer 3 separate, simple questions about physical evidence, it is time to give up.  You got your ass handed to you.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 17, 2016)

CandyZionistBitch is a 100% pure Zionist Traitor.

There were no Islamic Terrorists on 911.

There were just Mossad and Zionist Traitors.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 17, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> CandyZionistBitch is a 100% pure Zionist Traitor.
> 
> There were no Islamic Terrorists on 911.
> 
> There were just Mossad and Zionist Traitors.



Boy, you are desperate for attention, aren’t you?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 17, 2016)

Truth and Zionism mix almost as well as growing Antarctic ice and fudged atmospheric temperature readings...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 17, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> CandyZionistBitch is a 100% pure Zionist Traitor.
> 
> There were no Islamic Terrorists on 911.
> 
> There were just Mossad and Zionist Traitors.


----------



## hadit (Jun 17, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Add another question:  where's the original airplane?  It's a whole lot simpler to just fly it into the building than to concoct an elaborate scheme to fly it somewhere, kill everybody and hide it successfully.


----------



## hadit (Jun 17, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


The problem with CT's is that they quickly mushroom into vast, complex things requiring the perfect coordination of thousands of individuals and moving parts.  In the end, it's much simpler to just hijack the plane and fly it into the Pentagon than to pull off the incredibly delicate dance required to fulfill the theory.


----------



## hadit (Jun 17, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> "Who needs videos if you have the remains of passengers who were on that 757"
> 
> LMAO!!!
> 
> ...


Do you have any idea how surveillance cameras work?  The reason you don't see video of the plane hitting is because the cameras are recording at slow speeds.  The plane would literally move fast enough to cover the entire field of the camera's vision between frames or would just leave a streak on a frame if we were lucky enough to catch it.  All of this is old news, BTW.


----------



## hadit (Jun 17, 2016)

candycorn said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Consider as well that the Pentagon is a harder target than most concrete buildings, by design.  Thus, damage would be less than that done to an ordinary building.


----------



## Faun (Jun 17, 2016)

hadit said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


Why are you wasting everybody's time with pesky facts?


----------



## hadit (Jun 17, 2016)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


It's a hard habit to break...


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 18, 2016)

hadit said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



The Pentagon was MOST certainly NOT a hardened target.  That is a popular myth that is not true.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 18, 2016)

hadit said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



That is simply not true.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 18, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



if you are replying to agent candyass as I am guessing you are,congrats for being ignorant.Thats what this agent wants is attention and just here to troll and waste your time and like the dupe you are,you take his bait and make his handlers happy for taking his bait by replying to him.well done.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 19, 2016)

9/11 inside job said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



All I have EVER said about the Pentagon attack is that there is no evidence in the pictures that TWO HUGE JET ENGINES never made holes in the building.  Also the argument that the building was "hardened" is ridiculous because one can easily see that the "stone" exterior is only a few inches of a rock-like veneer brick with standard wood frame behind the fascia and nothing behind that. A van or a car traveling at 60-70 mph could easily have done just as much damage. 

The towers were over a hundred feet thick and they WERE hardened because there were huge steel beams all around the structure.  Even so airplane parts went completely through the towers and came out the other side.  If you look at the towers the moment of impact the WHOLE outline of a heavy jet punctured each tower showing the outline of the engines as well as the wings.  There is no such massively wide hole at the Pentagon.  The entering hole at the towers was about 150 feet wide.  The entry hole at the Pentagon was around 20 feet wide. 

I know how big the towers were because I have been up there on the observation deck.  The plane wreckage traveled over two hundred feet through the tower structure and out the other side.  The wreckage at the Pentagon only penetrated about thirty feet with no huge steel beams in the way.

I seldom enter any conversations about 9/11 because it's a no-win situation.  The government wanted us to see it the way they wanted and that is that.  Who did what?  I don't know.  Cheney was running an ATC safety operation at the time of the attacks involving the air national guards of several Easy Coast States and took control of the initial investigation.  The radar tapes showing aircraft positions and conversations among the air control personnel was confiscated.  We do not know what was where and when it was there and never will.  The investigation wasn't transparent and the conclusions were what Cheney and Bush wanted them to be. 

I really don't care.  Bush got his wars and Cheney's company and Black Water got rich. No bid contracts instantly became the way the USA did business.  Anybody that said anything contrary to the "official" reports was subject to being labeled a traitor under the Patriot Act.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 19, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> All I have EVER said about the Pentagon attack is that there is no evidence in the pictures that TWO HUGE JET ENGINES never made holes in the building.  Also the argument that the building was "hardened" is ridiculous because one can easily see that the "stone" exterior is only a few inches of a rock-like veneer brick with standard wood frame behind the fascia and nothing behind that. A van or a car traveling at 60-70 mph could easily have done just as much damage.
> 
> The towers were over a hundred feet thick and they WERE hardened because there were huge steel beams all around the structure.  Even so airplane parts went completely through the towers and came out the other side.  If you look at the towers the moment of impact the WHOLE outline of a heavy jet punctured each tower showing the outline of the engines as well as the wings.  There is no such massively wide hole at the Pentagon.  The entering hole at the towers was about 150 feet wide.  The entry hole at the Pentagon was around 20 feet wide.
> 
> ...



Hello everyone. I'm something of a 9/11 buff (falling on the inside job side of the fence), but I don't mind listening to those who swear that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is where it's at, so long as their main goal isn't to insult those who disagree with them. I've done a fair amount of research regarding the pentagon attack and have come to the conclusion that if it was hit by something other then explosives within the building, it wasn't a 757. To get to this conclusion took me some time though. I think the 2 groups who have done the most research on the Pentagon attack are Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), which has focused exclusively on the Pentagon attack and Flight 93 to a lesser extent, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth (which I believe put more energy into the Pentagon attack, but have looked at all the other 9/11 planes as well). That being said, for an introduction into the many things that make no sense regarding the OCT version of the Pentagon attack, I highly recommend the 5 minute "Pentagon Strike" video, which can be seen here:


----------



## candycorn (Jun 19, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > All I have EVER said about the Pentagon attack is that there is no evidence in the pictures that TWO HUGE JET ENGINES never made holes in the building.  Also the argument that the building was "hardened" is ridiculous because one can easily see that the "stone" exterior is only a few inches of a rock-like veneer brick with standard wood frame behind the fascia and nothing behind that. A van or a car traveling at 60-70 mph could easily have done just as much damage.
> ...



1.  Explain the 757 wreckage at the Pentagon
2.  Explain the ATC tracking into air space but not out
3.  Explain the light poles being knocked down


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 20, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Hello everyone. I'm something of a 9/11 buff (falling on the inside job side of the fence), but I don't mind listening to those who swear that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is where it's at, so long as their main goal isn't to insult those who disagree with them. I've done a fair amount of research regarding the pentagon attack and have come to the conclusion that if it was hit by something other then explosives within the building, it wasn't a 757. To get to this conclusion took me some time though. I think the 2 groups who have done the most research on the Pentagon attack are Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), which has focused exclusively on the Pentagon attack and Flight 93 to a lesser extent, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth (which I believe put more energy into the Pentagon attack, but have looked at all the other 9/11 planes as well). That being said, for an introduction into the many things that make no sense regarding the OCT version of the Pentagon attack, I highly recommend the 5 minute "Pentagon Strike" video, which can be seen here:
> ...



Show me hard evidence that the wreckage at the Pentagon came from a 757. While you're at it, a little background info:
**
*American Airlines Flight 77*

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.**

Source: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001



candycorn said:


> 2.  Explain the ATC tracking into air space but not out



I never said that an aircraft of some type didn't explode in the general vicinity of the Pentagon. That doesn't mean it was a 757.



candycorn said:


> 3.  Explain the light poles being knocked down



The best theory I know of is that the downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance. There's a thread on this theory that can be seen here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread309850/pg1

The important thing to remember is that there's simply no way that the plane could have taken the path required to hit the light poles and come level to the ground for the path required to do the damage at the Pentagon. CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth make this clear in a series of videos. The one CIT likes to refer to for starters is National Security Alert, which can be seen here:


----------



## candycorn (Jun 20, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Show me hard evidence that the wreckage at the Pentagon came from a 757. While you're at it, a little background info:
> **
> *American Airlines Flight 77*
> 
> ...



As for the first request, this was entered into evidence during the trial of the 20th hijacker Zacharias Mousaui:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200030.jpg

This means that his counsel agreed to it being legitimate evidence listed as evidence from AA77.  

Here is a picture of a 757 wheel and the hub found at the Pentagon in the wreckage:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-wheel-04.jpg

Here are other pictures of the wreckage:

https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pentagondebris2.jpg

Again, how did the wreckage get there spread out over hundreds of square yards inside and outside the Pentagon?  



phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > 2.  Explain the ATC tracking into air space but not out
> ...


Then you'll have to explain the DNA of the passengers being found at the Pentagon.  



phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > 3.  Explain the light poles being knocked down
> ...


Impossible as there were no reports of the barriers to traffic flow reported on the busy roads around the Pentagon that morning.  




phoenyx said:


> The important thing to remember is that there's simply no way that the plane could have taken the path required to hit the light poles and come level to the ground for the path required to do the damage at the Pentagon.


The important thing to remember is that opinions do not replace physical evidence.  

We know 5 light poles were knocked down the morning of 9/11/01.  We know this because of the absence of poles missing, poles in the road in 2 instances, and a pole hitting a taxi cab that morning.  

We know a generator was struck on the path to the Pentagon as well.  

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/generator_fence2.jpg

In all truth, the physical evidence is beyond conclusive that the only explanation for the light poles, the generator, and the damage is that AA77 was flown into the Pentagon exactly the way the 9/11 Commission Report describes. 

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/closestnorthpathstillmissespoles.jpg


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 20, 2016)

Except, of course, that all of the above bullshit is Zionist cover-up stuff, and it wasn't a plane, because if it was a 757

1) it couldn't fly 400mph at ground level
2) where the nose hit on the first floor would put the engines of the plane IN THE GROUND
3) all videos show a CRUISE MISSILE, not a plane

other than that...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 20, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



and dont forget,same as the JFK assassination,anybody who gave a version different than the governments and gave reports that did not go along with their version of events ended up dyiny in mysterious ways.One caller who survived for instance,came on alex jones show and said she heard explosions going on in the basement before the towers collapsed and she even said if she dies,dont believe the version the media prints,that she would never take her own life and how convient for them that she committed suicide after that.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 20, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > All I have EVER said about the Pentagon attack is that there is no evidence in the pictures that TWO HUGE JET ENGINES never made holes in the building.  Also the argument that the building was "hardened" is ridiculous because one can easily see that the "stone" exterior is only a few inches of a rock-like veneer brick with standard wood frame behind the fascia and nothing behind that. A van or a car traveling at 60-70 mph could easily have done just as much damage.
> ...



good luck on finding that here.anytime they are cornered and cant refute facts,I have never seen one that was capable of NOT insulting a truther  knowing they cant refute facts and evidence resorting to calling them twoofers and all other childish names.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 22, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Show me hard evidence that the wreckage at the Pentagon came from a 757. While you're at it, a little background info:
> ...




84 confiscated cameras and yet there hasn't been one video that shows a bus with wings making that incredible 270 degree turn that knocked over lamp posts while skimming mere inches over the grass (as to not disturb it) by a pilot that couldn't even fly a single engine Cessna plane....seriously? What are the odds? Any wreckage that we were allowed to see was minimal and could easily be planted with minimal effort. Where are the wings? Why don't we see them because the hole that was made certainly didn't have the width of wings....where are they and where is the film footage of impact? I do not need to prove that this was a farce, I am the one needing solid proof that this actually happened and I haven't seen shit as far as visual evidence goes. and there were 84 cameras surrounding the scene of this event that can dispel the conspiracy that this was a missile in lieu of a plane.......waiting........(yawn)


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 22, 2016)

It's funny how those who bought into the bullshit of the so-called "Official Story of 9/11" thinks that this particular piece of scrap metal is proof positive that a "plane", AA77 struck the Pentagon.  
Once again the gullible idiots are WRONG!


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 23, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



That would be a gross overstatement.  As I recall the press was excluded from "the scene" for some time right after whatever happened there. You do understand that many of us were actually paying attention that day and not just rolling out of our cribs to a bowl of Cocoa Puffs.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 23, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



You were way ahead of the curve. I degfended the official story for 11 years and wouldn't even consider any information that could cause me to stop and think. My watershed moment was when Snowden revealed that the Patriot Act was written well in advance of 9/11 and the mechanisms for the spy grid ewas already in place, that was when the scales fell from my eyes and I have dedicated the last 4 years and over 17,000 hours of research and reading. I am not the same person that I use to be. Learning that you had lived a lie your whole life will do that to someone. You are obviously "awake" and were long before I was but I have been trying to make up for lost time.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 23, 2016)

And all those dozens (if not hundreds and thousands) of people involved in this airtight conspiracy have maintained complete 100% radio silence during the ensuing 15 years? 

Quite astonishing...seeing as how there have been how many books (not just interviews given) written by disenchanted political wornks in the last 8 years...


----------



## Likkmee (Jun 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Good for you. Now to get the other semi-literate flag waving chimps in Duh L00N Star State to wake up. Let me know when the Shrubs are torn down and in the burn pile. AHEM
That would be a sign.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 24, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Show me hard evidence that the wreckage at the Pentagon came from a 757. While you're at it, a little background info:
> ...



And his counsel was infallible? Moussaoui himself certainly didn't think so:
**_On February 6, 2006, Moussaoui shouted "I am al-Qaeda. They do not represent me; they are Americans," referring to his attorneys while being escorted from the courtroom in front of 120 potential jurors.[25]_**

Source: Zacarias Moussaoui - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me evidence that that part was actually photographed at the scene of the crime, let alone that it came from a 757.



candycorn said:


> Here is a picture of a 757 wheel and the hub found at the Pentagon in the wreckage:
> 
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-wheel-04.jpg



Again, show me evidence that it's a picture taken from the scene of the crime. As to the comparison to the wheel of a 757, I'm not so easily persuaded; I'd want an expert on airplane wheels to take a look at it.



candycorn said:


> Here are other pictures of the wreckage:
> 
> https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pentagondebris2.jpg



I believe that some of those pictures were definitely legitimate photos of the scene of the crime, but show me evidence that any of it came from a 757.



candycorn said:


> Again, how did the wreckage get there spread out over hundreds of square yards inside and outside the Pentagon?



Again, I haven't said that the Pentagon wasn't hit by -something-. That doesn't mean it was a 757.



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



From what I have read, there is no chain of custody for this alleged DNA from the alleged passengers on AA 77, and certainly no identified body parts from any of the alleged 9/11 victims who were on any of the 4 planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11:
Not a shred of evidence that any 9/11 ‘hijackers’ boarded any planes



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



From what I have heard, there was only one downed light pole that was using a usually busy road, and it was in fact cordoned off. The road used by one Taxi cab driver, Lloyd England. He's the only witness to actually claim to have not just seen a light pole get downed, but for it to allegedly smash into his cab. CIT went down to investigate him. I believe their findings were very revealing, and can be seen in the documentary they did on him here:

As to the other poles, the link I provided previously suggests that contrary to what you were suggesting, they were not on roads that the public used regularly and could have easily been cordoned off. Did you take a look at it? Again, it can be seen here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread309850/pg1



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > The important thing to remember is that there's simply no way that the plane could have taken the path required to hit the light poles and come level to the ground for the path required to do the damage at the Pentagon.
> ...



Physical evidence can certainly be quite important. The thing is, the physical evidence you have provided to suggest that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon is flimsy at best. And it pales in comparison to the evidence that not only did a 757 not crash into the Pentagon, but the plane that actually approached the Pentagon didn't approach it from the path that the official story needs in order for the damage done to the Pentagon to have actually been done by a plane at all, let alone a 757.



candycorn said:


> We know a generator was struck on the path to the Pentagon as well.
> 
> http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/generator_fence2.jpg



I'm just curious, did you know that the site that picture came from is a site that definitely doesn't believe in the official story? That being said, I know that they -do- support the official story when it comes to a 757 hitting the Pentagon. The only thing that picture suggests is that something damaged the generator. I see no evidence that a 757 hit it.



candycorn said:


> In all truth, the physical evidence is beyond conclusive that the only explanation for the light poles, the generator, and the damage is that AA77 was flown into the Pentagon exactly the way the 9/11 Commission Report describes.
> 
> http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/closestnorthpathstillmissespoles.jpg



Are you aware that the above picture is actually stating that, according to all the eyewitnesses who were in the best position to see the final flight trajectory of the aircraft approaching the pentagon, there is no way that the plane could have hit light poles because its flight path passed north of the citgo gas station?


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 24, 2016)

9/11 inside job said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



I've now mapped out this entire thread- it seems both sides aren't always that civil with each other. I've only just begun here, but already, I've found some discussion I consider to be worthwhile. While I find it's good to talk with people on my own side of the 9/11 fence, I frequently think that it's even more to talk to those who disagree. The reason is simple- you tend to learn more from those who disagree with you then from those who agree with you.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 24, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Except, of course, that all of the above bullshit is Zionist cover-up stuff, and it wasn't a plane, because if it was a 757
> 
> 1) it couldn't fly 400mph at ground level
> 2) where the nose hit on the first floor would put the engines of the plane IN THE GROUND
> ...



I'm not that keen on talking of zionists. I have a vague idea of what they are, but I think it frequently distracts from things about 9/11 that are far more concrete. As to your 3 points, I agree with the first and the second. As to the third, I'm not so sure about that one. As can be seen in the following 5 minute documentary, I think it's clear that whatever is in the 5 frame video isn't a 757, but what it is, exactly, is far less clear...

Pentagon Strike mentions this as one of many points:

Bu a more in depth analysis of the flaws behind labelling the blur in 5 frame video as a 757 can be seen here:


----------



## candycorn (Jun 24, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Well, obviously, the pictures are all form the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/01.  As the evidentiary hearing ZM’s trial attest.  It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of  proof.  Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything.  Instead, you have convinced us you’re just another cheap 9/11 lunatic twofer with no legs to stand on.  

Again, you need to come up with plausible answers to why:

The wreckage from AA77 was found at (and inside) the Pentagon.
The ATC tracking of AA77 shows it entering the airspace but not leaving it.
What caused the five downed light poles at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

And, “they are all lying” isn’t an answer that will be accepted…just so you know.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 24, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Except, of course, that all of the above bullshit is Zionist cover-up stuff, and it wasn't a plane, because if it was a 757
> ...



Hasn’t been here a week and already blaming the jews.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 24, 2016)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## hadit (Jun 24, 2016)

candycorn said:


> And all those dozens (if not hundreds and thousands) of people involved in this airtight conspiracy have maintained complete 100% radio silence during the ensuing 15 years?
> 
> Quite astonishing...seeing as how there have been how many books (not just interviews given) written by disenchanted political wornks in the last 8 years...


I think that is the most damning piece of evidence against the whole conspiracy theory because the effort required to keep secrets rises exponentially as more people are in on it.  Usually, the theory grows over time to include ever widening groups of people, until it collapses from sheer ridiculousness.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 24, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Just remember,there ARE paid shills on the governments payroll trolling this thread.Candyass is their biggest cash earner. He makes up lie after lie and goes around trolling at several message boards,not just this one night and day.

when people feed trolls like him,its very stupid to reply to them because thats what their handlers who send them here to troll,WANT  you to do,waste your time on them. they are just here to derail any truth discussion there is.

You dont seem to understand that they KNOW just as well as me and you do that it was an inside job.Its easy to tell because they make bible long posts full of lies after lie that has been shot down over the years.Thats how it is easy to spot them.

they defend ALL government version of events like 9/11 no matter how absurd the official version is. They even defend the warren commission that oswald was the lone assassin. Now the ones that do that,it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see they are a paid shill on the governments payroll.

the ones that are just in denial and dont want to believe their government would do such a thing,they just throw one liner insults and then run off.

I have encountered those types as well who they can accept the fact that the CIA killed JFK,yet when you list pesky facts that 9/11 was an inside job,they only see what they want to see and cover their ears and eyes refusing to watch videos that cant be debunked.they do this-

the CIA killing JFK they can handle since it was so many years ago,I will at least TRY and reason with those kind because eventually they accept it the CIA did 9/11 since they have no answer for the question-if they could kill JFK,why do you not look at the evidence they did 9/11 as well? they get stumped everytime. Now THOSE kind of people,I have no beef with posters replying to.Just the ones like candyass who defend ALL the versions of the government such as JFK no matter how absurd it is.

Some people over the net can accept it that there was a conspiracy by the CIA to kill JFK since like I said,it was so many years ago and just one person,but 9/11 hits too close to home for them since it was much more recent and involved them murdering over 3000 americans.by all means discuss it with those types.


the more and more you feed the shills,the more and more you please their handlers since you are doing what they want you to do,waste their time on them.I can only say it so many times-

Like I said,the people that are just in denial on this,the ones who CAN accept it that there was a conspiracy by the CIA to kill JFK,but cant accept it that they did 9/11 as well since 9/11 hits much closer to home with them,by all means DO go ahead and discuss it with those types because EVENTUALLY they do come to their senses they did 9/11 as well.  Dale Smith used to be one of those people who couldnt grasp that but eventually he woke up after 10 years or so.

   Its the paid trolls that defend the warren commission that oswald was the lone assassin such as candyass does,to reply to THOSE kind of posters is just being plain stupid because if they defend the warren report that oswald killed JFK like he does, WHY on earth would you expect candyass to  ever be convinced the CIA did 9/11 as well? think about that for a second.


I really really hope you dont ignore that advise.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 24, 2016)

hadit said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > And all those dozens (if not hundreds and thousands) of people involved in this airtight conspiracy have maintained complete 100% radio silence during the ensuing 15 years?
> ...



I understand there being questions to 9/11 but what is not in question is the planes hitting the 4 locations, the passengers on the planes, the destruction caused by the 4 planes, the physical evidence we all saw with our eyeballs….  

If you want to talk about how the 9/11 perps happened to coordinate their attacks with a drill going on…sure.  Go ahead.  But when your only argument is to accuse everyone of being on the take or lying…it’s just crazy.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



See thats why I got done saying why I DO encourage posters to discuss it with people like you who ten years ago,you DID accept it that the CIA killed JFK but could not believe they did 9/11 as well incredibly because if i had met you over 10 years ago i would have asked you when you were a loyal Bush dupe like I was for about three years after 9/11,I would have asked you three years later after I woke up,i would have said to you-Dale listen to yourself.

You can accept it that the CIA killed JFK but you cant accept it that 9/11 is an inside job.  whats up with that warped logic of yours? I would have asked you that because you would have been stumped and you would not have been taken in so long as you were had i met you back then and asked you that question that stumps them everytime and they cant get around.

as I said in my earlier post,there are far too many similiaritys in both cases a couple examples being the protection was lowered,nobody in government got fired for their alleged incompetence,the media put out reports that did not go along with witness testimonys,but the biggest one that you could not have dodged me on is and they never can get around is WHY is is that the same thing happened in 9/11 that happened with JFK,that people who gave versions different than the government version of events ended up dying in VERY mysterious ways?

I would have had you stumped MAJOR big time back then and would have woke you up much sooner,several years sooner than you did.

btw way you do know that there are far more serious problems by our government that we need to worry about than 9/11 right? 9/11 is the least of our problems we have to worry about from our government right now.the false flag operations going on against us such as orlando for one are far worse things we need to be concerned about at the moment.9/11 is done and over with.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 24, 2016)

rightwinger troll whu just clieck on a funny to my previous post is another one of those paid shills as bad as candyass who everyone should put on ignore since he also  goes around trolling that oswald shot JFK as well. rightwinger would kill himself first before he would EVER admit to being wrong on ANYTHING.

USMB's resident troll rightwinger so much doesnt know the meaning of the sentence-"you were right,i was wrong" ,that he STILL to no surprise to me,goes around trolling refusing to admit i took him to school 2 years ago that the Rams would be back in LA.

I said to him back then -"And when they do come back,I know you will lie and claim you never said that."

well true to form, he is going around lying saying they are playing in st louis this year.Like clockwork,he is so easy to predict.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 24, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Well, obviously, the pictures are all form the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/01. As the evidentiary hearing ZM’s trial attest.



So you're saying that the prosecution in Moussaoui's trial was incapable of furnishing false evidence?



candycorn said:


> It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of  proof.



What leads you to this conclusion?



candycorn said:


> Again, you need to come up with plausible answers to why:
> 
> The wreckage from AA77 was found at (and inside) the Pentagon.



Just because you assume that AA77 wreckage was found at/inside the Pentagon doesn't make it so, sorry.



candycorn said:


> The ATC tracking of AA77 shows it entering the airspace but not leaving it.



The ATC and other official reports on the trajectory of the aircraft alleged to be Flight 77 don't even concord with each other, or with the damage done to the light poles. Pilots for 9/11 Truth makes this crystal clear in the following video clip:




candycorn said:


> What caused the five downed light poles at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.



I certainly don't -know- what caused the five downed light poles at the Pentagon. I've become rather fond of an article online called Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation. Now, I'd like to point out that I'm not accusing anyone of purposely trying to hide the truth here, but I keep on finding that Rule #14 is continuously invoked by those who support the official story. It reads in part:
"14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely..."

That being said, I have already offered a link to a thread which I believe to be the most likely explanation. Perhaps you've missed it twice now? Here it is once more just in case:
The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance



candycorn said:


> And, “they are all lying” isn’t an answer that will be accepted…just so you know.



I never said that, nor did I mean to convey this. Also, perhaps you are unaware, but using double quotes is meant to be used when you are quoting someone, not when you are paraphrasing what you believe they meant (that would be using single quotes).

It only takes a few people to plant false narratives. Many people can repeat these false narratives, believing them to be true. How few, I don't know. This shouldn't really be the issue at this point, however. First, I think we need to establish what happened. The hows, whys, and whos are generally questions that should be examined after we have established what happened in my view.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 24, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...



I tell a guy I'd rather not go on about Zionists and thus, I must be blaming "the jews" for 9/11 -.-? Let me set the record straight: I strongly believe atleast a few Israelis were involved. There's a few good articles documenting the evidence that some were involved. My favourite one can be found here:
9-11 Attacks: The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9-11

I've never looked into whether some or all of them were jewish, but I certainly think it's likely, as many people from Israel are. That being said, I think the prime orchestrators of 9/11 were not from Israel; I believe they were American.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 24, 2016)

9/11 inside job said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I've now mapped out this entire thread- it seems both sides aren't always that civil with each other. I've only just begun here, but already, I've found some discussion I consider to be worthwhile. While I find it's good to talk with people on my own side of the 9/11 fence, I frequently think that it's even more to talk to those who disagree. The reason is simple- you tend to learn more from those who disagree with you then from those who agree with you.
> ...



How are you so sure?



9/11 inside job said:


> Candyass is their biggest cash earner.



Again, I question how you would know that he's a shill at all, let alone that he is their "biggest cash earner". Don't get me wrong, I have noticed someone (perhaps candycorn) suggest that he was, indeed, getting his bills paid this way, but it sounded like he was being humorous, not like he was actually serious.



9/11 inside job said:


> He makes up lie after lie and goes around trolling at several message boards,not just this one night and day.



Look, I'm not denying the possibility that candycorn may be a shill as you say. It's just that I am loathe to take possibilities and dress them up as facts. I strongly believe in "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to this type of thing, and right now I just don't see it. I'd also like to point out that there is a world of difference between someone who is trying to deceive others and someone who believes things that aren't true.



9/11 inside job said:


> when people feed trolls like him,its very stupid to reply to them because thats what their handlers who send them here to troll,WANT  you to do,waste your time on them. they are just here to derail any truth discussion there is.



I don't know about that. I've been to truther forums. I'm still in one, in fact (letsrollforums.com). Don't get me wrong, they can certainly have their moments. But if you're like me, always liking to question people's beliefs (even if they happen to also disagree with the official story), you find out pretty quickly that it's not just OCT supporters who can give you a hard time. I prefer being in forums where there is a thorough mix of both sides.



9/11 inside job said:


> You dont seem to understand that they KNOW just as well as me and you do that it was an inside job. Its easy to tell because they make bible long posts full of lies after lie that has been shot down over the years.Thats how it is easy to spot them.



There is a quote, possibly from Aristotle that goes like this:
"The more you know, the more you know you don't know". It's not -always- true, but when it comes to knowing the motivations of others, I've come to have a deep appreciation of it. And once again I'd like to point out that there is a vast difference between someone saying something they know isn't true and someone saying something that isn't true but that they -believe- is true. I think part of the issue here is that while you may have believed that their points were "shot down", as you put it, they didn't agree with your viewpoint on this...



9/11 inside job said:


> they defend ALL government version of events like 9/11 no matter how absurd the official version is. They even defend the warren commission that oswald was the lone assassin. Now the ones that do that,it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see they are a paid shill on the governments payroll.



I don't know about that either...



9/11 inside job said:


> the ones that are just in denial and dont want to believe their government would do such a thing,they just throw one liner insults and then run off.



How have you come to this conclusion?



9/11 inside job said:


> I have encountered those types as well who they can accept the fact that the CIA killed JFK,yet when you list pesky facts that 9/11 was an inside job,they only see what they want to see and cover their ears and eyes refusing to watch videos that cant be debunked.they do this-



I certainly believe that there is something called "Cognitive dissonance", and it may well apply in some cases in this forum as well as others...



9/11 inside job said:


> the CIA killing JFK they can handle since it was so many years ago,I will at least TRY and reason with those kind because eventually they accept it the CIA did 9/11 since they have no answer for the question-if they could kill JFK,why do you not look at the evidence they did 9/11 as well? they get stumped everytime. Now THOSE kind of people,I have no beef with posters replying to.Just the ones like candyass who defend ALL the versions of the government such as JFK no matter how absurd it is.



What I like about candycorn is that he can really get down to some of the evidence that the official narratives concerning 9/11 have presented. This, in my view, is what we should try to focus our discussions on.



9/11 inside job said:


> Some people over the net can accept it that there was a conspiracy by the CIA to kill JFK since like I said,it was so many years ago and just one person,but 9/11 hits too close to home for them since it was much more recent and involved them murdering over 3000 americans.by all means discuss it with those types.



Fair enough.



9/11 inside job said:


> the more and more you feed the shills,the more and more you please their handlers since you are doing what they want you to do,waste their time on them.I can only say it so many times-



Personally, I think the real destruction and waste of a thread is not by discussion one's views with someone who is willing to present the evidence for their point of view. I think the real problem is when people get bogged down in insulting each other...




9/11 inside job said:


> WHY on earth would you expect candyass to  ever be convinced the CIA did 9/11 as well? think about that for a second.



To be honest, I'm alright with candycorn believing whatever he wants to believe forevermore. So long as we can actually discuss the evidence for our prospective viewpoints, I, atleast, will probably be learning some things, the audience watching us may learn some things and even he may learn a thing or 2. That, in my view, is the primary reason for having discussions with those you disagree with on a given issue.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 25, 2016)

Still to be answered:

Explain The wreckage from AA77 was found at (and inside) the Pentagon.
Explain The ATC tracking of AA77 shows it entering the airspace but not leaving it.
Explain What caused the five downed light poles at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

And, “they are all lying” isn’t an answer that will be accepted…just so you know.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 25, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Still to be answered:
> 
> Explain The wreckage from AA77 was found at (and inside) the Pentagon.
> Explain The ATC tracking of AA77 shows it entering the airspace but not leaving it.
> ...



I've already responded to all 3 of those points in post #202 in this thread, as I imagine you know. I'm disappointed in you candy- I didn't think you'd just ignore responses to your queries and just keep on repeating the queries like a broken record. You're essentially following Rule #6 from Twenty-Five Ways to Supress Truth:
**6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.**

Again, it may be that you aren't intentionally trying to suppress the truth. This could simply be a case of you experiencing cognitive dissonance and attempting to protect your point of view for your own piece of mind. For a brief amount of time, I think we were actually making a little bit of progress as to why we disagreed. Perhaps you've now reached the limits of your ability to see viewpoints that differ from your own on this matter.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Still to be answered:
> ...


*Yeah, you missed the part about your explanations having to be plausible. * 

First you accuse the Federal prosecutor of malfeasance which is laughable enough.  Secondly, you accuse Mousauui’s sworn defense attorney to be gullible enough to just fall for it.  Which, again, makes you look stupid.  



phoenyx said:


> I’m disappointed in you candy- I didn't think you'd just ignore responses to your queries and just keep on repeating the queries like a broken record.


The physical evidence is stubborn that way.  You can’t just call someone a name, accuse it of not existing, speculate as to why it was there…  It whispers very loudly and doesn’t go away.  

For example, here is the cartoonish and frankly silly way you explain the light poles and Mr. England’s cab:

From what I have heard, there was only one downed light pole that was using a usually busy road, and it was in fact cordoned off. The road used by one Taxi cab driver, Lloyd England. He's the only witness to actually claim to have not just seen a light pole get downed, but for it to allegedly smash into his cab. CIT went down to investigate him.

“From what you have heard?”  Okay…From what I heard, it was aliens from another planet.  Your “from what I heard” *is not plausible” *
“…allegedly smash into his cab.”.   To believe a different story (as the cab was photographed at the scene where AA77 had downed the poles as well) is to have Mr. England driving the cab with a giant hole in the windshield or having it delivered, dropped off the back of a tow truck, and having the truck speed off (thus increasing the conspiracy even further to include a tow truck).  *Again, Not plausible.*

You mentioned this CIT (Citizens Investigative Team)—the “crack” unit that went tits up in 2013.  The guy who runs the smut site (Craig Ranke) is the same guy who now thinks Orlando is a conspiracy, that OK City was a conspiracy and (of course) the Jews are behind it all..

Craig Ranke | Truth and Shadows

Surely this “investigative” team contacted the previous fares of Mr. England and asked them about the smashed in windshield…right?  No?  Interesting.  That would pretty much be the first stop.  Surely, they had an explanation for the glass in the street?  No?  That would pretty much be the next stop.  Funny.  

Surely you can lean on someone better than this…right?  Probably not.  

But your diatribe becomes more insane:  You actually wrote:

"Physical evidence can certainly be quite important. The thing is, the physical evidence you have provided to suggest that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon is flimsy at best. And it pales in comparison to the evidence that not only did a 757 not crash into the Pentagon, but the plane that actually approached the Pentagon didn't approach it from the path that the official story needs in order for the damage done to the Pentagon to have actually been done by a plane at all, let alone a 757.
Are you aware that the above picture is actually stating that, according to all the* eyewitnesses* who were in the best position to see the final flight trajectory of the aircraft approaching the pentagon, there is no way that the plane could have hit light poles because its flight path passed north of the city gas station?”

The path of the plane, the holes in the Pentagon and the light poles line up perfectly with the AA77 tracking of the aircraft.  Always has, always will.  







The other flight paths do not account for the downed light poles and we know the poles were downed on the morning of 9/11 thanks to Mr. England’s cab.    



phoenyx said:


> You're essentially following Rule #6 from Twenty-Five Ways to Supress Truth:
> **6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.**


No, I’m following rule#1 of how to destroy a 9/11 Truther:  Ask them to explain physical evidence.  You can’t without making completely silly and implausible arguments.  Silly arguments being that eyewitness testimony trumps physical evidence and implausible arguments being that federal prosecutors made up evidence and defense counsel didn’t object; that Mr. England drove a cab with it’s windshield smashed in all that morning, and that at least one light pole was staged.  



phoenyx said:


> Again, it may be that you aren't intentionally trying to suppress the truth. This could simply be a case of you experiencing cognitive dissonance and attempting to protect your point of view for your own piece of mind. For a brief amount of time, I think we were actually making a little bit of progress as to why we disagreed. Perhaps you've now reached the limits of your ability to see viewpoints that differ from your own on this matter.



Now that’s funny.

I simply asked you to explain the physical evidence.  You can’t do so without telling tales about malfeasance, and “I heard that…” 

It’s not plausible.  

Try again.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 25, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



And you are the one to determine what is and is not plausible eh ? Settle down, no need to go purple on me ;-)...



candycorn said:


> First you accuse the Federal prosecutor of malfeasance which is laughable enough.



Actually, I had asked you a question. Here it is again:
"So you're saying that the prosecution in Moussaoui's trial was incapable of furnishing false evidence?"

Note that furnishing false evidence does -not- necessarily mean that you know that the evidence is false.



candycorn said:


> Secondly, you accuse Mousauui’s sworn defense attorney to be gullible enough to just fall for it. Which, again, makes you look stupid.



You seem incapable of seeing this from a perspective other than your own. I'm certainly not alone in believing that the Moussaoui trial was essentially a kangaroo court in many respects:
Finding Himself In A Kangaroo Court, Moussaoui Decides To Pull The Great Satan's Leg About His Role In 9/11



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I’m disappointed in you candy- I didn't think you'd just ignore responses to your queries and just keep on repeating the queries like a broken record.
> ...



Nice switch of subjects, but in fairness you are finally responding to what I said instead of ignoring it entirely. I know you know that evidence can be falsified. As to what, exactly, you are referring to above, I'm not sure, as you're no longer referring to any particular piece of evidence.



candycorn said:


> For example, here is the cartoonish and frankly silly way you explain the light poles and Mr. England’s cab:
> 
> "From what I have heard, there was only one downed light pole that was using a usually busy road, and it was in fact cordoned off. The road used by one Taxi cab driver, Lloyd England. He's the only witness to actually claim to have not just seen a light pole get downed, but for it to allegedly smash into his cab. CIT went down to investigate him."
> 
> “From what you have heard?”  Okay…From what I heard, it was aliens from another planet.  Your “from what I heard” *is not plausible"*



You really need to do this purple thing eh -.-? Ah well, I've seen worse. I tend to source links more then your average poster. But when beginning a conversation, I think "from what I've heard" is a good starting point. You can then follow up by asking for sources, etc., and -that's- when you would get those types of things. If, on the other hand, you're not interested in what I've heard on a given subject, then that particular line of inquiry tends to die out. I am deeply aware that in online oppositional discussions, it takes 2 to tango, and thus agreement must be had on the lines of inquiry that both sides consider to be worthy of discussion.



candycorn said:


> “…allegedly smash into his cab.”.   To believe a different story (as the cab was photographed at the scene where AA77 had downed the poles as well) is to have Mr. England driving the cab with a giant hole in the windshield or having it delivered, dropped off the back of a tow truck, and having the truck speed off (thus increasing the conspiracy even further to include a tow truck).  *Again, Not plausible.*



Or someone from the secret service might have just blown a hole in it with a gun. Seriously, I really don't believe you've studied Lloyd England's testimony to the degree that I have, let alone to the degree that CIT has. Have you seen the following video documentary on Lloyd England from CIT?




candycorn said:


> You mentioned this CIT (Citizens Investigative Team)—the “crack” unit that went tits up in 2013.



I can understand if they are no longer doing investigative field work, that can be pretty expensive considering they make little if any money for doing it. That being said, their website is still up:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/

As is the one they used to have before that one:
The Pentacon - Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed



candycorn said:


> The guy who runs the smut site (Craig Ranke)



It appears you don't know what smut means. Please check out the following link for the true definition of the term:
What does SMUT mean?  - SMUT Definition - Meaning of SMUT - InternetSlang.com



candycorn said:


> is the same guy who now thinks Orlando is a conspiracy, that OK City was a conspiracy and (of course) the Jews are behind it all..



I too believe that there is a lot of evidence that Orlando and OK City (I presume you mean the Oklahoma bombing) was a conspiracy. I've never seen Craig talk about jewish people at all, never mind that they are "behind it all", as you put it, so I won't trust you on that one until you source evidence that that's the case. That's not to say that he may believe there was -some- involvement of people who may just happen to be jewish. I believe that myself.



candycorn said:


> Craig Ranke | Truth and Shadows
> 
> Surely this “investigative” team contacted the previous fares of Mr. England and asked them about the smashed in windshield…right?  No?  Interesting.  That would pretty much be the first stop.  Surely, they had an explanation for the glass in the street?  No?  That would pretty much be the next stop.  Funny.



It's painfully obvious that you haven't seen CIT's video on Lloyd England. Look, if you can't stomach the subject, that's fine. We can talk about other aspects of 9/11. But if you want to talk about Lloyd England with me, watch it. I don't mind debating the subject, but only with those who take the time to atleast inform themselves enough that they're not asking the types of questions like the ones you're asking above.



candycorn said:


> But your diatribe becomes more insane:  You actually wrote:
> 
> "Physical evidence can certainly be quite important. The thing is, the physical evidence you have provided to suggest that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon is flimsy at best. And it pales in comparison to the evidence that not only did a 757 not crash into the Pentagon, but the plane that actually approached the Pentagon didn't approach it from the path that the official story needs in order for the damage done to the Pentagon to have actually been done by a plane at all, let alone a 757.
> 
> ...



I find it immensely ironic that you would be using a graphic created by CIT or one of its allies to defend your point of view. See all those yellow lines? Those are the lines approximating the flight path that all the credible -witnesses- saw the plane take in its approach to the Pentagon. The only "witness" for the official flight path is Lloyd England, and guess what? He denies that his cab was on the flight path despite the evidence that his cab was on the red path above! Why? Apparently, it's because all the other witnesses place the flight path in a location where he wasn't; he sticks out like a sore thumb and as can be imagined, he doesn't want to be a fall guy. Seriously, watch CIT's video on Lloyd England, it'd help you avoid mistakes like posting CIT's graphic and thinking that it actually defends your viewpoint -.-.



candycorn said:


> The other flight paths do not account for the downed light poles and we know the poles were downed on the morning of 9/11 thanks to Mr. England’s cab.



You're right that the yellow flight paths don't account for the downed light poles, which is why CIT created a thread giving what I still believe is the most logical explanation for how they were downed. In case you missed it once again, it's here:
The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance., page 1



phoenyx said:


> You're essentially following Rule #6 from Twenty-Five Ways to Supress Truth:
> **6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.**



No, I’m following rule#1 of how to destroy a 9/11 Truther:  Ask them to explain physical evidence.[/quote]

Actually, all you're doing is posting -alleged- physical evidence. I'll give you an example: the DNA evidence. Craig Ranke once said this about it: **_Whether or not it's hypothetically "possible" to recover the DNA this evidence is automatically invalid. 

To accept it as valid one must work off pure unadulterated faith in the government. 

Faith based evidence is not scientific. 

Nobody knows where it really came from. 

The individuals who analyzed the DNA are not the same people who allegedly recovered it from the Pentagon. 

The suspect completely controlled the chain of custody and provided all of this information on their own time therefore it is invalid evidence in support of their story. 

No court of law would accept DNA analysis reports that were conducted solely by the defendant!_**

Source: Pentagon DNA Evidence....Is it Possible?, page 1



phoenyx said:


> that Mr. England drove a cab with it’s windshield smashed in all that morning



The ignorance, it burns -.-. Again, please watch CIT's video on Lloyd England, your conjectures on what I believe on the matter are rather painful to watch.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 25, 2016)

well I see i am getting nowhere on this with you and you are not going to take my advise.thats your choice to do but an ignorant one in doing so.I can only try and lead the horse to the water so many times but i cant make him drink it.Its your funeral,not mine.

I have no problem with someone discussing it with someone who disagrees on it but AGAIN,candyass KNOWS just as well as we do it was an inside job so to keep feeding the troll like you do,you are making his handlers happy by doing so since he is accomplishing his mission his handler has sent him to accomplish which is waste your time by replying to his trolling in his handlers desire to derail any truth discussion.

How am I so sure he is a paid shill? I just talked about that earlier.He makes up lie after lie and trolls SEVERAL message boards night and day at all hours.

NOBODY has THAT much time on their hands to do so UNLESS they are course a paid shill.Logic and common sense sir and they sure dont make up LIE AFTER LIE with bible length rants and ramblings when they are cornered and cant refute facts and play dodgeball then go into evade mode as he does.They just throw insult after insult when they cannot refute facts.That sir is a PAID shill.HE fits that profile.As I said before,the ones that are just in denial on this,just come back with childish one liner insults and then run off.

maybe a few posters here you have noticed have joked about him being a paid shill but this other message board i used to post at before i came here that he trolled at as well,there were many there who saw the obvious i do that he is a paid shill.

at that site before it shut down,he socked under many different user names because so many people there put him on ignore same as I have done.He HATED people putting him on ignore there.

Here he doesnt have to do so because many people like you here are gullible enough to feed the troll and give him the attention he seeks.

There was this one poster at that site back then who reminded me and awful lot of you.At first he was wise and took my lead and had him on ignore in the beginning,but then he got stupid and took him off ignore and started replying to him feeding the troll again against my advise.

Eventually a year later,he FINALLY stopped being stupid and finally took my advise a year too late telling him something that went like this-"Candycorn,i have discussed this with you for a year now.You ignore facts,change the subject,and then start insulting people.I am done with you.I cannot believe I wasted this much time on you."

He COULD have saved himself a year of wasting his valuable time on the troll if he had not been stupid and had listened to me in the first place. No offense but if you are going to be as ignorant as he was and also ignore my advise same as he did,well thats on you. and your problem,not mine. enjoy wasting your time talking to a brick wall for the next year. He eventually after a year found out he should have listened to me,you will as well,hopefully much sooner than that fool did though.



He may right NOW be being civilized to you,but later on down the road you will find out as everyone else does,that he gets angry and starts calling you names when he cant refute facts.Matter of fact a few others noticed that recently on that other 9/11 thread and mentioned that to him recently.

there are MANY paid shills on this forum same as him as well. Dale found that out on this thread and eventually wised up. as you can see by reading his thread here,he found out what all truuthers found out,it is impossible to have a discussion with someone like candycorn without them calling you names and throwing insults when they cant refute facts.

Dale eventually said to me on this thread when I asked him why he wasted his time on them something like -well I thought I would be able to have a civilized discussion here with people on this but I can see that is not possible so yeah,I am now taking your advise and plan to ignore them now.HE got wise.

as you see for yourself on this thread,he TRIED to have a civilized discussion with them but they ALL insulted him when they could not counter his facts he presented..

I'd also like to point out that there is a world of difference between someone who is trying to deceive others and someone who believes things that aren't true.

dude that is all he does here is try to decieve others.He KNOWS it was an inside job. since you understand that cognitive thing,you should know this about him here.

I certainly believe that there is something called "Cognitive dissonance", and it may well apply in some cases in this forum as well as others...

since you understand that I am BAFFLED you cant see the obvious he is a paid shill.

Btw 9/11 is done and over with.its like the JFK assassination,the least of our problems we have to worry about from the government right now. there are far more sinister things the government is doing to us RIGHT NOW that you should be concerned about like getting rid of this corrupt one party system disguised as two so the shepp think they have a choice in who gets elected.

I used to be as guilty of this as anybody of wasting my time in the beginning arguing with these shills but i eventually wised up after a few years.

another thing that we should all be much more concerned about than worrying about than arging with shills about 9/11, is Trump getting elected so a REAL 9/11 investigation can be opened up plus if HELLERY gets elected,she will continue the path of destruction of america that reagan got the ball started on rolling contrary to what the media and our corrupt schools tell us that worship him like he was god or something.

okay right now I cant find that thread of dales,I will have to ask him for it but here is a great one where the zionists shills on this forum like candyass blatantly ignore facts and refuse to address them.9/11 Conspiracy


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 25, 2016)

btw now that I got THAT rant out of the way,in a much shorter post.tell me phoenyx,As I said before,WHY do you waste your time trying to convince USMB's resident troll candyass that 9/11 was an inside job when  he even defends the warren commission that oswald was the lone assassin who shot JFK? 
Its not just 9/11 he defends,he defends ALL government version of events no matter how absurd and redicules they are including the JFK assassination. Just ask him if he thinks oswald was the lone assassin,you'll see for yourself.

If he trolls and says oswald killed JFK,why do you think you could ever change his mind on 9/11 possibly ?  fair question.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 25, 2016)

9/11 inside job said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Look, I think it's clear that you believe that candy is the 'highest paid shill' here or what not. I just wish you wouldn't always be reminding everyone of this belief of yours. I've heard your reasoning for coming to the conclusion that he is a shill, and to me, it amounts to a whole lot of conjecture. Personally, my greatest concern with your contention is that it's flat out false. But even if it were true, I don't think bringing it up time and again is anything but a distraction. What you are doing -could- fit in as Rule #5 in Twenty Five Ways to Suppress Truth:
***5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.*  This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger'  ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',  'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics',  'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others  shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.**

Yes, the term shill isn't in there, but I think "and so forth" covers it.

As I mentioned with candy, I am not saying that you are trying to suppress the truth. I do believe, however, that regardless of your intent, you may be doing it anyway. It's so easy to attack the messenger. What's much harder is to try to look carefully at the message(s) they're trying to convey.



9/11 inside job said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Why do you think what is obvious to you isn't obvious to me? Has it ever occurred to you that you might be mistaken? There's a quote from Mark Twain that Al Gore once used:
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”



9/11 inside job said:


> As I said before,they are easy to spot as hell,



You have stated this before, certainly...



9/11 inside job said:


> the ones that are just in denial,they just come back and throw one liner insults and run off.



Again, how are you so sure?



9/11 inside job said:


> there are tons of those here.



That statement reminds me of a few lines from one of my favourite animes, Xam'd: Lost Memories:
**_Where is my enemy?
This is your enemy. That is your enemy.
This one is without a doubt your enemy.
The enemy of the people is your enemy as well.
Ah, but do you not yet see, this is the easy… the clear answer?
Words from those who look without seeing....
Enemies no longer charge out in helmet and armor, as in days of old.
Nowadays they use slide rules, advanced mathematics, and data to make their calculations…
And yet, somehow, this sort of enemy does not stir my heart.
You fear that upon seizing them, you’ll find you’ve grabbed a decoy, or perhaps even an ally.
My enemy is not to be sought, lest we find ourselves surrounded…_**

I think you have fallen into the trap of seeing tons of enemies, when there are in fact no real enemies. Enough distrust can -make- enemies though, which is why I think the last line in the above quote is crucial: "My enemy is not to be sought, lest we find ourselves surrounded". I try to focus on what it says just before that, of those who may -appear- to be enemies, but may in effect act be "a decoy, or perhaps even an ally".

Don't be a modern Don Quijote, lancing windmills you take to be giants. It may be that the people who -own- the windmills may be part of a ruling class that crushes the downtrodden, but the windmills aren't to blame.



9/11 inside job said:


> the shills like candyass,they make up one lie after another and evade facts and change the subject.countless others have had that experience with him in the past.



As I've mentioned before, I suspect that candy may actually be suffering from cognitive dissonance. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, wikipedia introduces it thusly:
**In psychology, *cognitive dissonance* is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas, or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.[1]**

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That being said, one of the simplest ways to avoid cognitive dissonance is to simply avoid situations where you'll be confronted with voices that disagree with  your own mindset. I must give some credit to those who decide to brave these choppy seas anyway.




9/11 inside job said:


> Many others have also seen recently how when he is cornered and cant refute facts,he throws insults.



I think I've seen enough of candy to come up with some theories as to why he throws insults- put simply, he finds what many here say (including myself) to be highly frustrating. He can't see why we don't subscribe to his beliefs and in frustration, he'll lob some insults, perhaps thinking that this will break the impasse. I've seen the effects of insults in many debates, and by and large, I've found that, far from being helpful, they're detrimental, but I have come to realize that many people on both sides of the fence seem to use them on a rare and even regular basis. I have also found, however, that as a general rule, the less a person insults others, the less they are insulted in turn.




9/11 inside job said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Yes, you do keep on telling me these things. But saying something is a certain way doesn't mean that that's necessarily the way it really is.



9/11 inside job said:


> as I said before,9/11 is over and done with,that is the least of our problems that we have to worry about from the government right now.



Personally, I find that it's a subject that I think still holds merit today.



9/11 inside job said:


> I used to be as guilty of that as anybody of discussing it and feeding the trolls but i got wise and stopped years ago.



There you go again, labelling people with insulting words like "trolls" -.-..  That being said, I certainly agree that sometimes, it's a good thing to just step back from certain situations, especially if they don't seem to be helping you achieve what you want in life. I've certainly stepped away from discussions regarding 9/11 for long stretches of time in the past. I recently decided to make a comeback however, and I'm not regretting that decision. I can always step away from it again if I wish to.



9/11 inside job said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



You seem to be forgetting that I am far from persuaded that you are right on that count.



9/11 inside job said:


> Okay that is your perogative to do so to please his handlers by feeding the troll.Nothing I say is going to change your mind I see.again they got paid shills everywhere on message boards.



Something might change my mind, but the evidence you have presented certainly wasn't enough to do it. The same with the idea that there are paid shills everyone on message boards. I do believe that there are some shills on some message boards, but I'm much more skeptical about shills "everywhere" on message boards.



9/11 inside job said:


> This is just one of several they have them at. Candyass has posted at SEVERAL message boards trolling night and day posting lie after lie,NOBODY has that much time on their hands UNLESS they of course  are a paid shill.



Or perhaps he's disabled, perhaps he's retired, perhaps he's wealthy and can spare the time, perhaps you're miscalculating how much time he spends. There are a lot of possibilities.




9/11 inside job said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Or you're mistaken, and that Oasis of water that you thought was only a mirage was in fact an Oasis.



9/11 inside job said:


> I have no problem with someone discussing it with someone who disagrees on it but AGAIN,candyass KNOWS just as well as we do it was an inside job so to keep feeding the troll like you do,you are making his handlers happy by doing so since he is accomplishing his mission his handler has sent him to accomplish which is waste your time by replying to his trolling in his handlers desire to derail any truth discussion.



The way you speak of these handlers you allege candy has, you'd almost think you saw them talking to candycorn online .



9/11 inside job said:


> maybe a few posters here you have noticed have joked about him being a paid shill but this other message board i used to post at before i came here that he trolled at as well,there were many there who saw the obvious i do that he is a paid shill.



Lynch mobs think their targets are legitimate too. There's a reason why we don't allow people to determine whether someone is guilty of something simply by having a few people get together and call it. The rules of evidence were established for a reason.



9/11 inside job said:


> at that site before it shut down,he socked under many different user names because so many people there put him on ignore same as I have done.He HATED people putting him on ignore there.



Again, I will grant that he may actually be a shill, as you say. But I'm not willing to run with that until I see what I believe to is solid evidence on that count. And even if I -did- believe that, I wouldn't be bringing it up all the time. I know that you think discussing things with him is a waste of time, but right now, he's about the only person from the opposite side of the fence is who is in discussing the evidence at all.



9/11 inside job said:


> There was this one poster at that site back then who reminded me and awful lot of you.At first he was wise and took my lead and had him on ignore in the beginning,but then he got stupid and took him off ignore and started replying to him feeding the troll again against my advise.
> 
> Eventually a year later,he FINALLY stopped being stupid and finally took my advise a year too late telling him something that went like this-"Candycorn,i have discussed this with you for a year now.You ignore facts,change the subject,and then start insulting people.I am done with you.I cannot believe I wasted this much time on you."



Well, perhaps a year from now I will feel the same way. I doubt it though. You see, I don't measure my effectiveness in a debate on whether or not my opponent is a shill. I measure it on whether or not I'm getting my points across. There was a moment recently where I thought I'd lost candy and he was going to keep on repeating his queries while ignoring my responses. That, in my view, would have been the end of any legitimate discussion on the subject  of 9/11 with him here. But no sooner had I resigned myself to waiting for someone else on the opposite side of the fence to pick up on my points then he reversed course and responded to various points of mine.



9/11 inside job said:


> He COULD have saved himself a year of wasting his valuable time on the troll if he had not been stupid and had listened to me in the first place.



Who knows, perhaps my time isn't as valuable as that of your friend's .



9/11 inside job said:


> He may right NOW be being civilized to you,but later on down the road you will find out as everyone else does,that he gets angry and starts calling you names when he cant refute facts. Matter of fact a few others noticed that recently on that other 9/11 thread and mentioned that to him recently.



If the noise to signal ratio becomes too large, rest assured, I will end the conversation.



9/11 inside job said:


> there are MANY paid shills on this forum same as him as well. Dale found that out on this thread and eventually wised up. as you can see by reading his thread here,he found out what all truuthers found out,it is impossible to have a discussion with someone like candycorn without them calling you names and throwing insults when they cant refute facts.
> 
> Dale eventually said to me on this thread  when I asked him why he wasted his time on them something like -well I thought I would be able to have a civilized discussion here with people on this but I can see that is not possible so yeah,I am now taking your advise and plan to ignore them now.HE got wise.



I see . Well, we'll see how things go.



9/11 inside job said:


> as you see for yourself  on this thread,he TRIED to have a civilized discussion with them but they ALL insulted him when they could not counter his  facts he presented..



While I have mapped this entire thread, I haven't actually carefully read through it all. A thread map simply makes it easy to find out which posts were responded to and which ones weren't, as well as who's been talking to who. I did skim through the posts themselves, and found out a bit of information, but I'd need to go back if I were to examine all the points made. I could do that, but not sure I will; it just seems a bit more in depth then I'd like to take it. I doubt anyone else here has even made a thread map of this thread ;-).


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 25, 2016)

dude you dont REALLY expect me to read that bible length rant of yours do you?

You know maybe you should go back and forth with agent candyass,thats one thing you both have in common,bible length rants nobody wants to read.I was guility of it myself recently,which is why i made the last post.

Because of the JFK assassination and how i was lied about that for so many years in our corrupt school system,i had my suspencions from the very get go 9/11 was done to get us into another fake and phony war same as why they killed JFK but i never had the facts or the evidence to prove that till three years later.

.

If he trolls and says oswald killed JFK,why do you think you could ever change his mind on 9/11 possibly ?  fair question.

agent candyass will tell you oswald killed JFK.ask him,you'll see for yourself.

I wish I had known Dale smith in 2004 because had I known him then,I could have woke him up much sooner about 9/11 than he was.

For 12 years after 9/11,he believed the official version even though he knew the CIA killed JFK. I would have asked Dale back then-Dale WHY do you accept it that there was a conspiracy by the CIA to kill JFK but wont look at the evidence they did 9/11 as well?

see that STUMPS them everytime and that is WHY it is asinine to argue with agent candyass when he lies about the JFK event ignoring facts and tells everyone oswald killed JFK.if he says oswald killed JFK and trolls on that all the time,WHY do you think he would be open minded on 9/11?

again,ask him if he thinks oswald killed JFK,you'll see for yourself.

again,fair question.

all i can say is like i said in my last post,there was this other poster that like you,I TRIED to tell him not to waste his time on candyass but like the idiot he was,he ignored me and finally came to his senses ONE YEAR LATER AFTER i told him not to bother with him.

I hope it doesnt take you  that long as it did him to be as stupid as he was to ignore my advise.


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Well, obviously, the pictures are all form the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/01. As the evidentiary hearing ZM’s trial attest.
> ...


I like how you question candycorn's assertion that you'll just try to dismiss evidence shown to you as made up (emphasis added)...


			
				candycorn said:
			
		

> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


... immediately after you insinuated the evidence could have been faked....


			
				phoenyx said:
			
		

> So you're saying that the prosecution in Moussaoui's trial was incapable of furnishing false evidence?



It's like you're completely oblivious to how predictable you twoofers are.

Kudo's to candycorn for so accurately depicting your nonsense.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 25, 2016)

as I just got done saying.9/11 is like the JFK assassination,done and over with,time to move on.9/11 is the LEAST of our problems we have to worry about from the government right now.

they are plotting far more sinister things against us at the moment and that is what you SHOULD put all your efforts into,something worthwhile like that in trying to stop it what they have in mind for us in the future.

going back and forth with shills on 9/11 is as fruitless as arguing with them about the JFK event,its over and done with.

what you SHOULD be concerned about as I just got done saying,is Trump getting elected so a REAL independent investigation into 9/11 might happen and we can be a free country again.Not saying Trump  is the answer but god help us all having another clinton in office who is a mass murderer.

thank god it hasnt come down to what I initually feared it would be.Americans  worst nightmare of another Bush against another Clinton.at least there is some hope with trump thank god.

If that evil mass murdering bitch HELLERY gets elected,there is no chance in hell of that happening of an independent new investigation into 9/11 since like i said,she will just continue the destruction of america that every president since ronald reagan got started has. Trump is our only hope of not staying the course of this banana republic we are starting wars with other wars with other countries and murdering innocent people around the world.wake up and forget 9/11 already!!!!!!!!!!!!

worry about hellery getting elected and serving the bankers and starting wars with other countries as every president since reagan has.that would be far more constructive.


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Ummm... *not one* of the witness videos in that CIT video were recorded on 9/11. It even appears they recorded many years later. Meanwhile, on the morning of 9.11, a person claims they saw the plane, "coming down to where the side of the ummm... 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below it..."

@ 1:23 ...


... you'll note 395 follows the official path, which is south of the gas station...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 25, 2016)

this one here is ANOTHER one of those paid shills it is asinine to argue with in the fact he ALSO says oswald is the lone assassin doing what his handlers instruct him to do.^


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

9/11 inside job said:


> this one here is ANOTHER one of those paid shills it is asinine to argue with in the fact he ALSO says oswald is the lone assassin doing what his handlers instruct him to do.^


Proving you're a liar couldn't be easier than challenging you to quote me ever saying Oswald acted alone.

Now that you've claimed I *said*, _"oswald is the lone assassin doing what his handlers instruct him to do,"_ you either link to a post of mine where I said that or you prove me right when I say you're a delusional liar.

Ready ... set ... go!


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Here's another eyewitness, reporting what he saw; not in 2008, not in 2006, but on September 11th in 2001....

_".... I saw the plane coming down. *It actually came up 395*."_

@ 0:42 ...


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Here's another eyewitness, reporting *ON* 9.11, that he saw the plane from 395...

_"This particular plane was awful low and *as we were coming down on the 395, it came across the front of us* and it was low ... too low ... we were seeing before and we followed it in."_

@ 0:37 ...


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > this one here is ANOTHER one of those paid shills it is asinine to argue with in the fact he ALSO says oswald is the lone assassin doing what his handlers instruct him to do.^
> ...


to 9/11 whack job ...

... hey whack job ... ? How much more time you think you're gonna need before you realize you were caught lying about my position?


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > this one here is ANOTHER one of those paid shills it is asinine to argue with in the fact he ALSO says oswald is the lone assassin doing what his handlers instruct him to do.^
> ...


Dang ... looks like to 9/11 whack job logged off not long ago (last seen 34 minutes ago) without finding any post I ever made where I said I thought Oswald acted alone. That's about 1½ hours he had to look for it and as expected, came up with nothing.

So now how is 9/11 whack job going to erase to evidence that he lied?


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> 84 confiscated cameras and yet there hasn't been one video that shows a bus with wings making that incredible 270 degree turn that knocked over lamp posts while skimming mere inches over the grass (as to not disturb it) by a pilot that couldn't even fly a single engine Cessna plane....seriously? What are the odds?



Very good points, I believe these and other points are mentioned in the 5 minute video "Pentagon Strike":


And then there's the impossible pull up right at the end:




Dale Smith said:


> Any wreckage that we were allowed to see was minimal and could easily be planted with minimal effort.



Good point.



Dale Smith said:


> Where are the wings? Why don't we see them because the hole that was made certainly didn't have the width of wings....where are they and where is the film footage of impact? I do not need to prove that this was a farce, I am the one needing solid proof that this actually happened and I haven't seen shit as far as visual evidence goes. and there were 84 cameras surrounding the scene of this event that can dispel the conspiracy that this was a missile in lieu of a plane.......waiting........(yawn)



The government said that none of the cameras showed the plane, and we are just supposed to take their word for it -.-..
FBI Claims 84 Videos Show NO Flight 77 Impact

They released a few that indeed showed no plane, the rest they have kept...
9-11 Research: Pentagon Attack Footage


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 25, 2016)

Wildcard said:


> It's funny how those who bought into the bullshit of the so-called "Official Story of 9/11" thinks that this particular piece of scrap metal is proof positive that a "plane", AA77 struck the Pentagon.



In defense of those who support the OCT here, there was more then just this picture of scrap metal entered into evidence. That being said, it's still far from persuasive.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 25, 2016)

9/11 inside job said:


> dude you dont REALLY expect me to read that bible length rant of yours do you?



Laugh . This is actually your response though, so technically you did...



9/11 inside job said:


> You know maybe you should go back and forth with agent candyass,thats one thing you both have in common,bible length rants nobody wants to read.



If you're trying to understand where your discussion partners are coming from, reading what they have to say is probably a good idea...



9/11 inside job said:


> I was guility of it myself recently,which is why i made the last post.



Unfortunately, I had already started responding to your earlier draft- it was kinda messed up, but I made it work, lol .



9/11 inside job said:


> Because of the JFK assassination and how i was lied about that for so many years in our corrupt school system,i had my suspencions from the very get go 9/11 was done to get us into another fake and phony war same as why they killed JFK but i never had the facts or the evidence to prove that till three years later.



I originally wholly believed the official story on 9/11. Then I read a book on 9/11 from an author I trust, Jim Marrs. He wrote one of the 2 books that Oliver Stone's film "JFK" was based on (the other being Jim Garrison's "On the Trail of the Assassins). In case you haven't seen the film, let's just say that Jim Marrs and Jim Garrison were not fans of the official narrative concerning the JFK assassination .



9/11 inside job said:


> If he trolls and says oswald killed JFK,why do you think you could ever change his mind on 9/11 possibly ?  fair question.



I've spent years discussing 9/11. In all that time, I don't know if I've persuaded a single person online that 9/11 was an inside job. That being said, I definitely think I have gotten people to question certain aspects of it atleast. One of my proudest moments was when I saw official story supporters informing -other- official story supporters that atleast one element that has long been known to be true amoung truthers is, in fact, true (nanothermite is, in fact, an explosive, not an incendiary; that would be conventional thermite). This, in my view, is what this is all about; changing a person's worldview from OCT believer to truther is not something that happens easily.



9/11 inside job said:


> agent candyass will tell you oswald killed JFK.ask him,you'll see for yourself.



Perhaps I'll ask him one day, but for now, I'm not that interested in that. The JFK assassination happened before I was even born. I certainly believe it's important, but I think I've got my hands full discussing 9/11 right now...



9/11 inside job said:


> I wish I had known Dale smith in 2004 because had I known him then,I could have woke him up much sooner about 9/11 than he was. For 12 years after 9/11,he believed the official version even though he knew the CIA killed JFK. I would have asked Dale back then-Dale WHY do you accept it that there was a conspiracy by the CIA to kill JFK but wont look at the evidence they did 9/11 as well?
> 
> see that STUMPS them everytime and that is WHY it is asinine to argue with agent candyass when he lies about the JFK event ignoring facts and tells everyone oswald killed JFK.if he says oswald killed JFK and trolls on that all the time,WHY do you think he would be open minded on 9/11?



I'm willing to try to persuade him that 9/11 was an inside regardless of whether or not he believes that Oswald killed JFK alone. Furthermore, Candy isn't the only person in this thread who believes in the OCT concerning 9/11. There is, for instance, Faun. And while you have said that he, too, believes JFK was killed by Oswald alone, judging from his 3 posts contradicting you on that point, it would appear that he isn't .


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Ah, the sinister insinuation, laugh . I simply ask candy whether the prosecution in Moussaoui's trial was incapable of furnishing false evidence and somehow this means that I will dismiss any evidence that candy presents in the future -.-? I didn't even dismiss the evidence at Moussaoui's trial; I simply asked candy whether he believed the prosecutor was -incapable- of furnishing false evidence.​


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Candy presented no other evidence from the trial. And what she did present, you dismissed.

But the best part was the irony of you asking her why she thinks you will dismiss evidence after you just dismissed evidence.

Thanks, that was a gem.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Again, please watch CIT's video on Lloyd England, your conjectures on what I believe on the matter are rather painful to watch.
> ...



CIT recorded them in 2006, yes. However, as CIT notes in its documentary, National Security Alert, 16 minutes in:
"_Virtually all of the following first-hand witnesses were video recorded on location, and they have been separated into 5 separate and opposing vantage points. Many of these same witnesses were officially recorded by the Center for Military History or the Library of Congress only weeks after the events placing the plane in the same location. This eliminates the notion that their accounts are innacurate and from faded memory due to the amount of time between the event and their recorded independent interviews a few years later._"

The entire documentary can be seen here:



Faun said:


> Meanwhile, on the morning of 9.11, a person claims they saw the plane, "coming down to where the side of the ummm... 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below it..."
> 
> @ 1:23 ...
> 
> ...



Indeed. Have you noticed how this reporter identifies this woman? "Barbara, who is the wife of a friend of mine". No last name. Has anyone verified that she truly exists at all? CIT has compiled a long list of witnesses, but Barbara isn't in it, perhaps for the very reason that she is impossible to identify as an actual person. Here's their list:
*Witnesses List Broken Down*, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Again, please watch CIT's video on Lloyd England, your conjectures on what I believe on the matter are rather painful to watch.
> ...



Mark Petit is another highly dubious witness. This one -is- mentioned by CIT, perhaps because in this case, a last name is in fact provided. He's listed as the very last witness, perhaps because of his dubious account:
***Unable to make sense of account:*
Mark Petitt ( Very dubious account due to being "110", "on a bridge", unless he is referring Rt 27 it would still be dubious because he works "across the street" which can only mean Army Navy Drive in Crystal City which is the ONLY thing that can be "across the street" from the Pentagon-but that is in the other direction that he is driving. If he works at Arlington National Cemetery or the gas station(the Citgo I doubt) Rt 27 or 110 as he called it is a highway, not a "street" like Army Navy DriveEither way-Sounds like he is deducing the impact, not describing it in detail.
_it went over the horizon then it came back in front of a bridge where I was sitting. And... I knew it was gonna hit [...] *And the next thing you know it was just a huge explosion*. Umm, black smoke everywhere._)**


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Again, please watch CIT's video on Lloyd England, your conjectures on what I believe on the matter are rather painful to watch.
> ...



Steve Mccoy is in one of the sublists in CIT's master list. They contacted and confirmed his account. He was in the "Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact" list.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Since when is questioning evidence the same thing as dismissing it?


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny how those who bought into the bullshit of the so-called "Official Story of 9/11" thinks that this particular piece of scrap metal is proof positive that a "plane", AA77 struck the Pentagon.
> ...





> there was more then just this picture of scrap metal entered into evidence.


I'm well aware that.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


I watched the documentary which is how I know CIT interviewed them many years after 9.11. Meanwhile, I offered some who were interviewed ON 9.11 who said they saw the plane coming from the direction of 395, not from north of the gas station.

And those were fresh recollections.

As far as the "witness list" you posted, sorry, but I don't accept a list of witnesses compiled by a group of people determined to prove 9.11 was not carried out by 19 Muslim hijackers. Evidence of their bias can be found in the fact that they excluded her account, which was available from day one.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Indeed. Have you noticed how this reporter identifies this woman? "Barbara, who is the wife of a friend of mine". No last name. Has anyone verified that she truly exists at all?





phoenyx said:


> Mark Petitt ( Very dubious account due to being "110", "on a bridge", unless he is referring Rt 27 it would still be dubious because...





phoenyx said:


> Steve Mccoy is in one of the sublists in CIT's master list. They contacted and confirmed his account. He was in the "Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact" list.



Which brings us full circle to candycorn's most accurate, if not prophetic, expectation of you...



candycorn said:


> It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of  proof.  Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Well for starters, you didn't address the evidence. That alone qualifies as "dismissing it." But you didn't just question the evidence... in the form of a question, you suggested the evidence was falsified.

And you did this immediately before asking candycorn why she thinks you'll just dismiss the evidence as "made up." and then you suggest the evidence was "made up."

C'mon... even you can see the irony in that, can't you??


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 26, 2016)

For those who don't know April Gallop she's a Pentagon event victim and this is her testimony which contradicts the so-called "Official Story".  

In her own words, "As_ I was coming out of the area, I didn't see any type of plane debris, no metal, no airplane seats, nothing that would cause me to believe that what had just happened was an actual plane hitting the building."
_


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 26, 2016)

Wildcard said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Cool . I think it should definitely be said that if this bit of metal isn't from a 757, it was either planted or it came from something that was probably a great deal smaller then a 757.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I think we should probably get a bit specific here; the interviews were conducted in 2006, which would be 5 years after 9/11; if people had been asked what hat they were wearing on 9/11, I can see it could be difficult for them to remember, but this was concerning something a tad more memorable, considering what happened after this plane approached the pentagon. Also, I want to make sure everyone who may not have read previous posts knows the following:
**as CIT notes in its documentary, National Security Alert, 16 minutes in:
"_Virtually all of the following first-hand witnesses were video recorded on location, and they have been separated into 5 separate and opposing vantage points. Many of these same witnesses were officially recorded by the Center for Military History or the Library of Congress only weeks after the events placing the plane in the same location. This eliminates the notion that their accounts are innacurate and from faded memory due to the amount of time between the event and their recorded independent interviews a few years later._"**



Faun said:


> Meanwhile, I offered some who were interviewed ON 9.11 who said they saw the plane coming from the direction of 395, not from north of the gas station.
> 
> And those were fresh recollections.



I've gone over the 3 accounts you've mentioned and I see you've responded to my posts, we'll go over those later.



Faun said:


> As far as the "witness list" you posted, sorry, but I don't accept a list of witnesses compiled by a group of people determined to prove 9.11 was not carried out by 19 Muslim hijackers. Evidence of their bias can be found in the fact that they excluded her account, which was available from day one.



I've already mentioned why they may have excluded the account of "Barbara"; she has only been mentioned as "the wife of a friend of mine" by the reporter mentioning her, and was given no last name. Put simply, her account is impossible to verify. You may not know this, but when CIT went down to Virginia, they didn't know what to expect. There were many rumours flying around at the time. They were definitely surprised when they found that all the witnesses that they could interview on location all placed the playing flight a path north of the Citgo gas station. The implications of such a flight path were crystal clear; the plane could not have brought down the light poles or caused the damage at the pentagon- only taking a flight path south of the citgo gas station could have caused that.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed. Have you noticed how this reporter identifies this woman? "Barbara, who is the wife of a friend of mine". No last name. Has anyone verified that she truly exists at all?
> ...



Sigh -.-. You bring up 3 highly dubious witness accounts, and I mention the fact that they are highly dubious. For simply pointing out their dubiousness, you have therefore concluded that "everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of  proof."

Have you ever considered the alternative? That everything I and others present that contradicts the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof? How do you explain all the witnesses filmed -on location- describing a north side flight path?


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Since when is questioning evidence the same thing as dismissing it?
> ...



What exactly do you mean by that? I questioned some of the evidence you and candy have provided. How does that not address it? I have also pointed out a lot of evidence that contradicts the official story. The many verified witnesses which all specific a flight path north of the citgo gas station is very damning to the official account of a flight path south of the citgo gas station, but you seem to be casually dismissing it.



Faun said:


> But you didn't just question the evidence... in the form of a question, you suggested the evidence was falsified.



I suggested the evidence could be falsified, yes. Are you suggesting the evidence -couldn't- have been falsified?



Faun said:


> And you did this immediately before asking candycorn why she thinks you'll just dismiss the evidence as "made up."



She brought up some evidence, and I asked her if the prosecutor was incapable of furnishing false evidence. I later specified that the prosecutor might -think- the evidence was real, but that didn't necessarily mean that it was. Candy then went on to declare that simply because I was questioning some of the evidence she had provided, that this must mean that I would dismiss any evidence that didn't fit with what my beliefs. Meanwhile, I've found that it is your side that refuses to look at a great deal of the evidence. You may have seen CIT's documentary on Lloyd England, but up until now, it appears that Candy hasn't, which would explain many of the statements she's made regarding Lloyd England that she would know were patently false if she'd seen it.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 26, 2016)

Wildcard said:


> For those who don't know April Gallop she's a Pentagon event victim and this is her testimony which contradicts the so-called "Official Story".
> 
> In her own words, "As_ I was coming out of the area, I didn't see any type of plane debris, no metal, no airplane seats, nothing that would cause me to believe that what had just happened was an actual plane hitting the building."
> _



Nicely done. For those unfamiliar with the case of April Gallop, April Gallop sued Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers. Her case went up to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was dismissed. It's interesting to note -who- dismised it:
**_Bush court dismisses 9/11 suit against Bush officials, orders sanctions

Rather than judicially review significant evidence in the events of September 11, 2001, on April 27, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of an Army Specialist’s complaint against former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers.

One of Plaintiff April Gallop’s attorneys, William Veale, didn’t know whether to relate the decision to “Kafka, Orwell, Carroll, or Huxley,” referring to the absurdity and dearth of reason emanating from the court regarding the deadliest attack on U.S. soil the nation has ever faced.

“The Court’s decision, analogous to reviewing an Indictment in a liquor store hold-up without mentioning the guy walking in with a gun, refuses to acknowledge even the existence of the three defendants much less what they were doing that morning or saying about it afterwards,” Veale added.

Of the three judges on the panel, John Mercer Walker, Jr. is first cousin of former President George H.W. Bush and first cousin once removed of George W. Bush, who used 9/11 to manipulate public emotion to support passage of the unconstitutional PATRIOT Acts and waging illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East. According to Wikipedia, Walker shares a grandfather with the 41st president, George Herbert Walker, whose daughter married Prescott Bush. A motion to force Judge Walker’s removal from the case was denied, despite a clear conflict of interest..._**

Read more at:
*April Gallop versus Dick Cheney: Court Dismisses 9/11 Suit against Bush Officials*


----------



## candycorn (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> And you are the one to determine what is and is not plausible eh ? Settle down, no need to go purple on me ;-)...


Well, yes I am.  You seem incredibly stupid.  Sorry to put it that way but you do.  I don’t mean ignorant of the facts of 9/11 or of AA77 specifically…you seem incredibly stupid in general.  I’m quite surprised that you agree on the proper spelling of the word “conspiracy”.  After all, nobody has proven to  you that the word “conspiracy” is spelled “c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y”, have they? 



phoenyx said:


> Note that furnishing false evidence does -not- necessarily mean that you know that the evidence is false.


A case in point to what I just wrote above.  Apparently, it could have been any light pole, from anywhere in the world in that photograph unless the persons submitting it into evidence in Minnesota (where the ZM trial took place) took it with their bare hands.  



phoenyx said:


> You seem incapable of seeing this from a perspective other than your own. I'm certainly not alone in believing that the Moussaoui trial was essentially a kangaroo court in many respects:
> Finding Himself In A Kangaroo Court, Moussaoui Decides To Pull The Great Satan's Leg About His Role In 9/11


Gee, I’m shocked that you’re sympathetic to the 20th hijacker. 



phoenyx said:


> You really need to do this purple thing eh -.-? Ah well, I've seen worse. I tend to source links more then your average poster. But when beginning a conversation, I think "from what I've heard" is a good starting point. You can then follow up by asking for sources, etc., and -that's- when you would get those types of things. If, on the other hand, you're not interested in what I've heard on a given subject, then that particular line of inquiry tends to die out. I am deeply aware that in online oppositional discussions, it takes 2 to tango, and thus agreement must be had on the lines of inquiry that both sides consider to be worthy of discussion.


Yawn…

Until you supply 3 plausible answers, you’re nowhere and nobody. 

I too have had these discussions with every conspiracy kook on the Internet.  I have found that if you ask them to come up with non insane answers to these 3 questions at the Pentagon…they basically do what you do…go immediately to videos that are supposed to prove something or the other and start name-calling.  The reason they are rejected out of hand is that the morning of 9/11 and the pictures are insurmountable.  They have a cab with it’s windshield smashed in and the light pole that obviously did it.  The damage is consistent through out to the inside of the cab as well as the outside.  No interviews after change that.  No analysis changes that.  And no, your implausible theory on how it happened and “you heard” about it being cordoned off changes it either. 

Plausible answers are the only ones that are accepted. 



phoenyx said:


> Or someone from the secret service might have just blown a hole in it with a gun. Seriously, I really don't believe you've studied Lloyd England's testimony to the degree that I have, let alone to the degree that CIT has. Have you seen the following video documentary on Lloyd England from CIT?


Now a gunshot is introduced.  So not only do we have light pole planters, a cabbie involved, we now have a gunman involved in this conspiracy theory of yours. 



phoenyx said:


> I too believe that there is a lot of evidence that Orlando and OK City (I presume you mean the Oklahoma bombing) was a conspiracy. I've never seen Craig talk about jewish people at all, never mind that they are "behind it all", as you put it, so I won't trust you on that one until you source evidence that that's the case. That's not to say that he may believe there was -some- involvement of people who may just happen to be jewish. I believe that myself.


Raise your hand out there if you’re surprised.  Nobody?



phoenyx said:


> I find it immensely ironic that you would be using a graphic created by CIT or one of its allies to defend your point of view. See all those yellow lines? Those are the lines approximating the flight path that all the credible -witnesses- saw the plane take in its approach to the Pentagon. The only "witness" for the official flight path is Lloyd England, and guess what? He denies that his cab was on the flight path despite the evidence that his cab was on the red path above! Why? Apparently, it's because all the other witnesses place the flight path in a location where he wasn't; he sticks out like a sore thumb and as can be imagined, he doesn't want to be a fall guy. Seriously, watch CIT's video on Lloyd England, it'd help you avoid mistakes like posting CIT's graphic and thinking that it actually defends your viewpoint -.-.


And this proves, very clearly, why physical evidence trumps all of the eye witness testimony. 

The entire path that the ATCs had for AA77, the poles, the generator that was hit by AA77’s right wing engine, all 3 holes in the E-C rings lines up perfectly with the 9/11 Commission report. No path drawn in yellow could do that.


“phoenyx said:


> Actually, all you're doing is posting -alleged- physical evidence. I'll give you an example: the DNA evidence. Craig Ranke once said this about it: **_Whether or not it's hypothetically "possible" to recover the DNA this evidence is automatically invalid.
> To accept it as valid one must work off pure unadulterated faith in the government.
> Faith based evidence is not scientific.
> Nobody knows where it really came from.
> ...


I think you and Mr Ranky watched way too much of the OJ Simpson trial and clearly neither one of you have an idea of what you’re talking about.  Our system sends people to the gas chamber based on the evidence collected and presented by the government only.  


phoenyx said:


> The ignorance, it burns -.-.


I think you’ve stumbled upon the title to your autobiography.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > And you did this immediately before asking candycorn why she thinks you'll just dismiss the evidence as "made up."
> ...



I find you to be among the more rational 9/11 CTs so I am responding to a subject that has been beaten to death here (search any of the 100 months long threads still available).

I'm going to take the macro approach because like so many others, I long ago wearied of the same details being tossed back and forth.

In the nearly 15 years since 9/11 - and in particular the past 5 years - no compelling alternative theory on what happened that day has surfaced and while picking at the official explanation may seem fun, it eventually boils down to intellectual masturbation.

We can agree that NIST's findings were not perfect but one need not throw out the baby just because the bath water is dirty. In fact, given the horrendous and chaotic events of that day, anything short of rebuilding the Towers and physically reenacting the calamity was bound to leave some imperfections in the official explanation. I would have been suspicious of any report that completely and exactly explained it.

In the end my acceptance of NIST's findings is, in part, based on the absence of a viable and rational alternative theory.

The idea that our gov't (or a foreign gov't) planned and executed 9/11 with the cooperation and acquiescence of our gov't, courts, media, investigating agencies, insurers, and, of course, all the invisible ninja demo riggers who planted those silent explosives just seems way too far-fetched.

The fact that this or that _may_ have been possible doesn't prove there was a giant gov't conspiracy to attack America and while Occam's Razor is not proof of the official account, it certainly applies.

For instance, the fact that a prosecutor _may_ have entered false evidence doesn't mean or prove she did.

As you've noticed, 9/11InsideJob believes that our gov't always and only lies but once you scratch his surface, you find the events of 9/11 are just a vehicle to express his hate for Jews ("the Jooos did it!"). He is not alone and the bottom-up methodology he employs by beginning with his conclusion ("the Jooos did it!") and then scouring the Internet for anything - no matter how bizarre - that agrees with it is not only valid reason to dismiss his ranting but good reason to doubt the agenda of the 9/11 CT Movement.

Many who have posted long hours on this subject have come to the same conclusion about the Movement.

As one prominent former 9/11 CT and “a real firm believer in the conspiracy that it was a controlled demolition,” (Charlie Veitch) said when asked if he experienced anti-Semitism within the Movement, “Loads. Loads. I was once accused of being a Jew because of my olive skin and my nose. They said, ‘We can’t trust him’.” And when they say the ‘Illuminati’ or ‘Reptiles’, do they actually mean Jews? “It’s slightly complicated but, mostly, yes,” he says.

He also said " I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Ok, so let's see your evidence it's not from a 757...


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


I'm sorry, but CIT is not the arbitrators of who is or is not a credible witness. The fact that they excluded a person who reported they saw the plane that morning is very troubling when assessing their credibility, which is dubious to begin with.

So do you or do you not have any evidence recorded on 9/11 of any witnesses stating they saw the plane come in from north of that service station? And of the gentlemen recorded years later for the benefit of CIT, do you have any of their original accounts?


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Well you did behave *exactly* as candycorn predicted you would. Why is it wrong for me to remind you of that? How do you think she knew you would?


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 26, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > And you are the one to determine what is and is not plausible eh ?
> ...



I see ...



candycorn said:


> You seem incredibly stupid.  Sorry to put it that way but you do.  I don’t mean ignorant of the facts of 9/11 or of AA77 specifically…you seem incredibly stupid in general.



In my view, there's truly nothing like Rule #5 in Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth to derail a discussion. To whit:
***5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.*_  This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger'  ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',  'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics',  'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others  shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues._** If you really want to kill the discussion, by all means, continue with the name calling, it really is your best bet.



candycorn said:


> I’m quite surprised that you agree on the proper spelling of the word “conspiracy”.  After all, nobody has proven to  you that the word “conspiracy” is spelled “c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y”, have they?



Fortunately for us, we have dictionaries that tend to spell and define words fairly uniformly. Let's get back to the actual topic now, shall we?



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Note that furnishing false evidence does -not- necessarily mean that you know that the evidence is false.
> ...



When it comes to the light poles, I strongly believe that they were all at the scene of the crime. So does CIT from what I gather. This doesn't mean that they were necessarily the same light poles that had been standing at some point in time before 9/11.



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > You seem incapable of seeing this from a perspective other than your own. I'm certainly not alone in believing that the Moussaoui trial was essentially a kangaroo court in many respects:
> ...



You are so credulous. Moussaoui confessed under torture. Surely you aware that people will say just about anything under torture? Let's listen to what a few people who were likely to be in a position to know of Moussaaoui's true role in 9/11, from the article above:
**
*Al-Qaeda Tried To Humor Moussaoui*
_
One terrorist, identified as Sayf al-Adl, a senior member of al-Qaida's military committee and close aide to bin Laden, stated sometime between Sept. 1, 2001, and late July 2004 that Moussaoui was "a confirmed jihadist but was absolutely not going to take part in the Sept. 11, 2001, mission." The 9/11 Commission reported the U.S. recovered from a safehouse in Pakistan a letter written by al-Adl describing the various candidates considered for the Sept. 11 attacks and Moussaoui was not among them.

Another top terrorist witness -- Waleed bin Attash, known as Khallad -- is considered the mastermind of the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole and an early planner of the Sept. 11 plot. He said he knew of no part that Moussaoui was to have played in the Sept. 11 attacks. Khallad was captured in April 2003.

Their testimony supports that of another captive, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, chief organizer of the Sept. 11 attacks. He said in testimony read Monday that Moussaoui had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 plot, but was told he would be part of a later wave of attacks when he and Reid perfected their death ray.

Most of the testimony of al-Qaida operatives was compiled from statements made during U.S. interrogations. The captives themselves have never spoken to either defense attorneys or prosecutors in this case, because prosecutors prevailed in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the defense's request to question these witnesses live in court, or at least on videotape._
**

Why do you think prosecutors refused to allow the defense its request to question these witnesses live in court, or even on videotape?



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I tend to source links more then your average poster. But when beginning a conversation, I think "from what I've heard" is a good starting point. You can then follow up by asking for sources, etc., and -that's- when you would get those types of things. If, on the other hand, you're not interested in what I've heard on a given subject, then that particular line of inquiry tends to die out. I am deeply aware that in online oppositional discussions, it takes 2 to tango, and thus agreement must be had on the lines of inquiry that both sides consider to be worthy of discussion.
> ...



You think you need a title to make plausible arguments -.-? This is what we call argument from authority:
"An *argument from authority* (Latin: _*argumentum ad verecundiam*_), also called an *appeal to authority*, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it."

Source: Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



candycorn said:


> I too have had these discussions with every conspiracy kook on the Internet.  I have found that if you ask them to come up with non insane answers to these 3 questions at the Pentagon…they basically do what you do…go immediately to videos that are supposed to prove something or the other and start name-calling.



Name calling you say ?



candycorn said:


> The reason they are rejected out of hand is that the morning of 9/11 and the pictures are insurmountable.



And you would know, ofcourse, since you are the one to determine what is, and is not, plausible (or "insurmountable") ...



candycorn said:


> They have a cab with it’s windshield smashed in and the light pole that obviously did it.



There was a cab with its windshield smashed in at the scene of the crime, yes. Your notion that the light pole "obviously did it", though, is false. As a matter of fact, a great deal of work has been done to determine that the light pole couldn't have left so little damage had it actually smashed into the car. If you're interested in this evidence, take a look at the following video, where CIT examines first hand the damage done to the cab:




candycorn said:


> And no, your implausible theory on how it happened and “you heard” about it being cordoned off changes it either.



As mentioned before, when beginning a discussion, I can mention that I "heard" something. But if you'd like to see the evidence first hand, by all means, I recommend the following page from CIT:
*How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?*



candycorn said:


> Plausible answers are the only ones that are accepted.



And you are the only one who can determine what is plausible eh ? Works out pretty well for you, I'm sure ;-)...



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Or someone from the secret service might have just blown a hole in it with a gun. Seriously, I really don't believe you've studied Lloyd England's testimony to the degree that I have, let alone to the degree that CIT has. Have you seen the following video documentary on Lloyd England from CIT?
> ...



Obviously -something- had to have caused the damage to Lloyd's car. I have never seen any photographs of the light pole -inside- Lloyd's cab, and after examining the car, CIT determined that the damage within the car was insufficient if the enormous light pole photographed next to the cab had actually speared it. It's no secret that bullets can do that type of damage to a windwhield. There were also 2 individuals in white shirts besides Lloyd England who were photographed next to the cab while Lloyd was there with his damaged cab.



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I find it immensely ironic that you would be using a graphic created by CIT or one of its allies to defend your point of view. See all those yellow lines? Those are the lines approximating the flight path that all the credible -witnesses- saw the plane take in its approach to the Pentagon. The only "witness" for the official flight path is Lloyd England, and guess what? He denies that his cab was on the flight path despite the evidence that his cab was on the red path above! Why? Apparently, it's because all the other witnesses place the flight path in a location where he wasn't; he sticks out like a sore thumb and as can be imagined, he doesn't want to be a fall guy. Seriously, watch CIT's video on Lloyd England, it'd help you avoid mistakes like posting CIT's graphic and thinking that it actually defends your viewpoint -.-.
> ...



Why, because the eye witnesses don't agree with your theory that the Pentagon was hit by a 757?



candycorn said:


> The entire path that the ATCs had for AA77, the poles, the generator that was hit by AA77’s right wing engine, all 3 holes in the E-C rings lines up perfectly with the 9/11 Commission report. No path drawn in yellow could do that.



As mentioned to you in Post #202:
The ATC and other official reports on the trajectory of the aircraft alleged to be Flight 77 don't even concord with each other, or with the damage done to the light poles. Pilots for 9/11 Truth makes this crystal clear in the following video clip:





candycorn said:


> “phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, all you're doing is posting -alleged- physical evidence. I'll give you an example: the DNA evidence. Craig Ranke once said this about it: **_Whether or not it's hypothetically "possible" to recover the DNA this evidence is automatically invalid.
> ...



So that settles that then eh ?  candycorn has spoken


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Did you actually fully read what Wild and I wrote before you responded -.-?


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Of course you dismissed it. candycorn presented you with parts of the plane which were recovered at the scene and later introduced as evidence at trial. None of which, by the way, was ever determined to be falsified. Did you address any of it? Of course not. You summarily dismissed all of it with a single swoop of your innocuous query that the evidence could be fake -- *which is exactly what candycorn predicted you would do.*





Again, kudos to candycorn for her most astute portrayal. 

So do you want to address any of it? Or are you going to suggest all of it could be fake?

Let's start with the remains of the wheel hub...


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Regarding the light pole in England's vehicle... no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen as .r. England said it did. He was there, the doubters were not. And while it may be difficult to visualize how a pole could have impaled his windshield without touching the hood, such doubt does not evaporate the possibility of it occurring. One end could have been wedged into the back seat holding the protruding end up... the pole itself was bent; it could have been sticking out of the windshield, looping over the hood.

And there is no other plausible explanation to account for the damage to his vehicle... a smashed in windshield, dented dashboard, front passenger seat knocked back, damage to the back seat, and a pole Mr. England says he extracted laying next to his car. To ignore all of that in favor of convincing one's self it was all planted on a highway during rush hour is the apex of denial. All because one can't understand how a pole can spear a windshield without hitting the hood of a car.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Yes, I read more denial; which is why I asked for the evidence to support said denial. Regrettably, my query was met with a question rather than an answer.

Do you have an answer...?


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, I’m shocked that you’re sympathetic to the 20th hijacker.
> ...



And once again is exposed the problem with 9/11 CTs ... the truth just doesn't fully support their POV so they are forced to fabricate "facts" to squeeze their square peg into the round hole. Not only is there absolutely no evidence that Moussaoui was tortured, he marveled after the fact about the justice in America available to even a scumbag like himself:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...rises/&usg=AFQjCNE8vicP-BB2pymtvOfsWzU4NSUGOQ

No one was more surprised than Moussaoui himself: At the end he concluded an al-Qaida member like him could get a fair trial in a U.S. court.

"I had thought that I would be sentenced to death based on the emotions and anger toward me for the deaths on Sept. 11," Moussaoui said in an appeal deposition taken after he was sentenced to life in prison. "(B)ut after reviewing the jury verdict and reading how the jurors set aside their emotions and disgust for me and focused on the law and the evidence ... I now see that it is possible that I can receive a fair trial."

As for the al Qaeda opinion of Moussaoui, the article further states:
Zacarias Moussaoui was a clown who could not keep his mouth shut, according to his old al-Qaida boss, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 26, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I suppose that's about as much as a compliment as I'm going to get from the other side of the fence ...



SAYIT said:


> so I am responding to a subject that has been beaten to death here (search any of the 100 months long threads still available).



Thanks, but I'll pass . I did map out this entire thread though, so feel free to cite any post within this thread itself.



SAYIT said:


> I'm going to take the macro approach because like so many others, I long ago wearied of the same details being tossed back and forth.
> 
> In the nearly 15 years since 9/11 - and in particular the past 5 years - no compelling alternative theory on what happened that day has surfaced and while picking at the official explanation may seem fun, it eventually boils down to intellectual masturbation.



You're doing the same thing candy and others have done before you here- conflating your views on the matter as the definitive version of events -.-...




SAYIT said:


> We can agree that NIST's findings were not perfect...



I'm glad you have atleast noticed that NIST's findings were not "perfect" as you say. Personally, I found that Steven Jones' critique of FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Commission reports to be quite revealing as to just how imperfect they were:
In this paper I question the “official” story that the collapses  of the high-rise World Trade Center buildings on 9-11-01 were

For those who prefer videos:





SAYIT said:


> ...but one need not throw out the baby just because the bath water is dirty. In fact, given the horrendous and chaotic events of that day, anything short of rebuilding the Towers and physically reenacting the calamity was bound to leave some imperfections in the official explanation. I would have been suspicious of any report that completely and exactly explained it.



It wouldn't have been too hard for them to come up with much better models. Jonathan Cole did one without NIST's funding:





SAYIT said:


> The idea that our gov't (or a foreign gov't) planned and executed 9/11 with the cooperation and acquiescence of our gov't, courts, media, investigating agencies, insurers, and, of course, all the invisible ninja demo riggers who planted those silent explosives just seems way too far-fetched.



I think you over estimate the amount of people who need to be involved. To quote a line from the pilot episode of "The Lone Gunmen", which had some terrorists try to crash a plane into the World Trade Center via hijacking by remotely controlling a passenger plane and aired 6 months before 9/11:
"There you go, indicting the entire government as usual! A faction, a small faction..."

Source:



SAYIT said:


> The fact that this or that _may_ have been possible doesn't prove there was a giant gov't conspiracy to attack America and while Occam's Razor is not proof of the official account, it certainly applies.



I'm glad that you at least believe that it may have been possible. As to Occam's Razor, I would argue that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the simplest explanation to all the anomalies regarding the official story is that a good deal of it is false.



SAYIT said:


> For instance, the fact that a prosecutor _may_ have entered false evidence doesn't mean or prove she did.



I've been trying to explain this to candy and Faun for a while now, perhaps you will manage it, seeing as you're on their side of the fence.



SAYIT said:


> As you've noticed, 9/11InsideJob believes that our gov't always and only lies but once you scratch his surface, you find the events of 9/11 are just a vehicle to express his hate for Jews ("the Jooos did it!").



Technically, Zionism is not the same thing as Judaism. That being said, I'm not keen on focusing on who did it, especially with those who are satisfied with the official explanation. I think the first focus should be on what happened.



SAYIT said:


> He is not alone and the bottom-up methodology he employs by beginning with his conclusion ("the Jooos did it!") and then scouring the Internet for anything - no matter how bizarre - that agrees with it is not only valid reason to dismiss his ranting but good reason to doubt the agenda of the 9/11 CT Movement.



I know that 9/11 dismisses a lot of people on your side of the fence as well. Personally, while I believe that 9/11 was an inside job just as 9/11 does, I am not keen on dismissing those who disagree. In fact, I tend to spend most of my time discussing 9/11 with them on forums, precisely because they disagree- there are reasons why they disagree, and that in and of itself can form fertile grounds for discussion. The irony is that when it comes to those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job as I do, there isn't nearly as much to discuss, because we're on the same page, as it were. The only thing that I seem to spend a fair amount of time on, on both sides of the fence, is the need for both sides to try to spend a little more time comprehending the other side's point of view instead of simply dismissing it.



SAYIT said:


> Many who have posted long hours on this subject have come to the same conclusion about the Movement.
> 
> As one prominent former 9/11 CT and “a real firm believer in the conspiracy that it was a controlled demolition,” (Charlie Veitch) said when asked if he experienced anti-Semitism within the Movement, “Loads. Loads. I was once accused of being a Jew because of my olive skin and my nose. They said, ‘We can’t trust him’.” And when they say the ‘Illuminati’ or ‘Reptiles’, do they actually mean Jews? “It’s slightly complicated but, mostly, yes,” he says.
> 
> ...



I think if you knew much about Charlie Veitch, you wouldn't want to be putting him up as a poster boy for a truther changing his mind. Charlie Veitch seems to have some -really- serious mental health issues...
The New World Order Update: Charlie Veitch Deleted Post From Love Police Website


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > As you've noticed, 9/11InsideJob believes that our gov't always and only lies but once you scratch his surface, you find the events of 9/11 are just a vehicle to express his hate for Jews ("the Jooos did it!").
> ...



Zionism was not mentioned but I find your belief that pointing out that distinction (the vast majority of Zionists are not Jewish) somehow explains or excuses the bigotry at the core of not only so many 9/11 CTs but perhaps at the core of the Movement itself to be at least curious.



phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Many who have posted long hours on this subject have come to the same conclusion about the Movement.
> ...



Charlie was on a first name basis with 9/11 CT royalty and much revered in the 9/11 CT world until the preponderance of evidence blew his fantasy out of the water after which he became a pariah subject to personal threats and attacks. If the best you can find is some "New World Order" update in a lame attempt to diminish the value and validity of his words you are far more desperately wedded to your Movement (and far less rational) than first concluded.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Yes.  Until plausible alternative explanations are offered for the wreckage, the light poles, and the ATC tracking.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



We're getting to a very important point here; namely, what sources of information should we trust. It's clear that you don't trust CIT. I think it's equally clear that I do. That being said, this isn't really about CIT; it's about the witnesses they recorded on location. Seeing as that is the case, I'd like to know if you have seen National Security Alert, where the witnesses speak for themselves. This is the video which they recommend people to see as an introduction to their viewpoint. You had previously said that you had seen CIT's Lloyd England documentary, but this is not that documentary. National Security Alert can be seen here:





Faun said:


> The fact that they excluded a person who reported they saw the plane that morning is very troubling when assessing their credibility, which is dubious to begin with.



I believe what's troubling is that you're so ready to lap up the testimony of an alleged witness who we only have a first name for, simply because it concords with the official narrative.



Faun said:


> So do you or do you not have any evidence recorded on 9/11 of any witnesses stating they saw the plane come in from north of that service station?



On 9/11, not that I know of, but the Library of Congress interviews were taken in November and December of 2001.



Faun said:


> And of the gentlemen recorded years later for the benefit of CIT, do you have any of their original accounts?



CIT has the Library of Congress interviews here:
Official Interviews | 9/11 Pentagon


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


From your video at 19:00

Witness Terry Morin says the plane flew right over him at the Navy Annex ... that's right off of 395 and south of the service station.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Sigh -.-. You bring up 3 highly dubious witness accounts, and I mention the fact that they are highly dubious. For simply pointing out their dubiousness, you have therefore concluded that "everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of  proof."
> ...



And how is that, exactly? Also, would you mind answering the questions above this time?


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Well candycorn said, _"it also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything,"_ and that is precisely what you've done. I'm still waiting to hear your response to the wheel hub found at the crash site. I showed you a photo of that piece of wreckage alongside that of how it would have looked prior to the crash. You didn't respond.

As far as your question ... I have yet to see evidence the official account is false. All I see from your side is conjecture and questions. Conjecture which doesn't add up and questions designed to inject doubt into the official story. Even worse for you... there are some certifiable nuts on your side who make twoofers look absolutely batshit insane. I'm not saying that of you, but folks like 7forever, 9/11 inside job, Dale Smith, et al.,  aren't doing folks like you any favors.

Meanwhile, I see the official story as far more plausible than any other account I've heard.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





LOL! STFU, ya commie piece of walking, talking shit!!!


----------



## candycorn (Jun 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> Again, kudos to candycorn for her most astute portrayal.



Well, thank you.  But it is really like shooting fish in a barrel with 9/11 Twoofers.  This one in particular does him/herself no favors by making the silly claim that the Federal Prosecutor in the ZM trial submitted false evidence either knowingly or not knowingly…  Meaning that the only way evidence should be admissible is if the prosecutor personally was on the scene of the crime (while it was a live scene)—never going to happen—personally snapped the pictures after personally doing the investigating, personally typing and cross-matching the blood, personally talking to every witness…  We’d never have a conviction for jaywalking with this as the standard for evidence.  

The barrel gets shorter still when he/she goes about equating eye-witness recollection with physical evidence is crazy.  One can lie; one cannot.  Never is it more clear that content=credibility when they do this; it’s a tell tale sign that they are not being an honest broker.  

Eyewitness Misidentification - Innocence Project
https://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=xnkiclH7CmE

When you have to sacrifice the very foundation of investigative science to prop up your theory…its easy for anyone to blow it apart.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 27, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Fortunately for us, we have dictionaries that tend to spell and define words fairly uniformly. Let's get back to the actual topic now, shall we?



This is the *actual topic.*

We have dictionaries?  And did the editors source all of the words to make sure they are spelled that way or they mean what you think they mean?


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > She brought up some evidence, and I asked her if the prosecutor was incapable of furnishing false evidence. I later specified that the prosecutor might -think- the evidence was real, but that didn't necessarily mean that it was. Candy then went on to declare that simply because I was questioning some of the evidence she had provided, that this must mean that I would dismiss any evidence that didn't fit with what my beliefs. Meanwhile, I've found that it is your side that refuses to look at a great deal of the evidence. You may have seen CIT's documentary on Lloyd England, but up until now, it appears that Candy hasn't, which would explain many of the statements she's made regarding Lloyd England that she would know were patently false if she'd seen it.
> ...



There you go, assuming that what we are told by government officials must be the truth. Surely you understand that if 9/11 truly was an inside job, those involved would have a vested interest in doctoring the evidence?



Faun said:


> None of which, by the way, was ever determined to be falsified.



No official source has determined that they were falsified as far as I know, no. They investigated themselves and found that they did nothing wrong. Very persuasive -.-



Faun said:


> Did you address any of it? Of course not. You summarily dismissed all of it with a single swoop of your innocuous query that the evidence could be fake



Oh for the love of -.-...  Once again- questioning evidence is -not- the same thing as dismissing it. I -believe- that SAYIT was essentially saying the same thing in a recent post. Hopefully he'll see this and back me up here.



Faun said:


> So do you want to address any of it? Or are you going to suggest all of it could be fake?



As if you couldn't address something while questioning its veracity -.-...



Faun said:


> Let's start with the remains of the wheel hub...



Last time, I'd said I wanted some expert opinion on this before commenting further. I've now found it. Rob Balsamo is a seasoned ex pilot and cofounder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. He made a thread regarding the wheels pictured above, compariing it to 757 wheels, here:
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Wheel Hub at Pentagon

I'll paste a bit of what I believe is the most relevant portion of his text here:
"_[T]hese pictures are not on any govt site to support the official story. They were taken by an anonymous photographer and were never matched via serial numbers with mx logs. At least.. i haven't found any reports.. nor has Col George Nelson (ret USAF)._"


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 27, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you dismissed it. candycorn presented you with parts of the plane which were recovered at the scene and later introduced as evidence at trial.
> ...



And how does that differ from the litany of "Truther experts" whose opinions _you_ assume are honest? Considering the gov't report is based on the findings of _independent experts_ whose reps are staked on the quality and integrity of their work, isn't it possible - even probable - that your "experts" have another, less honest agenda?

I allude, of course, to your attempt to diminish the significance of the Moussaoui conviction by claiming he was "tortured." Not only was he convicted on far more evidence than his confession, there is no evidence that he was tortured. You just made that up because, as so often is the case, the truth just doesn't support your 9/11 CT narrative.

So what is your agenda in this matter? Clearly it isn't the search for truth.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 27, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > dude you dont REALLY expect me to read that bible length rant of yours do you?
> ...



I guess I had Faun mixed up with another agent like candyass.He is one of those much more clever shills than candyass.Some of these agents like him are much more clever than hiim  and wont not deny that the CIA killed JFK,but will make up lie after lie about 9/11 and ignore the facts on that.

Well I see that  despite my advise,that you clearly are going to  be ignorant and keep feeding these paid shills  such as candyass,faun,and sayit giving them the attention they seek and making their handlers happy in the process that you take their bait.

That being said,I am going to exit this thread for good now. In closing,as i said before,i think its truly sad that you choose to be foolish and ignore my advise and feed the trolls just like their handlers want you to  ESPECIALLY when as i said,its like the JFK assassination,done and over with and nothing is ever going to be done about it as long as we have this corrupt one party system of demopublicans and reprocrats disguised as two parties so the sheep think they have a choice in who gets elected.

I think its sad that you choose to devote all your time feeding all these paid shills instead of using your time more constructively about whats going on NOW like being concerned about Trump getting elected.

That is 100 times more important now than feeding paid shills since it affects our future especially since the path towards the destruction of america that Reagan got started and every president since has continued and expanded upon is at stake if that mass murdering evil bitch hellery gets elected which of course,candyass is on record of wanting to win of course.

The only halfway decent president we have had since our last president who served the people instead of the bankers JFK, was carter and sadly,there are millions of sheep that have fallen for the propaganda by the government and media that he was the worst president ever till Obama came along i have heard many say over the years say including many ignorant posters here  at this site as well.

He was the best president we had since JFK,so the media and our corrupt school system,naturally paint him as the worst president ever and make up lie after lie about him and worship Reagan of course since he was the grandfather of all presidents who got the ball rolling for the destruction of america so the sheep have been brainwashed into believeing he was god and could do no wrong.

Carter same as JFK,while he did serve the bankers-which is why he stayed alive,he also tried to get rid of the CIA towards the end of his term in office but since he only served one term,he did not have enough time to implement his plans to do.

The establishment wasnt worried about carter.They knew he was on his way out with the iran situation they created and that their boy Reagan who they made sure to get elected,would get the CIA's dirty tricks operations  of starting wars with other countries going again that carter had cleaned up and was on the verge of dismanteling them for good. Had he somehow magically gotten past the rigged election of Reagan and magically been relected,you KNOW they would have assassinated him as well.

as i said before,its sad that you spend your time arguing with paid shills when it would be better put to use worrying about the future and Trump getting elected since Trump is our last hope of not only saving america but most importantly concerning the topic here,that a new independent investigation into 9/11 would be reopened.

With Globalist HELLERY as next POTUS,there is not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening. Trump may be double speak same as Obama and not do what he say he will do once he gets in but he for sure beats the alternative of mass murderer hellery getting elected since with her,we will remain the facist dictatership country we are now which candyass ALSO has said many times in the past,is not true and we are a free country.

so like I said,its really sad that you take their bait instead of worrrying about the upcoming election since it concerns our future.

I can see I am talking to a brick wall though same as it is when you discuss 9/11 with agents candyass,sayit and faun and others.

i will read your reply but not till months later AFTER this thread dies down after the elections which AGAIN its sad you are worried over 9/11 when it is just like the JFK assassination where the real killers will get off scott free UNLESS "POSSIBLY" Trump gets elected.

I believe Trump is like Ron Paul.A RINO who is not part of the new world order like the Bushs,Clintons,Obama,Romney,Cruz and all the other candidates are.He is just on the republican ticket same as Paul was because he knows the independents like gary johnson,dont have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected if they are not part of the one party corrupt system of demopublicans and reprocrats.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> Regarding the light pole in England's vehicle... no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen as .r. England said it did.



And -I'm- the one accused of dismissing evidence -.-?? Despite your blind faith in your OCT religion, I'm here to inform you that yes, things can be proven even if you don't think they can be.



Faun said:


> He was there, the doubters were not.



We can agree that he was there, but that's the extent of our agreement here.



Faun said:


> And while it may be difficult to visualize how a pole could have impaled his windshield without touching the hood, such doubt does not evaporate the possibility of it occurring.



My god- did you actually say -possibility-? I'm shocked -.-. After all, we all know how possibilities work- it means it may or -may not- be true. About 7 years ago, I actually brought up the Lloyd's light pole in the forum of those who have studied Lloyd and his light pole the most- CIT. Their responses were gold. I was named scott75 in their forum. Unfortunately, they came to distrust me, apparently because I would keep on bringing up questions that they didn't feel merited the time and I was removed from their forum. It doesn't take away the good work they did regarding Lloyd's light pole, though. The thread can be seen here:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=724&st=0

Also, it's not just a matter of the 30 to 40 foot pole not touching the hood. I'll get into my point below...



Faun said:


> One end could have been wedged into the back seat holding the protruding end up... the pole itself was bent; it could have been sticking out of the windshield, looping over the hood.



Starting at 44:55 in CIT's Lloyd England Eye of the Storm documentary, Craige relates the following:
**_Craig Ranke: "So we reached the cab. You can see now the footage of us examining the cab, taking a look at it inside and out. Ofcourse the hood didn't have scratches on it as you can see on 9/11, it was still preserved that way today.

And now we get to look close at the interior and see if there's anything here, because Lloyde claims that the pole speared the windshield of the cab, so a lot of people figured well, you don't know, maybe the pole went all the way through the back seat, and that's what held it up over the hood and why it didn't scratch the hood, so this means it would literally have to puncture the back seat and through the floor boards perhaps. This may have held up such a long pole, but the fact is there's no damage to the cab in this regard. So, now we know for a fact, the floorboards were intact, in fact they were holding water at the time, there's only a minor puncture in the back seat, very minor, so the pole certainly didn't go through it."_**

Perhaps a -bullet- made it? Certainly small enough. Anyway, continuing...

**_Craig Ranke: "Ofcourse, even if it had, it'd be strange, because the pole, the top part of the pole was bent, so, if it had punctured all the way through, it's doubtful that they'd have been able to lift the pole out at all.

Which brings up another point. I've always wondered if, in fact, you were in his situation, and a pole did spear his windshield, and he ended up on the side of the road, with a pole still sticking over the the hood, what are the chances that you or anyone would attempt to remove that pole under any circumstances, let alone under a situation where the pentagon was burning right behind you, and it was a major attack going on at the time.

This right here has always kept me questioning Lloyde's account, I mean why would he even try to remove the pole, let alone flag over this silent stranger who allegedly helped him. And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so, if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well. So there are many factors that don't make sense about Lloyde's account and after visiting the cab and seeing the damage to the cab first hand, it doesn't clear up his story at all. It doesn't make his story seem any more possible. In fact, now we're even more certain the light pole could not have speared the windshield of Lloyde's cab."_**

Source: 


Faun said:


> And there is no other plausible explanation to account for the damage to his vehicle... a smashed in windshield, dented dashboard, front passenger seat knocked back, damage to the back seat, and a pole Mr. England says he extracted laying next to his car.



You aren't actually saying that only a 30 to 40 foot light pole could have made that type of damage, are you?



Faun said:


> To ignore all of that in favor of convincing one's self it was all planted on a highway during rush hour is the apex of denial.



From CIT's *How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?*:
**
_Even Pole 1, which Lloyde England claims speared the windshield of his taxi (a physically impossible claim which is not corroborated by a single other eyewitness or any photograph, and which is proven false by the north side approach evidence anyway), could have been pre-positioned in advance, hidden off to the side of the road or on the wide guardrail median separating the carpool lane, waiting to be dragged out to its final resting spot next to the cab for the photo ops immediately after the explosion on 9/11 while everyone was watching the Pentagon burn.

In fact, the visible scratch on the road where the pole was dragged is physical evidence that this is exactly what happened._






_Additionally, there is evidence that authorities had already blocked off southbound traffic on Route 27, where Lloyde's cab was photographed, shortly after the explosion (and possibly even just before), giving themselves complete control over the scene.

Jerri Davis was completely stopped in traffic talking on her cell phone in the northbound HOV lane of Route 27 in front of the Pentagon when the plane flew by. She was just far enough north that she did not see the plane, which was gone by the time she turned after hearing the huge explosion to the right. After getting out of her car and walking into the grass to observe the scene for a few minutes, Jerri then got back in her car and began to make her way out of there. Traffic was moving pretty slowly because they had to snake through a number of stopped vehicles, so once Jerri reached the point just beyond the median she made a U-Turn and headed back down Route 27 southbound._






_Jerri told us that as she got back down near the Pentagon she noticed a man up ahead who was waving his hands and trying to flag her down to stop. She said there was no way on Earth that she was going to stop, so she got off at the Columbia Pike exit instead._





**

The article continues with a lot more very valuable information, I suggest you take a look at it in full.


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


If you weren't so demented, I might have been offended by that.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




No, people that are "demented" are those that blindly follow this corporate "gubermint" over the proverbial cliff. You will get everything you deserve and then some.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Sigh. Wildcard had just put up some pictures explaining how the piece of scrap metal found on the pentagon lawn couldn't have been from a 757. I've also been putting up post after post with tons of evidence showing that the plane hitting the Pentagon couldn't have been a 757, which I -know- you've noticed, because you've been responding to those very posts -.-...


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 28, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I must admit I'm surprised. It's a far cry from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's being waterboarded 183 times. (Source: First U.S. trial of 9/11 case was full of surprises).



SAYIT said:


> As for the al Qaeda opinion of Moussaoui, the article further states:
> Zacarias Moussaoui was a clown who could not keep his mouth shut, according to his old al-Qaida boss, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.



Yep, I saw that. Let's not forget the fact that Mohammed -was- waterboarded 183 times though, so his testimony is highly suspect.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 28, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



We were talking about the member "9/11 inside job". He has indeed mentioned zionism, in reference to candycorn atleast:


9/11 inside job said:


> and these paid zionist shills like candyass are worried you are getting this truth out the fact their handlers send them here to shit all over your thread.





SAYIT said:


> ...but I find your belief that pointing out that distinction (the vast majority of Zionists are not Jewish) somehow explains or excuses the bigotry at the core of not only so many 9/11 CTs but perhaps at the core of the Movement itself to be at least curious.



Sigh -.- I have nothing against jewish people as a whole, just like I have nothing against Americans, Muslims or any other large group. This doesn't mean that some Americans and Israelies (not to mention some Arabs who were probably muslim) were involved in 9/11. We all agree that -some people- conspired to pull off 9/11. That doesn't make us bigots -.-



SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I don't agree. I've been part of the CT community for a long time. The only time I had even heard of him was when the mainstream media picked up on him. Do you have any well known names for those who allegedly "revered" him?



SAYIT said:


> until the preponderance of evidence blew his fantasy out of the water after which he became a pariah subject to personal threats and attacks. If the best you can find is some "New World Order" update in a lame attempt to diminish the value and validity of his words you are far more desperately wedded to your Movement (and far less rational) than first concluded.



You didn't read the article did you? Have you ever considered he was blackmailed into flipping sides? The articles certainly makes it clear that there was definitely enough material to do that. I'll assume you didn't even click on the link, so I'll post a bit of it:
**
_Dear Readers,
This is not Charlie. This is the person that knows him better than anyone else.
I felt I needed to tell you all the truth about Charlie, especially since so many of you donated to fund his lifestyle. *Please read carefully, save it, repost it if you like. He will delete this blog as soon as he sees it. He has a strong distaste for the truth.*
Charlie preached in the streets about love and truth – but these are two values which he does not hold for himself. The majority of those in the government, and in the police force, are better human beings than Charlie is.
Charlie is not hired by MI5, or a paid ‘shill’. The truth is dirtier than that. Put simply, Charlie is a liar and a cheat. He never once practiced what he preached.
He tried to tell you all that his girlfriend, aged 20, was his ‘goddess’ – he came across like a family man, a loving man, an aspirational figure. In reality, he was very, very dark.
He admits that he cheated on every girlfriend that he ever had, from short term to the most serious long term relationships – but when he started the Love Police, he said he realised how wrong this was, and that he was a changed man. This was a sick veneer. At the time, he was cheating on his new girlfriend – the woman you knew to be the other half of the Love Police. The one that tirelessly campaigned to get him out of jail every time he was arrested. We don’t need to go into too much detail – the cheating was continuous, diverse, and relentless.
However – last year, in the honeymood period of his new relationship, he made a video called ‘Jasmine and the Morning Star’, featuring a 15 year old girl. Many of you voiced your concerns about the nature of the filming – it seemed perverted and almost paedophilic. You were right. Luckily, this girl’s mother was a bit wise to him, and accompanied the child to his flat in London, unexpected by him. He tried grooming her nevertheless, whispering to her that they had a special ‘connection’ and so on, but he could not make his sexual move in front of her mother. He had wanted her alone. He finally did get her alone, when the poor girl was only 16 years old. He got her very drunk, took her to his home, and slept with her despite her initial protests, and despite him apparently being in love with his ‘goddess’. Afterwards, the child went to the bathroom to be sick, and called a friend who luckily collected her. The story gets worse. The next day, she was very upset and told her mother. Her 40 year old mother confessed that she too, had been taken out by Charlie, and that he had also slept with her when she was too drunk to know what she was doing – just the night before he slept with her 16 year old child. Yes. I feel incredibly sick too._**

Source: *Charlie Veitch Deleted Post From Love Police Website*

This guy would have been -very- easy to blackmail if those behind 9/11 had wanted to do it.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 28, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Yes,  yes, I understand: you have has stated that the the alternatives offered for the wreckage, light poles and ATC tracking are not plausible and you are always right as to what is plausible, nothing to see here folks


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the light pole in England's vehicle... no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen as .r. England said it did.
> ...


Ok.... if you _think_ it can be proven that the pole could not have pierced the windshield without hitting the hood -- prove it.

I watched the CIT video and they could not prove it, so I can't imagine you'll have any more success than they did.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 28, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Well, thanks for the capitulation.  Just because I'm batting 1.000% against twoofers doesn't mean I can't be struck out.  You just ain't got the stuff.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Let me get this straight.... you don't trust the government ... but when you're presented with evidence of a plane crash from a site where a plane crashed, you summarily dismiss said evidence if a picture of it didn't come from the government??






So you won't accept evidence from the government and you won't accept evidence not from the government ... what evidence will you accept??

Which brings us full circle to candycorn's nail which she hit so perfectly with her hammer...



			
				candycorn said:
			
		

> _It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything._


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


No, what Wildcard did was speculate a piece of the plane could not have come from flight #77 because in his estimation, the white trim on the lettering was too small.

That in no way, shape, or form, proves it did not come from flight #77. That you claim such silly eyeballing of the lettering equates to that piece of a plane _*"couldn't"*_ have come from flight #77 only serves to undermine you credibility.

By the way... the width of the lettering matches perfectly.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 28, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Your response is a typically lame attempt to change the subject because you were caught posting a Truther "fact" in an earlier lame attempt to diminish the significance of Moussaoui's conviction. Rather than obfuscate, a simple "sorry ...I was wrong" or even simplier "I lied" would suffice and a walk-back of the point you tried to make with that "fact" is in order but I won't be holding my breath. In fact, I have little doubt that when attempting to dismiss Moussaoui's conviction in the future, you will use the same "fact" in the hope no one notices.

My guess? You've used it before and when its veracity was challenged you posted a similar obfuscation.

There is nothing new in any of your arguments and, as already explained, they have been beaten to death (and soundly discredited) in a hundred other threads here (which is why so few bother to correct you here). They have wearied of your silliness.

What I find most revealing is the cynicism you (and CTs in general) so lavishly apply to even the smallest (and least significant) official facts and explanations and the absolute dearth of cynicism when considering any of the alternate universe theories proffered over the past 15 years by the "Truther" Movement.

If you applied the same cynical eye to your alternate universe you'd either go stark raving mad (see: 9/11InsideJob, Dale Smith) attempting to suppress the truth about it or you'd quit the Movement in disgust like Mike Metzger (co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany):

Confessions of an Ex-Truther: Letter of Resignation (Scroll Down for Newer Posts)
...The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are "in on it." Yeah, sure. Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people. And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to "pull" Building 7. The truthers' misrepresentation of Silverstein's quote is one of the most popular "facts" to spit out, but in doing so, you are effectively in agreement that firefighters were not only involved in the controlled demolition of WTC7, but they are also aiding and abetting in the government's cover-up. Yeah, every firefighter who was out there on 9/11 is going to be complicit in the MURDER OF 343 OF THEIR FALLEN BROTHERS! To quote Loose Change co-creator Jason Bermas, "the firefighters are paid off."

This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach...


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 28, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie was on a first name basis with 9/11 CT royalty and much revered in the 9/11 CT world
> ...



Evidently you didn't read the article:

...Then, there were the women. “I could have anyone. And there’s a lot of cute activist girls in Holland and Denmark.” Thrillingly, he was courted by his heroes, Jones and David Icke, the former television sports presenter who believes humanity is being controlled by alien lizards.

“It was like being a struggling actor and Tom Cruise phones you,” he says. Jones invited him on to his internet show Prison Planet and praised his “great work”. Veitch interviewed Icke outside parliament just after the 2010 general election, and in return was sent a birthday present of a T-shirt and a book, signed, “To Charles, a great man doing great things. Love David”. Veitch was now a well-known figure in the conspiracy community. But, while some believers could be dismissed as harmless crackpots, there was a malevolent undercurrent to many of the theories...


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > We're getting to a very important point here; namely, what sources of information should we trust. It's clear that you don't trust CIT. I think it's equally clear that I do. That being said, this isn't really about CIT; it's about the witnesses they recorded on location. Seeing as that is the case, I'd like to know if you have seen National Security Alert, where the witnesses speak for themselves. This is the video which they recommend people to see as an introduction to their viewpoint. You had previously said that you had seen CIT's Lloyd England documentary, but this is not that documentary. National Security Alert can be seen here:
> ...



True. That being said, it's still too far north to concord with the NTSB flight path. Here's a graphic that includes all of the witnesses interviewed on location by CIT, as well as Terry Morin's testimony. Terry wasn't interviewed on location but he was interviewed by CIT over the phone and he described where he was and where the airplane was in relation to him, as can be seen from 19:00 and on in the video as you say. Now for the graphic. Terry's viewpoint is close to where the diamond is close to where the diamond is in the text "Navy Annex".






For reference, the following picture shows where 395 and the Columbia Pike is...





I'm guessing you didn't really pay too much attention to what Terry Morin said in the video or you would have known that Terry Morin essentially refutes the NTSB narrative, despite his belief in the official story up until that point. I'll quote directly starting from 20:38 of the National Security Alert video:
**
Craig Ranke: Let me ask you this: What are the chances that the plane was actually on the south side of Columbia Pike completely, or on the south side of the V Dot.

Terry Morin: No fricking way.

Craig Ranke: No fricking way.

Terry Morin: No fricking way, he was right over the top of me.

Craig Ranke: You're 100% certain that it was over the top of the Navy Annex.

Terry Morin: I am. He is on the edge of the Naval Annex, not completely over.

Craig Ranke: Right. But.. the plane itself would be on the North side of Columbia Pike at that point.

Terry Morin: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, this is Columbia Pike.

Craig Ranke: Mmhm.

Terry Morin: Ok. There's a fence right here.

Craig Ranke: Right.

Terry Morin: I'm inside the fence.

Craig Ranke: Yeah.

Terry Morin: Ok. But he went right over the top of me.

Craig Ranke: So you're saying the entire plane then, including the right wing.

Terry Morin: Is the right wing hanging out a little bit, I mean there's only, how much...

Craig Ranke: No, I'm saying over between the North side of the Columbia Pike. Maybe it was hanging over the Navy Annex, but there's no way it was, the plane itself, or even the right wing, was on the North/South side of the Columbia Pike?

Terry Morin: Nope.**


----------



## candycorn (Jun 28, 2016)

Wildcard said:


> Oh, like the bullshit that the so-called Official Story of 9/11 is comprised of makes a lick of sense?
> 
> Like I said before, enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid and remaining ignorant.
> 
> After all, it's what gullible idiots like yourself do best.



Feel free to account for the physical evidence if you can.  

How did the wreckage get there?
How did the ATC's track AA77 into Pentagon Airspace but not out of it
How did the light poles get knocked down by a "cruise missile" as alleged in title of the thread.

Feel free tough guy.  Or sit there and continue to call people names like a punk that you are.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Nope, not too far to the north. Going by Terry Morin's observation, it could  very well have been on the path which took it out the lamp posts. Red line is mine...


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jun 29, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, like the bullshit that the so-called Official Story of 9/11 is comprised of makes a lick of sense?
> ...


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, that's exactly what -candycorn- has done. She has determined that the evidence I have provided isn't plausible, and therefore I'm wrong . You, atleast, are seeing the videos I've provided and commenting on specific witnesses, such as Terry Morin. You may have not really understood the implications of what he said in the video, but I can help make such implications clear in followup.



Faun said:


> I'm still waiting to hear your response to the wheel hub found at the crash site. I showed you a photo of that piece of wreckage alongside that of how it would have looked prior to the crash. You didn't respond.



I hadn't yet responded to that post because I hadn't yet gotten to it. I almost always respond to posts chronologically. This post of mine you were responding to was post 257. In post 257, I was responding to post 245. The post you're referring to was 248. I got to it in post 262. If I haven't yet responded to a particular post of yours, see what post I was responding to in my last post. If it's before the one you're awaiting a response for, you'll know the probable reason why.



Faun said:


> As far as your question ... I have yet to see evidence the official account is false.



In other words, you believe that the evidence against the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof, no?



Faun said:


> All I see from your side is conjecture



I could say the same for much of the official narrative.



Faun said:


> and questions.



Do you not have any questions concerning the official narrative?



Faun said:


> Conjecture which doesn't add up



According to you...



Faun said:


> and questions designed to inject doubt into the official story.



When responding to you, I generally design my questions to get you to ponder whether the official narrative is actually true, yes. I think it's the most effective approach to use; to ponder Mark Twain's old line:
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."



Faun said:


> Even worse for you... there are some certifiable nuts on your side who make twoofers look absolutely batshit insane. I'm not saying that of you, but folks like 7forever, 9/11 inside job, Dale Smith, et al.,  aren't doing folks like you any favors.



Judging from Dale's response to this post of yours, as well as other responses to various posts of yours and others from your side of the fence, it seems that the feeling is mutual. I try my best to steer clear of the name calling and insults; I don't see how it helps anything, and enough of it can paralyze any meaningful discussion.



Faun said:


> Meanwhile, I see the official story as far more plausible than any other account I've heard.



Ofcourse, which is why you believe it . I believe alternative narratives because I believe -they- are more plausible. What a person believes concerning 9/11 is just one more set of beliefs, along other sets such as political affiliation and religion (or lack thereof). I don't know about others, but I come to forums to try to explain why I believe what I believe, learn why others believe other things, and see if there's a way that we can come to agreements on these differing beliefs.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 29, 2016)

Wildcard said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



As long as you guys continue to produce bullshit theories, I suppose the stupid will continue.  Or you could try to prove the thesis.  But we both know you can't.  Being so overwhelmingly powerless must suck for you.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 29, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Nice try. 

You're not wrong.  There is a difference between simply committing an error and being wrong.

This is committing an error:

2 + 5 = 8.  
You added 2 & 5 and ended up with 8 instead of the correct answer of 7.  

Being wrong is this:

2 + 5 = How do you know there are only 2 units and 5 units being added?  
And I don't trust that plus sign...

You're not deemed wrong because you've analyzed the physical evidence and came to a conclusion different than ours.  

You're deemed wrong because you refuse to accept the superiority of physical evidence in most cases and assume the physical evidence is corrupted somehow while not being able to back it up.  

Basically, you're being stupid.  And you obviously know this.  

I will explain it yet again:

If your finger prints are found at the scene of a crime, you have some explaining to do.  It's that simple.  They had to have gotten there somehow.  Lets say there is a murder of a woman at her home and the murder instrument is a heavy glass vase with your finger prints on them.  Maybe you delivered flowers to the woman at her office and later in the day, she took the flowers home and was murdered with it when when she interrupted an intruder.  There can be multiple plausible expainations for physical evidence.  

I've found that with all 9/11 twoofers, the rubber hits the road when you have them try to explain physical evidence.  Since there are so few plausible theories that account for wreckage, ATC tracking, and the lightpoles...they end up like you, frustrated and having to come up with some bullshit narrative about their intent.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 29, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Actual news report......




That's the winner.
That report was before the official story was set up to the press, so the reporter had to play it by ear, actually telling the truth about what he saw.

The rest is science as the pre collapse hole and general damage simply isn't big enough for a larger aircraft to have hit it.

If one part of the story is extremely questionable, that begs questions about the rest of it.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 29, 2016)

candycorn said:


> As long as you guys continue to produce bullshit theories,



Prove a plane did hit the pentagon.
Pictures will do very nicely.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Well then go ahead and explain the wheel hub found.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2016)

Indofred said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > As long as you guys continue to produce bullshit theories,
> ...


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2016)

And now, just for fun ... for our reality-deprived friends...














_cc: Indofred; phoenyx; Wildcard_


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Well then go ahead and explain the wheel hub found.



CHOSEN PHOTOSHOPPING


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Well, yes, I suppose, in a broad sense, but then so does every other thread in this sub forum. The subject of this -thread-, however, tends to focus on the explosion at the Pentagon during 9/11, mainly because the thread of this title references this event.



candycorn said:


> We have dictionaries?



Indeed -.-



candycorn said:


> And did the editors source all of the words to make sure they are spelled that way or they mean what you think they mean?



I'm sorry, but I'm not going to follow you down this rabbit hole. It's just too dull -.-


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You may find that I don't assume a whole lot. For starters, if I did, I would write posts that are an awful lot shorter -.- But addressing your point regarding truthers, I don't assume what someone says is true based on whether or not that someone is labelled a "truther".



SAYIT said:


> Considering the gov't report is based on the findings of _independent experts_ whose reps are staked on the quality and integrity of their work, isn't it possible - even probable - that your "experts" have another, less honest agenda?



I'm sorry, but what independent experts are you referring to? Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth? Or perhaps Pilots for 9/11 Truth? Citizen Investigation Team? Firefighters for 9/11 Truth? Another group of experts mentioned in Patriots for 9/11 Truth? 



SAYIT said:


> I allude, of course, to your attempt to diminish the significance of the Moussaoui conviction by claiming he was "tortured."



Admittedly, I hadn't heard that, unlike Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times, Moussaoui apparently wasn't waterboarded at all. Or atleast, that's what we've been told. 



SAYIT said:


> Not only was he convicted on far more evidence than his confession...



I'm not saying that there weren't some patsies lined up to take the fall for 9/11, and I can easily imagine that Moussaoui was a backup patsy, or was atleast led to believe that he could possibly be a 'martyr for the cause' in a 'second wave' or whatever. This doesn't mean that any of the actual alleged hijackers actually hijacked anything, let alone that there was ever going to be a 'second wave'.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Well then go ahead and explain the wheel hub found.
> ...


Well that should be easy enough for you to prove. That photo is from the Pentagon crash site. Prove your claim by showing that photo before the wheel hub was photoshopped in....


----------



## candycorn (Jun 29, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



And now you recognize why nobody follows you into your "rabbit hole" where pictures are falsified, prosecutorial misconduct and "I heard"


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 29, 2016)




----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

9/11 inside job said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I'm willing to try to persuade [Candy] that 9/11 was an inside regardless of whether or not [Candy] believes that Oswald killed JFK alone. Furthermore, Candy isn't the only person in this thread who believes in the OCT concerning 9/11. There is, for instance, Faun. And while you have said that he, too, believes JFK was killed by Oswald alone, judging from his 3 posts contradicting you on that point, it would appear that he isn't .
> ...



Well, I'm glad you've realized that Faun doesn't believe the OCT regarding JFK. As to your views on shills in this forum, I find it ironic that I'm reciting the same lines to both sides of the fence. To whit:
"It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so"

I can only ask that you consider the possibility that all these people who you consider agents are in fact just people who believe in the OCT.



9/11 inside job said:


> Well I see that  despite my advise,that you clearly are going to  be ignorant and keep feeding these paid shills  such as candyass,faun,and sayit giving them the attention they seek and making their handlers happy in the process that you take their bait. That being said,I am going to exit this thread for good now.



I see. Well, thanks for being the first to respond to me in this forum. I find it unfortunate that we couldn't come to an agreement regarding some things, but that's the way life goes sometimes.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I never said that I could personally prove it. I'm just saying that your notion that "no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen" depends on 2 premises which -you- have certainly not proven:
1- That things the light poles were knocked down as narrated by the official story and
2- Assuming they were not knocked down as narrated by the official story, that there is no research done or that will be done in the future that could prove that this was the case.

If you can prove either of these, you'll have a case. Otherwise, you're simply speculating and passing it off as fact.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Yes,  yes, I understand: you have has stated that the the alternatives offered for the wreckage, light poles and ATC tracking are not plausible and you are always right as to what is plausible, nothing to see here folks
> ...



You're welcome. Now if you would just go away to celebrate your "victory", perhaps I could actually get some serious discussion done here...



candycorn said:


> Just because I'm batting 1.000% against twoofers doesn't mean I can't be struck out.  You just ain't got the stuff.



Fine by me. Why don't you wait for someone who has the "stuff" and just let me carry on with people who are actually willing to discuss the evidence?


----------



## hadit (Jun 29, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Well then go ahead and explain the wheel hub found.
> ...


So you declare suppositions supporting your position to be authoritative while evidence destroying it is falsified?  Seriously, you can make yourself believe anything if you do that.  "The earth is flat".  "Here is a buttload of evidence that it is round".  "That's all faked, it's flat".


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Let me get this straight.... you don't trust the government ...



That's right. Do you?



Faun said:


> but when you're presented with evidence of a plane crash from a site where a plane crashed,



What evidence do you have that that picture of a wheel hub actually came from the Pentagon?



Faun said:


> So you won't accept evidence from the government



I won't -blindly- accept evidence from the government, no. But I will certainly examine it. After all, if it's coming from the government, it's an entity that can be held to account for lying. How are you going to hold some anonymous photographer to account? You don't even know who they are.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Sigh. Wildcard had just put up some pictures explaining how the piece of scrap metal found on the pentagon lawn couldn't have been from a 757. I've also been putting up post after post with tons of evidence showing that the plane hitting the Pentagon couldn't have been a 757, which I -know- you've noticed, because you've been responding to those very posts -.-...
> ...



Sigh -.-. You're confusing shape with size. You can photoshop a mountain to fit into someone's mouth and look like a tooth, it doesn't mean the mountain was that person's tooth. Now, I'm not an airplane mechanic, but one thing to consider- doesn't that piece of metal look awfully thin to belong to a 757? And why did it survive when the engines didn't?






Now take a look at this alleged piece of 757 debris:





Again, mighty small and thin pieces of debris, don't you think? Another thing, notice how even Terry Morin admits he thought the plane was a 737, not a 757 when he first saw it? A 737 is a somewhat smaller plane. Something to consider at any rate.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I said I was surprised that Mohammed was apparently not tortured, and I moved on. You, on the other hand, want to dwell on it for some unknown reason. Also, is this what you are referring to as a 'truther fact'?



SAYIT said:


> ...In fact, I have little doubt that when attempting to dismiss Moussaoui's conviction in the future, you will use the same "fact" in the hope no one notices.
> 
> My guess? You've used it before and when its veracity was challenged you posted a similar obfuscation.



It's a good thing I don't go wild with speculation myself, or we'd never discuss the actual evidence -.-. Now if you're done speculating as to what I may do in the future, let's move on...



SAYIT said:


> There is nothing new in any of your arguments



Never said there was. The issue shouldn't be whether my arguments are new, but whether they have merit.



SAYIT said:


> and, as already explained, they have been beaten to death (and soundly discredited)...



You sound just like 9/11 was an inside job right now, just on the other side of the fence. It's tiring. If you don't find the discussion interesting, by all means, leave it.



SAYIT said:


> If you applied the same cynical eye to your alternate universe you'd either go stark raving mad (see: 9/11InsideJob, Dale Smith) attempting to suppress the truth about it or you'd quit the Movement in disgust like Mike Metzger (co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany):
> 
> Confessions of an Ex-Truther: Letter of Resignation (Scroll Down for Newer Posts)



Ah, another "truther" I'd never heard about. Personally, I'm more interested in discussing the evidence.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Sorry, but Charlie saying that Charlie was awesome doesn't persuade me.



SAYIT said:


> Thrillingly, he was courted by his heroes, Jones and David Icke, the former television sports presenter who believes humanity is being controlled by alien lizards.



Never been much of a fan of Icke. As to Alex Jones, he has some good stuff on his site, and then he's also got some awful stuff. Really disappointed he's going for Trump. Seeing as he thought Trump was good, I can see how he'd think Charlie was good too. I'm sure he regrets it now, and I imagine he'll regret going for Trump if he gets elected. This is all assuming that the article you're quoting is actually factual.



SAYIT said:


> “It was like being a struggling actor and Tom Cruise phones you,” he says. Jones invited him on to his internet show Prison Planet and praised his “great work”. Veitch interviewed Icke outside parliament just after the 2010 general election, and in return was sent a birthday present of a T-shirt and a book, signed, “To Charles, a great man doing great things. Love David”. Veitch was now a well-known figure in the conspiracy community. But, while some believers could be dismissed as harmless crackpots, there was a malevolent undercurrent to many of the theories...



Yes, some of conspiracy theories are definitely messed up. As is Veitch himself.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If Terry Morin was the only witness, it may well have been able to go south again towards the light poles. He wasn't though; the lines that continue from the Navy Annex detail what the -other- witnesses saw. Furthermore, there is another very important point- the NTSB flight path, allegedly based on AA77's Black Box Flight Recorder, never goes over the Navy Annex at all. Your red line is already "out of line" as it were with the NTSB's data. On the other hand, it may concord with the 9/11 Commission Report's data, so you can atleast go with -one- of the 2 official narratives ...

A little video on AA77's flight path, which mainly focuses on the NTSB's flight path allegedly originating from AA77's Black Box (which does not concord with Terry Morin's testimony) can be seen here:


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Basically, you're being [insult removed].  And you obviously know this...



Never argue with someone who knows they are right -.-...


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Ofcourse, no one believes what I believe. Go celebrate your victory candy ;-)...


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



How about providing some evidence that that wheel hub came from somewhere other then an anonymous poster looking to annoy those who disagree with the official story? Below is a quote from Rob Balsamo, a seasoned ex pilot and cofounder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. He made a thread regarding the wheel hub here:
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Wheel Hub at Pentagon

I'll paste a bit of what I believe is the most relevant portion of his text here:
"_[T]hese pictures are not on any govt site to support the official story. They were taken by an anonymous photographer and were never matched via serial numbers with mx logs. At least.. i haven't found any reports.. nor has Col George Nelson (ret USAF)._"


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


What I've seen is candycorn ask you three questions:


Explain The wreckage from AA77 was found at (and inside) the Pentagon.
Explain The ATC tracking of AA77 shows it entering the airspace but not leaving it.
Explain What caused the five downed light poles at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

First one you dismissed as the wreckage is staged. Second one I don't believe you responded to. Last one you claim was staged.

And again, at the risk of belaboring this intuitive point...

_"it also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything,"_



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waiting to hear your response to the wheel hub found at the crash site. I showed you a photo of that piece of wreckage alongside that of how it would have looked prior to the crash. You didn't respond.
> ...


No, I meant what I said. You've not presented any evidence to prove the official account is false. All you've done is attempt to inject doubt into it (claiming evidence was planted, England is lying, some witnesses recall events somewhat different from others, etc...) but nothing discounts the official narrative.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > All I see from your side is conjecture
> ...


So? You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe ... so what?


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 29, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Which, of course, didn't keep you from claiming he was tortured but not only was your _*assumption*_ incorrect, Moussaoui was so impressed with America's justice system he felt compelled to express his admiration.



phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Now you are being obtuse (but I guess you must or your house of cards collapses).

I already told you the "facts" you are posting are not just old, they have been thoroughly thrashed, bashed, trashed and otherwise discredited on 100 other threads here. While I give props to Faun and Candy for having the patience to once again point out that your Truther "facts" are a collection of half-truths, misinformation and outright fabrications there is no way in hell I would waste my time doing so. Feel free to ignore the reality of your Movement but as Mike Metzger, co-founder of 9/11Truth UAlbany noted on his way out the door: "Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, 'mutha fuckin bitch ass money.' Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it.".


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 29, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



That's not quite accurate but the 9/11InsideJobs and Dale Smiths (and a who's who of paranoid and anti-Semitic loons) agree with you. So maybe, just maybe, you are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The first one, in some instances, I asked to see evidence that the wreckage was really there, or just someone who likes to yank the chain of truthers. The wheel hub comes to mind.



Faun said:


> Second one I don't believe you responded to.



I responded (I've now responded to every post sent my way as far as I know), but I'm not going to go digging to find where I did it. Essentially, I said that -some- type of aircraft may have exploded in pentagon airspace, but it wasn't a AA77, or even a 757, and it didn't knock down the light poles or cause the damage to the Pentagon.



Faun said:


> Last one you claim was staged.



Yes, and I laid out a lot of evidence as to why I believe that's the case.



Faun said:


> And again, at the risk of belaboring this intuitive point...
> 
> _"it also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything,"_



Why don't you discuss the evidence I've presented? Saying that you're right and I'm wrong isn't going to get us anywhere.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Look, we clearly disagree as to what constitutes evidence. Could we atleast discuss what -I- believe is evidence that the official story is false? There's lots of it that you haven't  yet responded to. Should I enumerate all the posts of mine that you have yet to respond to? That's not even going into all the -points- that you've probably not responded to in posts that you may have responded to in part...



Faun said:


> You've not presented any evidence to prove the official account is false.



I never said I could prove anything to you. Do you honestly think you can prove the official story is true to me? This is about discussing evidence and what is most plausible. Right now, we can't even agree what constitutes -evidence-, so I think we should just settle for discussing what -you- think is evidence, and discussing what -I- think is evidence, and seeing as to why we agree that our 'evidence' is better then our opponent's.



Faun said:


> All you've done is attempt to inject doubt into it (claiming evidence was planted, England is lying, some witnesses recall events somewhat different from others, etc...) but nothing discounts the official narrative.



Why can't you accept that not everyone thinks like you do? I and many others have a strong belief that the evidence that the official story is a sham is overwhelming. I can accept that you don't feel that way. Because of your beliefs, I "inject doubt" as you say, because I know that going beyond simply -suggesting- that your beliefs are mistaken would lead to a breakdown in communication. Why can't you simply do the same with -my- beliefs? And why not atleast -acknowledge- the fact that Lloyd England -could- be lying, and that CIT has amassed a substantial amount of witnesses, many filmed at the location where they saw an airplane approach the pentagon, and they corroborate a flight path that flew north of the Citgo gas station?



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm just trying to point out that we both believe that our version of events is more plausible. That should be obvious, so there's no need for you to bring it up. I think the point of discussing this at all is to see why we disagree. Don't you?


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Don't you guys ever get tired of Rule #5 -.-? In case you missed it:
**_*5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.*  This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger'  ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',  'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics',  'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others  shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues._**

Source: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:   The Rules of Disinformation   (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)  by H. Michael Sweeney

If you don't want to discuss the evidence, why participate in this conversation?


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 29, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



I don't care about your rules and if you were truly interested in the truth you would peruse any of the 100 other threads on the subject here. All that you post has been thoroughly vetted and discredited. That you may want to play-it-again-Sam is all well and good but you'll have to put up with my sniping as I've had enough of holier-than-thou-jackasses who believe they have found some fountain of truth.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 29, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I said I was surprised that Mohammed was apparently not tortured, and I moved on. You, on the other hand, want to dwell on it for some unknown reason. Also, is this what you are referring to as a 'truther fact'?
> ...



Reminds me of what Jon Stewart said once. Fox News can be wrong 100 times, but the one time that -he- says something that's uncorroborated, it's the end of the world -.-



SAYIT said:


> but not only was your _*assumption*_ incorrect, Moussaoui was so impressed with America's justice system he felt compelled to express his admiration.



And you, ofcourse, believe Moussaoui's word in this case unconditionally since it favours your own point of view -.-. He said a lot of -other- things too, things that did -not- paint the U.S. court system in such a favourable light, but I see you are willing to overlook those statements.



SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I'd say you're the one who doesn't get it. What does it matter if the arguments are new if they have merit? Think about it for a little bit.



SAYIT said:


> I already told you the "facts" you are posting are not just old, they have been thoroughly thrashed, bashed, trashed and otherwise discredited on 100 other threads here.



Ah, SAYIT has spoken. Well, you know what they say: never argue with someone who knows they're right 



SAYIT said:


> [insults removed]



Seriously, why are you even bothering? If you're not here to discuss the evidence, you are definitely wasting your time, and mine.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2016)

LaDexter said:


>


And there's the reason normal sane people laugh at twoofers.

You post that as though that's as big of a hole as the plane made in the Pentagon, in a failed attempt to show a plane as big as a 757 could not have possibly hit the Pentagon for such a plane would surely have created far more damage than that relatively little hole. 

But it's not the only hole. That's actually the hole punctured through the *C-ring, the third ring* into the Pentagon...






Are you lucid enough to comprehend what that means?? Probably not, so I'll be happy to explain it to you... The outer ring, which took the brunt of the hit, is the *E-ring* The plane smashed into it with such force that parts of the plane penetrated the *E-ring*, the *D-ring*, and then ultimately, the *C-ring *(which is the picture you posted). The *E-ring*, where flight #77 first struck, suffered catastrophic damage, ultimately leading to its collapse. But before it fell, we can see the massive damage the plane caused...











You may now proceed with your paranoid delusions....


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


There's nothing in this regard I feel obligated to prove. All of the circumstantial evidence conveniently falls in Lloyd England's favor. In my view because he's telling the truth. There were 5 poles knocked down, he claims one speared his car. You have no evidence other than your imagination to prove he's lying. The damage to his vehicle is consistent with his account. The windshield was smashed in. His dash appears dented in the middle where he claims it rested and there's damage to the back seat where the tip could have wedged, holding the back end up off of the hood. I admit it's strange that his first thought was to remove it when an explosion just occurred at the Pentagon and the building was ablaze; but I don't account for such strange behavior in others like that since I have no fucking clue what was going through the man's mind at the moment. Especially given how close he had just come to being impaled and could only thank G-d at that moment that he could remove the pole as opposed to being decapitated by it.

His word his golden. Yours? Not so much. Don't take it personal ... he was there. You weren't. He experienced it. You didn't.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Let me get this straight.... you don't trust the government ...
> ...


I trust those who make the most sense. The government, while their account does not appear to be 100% accurate; is far more believable than the variety of twoofer accounts. Which span from a missile hit it, to a military plane hit it while flight #77 cleared over the Pentagon, to bombs were planted inside, to passengers from flight #77 were taken elsewhere and possibly killed. All sorts of wide-eyed stories when the official story is most plausible and most consistent with the surviving evidence.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > but when you're presented with evidence of a plane crash from a site where a plane crashed,
> ...


I actually could show you but I feel we're at the point -- there is no point. In the vein of candycorn's pre-determined wisdom, no matter what I show you, you will just bounce to your next excuse denial. You don't accept pretty much anything I can show you and likewise, I don't accept pretty much anything you have shown.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > So you won't accept evidence from the government
> ...


No one is asking you to?  We're showing you evidence that was recovered. It's obviously your decision what you will or will not believe. Personally, when I see plane parts scattered at the scene of a purported plane crash and I see damage to a building somewhat resembling the shape of a plane and I see an image that appears to be said plane which also matches the description from many witnesses .... I believe the government's version over that of twoofers. And not because it's the government. I'm well aware that the government lies, misinforms, etc... but because their's is the only account consistent with logic and sound reasoning.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


While you're questioning the thickness of the plane parts, you're posting the same photo that Wildcard posted earlier, which attempts to cast doubt on the thickness of the white trim painted around the red lettering.

And because anything can be photoshopped, I posted the photo I showed earlier which lines up the rivets from the piece found above with a 757. The result of this is to demonstrate the size of the two are equally matched; and when they are lined up, the white trim appears to be the perfect width. And keep in mind, the photo I posted was made by a twoofer trying to show how that piece actually originated from the starboard side of the plane.

Now that you've been shown the meme above about the white trim is false, you then switch to the flimsiness of that plane piece. Given the outer shell of a plane is aluminum and that plane had just smashed into a solid building at no less than 400 mph, I'm not certain what you expect to find?  But you do point out that you're not an airplane mechanic, so hopefully you have some comparison photos you can share which demonstrates just how thick the outer shell of a 757 should be, in your estimation....


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Again, I'm neither swayed by CIT nor the government, but what makes the most sense. CIT showed some witnesses who claim the plane went north of the Citco, but those were all recollections from years later. I haven't found any from 9.11 to say that. Not that they don't exist. I clearly have not heard every account given from that day; but I haven't hear any say the plane was north of the Citco. And I don't believe CIT's 2006 version where they only showed witnesses who claim they saw the plane fly north of the gas station. I know there are some who say it flew up 395. I totally get that many witness can see the exact same event but recall details differently, but CIT would lead one to believe that all the witnesses who gave a location for the plane, put it north of the Citco. Very dishonest of them, in my opinion.

So what did I do to come up with that red line? I took the position of Terry Morin as he described his location and CIT showed; and the proximity of the plane to his position... which had the right wing to some degree, over, but not south of, Columbia Pike. That puts the fuselage somewhere near the southern end of the Annex. Only one of the paths they show even have the plane traveling over the southern end of the Navy Annex; but even that one takes an impossible jog to the northeast before making a sharp turn to the east...

... and here's where CIT's claims blow in the wind like dust ... 
_____________________________​
*EVERY* path CIT plots has flight #77 striking the Pentagon at, or very close to, a perpendicular angle. Now you can make up all the shit you want about Lloyd's cab, the light poles, whatever; but what you can't make up is physics. Once that plane struck the Pentagon, most of the debris will continue in a straight line. Sure, some may bounce around, some may deflect off of hard objects, but most will continue straight.... Given that (and I can't imagine you could lucidly disagree with that) ... we need only look at the direction the debris took to see what angle the plane hit the Pentagon ... and was absolutely, without any doubt -- not perpendicular. Not only is the debris field scattered at an angle going into the Pentagon, the the length of damage to the Pentagon caused by the port wing is longer than the damage caused by the starboard wing; yet more evidence the plane entered at a fairly steep angle; whereas one would expect the damage by the wings to be even on either side had flight #77 struck the Pentagon at, or close to, a 90º angle. Note, where the plane entered the E-ring and debris from it penetrated the C-ring...






For CIT to claim the plane went straight into the building, in my opinion, is at best, wrong; at worst, they're just flat out lying.

Which brings me back to why I believe the government's version over that  of CIT or any other twoofer.

So considering the angle flight #77 flew into the Pentagon; and given Terry Morin's claim it flew over the southern side of the Navy Annex (which runs along side of 395, matching several other eyewitness accounts given ON 9.11, and given the downed light poles, I see the red line I drew as a very real possibility of the flight's doomed path. It's like a puzzle and all of the pieces fit.


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


What "evidence" do you have? All I have noticed from you is suggestions and supposition. That is not evidence -- that's imagination.

You have no evidence Lloyd's cab was parked offroad with the damage pre-arranged; and then placed, along with a light pole, on a highway. You have no evidence that any of the other poles where staged. You have no evidence that any of the plane's debris was planted or photoshopped.You have no evidence the plane flew at, or near, a 90º angle into the Pentagon. You have no evidence for what happened to the actual passengers of flight #77 if they didn't perish on that unbelievably horrifying flight.

But you do have your imagination, I'll grant you that.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Good idea.

Tell us how the wreckage from flight 77 (i.e. evidence) got into the Pentagon and on the Pentagon lawn.  Explain the physical evidence.  If you can.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Except you’re not.  
*
I’ll just keep reminding the board of that.  *

I can picture you on the Titanic.  Someone tells you that it hit an iceberg.  Chunks of ice are found on the deck and inside the first compartments to flood.  Your question is this; “What color was the ice berg?”  Some say white some say blue and some say it looked black reflecting the sea/ship.  You scream “A-HA!!!!  The ice found on the deck and in the compartment was white.”  Eye witnesses say it was black.  Obviously the ice on the deck and the compartment came from somewhere else!!!!”  

Meanwhile, the hole in the ship is there.  Water is pouring in.  And your worried about what a few people said the color of the iceberg was.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Basically, you're being [insult removed].  And you obviously know this...
> ...



A better rule would be for you to stop proving the “other side” is correct.  You do it  every time.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I’d be worried if Dale agreed with me.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Your mean to tell me that you’ve come across A defendant who has been arrested, arraigned, tried, and convicted by our system of justice and he doesn’t like our system of justice?  Call 60 minutes…seriously…that is front page news!!!!

The standard of proof accepted by millions of jurors, thousands upon thousands of judges, thousands of thousands of defense attorneys is light years removed from the mountain of physical evidence for which you cannot plausibly account.  

Those are the facts; now back to the spin.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2016)

Of course…

Lurking in the background to all of this discussion about AA77 and a cruise missile is the question of “why”.  No twoofer would ever write a narrative to explain it (at least none have yet).  So its fun to speculate.  The reason usually proffered by Twoofers for the “why” is to get the Patriot Act passed and fund the Military Industrial Complex.  For the Pentagon in-particularly, the excuse was to hamper an investigation into a supposedly missing horde of money.  So lets go with that absence a better excuse.  

Cruise missiles mentioned above are out.  The light poles disqualify them.    Another plane being flown into the Pentagon with AA77 as some sort of “cover” is another “theory” (if you wish to extend the definition of cartoon out that far).  The only reason this cockamamie theory is tossed out is to lamely try to account for the light poles.  Yes, some Twoofers do acknowledge the they cannot ignore physical evidence and have to try to come up with something that would explain it.  

At this strange nexus of “we’ve got to account for the evidence” and “we need to promote the narrative that the attacks were done for the powers that be to get carte blanche to draw up laws and fund a war machine”, the Twoofers lose sight of not only sanity but reality.  
And again, the physical evidence  shows us how.  One would have to wonder why the powers that be didn’t simply increase the attack vector to clear the poles and decrease the likelihood of crashing into the ground short of the target?.  I mean, does it matter if it is a linear hit on the accountants or one that comes in at 45 degrees?  The linear hit means you have to pay people to stage light poles, a cab driver, destroying a generator, etc…  A 45 degree hit removes those conspirators from the equation.  Or, if you have a cruise missile, just fire the missile and blame it on Al Queda also.  If the reason for hijacking was to scare the public into supporting a war in the middle east…having a bunch of terrorist with cruise missiles would scare me a lot more than hi-jackers….and it gets rid of any number of conspirators and patsies needed to pull off the conspiracy.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nor should you feel any such obligation. I'm just saying that if you can't prove something, you might want to quit acting like you actually have proof for your assertions.



Faun said:


> All of the circumstantial evidence conveniently falls in Lloyd England's favor.



You can state the sky is purple too, but I won't believe you if you don't offer proof.



Faun said:


> There were 5 poles knocked down, he claims one speared his car.



Yes, he does indeed claim this. And we certainly have photographs of a light pole near his car and him standing nearby as well. What we -don't- have is any evidence that the light pole was ever actually spearing his car. Another thing- look at the scratch mark that leads to the light pole below:






Notice how it must have been made before the car beside Lloyd's was in position? It can only mean that the pole was dragged -towards- Lloyd's cab, rather than away from it. We also have evidence that the scene of the crime was isolated, which is a good thing if you want to avoid any witnesses discovering the truth.




Faun said:


> You have no evidence other than your imagination to prove he's lying.



You love making speculative assertions as if they were facts. I suggest you quit making them unless  you have actual -proof- for them.



Faun said:


> The damage to his vehicle is consistent with his account.



Hardly. From CIT's Lloyd England: Eye of the Storm, starting at around 45 minutes in:
**
Craig Ranke: And now we get to look close at the interior and see if there's anything here, because Lloyde claims that the pole speared the windshield of the cab, so a lot of people figured well, you don't know, maybe the pole went all the way through the back seat, and that's what held it up over the hood and why it didn't scratch the hood, so this means it would literally have to puncture the back seat and through the floor boards perhaps. This may have held up such a long pole, but the fact is there's no damage to the cab in this regard. So, now we know for a fact, the floorboards were intact, in fact they were holding water at the time, there's only a minor puncture in the back seat, very minor, so the pole certainly didn't go through it. Ofcourse, even if it had, it'd be strange, because the pole, the top part of the pole was bent, so, if it had punctured all the way through, it's doubtful that they'd have been able to lift the pole out at all.

Which brings up another point. I've always wondered if, in fact, you were in his situation, and a pole did spear his windshield, and he ended up on the side of the road, with a pole still sticking over the the hood, what are the chances that you or anyone would attempt to remove that pole under any circumstances, let alone under a situation where the pentagon was burning right behind you, and it was a major attack going on at the time.

This right here has always kept me questioning Lloyde's account, I mean why would he even try to remove the pole, let alone flag over this silent stranger who allegedly helped him. *And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so, if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well. *So there are many factors that don't make sense about Lloyde's account and after visiting the cab and seeing the damage to the cab first hand, it doesn't clear up his story at all. It doesn't make his story seem any more possible. In fact, now we're even more certain the light pole could not have speared the windshield of Lloyde's cab.**



Faun said:


> The windshield was smashed in.



A light pole is hardly the only thing that could do that.



Faun said:


> His dash appears dented in the middle where he claims it rested



His dash would have been decimated, not dented. Remember how heavy Lloyd said the thing was? Think of the weight of that thing falling on his car, not slowly, but quickly.



Faun said:


> and there's damage to the back seat where the tip could have wedged, holding the back end up off of the hood.



Let's assume for the moment that that's how it was. You ever wonder how they could have pulled this pole out of the car without damaging either the hood or the dash?



Faun said:


> I admit it's strange that his first thought was to remove it when an explosion just occurred at the Pentagon and the building was ablaze; but I don't account for such strange behavior in others like that since I have no fucking clue what was going through the man's mind at the moment. Especially given how close he had just come to being impaled and could only thank G-d at that moment that he could remove the pole as opposed to being decapitated by it.



How do you account for this: "*And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so, if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well." *And yet, no damage...



Faun said:


> His word his golden.



Why do you believe his word is golden?



Faun said:


> Yours? Not so much. Don't take it personal ... he was there. You weren't. He experienced it. You didn't.



He was there, but all the evidence I've seen suggests he was lying concerning the pole. The irony is that despite the evidence that he was there, he denies it! The most likely reason as to why is because CIT made it clear that he was the only witness that clearly corroborates the flight path that goes south of the Citgo gas station. All the other witnesses that were in a good position to know clearly put the plane on a flight path that took it north of the Citgo gas station.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Nice scrap metal pictures.
How about one of an aircraft hitting the building?


----------



## Indofred (Jun 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> And now, just for fun ... for our reality-deprived friends...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The we see the video, with no sight of the photoshopped aircraft in it.


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


LOL

I'm not obligated to prove anything because his account is part of the official record. The burden of proof falls upon you to prove he's lying; in the face of all the circumstantial evidence found at the scene.

And as you've done all along, you offer nothing but your imagination in a failed attempt to inject doubt as evidence. That's not evidence. 

You point to a scratch on the ground. It's going from right to left, toawrds the shoulder of the road, which actually does support England's claim since his car is also facing the same shoulder. Seems evidence to me that it wasbeing dragged off of the highway before being left where it appears in that photo. What that scratch also shows is that the pole was not dragged onto the street, which counters your imagination that the car and pole were waiting off the side of the road to be staged.

There's no evidence to suggest the dash board "would have been decimated," as you suggest. That's your imagination again.

There's no evidence Lloyd falling while holding up the pole would have damaged the hood of his car, as you suggest, as he never said at what point of the pole extraction that occurred. It could have happened after pulling the pole out. It could be the other gentleman helping him was holding that end up when England fell. Thd point is you have no idea. You have no proof. You have your imagination. That's it. Nothing which proves England is lying.

As far as the claim the pole couldn't have been wedged in the back seat because it wasn't punctured... that is not an accurate description based on the evidence. CIT took pictures of the back seat and there's a gap between the back rest and the back seat, where the pole appears to have wedged itself...


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2016)

Indofred said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > And now, just for fun ... for our reality-deprived friends...
> ...


And of course, that's not the same video which created the images I posted. This is...


So that makes one wonder *why you switched the video? * Willful ignorance or deception?


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2016)

Indofred said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...


I see no evidence those pieces did not hit the building.


----------



## hadit (Jun 30, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Of course…
> 
> Lurking in the background to all of this discussion about AA77 and a cruise missile is the question of “why”.  No twoofer would ever write a narrative to explain it (at least none have yet).  So its fun to speculate.  The reason usually proffered by Twoofers for the “why” is to get the Patriot Act passed and fund the Military Industrial Complex.  For the Pentagon in-particularly, the excuse was to hamper an investigation into a supposedly missing horde of money.  So lets go with that absence a better excuse.
> 
> ...


As usual, the simpler answer is the most plausible.  That is the problem with CT's, they grow in complexity over time while the most plausible answer doesn't.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 30, 2016)

westwall said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...
> ...


But watch the end of the video and note 2 things - 1. the wall moves.  This small section is absorbing energy.  2. They never show the wall after impact.


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...


Of course the wall moves... it was designed to move and absorb the energy of the plane.

The salient aspect of that video shows a plane traveling at high speed into a concrete wall is turned into "dust." Offers valuable clues as to why there wasn't much remaing of flight #77.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


That's fine for a 10 foot wall, but the outside wall of the Pentagon cannot move, only break.


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


The Pentagon wall did not fare as well...


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


My point made.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 30, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Only if your point is the less flex in the wall the greater (or more instantaneous) the damage to the plane.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2016)

And now you see why most Twoofers don’t want to go anywhere near physical evidence.  In my mind, as they are no doubt reading this…as the smoke from their joints disappears and the dim lights of momma’s basement illuminates their waaaaay aftermarket screens…I can see Dale and that 9/11 inside job dope screaming “Don’t go full retard” at Feenix here…..

CIT (Phoenix’s messiah) had dubbed Mr. England as “The First Accomplice”  http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=10

While Phoenix has treaded very lightly into divulging just how sick and twisted the plot is in his mind, eventually he’d get there. Lets move him there now; shall we?  Good.  

You can see from his writing below, that is where he is going.  Because he has to debunk Mr. England since it blows his asinine theory out of the water.  And you see him trying to do that below. 



“phoenix said:


> This right here has always kept me questioning Lloyde's account, I mean why would he even try to remove the pole, let alone flag over this silent stranger who allegedly helped him. *And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so, if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well. *So there are many factors that don't make sense about Lloyde's account and after visiting the cab and seeing the damage to the cab first hand, it doesn't clear up his story at all. It doesn't make his story seem any more possible. In fact, now we're even more certain the light pole could not have speared the windshield of Lloyde's cab.**
> 
> 
> He was there, but all the evidence I've seen suggests he was lying concerning the pole. The irony is that despite the evidence that he was there, he denies it! The most likely reason as to why is because CIT made it clear that he was the only witness that clearly corroborates the flight path that goes south of the Citgo gas station. All the other witnesses that were in a good position to know clearly put the plane on a flight path that took it north of the Citgo gas station.



The reason that someone like old Terral/EOTS and the other more experienced conspiracy kooks would never do that is because they see the follow up question forming in the distance like a hurricane.

So, phoenyx, do tell us why the conspirators would ever include Mr. England in this diabolical plan?  Why would they want to put him on the payroll, make him available to questioning from Skanke or whatever his name is from the CIT, not have “coached him” on what to say when/if asked?  

Certainly, they didn’t need to have a cab involved in a plane crash; there have been hundreds of crashes that didn’t involve a cab or light poles so it wasn’t essential to the trigger event.  
Certainly they didn’t need for him to put voice to what the cab obviously shows; the flight path in the 9/11 Commission report is dead on balls accurate.  
Certainly they didn’t need to have a loose end like him giving testimony out of school.   
Certainly they could have had any number of people corroborate the flight path that goes through the poles and hits the generator as well (in fact, why didn’t CIT ask anyone else???)


----------



## hadit (Jun 30, 2016)

candycorn said:


> And now you see why most Twoofers don’t want to go anywhere near physical evidence.  In my mind, as they are no doubt reading this…as the smoke from their joints disappears and the dim lights of momma’s basement illuminates their waaaaay aftermarket screens…I can see Dale and that 9/11 inside job dope screaming “Don’t go full retard” at Feenix here…..
> 
> CIT (Phoenix’s messiah) had dubbed Mr. England as “The First Accomplice”  http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=10
> 
> ...


The common sense continues.  I'm enjoying watching this methodical, persistent demolition of the theory, exposing each layer in turn and peeling it away.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm sure we all think that we trust those who make the most sense, laugh .



Faun said:


> The government, while their account does not appear to be 100% accurate; is far more believable than the variety of twoofer accounts.



Do you -really- have to insult the people you're talking to? I consider myself a card carrying truther; "twoofer" is clearly an insult -.-. Anyway, we clearly disagree as to what is more believable...



Faun said:


> Which span from a missile hit it, to a military plane hit it while flight #77 cleared over the Pentagon, to bombs were planted inside, to passengers from flight #77 were taken elsewhere and possibly killed. All sorts of wide-eyed stories when the official story is most plausible and most consistent with the surviving evidence.



For the record, I'm not sure if an aircraft hit the Pentagon or not. I definitely don't think Flight 77 or even a 757 hit it though, and certainly not along the south side flight path. I definitely believe explosives were used inside the Pentagon. As to what happened to Flight #77, I've seen some theories that I think are quite plausible, but they are theories. Anyway, no need to remind me of what you think is most plausible, I think that's been well established (the official story), think we should concentrate on why we disagree.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If you really feel there's no point, what's the point of you participating in this thread? You don't think you'll persuade me by saying that you're right and I'm wrong now do you? Our only hope of coming to any kind of agreement is by discussing the evidence.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm referring to the wheel hub. Show me a government web site that states that it is a photograph gathered by a government agency.



Faun said:


> It's obviously your decision what you will or will not believe. Personally, when I see plane parts scattered at the scene of a purported plane crash



From CIT's FAQ question on the matter:
**_Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event.  Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion.  Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in._**

Source:  *Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?*



Faun said:


> and I see damage to a building somewhat resembling the shape of a plane



From another author whom I trust:
**I believe that any reasonable person who is willing to look at the evidence (photo and otherwise) will have to conclude that there was not enough damage to the Pentagon for it to have been hit by a Boeing 757. Not enough damage to the building but apparently enough to vaporize the plane.**

Source:
*HOW WE KNOW AN AIRLINER DID NOT HIT THE PENTAGON | Truth and Shadows*



Faun said:


> and I see an image that appears to be said plane



Another article from the same author as above:
*DOCTORED PENTAGON VIDEO PROVES 9/11 COVER-UP AND INSIDE JOB | Truth and Shadows*




Faun said:


> which also matches the description from many witnesses ....



I can certainly agree that many witnesses saw an aircraft approach the Pentagon. That being said, the flight path all of the witnesses of the plane who were in the best position to know which flight path it took all state that it came from North of the Citgo gas station. As to Lloyd England, he has never claimed to see the aircraft, despite a light pole allegedly knocked down, allegedly by AA77, allegedly spearing his car.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Do you know the width of that piece of debris vs. the width of a n in a 757 plane? Because if you don't, it's clear that you are simply guessing that they are the same size.



Faun said:


> Now that you've been shown the meme above about the white trim is false, you then switch to the flimsiness of that plane piece. Given the outer shell of a plane is aluminum and that plane had just smashed into a solid building at no less than 400 mph, I'm not certain what you expect to find?  But you do point out that you're not an airplane mechanic, so hopefully you have some comparison photos you can share which demonstrates just how thick the outer shell of a 757 should be, in your estimation....



No, I don't. Do you?


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > If Terry Morin was the only witness, it may well have been able to go south again towards the light poles. He wasn't though; the lines that continue from the Navy Annex detail what the -other- witnesses saw. Furthermore, there is another very important point- the NTSB flight path, allegedly based on AA77's Black Box Flight Recorder, never goes over the Navy Annex at all. Your red line is already "out of line" as it were with the NTSB's data. On the other hand, it may concord with the 9/11 Commission Report's data, so you can atleast go with -one- of the 2 official narratives ...
> ...



Indeed. An excerpt from CIT's page Evidence >> Official Interviews page:
**_Here we provide the official interviews referenced in National Security Alert. As stated in the video, many of the north side approach witnesses presented are on record placing the plane on the same north side approach flight path during official interviews conducted only weeks after the event. This eliminates the notion that they are remembering inaccurately due to faded memory.

These interviews came from two sources: The Center for Military History (CMH) and the Library of Congress (LoC). All CMH interviews have been obtained viaFreedom of Information Act Request, and all interviews from the LoC are available for download on their website.

The interviews released by the CMH had the names redacted, meaning that they were not (readily) independently verifiable, and thus subject to having been manipulated or fabricated. That would change, of course, if we could figure out who the witnesses were and contact them directly to confirm their accounts first-hand. Only then could their accounts rightly be considered independent verifiable evidence. We were successful at finding all of the most pertinent witnesses who claimed to have seen the plane and had the most critical vantage points to be able to tell if the plane was north or south of the gas station. These were primarily employees at Arlington National Cemetery (ANC). One of the witnesses, Darrell Stafford, had stated to the CMH that he was the "interment foreman" which is what helped us track him down._**

The article continues with transcriptions from these interviews done in 2001. Feel free to take a look...




Faun said:


> For CIT to claim the plane went straight into the building, in my opinion, is at best, wrong; at worst, they're just flat out lying.



CIT believe the plane didn't hit the Pentagon at all; they believe it flew over the Pentagon.



Faun said:


> So considering the angle flight #77 flew into the Pentagon; and given Terry Morin's claim it flew over the southern side of the Navy Annex (which runs along side of 395, matching several other eyewitness accounts given ON 9.11, and given the downed light poles, I see the red line I drew as a very real possibility of the flight's doomed path. It's like a puzzle and all of the pieces fit.



As mentioned elsewhere, kudos to believing Terry Morin's testimony. That being said, it diverges from the blue line up until the light poles, which means it doesn't concord with the NTSB Black Box data up until that point. Do you realize that, if Terry Morin's testimony alone is true, the Black Box data must be fabricated up until it gets to the light poles?


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're dodging my question. We can disagree on what constitutes evidence. But if we're going to progress in our conversation, we must try to understand -why- we disagree with each other. Do you agree?


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 30, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't want to discuss the evidence, why participate in this conversation?
> ...



I haven't seen any solid evidence that any wreckage from flight 77 ever got into the Pentagon or the Pentagon lawn.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 30, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you wait for someone who has the "stuff" and just let me carry on with people who are actually willing to discuss the evidence?
> ...



Clearly we disagree on that point...


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 30, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Never argue with someone who knows they are right -.-...
> ...



It's easy to believe that someone is mistaken. What's much harder to do is figure out is why you disagree with them.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 30, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Of course…
> 
> Lurking in the background to all of this discussion about AA77 and a cruise missile is the question of “why”.  No twoofer would ever write a narrative to explain it (at least none have yet).



Ever ready with the name calling eh -.-? Actually, the subject has been explored fairly extensively. It's not one that I want to get into right now though; as I've mentioned in the past, it's far easier to determine what happened, then to determine why it happened. First things first.


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



As I just mentioned, "Nor should you feel any such obligation. I'm just saying that if you can't prove something, you might want to quit acting like you actually have proof for your assertions."



Faun said:


> The burden of proof falls upon you to prove he's lying



I'm not prosecuting him in a court of law here. I'm simply providing what I believe is solid evidence that his testimony is false.




Faun said:


> You point to a scratch on the ground. It's going from right to left, toawrds the shoulder of the road



Yes, it's going from right to left. It starts further away from Lloyd's car, and it ends closer to Lloyd's car. Why would they pull that heavy light pole -towards- Lloyd's car? The only reason I can think of is to stage the event to make it look like the pole had actually speared Lloyd's cab. And while it was closer to Lloyd's car, it was still a fair distance away from it. I'll put up the photo once again, for reference...








Faun said:


> There's no evidence to suggest the dash board "would have been decimated," as you suggest.



Alright, I guess we just won't come to an agreement on how much damage the light pole would have done if it had actually speared Lloyd's cab. I'd like to point out what a small hole Lloyd's cab actually had shortly after the alleged spearing. I don't have the measurements of the light pole handy, but it simply looks too small to have fit the light pole in it:








Faun said:


> There's no evidence Lloyd falling while holding up the pole would have damaged the hood of his car, as you suggest, as he never said at what point of the pole extraction that occurred.



Alright, guess we won't agree on this point either.



Faun said:


> As far as the claim the pole couldn't have been wedged in the back seat because it wasn't punctured... that is not an accurate description based on the evidence. CIT took pictures of the back seat and there's a gap between the back rest and the back seat, where the pole appears to have wedged itself...



You'd think the pole was a featherweight. I know, I know, you'll probably disagree and say that that was plenty of damage...


----------



## phoenyx (Jun 30, 2016)

candycorn said:


> And now you see why most Twoofers don’t want to go anywhere near physical evidence...



candy, for a while, I've wondered, do you actually want your target audience to respond? If not, why do you keep asking them questions? And If so, why do you keep insulting them?


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > And now you see why most Twoofers don’t want to go anywhere near physical evidence...
> ...



You were insulted by the truth?  Prove me wrong.  Discuss the physical evidence and come up with plausible explanations for it.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Of course…
> ...



Whenever you feel like blessing us with your cartoon on “what happened” that day and feel like writing it all down in a narrative …I’ll be happy to read it.  I love fiction; comedic fiction especially.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Harder to do ? 

Well, lets see.  I deal in physical evidence.  You deal in cherry picking eye witness testimony (sometimes done years after the eye witnessed the event).  The physical evidence cannot lie.  The eye witness testimony becomes less and less trustworthy with each passing minute. 

You shouldn’t worry that I disagree with you. 

You should worry that the evidence disagrees with you.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



No, I was insulted because you're insulting a group I associate with, mainly truthers. Perhaps you're not aware, but "Twoofer" is an insult. Some people who don't believe the official story don't even like to be called truthers, but almost all of those who disagree with the official story agree that it is not an insulting term per se.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Your insults are so transparent that it's hard to be enthused to discuss these subjects with you. I must admit I'm curious as to why you even bother to post in this conspiracy forum at all, as you seem to have so little interest in actually discussing the evidence. That being said, I'll give you a small nugget that suggests a possible reason in this 5 minute video from James Corbett, starting at about 50 seconds in:


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Indeed.



candycorn said:


> Well, lets see.  I deal in physical evidence.



You deal in government sanctioned propaganda, refuse to question it, and insult anyone who does.



candycorn said:


> You deal in cherry picking eye witness testimony (sometimes done years after the eye witnessed the event).



Hardly. CIT has compiled a master list of just about every witness to the plane approaching the pentagon under the sun:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

Furthermore, it has filmed most of the witnesses who had the best vantage points to determine the aircraft's flight path in its final moments and made more then one documentary based on their filmings. The one it recommends people see first is National Security Alert, which can be seen below:


It's OCT supporters who constantly cherry pick, picking only the accounts that concord with the OCT and ignoring most if not all of the rest.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Finally got you to say something definitive.  How’d it feel?  

So to sum up the Position of CIT, the bottom should suffice.



 

Everything that doesn’t support eyewitness testimony is faked apparently.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


My insults should be crystal clear.

I wouldn’t discuss them with me either since I’m making you look dumber than normal.



phoenyx said:


> I must admit I’m curious as to why you even bother to post in this conspiracy forum at all, as you seem to have so little interest in actually discussing the evidence.


Because, so far, I’ve given you attention that you cannot garner in real life.  Don’t expect it to last.



phoenyx said:


> That being said, I'll give you a small nugget that suggests a possible reason in this 5 minute video from James Corbett, starting at about 50 seconds in:



Not interested.

See loser, if you really had a theory that was iron clad or had a serious question about 9/11, you’d relish the chance to lay it all out there, piece by piece like Perry Mason or, for you koo koo conspiracy guys, like Kevin Costner did in his summation in the movie JFK.  Start at the beginning and simply tell us what happened.  Instead, you want to satisfy some sick perverse “you-don’t-show-em-Jaws-in-the-first-clip” type of hooey that is supposed to put us on the edge of our seats.  What you fail to realize is that we’ve seen all this shit you’re trying to shovel already.  It’s been blown out of the water so often…it died of dehydration.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Way back in the day when you were likely still trying to figure out how to tie your shoes and being a nuisance to your teachers; likely wondering if the Jews were behind the letters AEIO & U becoming vowels,  there were some truthers.  

These were people who had legitimate questions (as I do) about 9/11.  How’d the hijackers know there was a drill going on that day?  Is this announced ahead of time?  Why would it be announced if it were?  If a “shoot down” order was valid, are you telling me that we don’t have any SAM capabilities around our bases or on our ships? I know the navy has SAMs that have about 350 mile ranges…  

I’ll admit that not all of my questions have been answered.  There are likely no answers except for the failure of imagination (not the one cited in the 9/11 Report) but we hadn’t had a hijacking in about 25 years or so…nobody really knew what would be involved in the scenario.  

The word “Twoofer” is a moniker given to losers who are just craving attention.  Which is obviously what you’re doing.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



And, oh yeah, feel free to prove me wrong.  Tangle with the physical evidence and give us some plausible reasons for it’s existence.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



According to  your little graphic there, even some witnesses had to be "plants or confused about what they saw".

Your graphic has 7 points, I'll go over them one by one as to whether I agree:
1- True.
2- The generator was damaged, but there's no solid evidence as to what damaged it. One of the official flight paths (there's actually more then one) has the plane missing the generator completely, as was illustrated by a video from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
3- There was very little debris at the Pentagon at all in the photos that show the fire and rescue workers. Later, we got some pictures of some alleged plane parts, but their authenticity is highly questionable.
4- The hole in the Pentagon was caused by -something-, but all strong evidence points towards something other than a 757, let alone AA77.
5- The chain of custody of the DNA is not known. Perhaps it came from the passengers from Flight 77, but who collected it and where it was collected is unknown.
6- Same as #5.
7- *Witnesses List Broken Down*, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses


----------



## Dreadnaught1968 (Jul 1, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Sadly, you are arguing with a bunch of people who have a result they want to believe, and then try to muster the "evidence" to fit their needs.  You can show them all the evidence in the world, and they will still not believe you.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Your insults are so transparent that it’s hard to be enthused to discuss these subjects with you.
> ...



Finally something we agree on.



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I must admit I’m curious as to why you even bother to post in this conspiracy forum at all, as you seem to have so little interest in actually discussing the evidence.
> ...



I don't suppose you could spare me your 'generosity'?



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



A word of advice- don't ask for information that you're not interested in actually looking at. It makes it appear that you're not really interested in the conversation, which makes people want to confine their responses to you into as few words as possible, if they respond to you at all. Unless that is your goal?



candycorn said:


> [insults removed]



I'll let you in on something candy- in a discussion, when one person is more interested in insulting another person then in actually listening to what they have to say, one gets the impression that their -real- goal is not to try to understand the other party, but rather to shut them up. Call it the Trumpian way to resolve disagreements- insult them enough in the hope that they just go away, therefore making it unnecessary to actually have to address the points the person makes. Are you a fan of his?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

candycorn said:


> These were people who had legitimate questions (as I do) about 9/11.  How’d the hijackers know there was a drill going on that day?  Is this announced ahead of time?  Why would it be announced if it were?  If a “shoot down” order was valid, are you telling me that we don’t have any SAM capabilities around our bases or on our ships? I know the navy has SAMs that have about 350 mile ranges…
> 
> I’ll admit that not all of my questions have been answered.



Imagine that. What questions do you still have concerning 9/11?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

candycorn said:


> And, oh yeah, feel free to prove me wrong.



Feel free to try to prove my own beliefs wrong as well. I must say, though, that insulting me tends to get me to respond with less words, or to simply not respond to you at all.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > And, oh yeah, feel free to prove me wrong.
> ...



Nah, thats the evidence and your impotence toward explaining it junior.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > These were people who had legitimate questions (as I do) about 9/11.  How’d the hijackers know there was a drill going on that day?  Is this announced ahead of time?  Why would it be announced if it were?  If a “shoot down” order was valid, are you telling me that we don’t have any SAM capabilities around our bases or on our ships? I know the navy has SAMs that have about 350 mile ranges…
> ...



See those question marks up there…those are called questions.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Laugh . Yes, I had seen those questions, but you had said that "people who -had- legitimate questions", and I was thinking that perhaps you had thought they were answered now.

Here are some theories in place of known answers:
1- Some of those involved in 9/11 were part of the drills. The drills were not only going on on the same day, they were part of the 9/11 operation.

2- The only way the planes could have gotten through to the Pentagon was by making it impossible for anyone to contact someone in a position to authorize a shoot down. From what I have read, I believe Vice President Cheney was in charge of the drills and he also had the ability to stop them and shoot down the planes. I believe he may have been asked what to do, but had given orders that he was not to be disturbed. This is my best guess as to his conversation in front of Mineta wherein a "young man" asked him "Do the orders still stand" as the plane approaching the Pentagon was only a few miles out from the Pentagon and he stated: "Ofcourse the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?". Moments later, the plane arrived at the Pentagon and the Pentagon was in flames.
Do The Orders Still Stand?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx 


> A word of advice- don't ask for information that you're not interested in actually looking at. It makes it appear that you're not really interested in the conversation, which makes people want to confine their responses to you into as few words as possible, if they respond to you at all. Unless that is your goal?



If the video showed what you thought happened on 9/11…we’d have something worth discussing.

It doesn’t of course. 

That you’re dead set against stating what you think happened it’s a sign that you’re interested in something else other than debate and rebuttal.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > And, oh yeah, feel free to prove me wrong.
> ...



Beliefs take of a cartoonish air when they are not backed up by anything except “they’re all lying”.  Physical evidence whispers louder than your shouted lies.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I've got to ask, did you actually see the video? It was only 5 minutes long by the way...



candycorn said:


> That you’re dead set against stating what you think happened it’s a sign that you’re interested in something else other than debate and rebuttal.



I'm not interested in posting long detailed theories so that you can then ignore them and/or insult me for having bothered. I'm still not even sure if you took 5 minutes out of your busy schedule to look at the video -.-


----------



## candycorn (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


And here you go.  Unproven allegation that has no basis in fact.



phoenyx said:


> 2- The only way the planes could have gotten through to the Pentagon was by making it impossible for anyone to contact someone in a position to authorize a shoot down. From what I have read, I believe Vice President Cheney was in charge of the drills and he also had the ability to stop them and shoot down the planes. I believe he may have been asked what to do, but had given orders that he was not to be disturbed. This is my best guess as to his conversation in front of Mineta wherein a "young man" asked him "Do the orders still stand" as the plane approaching the Pentagon was only a few miles out from the Pentagon and he stated: "Ofcourse the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?". Moments later, the plane arrived at the Pentagon and the Pentagon was in flames.
> Do The Orders Still Stand?



Another total fallacy on your part.  Seriously shit-brains…do you think *everyone* has lived your small life?  I’ve flown into RNA before.  You can look out the window and see the Pentagon right there literally a hundred yards (or less) from your seat and tray in the upright position.  “The only way planes could have gotten through….”  BULLSHIT.  Hundreds of planes “get through” to the Pentagon a day.  Look up “flying over the pentagon” on youtube for the only evidence you seem to believe.  

My questions were about drills happening on the same day.  Turns out we have drills (announced and otherwise) quite often.  That 9/11 happened on the same day (a Tuesday) far removed from a holiday—is not that unusual.  That we had naval vessels that had SAMs on them and they were not used…nobody ever offered an explanation for that.  Likely because nobody remembered the last time we had a hijacking much less one that was being used as missile.  Also there is the question of launching a SAM in the most heavily traveled airspace in the nation, whether ground damage would be “worth” the shoot down, etc…

Further, your cartoonish assumption that our military is ready for anything 24/7 is simply not the case.  No military on earth is, was, or ever has been.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Beliefs take of a cartoonish air when they are not backed up by anything except “they’re all lying”.



We can agree on that anyway


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I -said- they were theories, though I do believe there is some strong evidence backing them up. That being said, I'm not all that keen on sharing that information with you. You seem to like soundbites more then long treatises, so I think I'll keep my posts soundbite length for you.



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 2- The only way the planes could have gotten through to the Pentagon was by making it impossible for anyone to contact someone in a position to authorize a shoot down. From what I have read, I believe Vice President Cheney was in charge of the drills and he also had the ability to stop them and shoot down the planes. I believe he may have been asked what to do, but had given orders that he was not to be disturbed. This is my best guess as to his conversation in front of Mineta wherein a "young man" asked him "Do the orders still stand" as the plane approaching the Pentagon was only a few miles out from the Pentagon and he stated: "Ofcourse the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?". Moments later, the plane arrived at the Pentagon and the Pentagon was in flames.
> ...



And this is where you shoot yourself in the conversational foot. If you -want- to kill our discussion, just keep on going with these Trumpian insults.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Saw 4 seconds of it, Realized it has been seen here dozens of times before.  Realized it would not explain “WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED” which was the question posed to you…  Thus I wasn’t interested in it.  




candycorn said:


> That you’re dead set against stating what you think happened it’s a sign that you’re interested in something else other than debate and rebuttal.





phoenyx said:


> I'm not interested in posting long detailed theories so that you can then ignore them and/or insult me for having bothered. I'm still not even sure if you took 5 minutes out of your busy schedule to look at the video -.-



And thusly, our conversation comes to the same end that all 9/11 Twoofers does.  You cowering from explaining yourself and me basking in the victory of yet another debunked Twoofer.  Don’t feel too bad…you’re just another piece of wreckage left in the wake.  I have enjoyed the batting practice sessions you have pitched so admirably.  

So it goes…

For the record;

Nobody asked you for long detailed theories.  Ever. Not once.
You were asked to come up with *plausible* explanations for 3 pieces of physical evidence only.  You haven’t come close.

Since you won’t post what you think happened:  Here is the CITs’ explanation:


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



That explains it -.-



candycorn said:


> Realized it would not explain “WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED” which was the question posed to you…



Actually, your original question was -why-:
"Lurking in the background to all of this discussion about AA77 and a cruise missile is the question of “why”.

I didn't realize that you'd morphed that to 'what'.



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not interested in posting long detailed theories so that you can then ignore them and/or insult me for having bothered. I'm still not even sure if you took 5 minutes out of your busy schedule to look at the video -.-
> ...



Indeed. How could it end any other way with all your insults? There's only so much abuse anyone is willing to take...


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


There's no point because no matter what I say, you will come up with some denial. Denial is all you're armed with since there is zero physical evidence to support your claims.

To demonstrate the level of your denial, you're even asking for evidence from the government; while at the same time, saying you don't trust evidence from the government. That's an example of how twisted your logic becomes in the face of evidence.

I showed a photo of a wheel hub, photographed at the scene of a plane crash. The most obvious answer, since plane wheel hubs would not be found at that location otherwise, is that it came from the plane which crashed into the building. You don't believe that, which is your prerogative, so all you can do is come up with denial after denial in vain defiance of the evidence.

Deniers say it isn't from a 757.

Show pictures of the wheels of a 757 for comparison purposes and deniers will demand proof the government took that picture.

Point out it doesn't matter who took the picture, it's still of photo of a wheel hub among the debris of a crashed 757; and deniers while claim the photo is photoshopped.

Point out there are multiple pictures of it and no evidence of photoshopping; and deniers will claim it was planted.

Point out the wheel hub is but one piece among the remains found from flight #77, so the entire debris field of AA77's remains would have to had to been planted; and deniers deny the photo was taken among the that debris at the Pentagon.

Show them proof that the photo was from the AA77 crash site at the Pentagon; and deniers will insist you show them the serial number on the hub.

Point out there are no distinguishable writings remaining that that piece of debris; and deniers cream themselves with joy that they just proved (in their minds) that flight #77 didn't crash into the Pentagon.

So what's the point of showing you proof that the picture was taken at the crash site? You still won't accept it and you'll simply move on to the next phase of your denial.

Again, and this can't be stressed enough ... candycorn nailed you early on by pointing out you will reject all of the evidence and claim it was either fake or not proof.

So what's the point of showing you proof?


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Among the gems plucked from this is the following claim from CIT...



> ...the conclusive evidence of a north side approach and flyover proves that this debris did not come from AA77...



Other than a few witnesses saying they recall a plane flying in from north of the Citco station, what evidence is there that that's where the plane flew?? I'm not aware of any physical evidence supporting a "north side approach."

None.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

Faun said:


> There's no point because no matter what I say, you will come up with some denial.



You're certainly optimistic, laugh .



Faun said:


> Denial is all you're armed with since there is zero physical evidence to support your claims.



It's your absolutes that are squelching this discussion. You have the arrogance to claim there is "zero physical evidence to support your claims", and yet I see that time and again you ignore piles of evidence, including the physical kind, that contradicts the official story.



Faun said:


> To demonstrate the level of your denial, you're even asking for evidence from the government; while at the same time, saying you don't trust evidence from the government.



You yourself have stated that you don't trust the government, so we are the same there. That being said, I'd rather get evidence from the government then from anonymous sources, and I imagine you'd feel the same way. The government can be held to account. If you don't know the source of information, how can you hold them to account for providing false information?




Faun said:


> I showed a photo of a wheel hub



Indeed.



Faun said:


> photographed at the scene of a plane crash.



You've shown no evidence that it was photographed at the scene of the pentagon plane crash. Barring that, it's just a wheel hub at what looks like a plane crash somewhere.



Faun said:


> Point out the wheel hub is but one piece among the remains found from flight #77



There's no solid evidence that any of the debris came from flight #77.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Make that all the credible witnesses in a position to judge whether the plane flew north or south of the Citgo gas station, and you'd be about right there...



Faun said:


> what evidence is there that that's where the plane flew?? I'm not aware of any physical evidence supporting a "north side approach."



A plane flying over an area doesn't tend to leave much physical evidence, laugh . But perhaps you're referring to when it -got- to the Pentagon. There are differing theories as to what happened at that point regarding a north side flight path. CIT believes that it simply flew over the Pentagon and continued on. Others, including some at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, are less sure. I'm thinking perhaps it was blown up as it went over the Pentagon lawn, or the roof, but at this point, I fully admit I'm speculating, as I haven't seen strong evidence of either claim. As to the official story, there's more then just the witnesses that contradict the official story. There's also the NTSB data allegedly obtained from AA 77's Black Box, and the data provided by the 9/11 Commission Report. They don't even concord with each other, and neither of them fully concord with the physical damage at the Pentagon either. For more information on this, I suggest you take a look at Pilots for 9/11 Truth's Pandora's Black Box, which can be seen here:


The comparison between the 9/11 Commission Report's flight data and the NTSB's "Black Box" data can be seen beginning at 39:10 in the video...


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > There's no point because no matter what I say, you will come up with some denial.
> ...


You have no physical evidence. Who knows why you pretend otherwise?  So far, all you've offered are denials based on the erroneous depiction of a north side approach based on the recollection of a few witnesses gathered many years after the fact.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > To demonstrate the level of your denial, you're even asking for evidence from the government; while at the same time, saying you don't trust evidence from the government.
> ...


I didn't say I don't trust the government. Why do you misrepresent what I said?

I have said I believe the government has lied about various things, but in terms of this discussion about flight #77, I said, _"I'm neither swayed by CIT nor the government, but what makes the most sense,"_ and I also said, _"the government, while their account does not appear to be 100% accurate; is far more believable than the variety of twoofer accounts."_

As far as photographs from the crash site, no I don't require photographs to be government approved. And neither do you, so who knows why you care that the photo of the wheel hub may or may not be? Guaranteed, if there was an undocumented photo of flight #77 flying over the Pentagon, you'd be waving it around like crazy. So you can cut this bullshit about that photo possibly not coming from the government. 



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > I showed a photo of a wheel hub
> ...


True, I did not show such evidence. I did, however, point out there is evidence; I just chose not to bother showing you because all you'll do is move onto another denial. So I chose to leave your denial right where it is.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Point out the wheel hub is but one piece among the remains found from flight #77
> ...


Wow, look at that? More denial. Who didn't see that coming?

Except for the evidence that flight #77 crashed into the Pentagon, such as DNA from the recoverable bodies of the known passengers, the flight data recorder from AA77, sure there's no evidence.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Alright, what I -meant- is that the south of the citgo gas station damage is indication of a false flag attack, since the NTSB black box data, the 9/11 Commission report data, and all of the witnesses filmed by CIT on location all refute that flight path trajectory.



Faun said:


> So far, all you've offered are denials based on the erroneous depiction of a north side approach



You've offered no solid evidence that their north side approach testimonials are erroneous.



Faun said:


> based on the recollection of a few witnesses gathered many years after the fact.



Many of them also testified to both the Center for Military History, and the Library of Congress (LoC) mere months after 9/11 as well. CIT has compiled a great deal of the information from those recordings here:
Official Interviews | 9/11 Pentagon



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I imagine that's where I got that impression...



Faun said:


> but in terms of this discussion about flight #77, I said, _"I'm neither swayed by CIT nor the government, but what makes the most sense,"_ and I also said, _"the government, while their account does not appear to be 100% accurate; is far more believable than the variety of twoofer accounts."_


_
Alright, so we agree that the government can't always be trusted, we just disagree in this specific instance as to what's the more plausible theory as to what happened._



Faun said:


> As far as photographs from the crash site, no I don't require photographs to be government approved. And neither do you, so who knows why you care that the photo of the wheel hub may or may not be?



Actually, I care a great deal, especially when there is no visual context to definitively place it in the Pentagon.



Faun said:


> Guaranteed, if there was an undocumented photo of flight #77 flying over the Pentagon, you'd be waving it around like crazy.



If the photographs had context, such as the Pentagon in the shot, then yes, I would think it would be pretty important.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Let me get this straight- you are saying there is evidence that the photograph can be seen with the Pentagon in the background?



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Alright, by all means, show me solid evidence that any of the debris actually came from flight #77 then.



Faun said:


> Except for the evidence that flight #77 crashed into the Pentagon such as DNA from the recoverable bodies of the known passengers,



As mentioned elsewhere, there is no chain of custody as to the DNA allegedly recovered from the known passengers. What this means is that, even assuming that this DNA was in fact 'recovered', we only have the word of the FBI as to where it was picked up.



Faun said:


> the flight data recorder from AA77



Is not compatible with the damage of the light poles and the generator. The NTSB data has the plane flying even further north the CIT's witnesses -.-. Only the 9/11 Commission report has it flying south of the Citgo gas station, and from what I've seen, even it doesn't align with the damage to the light poles or the generator at the Pentagon. Feel free to take a look at a clip from Pilots for 9/11 Truth's Pandora's Black Box video on the matter here:


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


To clarify, 7 of the 9 witnesses in the video you posted claimed AA77 went north of the Citco station. Most of those interviews came many years after 9.11 and some of them were never interviewed publicly prior. And that also ignores the other hundred or more witnesses who did not say it went that route. Some even said it went up 395 while others said it went up the Columbia Pike. By only showing the ones they could find who would say it went north of the Citco is blatantly dishonest.

I could very easily show you videos some folks have made where they interview dumbass Conservatives or dumbass Liberals; and that's all they'll show in their respective videos. Does that mean all Conservatives are dumbasses? No, of course not. They just make it appear that way by only including the responses which happen to match their desired results; while leaving out clips which disprove their intended illusion. Same with similar videos about Liberals.

Simply put, that's exactly what CIT did.

We know for a fact there were many other witnesses who identified the location of the plane as it approached the Pentagon; yet that CIT video doesn't even mention any of them.

I also note that video included two men who say they were at, or near, the Navy Annex that morning and while they both say the plane flew over the southern end of the Annex, neither one said the plane flew north of the Citco station. And as I showed you with the red line I drew, using their claim, the plane could still fly south of the Citco and still hit the lamp posts.


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > So far, all you've offered are denials based on the erroneous depiction of a north side approach
> ...


Now you're flat out lying.

In post #319 I showed you photographic evidence indicating the direction of the plane's debris following its impact with the Pentagon.

The direction of that debris proves the direction the plane was flying as it struck the building and that direction renders it physically impossible for the plane to have come from the north side of the Citco gas station. That leaves those witnesses, some of whom were never interviewed on public record prior to CIT interviewing them in 2008, as either wrong, or worse -- lying.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The other 2 not being in a position to see, namely Paik and Morin. Nevertheless, they place it north of Columbia Pike, which still doesn't follow the official narrative. I must admit one thing that I just realized after posting my last post- I'm a bit confused as to where the NTSB places the plane. Pilots for 9/11 Truth states that NTSB places the plane north of the Citgo gas station, but CIT's graphic places it -south- of the Citgo gas station. My guess is that CIT is mistaken and got mixed up, since Pilots for 9/11 Truth is the one that actually requested the NTSB data through an FOI request. Regardless, neither of them match up with the damage as caused by the light poles and the damage to the generator.



Faun said:


> Most of those interviews came many years after 9.11 and some of them were never interviewed publicly prior.



I'm glad that you are atleast now mentioning the fact that only -some- of them were never interviewed prior, laugh . As I believe you now know, some were interviewed just 2 to 3 months after 9/11, with similar perspectives as to what the plane's flight path was.



Faun said:


> And that also ignores the other hundred or more witnesses who did not say it went that route. Some even said it went up 395 while others said it went up the Columbia Pike. By only showing the ones they could find who would say it went north of the Citco is blatantly dishonest.



How is it dishonest? They interviewed those who were in the best position to determine whether the plane flew North or south of the Citgo gas station. But they also compiled a list of all the witnesses they could find, and I haven't seen a more exhaustive list:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82



Faun said:


> I could very easily show you videos some folks have made where they interview dumbass Conservatives or dumbass Liberals; and that's all they'll show in their respective videos. Does that mean all Conservatives are dumbasses? No, of course not. They just make it appear that way by only including the responses which happen to match their desired results; while leaving out clips which disprove their intended illusion. Same with similar videos about Liberals.



This isn't the same. They interviewed -all- the witnesses they could find that were in a good position to determine whether the plane followed a north side flight path or a south side flight path.



Faun said:


> I also note that video included two men who say they were at, or near, the Navy Annex that morning and while they both say the plane flew over the southern end of the Annex, neither one said the plane flew north of the Citco station.



Correct, they were not in a position to see it fly over the Citgo gas station, but they -were- in an excellent position to note that the plane flew North of Columbia Pike.



Faun said:


> And as I showed you with the red line I drew, using their claim, the plane could still fly south of the Citco and still hit the lamp posts.



Only if you discounted all the witnesses after Terry Morin. And even your red line doesn't concord with the blue line that was south of yours (I'm now guessing it was the 9/11 Commission Report's line).


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > True, I did not show such evidence. I did, however, point out there is evidence; I just chose not to bother showing you because all you'll do is move onto another denial. So I chose to leave your denial right where it is.
> ...


Yes. But again, showing you is pointless as you will merely look then to your next avenue of denial.

It's what you do.

Here, watch...

Take careful notice of the section of the [yellowish brick] wall visible in this picture at the top-left corner of this picture...






Now compare that to the wall of the Pentagon in this photo...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You showed me photographic evidence of a bunch of holes lined up in a row. Your problem is that you have so little evidence of what can even vaguely be construed of as debris from a crashed 757 at the scene. And then there's the witnesses north of Columbia Pike, as well as the NTSB flight path as well as the 9/11 Commission Flight path, none of which line up with that debris. 



Faun said:


> The direction of that debris proves the direction the plane was flying as it struck the building and that direction renders it physically impossible for the plane to have come from the north side of the Citco gas station.



No, that damage only means that the plane couldn't have struck the Pentagon if it was coming from the North side. However, it may have exploded in mid air, especially if it was not a 757 as Morin originally thought (he originally thought it was a 737), but a smaller aircraft. Or it could have flown right over and continued, which is what CIT believes.



Faun said:


> That leaves those witnesses, some of whom were never interviewed on public record prior to CIT interviewing them in 2008, as either wrong, or worse -- lying.



And what of the witnesses who -were- interviewed on public record prior to CIT interviewing them? Darryl Stafford comes to mind...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 1, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The picture above has yellow bricks, the one below has grey bricks...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 2, 2016)

CHOSEN PHOTOSHOPPING


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> CHOSEN PHOTOSHOPPING



I assume you're referring to the yellow/grey bricks thing? Photoshop may well have been involved, or pictures taken from somewhere else were simply ascribed to the Pentagon crash site. We have a lot of verified witnesses when it comes to which path the plane flew, but few if any when it comes to what was recovered at the Pentagon.


----------



## wihosa (Jul 2, 2016)

The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...

The whole 911 event was a staged fake. Look at the video of the plane going through the side of the building, without slowing down, without crumpling or breaking... Then, when entirely in the building exploding!

The truth is that the plane should have smashed on the outside of the building like a mosquito on a windshield.

There were no planes! Wake up dupes!


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 2, 2016)

wihosa said:


> The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...
> 
> The whole 911 event was a staged fake. Look at the video of the plane going through the side of the building, without slowing down, without crumpling or breaking... Then, when entirely in the building exploding!
> 
> ...



Somehow, I don't think your argument is going to go over very well with those who still believe the OCT -.- Even some of those -within- the truth movement still argue that the OCT is generally right in regards to the Pentagon attack. I've discussed the issue with those who believe some or all parts of the various OCT versions out there, as well as some of the non OCT versions out there for years, and I imagine it will be many more years before most people can come to a consensus as to what happened at the Pentagon.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 2, 2016)

wihosa said:


> The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...
> 
> The whole 911 event was a staged fake. Look at the video of the plane going through the side of the building, without slowing down, without crumpling or breaking... Then, when entirely in the building exploding!
> 
> ...


 
No planes?  What do you think phoenyx...willing to buy into this insanity too?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 2, 2016)

candycorn said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...
> ...



I wouldn't call it insanity, that would just insult those who believe this version. I believe what all of CIT's witnesses have stated, that a plane did approach the Pentagon, just not from the south side of the Citgo gas station, as some version(s) of the OCT would have us believe.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


 
We'll mark you down as a no-planer (and a no-brainer).  Thanks for playing.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 2, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”  - Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change


----------



## candycorn (Jul 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


 
You have zilch to offer; hence your "I want to avoid detailed explanations".  And you've avoided making plausible explanations for the wreckage, tracking, and of course the lightpoles; outside of "they're all lying".


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 2, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Only for those who refuse to listen. If you don't listen, you will never learn.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


One can only surmize that you've never listened since you have shown no understanding about what constitutes evidence vs. hearsay, what the commonly accepted thresholds for evdince admission are, and frankly you lack a certain maturity hold your own in a conversation.  Certianly you'll bring up insults and profanity and that's cool...but sometimes when someone like you comes around, the best favor you can do for them is to ridicule the ridiculous, tell them they are full of shit, and watch how they react.  

Judging from the lack of any successes in 15 years of the existance of the twoofers, one would expect you to be able to deduce how lame your "movement" is for yourself.  Since you were not...I don't feel the least bit guilty about illustrating it.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 2, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You do fine when you're preaching to your side of the fence, but I haven't seen anyone on -my- side of the fence consider your frequently insulting posts to be persuasive in any respect. In order to persuade someone to a different point of view, you need certain conditions to be met. Here's 4 I thought of just now:
1- Avoid insulting their viewpoint. This tends to get listen to you less, if at all.
2- Understand why they hold their viewpoint.
3- Find information that refutes their viewpoint.
4- Get them to listen to the information.

To give an example, I believe I have gotten Faun to atleast listen to -some- of the information I've provided. His acceptance of Terry Morin's testimony regarding the flight path of the airplane approaching the Pentagon, and his acknowledgement that some of CIT's witnesses also testified shortly after 9/11 is perhaps my greatest achievement in this regard. As to you, I'm not sure you've learned anything from what I've had to say.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Given your minutes here I can see why you can't see it.



phoenyx said:


> In order to persuade someone to a different point of view, you need certain conditions to be met. Here's 4 I thought of just now:
> 1- Avoid insulting their viewpoint. This tends to get listen to you less, if at all.
> Ridiculous ideas deserve to be ridiculed.
> 
> ...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 2, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > You do fine when you're preaching to your side of the fence, but I haven't seen anyone on -my- side of the fence consider your frequently insulting posts to be persuasive in any respect.
> ...



You're welcome to attempt to show evidence to the contrary.



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > In order to persuade someone to a different point of view, you need certain conditions to be met. Here's 4 I thought of just now:
> ...



You really thinking ridiculing other's points of view is a good strategy to help you change their minds?



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 2- Understand why they hold their viewpoint.
> ...



Careful candy, your arrogance is showing ...



candycorn said:


> Ignorance; willful or otherwise.  Here is an example.  Twoofers...



Apparently you've learned nothing from my attempt to show you how to discuss things with those who disagree with you. It's all right there in my first point, though perhaps I should have added not to make ad hominem attacks, which is even -worse- then what I mentioned in my first point...



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 3- Find information that refutes their viewpoint.
> ...



Yes, I know the drill. candy has investigated her own beliefs and found them to be valid .



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 4- Get them to listen to the information.
> ...



The punchline is in your own words; please, refer to point 1. Failure to do so will keep on getting you cut off. I'm making it obvious for you, but many will simply shut you out without making it clear as to why.



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > To give an example, I believe I have gotten Faun to atleast listen to -some- of the information I've provided. His acceptance of Terry Morin's testimony regarding the flight path of the airplane approaching the Pentagon, and his acknowledgement that some of CIT's witnesses also testified shortly after 9/11 is perhaps my greatest achievement in this regard. As to you, I'm not sure you've learned anything from what I've had to say.
> ...



I've noticed.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 3, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> You really thinking ridiculing other's points of view is a good strategy to help you change their minds?


Change minds?  When did you get the idea I was trying to do any such thing.  

When you have the physical evidence on your side.
When you have logic on your side
When you have numbers, what you do is this:  You simply  present your case and its obvious to any who come across who is being an honest broker, and who is not.  Physical evidence trumps any eye-witness (pro or con).  So I rely on it.  You rely on eye-witnesses that agree with your view point and dismiss those who do not.  It's just about the textbook definition of being a cheap hack.  Sorry. But that is the truth.  




phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Can't help it. Look at who I'm dealing with....




phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Ignorance; willful or otherwise.  Here is an example.  Twoofers...
> ...


Boy, there is nothing you can teach me on any subject, especially 9/11.



phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Fuck off little man.  I presented photographs that were admitted into physical evidence in Federal Court.  You've presented 6 y/o cherry-picked eyewitness testimony.  



phoenyx said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > To give an example, I believe I have gotten Faun to atleast listen to -some- of the information I've provided. His acceptance of Terry Morin's testimony regarding the flight path of the airplane approaching the Pentagon, and his acknowledgement that some of CIT's witnesses also testified shortly after 9/11 is perhaps my greatest achievement in this regard. As to you, I'm not sure you've learned anything from what I've had to say.
> ...



I've noticed.[/QUOTE]

If Faun wishes to entertain him/herself by playing with you that is her/his business.  I deal in facts and physical evidence.  You've run from it from day one--just like every other twoofer.  And as a result, all of the hemming and hollering from the conspricary consortium you guys tried to mobilize for 15 years has just resulted in a mountain of ridicule and you guys are bunch of outcasts who have to write mea-culpa letters and let everyone know you were full of shit.  

Dylan Avery (one of the Makers of Loose Change) Admits He Was Wrong

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

Confessions of an Ex-Truther

Just 3 of many.  There are no new investigations, nobody is donating money to the "causes", nobody believes what you're selling any longer past the "that's interesting" stage and once they get a whiff of physical evidence...  you're not that intersting any longer.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 3, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > You really thinking ridiculing other's points of view is a good strategy to help you change their minds?
> ...



I guess I was expecting too much of you. So is your goal to simply shut people up if they disagree with you, by insulting them? This is Donald Trump's general strategy anyway...



candycorn said:


> When you have the physical evidence on your side...



When you can actually show that -your- side has any solid physical evidence, then we can talk about physical evidence.



candycorn said:


> When you have numbers, what you do is this:  You simply  present your case and its obvious to any who come across who is being an honest broker, and who is not.



What do you mean by "numbers"? Anyway, if what happened at the Pentagon was so obvious for everyone, we wouldn't be arguing about what happened almost 15 years after the event.



candycorn said:


> You rely on eye-witnesses that agree with your view point and dismiss those who do not.



All of the eye witnesses that were in an excellent vantage point and CIT was able to film all agree that the plane passed north of Columbia Pike in the cases of Paik and Morin, and north of the Citgo gas station in the case of the rest.



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Someone who points out your flawed reasoning? I know candy, it can be rough ;-)...



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I'm really going to have to spell it out for you I guess. What I'm trying to teach you is some manners. Some simple respect for your opponent's beliefs.



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Not sure I'll ever be able to teach you some manners. I guess I can keep trying -.-...




candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You deal only with what you already believe is true. As Mark Twain once said:
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."



candycorn said:


> Dylan Avery (one of the Makers of Loose Change) Admits He Was Wrong



Interesting, I'm surprised Dylan would scale back his view to it just being a coverup instead of some in government actively being involved in 9/11. That being said, I'm not wholly surprised. Dylan never actively accused anyone in government of being involved, only suggested it could be the case with many of the issues he brought up.



candycorn said:


> The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind



I've gone over this guy with someone else (Faun perhaps), he's got more then a few skeletons in his closet, and could easily have been blackmailed into changing his mind...



candycorn said:


> Confessions of an Ex-Truther



I'd never heard of this truther before. It's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about. In the article above he states:
**_There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to "hey, we're just asking questions" if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?_**

He wrote that article in 2008, but even then, I believe that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had started up. Currently, they have over 2,500 architects and engineers who are demanding a new investigation into 9/11:
AE911Truth Petition Signers

As for physicists, Steven Jones, a well known physicist, presented evidence against the official story 3 years before 2008:
**On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by approximately 60 people. **

Source: Steven E. Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



candycorn said:


> Just 3 of many.



Right now, all I see is 3, 2 of whom I'd never even heard of before they became OCT believers.



candycorn said:


> There are no new investigations,



I think we should examine the word 'investigation' for a second here. Google defines it as:
"the action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research."

Now, what we do in forums may not be considered an investigation per se, since it may not be formal or systematic, but we are certainly examining evidence, and researching the subject. Clearly we don't have subpoena powers, or anything like that, but when we aren't too busy insulting each other, some of us here are in fact furthering our knowledge of what happened on 9/11.



candycorn said:


> nobody is donating money to the "causes",



Perhaps not to the "causes", but perhaps to some very valid causes ...


----------



## candycorn (Jul 3, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


 
Nothing new to comment on.  Physical evidence still towers over whatever nonsense you listed above.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 3, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Physical evidence still towers over whatever nonsense you listed above.



May want to take a look at this helpful FAQ article from CIT...
*Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?*


----------



## candycorn (Jul 3, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Physical evidence still towers over whatever nonsense you listed above.
> ...


 
None of that explains how it got there in the first place.  Which, of course, means AA77 hit the Pentagon.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 4, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I believe it refutes your "ofcourse" notion and morphs it into a 'might' at best. And this is before examining the slew of evidence against it, evidence which has been presented by groups such as CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Did you actually read the article? I've decided to post the article here, in order to more easily discuss its points by introducing the ability to quote them...

**
_This is pretty much the extent of the semi-recognizable pieces photographed inside and outside of the building:

Photos taken outside and on Pentagon lawn on 9/11:






Photos allegedly taken inside of the Pentagon in the aftermath of the event:




Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event.  Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion.  Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in.









This evacuation was discussed by multiple first responders, such as *Lt. Robert Medairos*, the Arlington County Police Department's "first incident commander at the scene," and *Eileen Murphy*, Head Nurse of the Minor Surgery Clinic at the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic, who was inside the Pentagon at the time of the explosion (alleged impact). You can view and read their testimonyhere.

In fact, first-responder *Derek Spector* of the Arlington County Fire Department reported that there were multiple evacuations. Speaking at a press conference two days after 9/11, where he was introduced by Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher as "Emergency Medical Technician Derek Spector" who was "one of the first arriving company officers," Spector said:
REPORTER: Derek, we know you guys are trained to do two things: put out fires and save lives.  How frustrating was it for you as an individual to have this fire continue to burn?

DEREK SPECTOR: I think it wasn't so much the frustration of it continuing to burn. *The frustration that we had was that we had to keep evacuating the structure because we had more reports of more planes and-- and possible, uh-- somebody trying to continue to do, uh, more damage to the Pentagon, and that kept-- kept withdrawing us from the scene and we-- that was probably the most frustrating thing about the whole thing.*






On September 11, 2010, 9 years after the attack, the National Geographic Channel (NatGeo) aired a special which contained never-before-seen footage documenting the evacuation(s).


In addition to the relatively small number of parts depicted above, there was also a significant amount unrecognizable debris that has been cited as proof that plane crashed.  The image below shows quite a bit of debris in small pieces strewn all over the helipad area.  (Click image to view higher resolution version.)






However, even if some of this unrecognizable debris did originally come from a plane or planes, which has not been proven, the conclusive evidence of a north side approach and flyoverproves that this debris did not come from AA77, N644AA, or any other plane crashing into the Pentagon, and therefore must have gotten there some other way.

As it turns out, it would have been rather simple for this debris to have been dispersed during the explosion, as there were renovation construction trailers that were right in front of the alleged impact point and next to the helipad which were obliterated during the attack.

In light of the evidence proving that the plane did not hit the building it is reasonable to hypothesize that the unidentified, unrecognizable little pieces of debris were blown out from these trailers._

**


----------



## candycorn (Jul 4, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



So now you agree all of those photos you posted above are of wreckage (i.e. Physical evidence) outside the pentagon on 9/11?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 4, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You do realize their were 2 sets of photos, right -.-? I'll quote it again, this time bolding some of the text for emphasis:

**
_*Photos taken outside and on Pentagon lawn on 9/11:*_





 **

So -those- pictures were indeed taken outside the Pentagon on 9/11, but it immediately points out how that is not solid evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon:
**
_Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event.  Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion.  Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in.**
_

The pictures -below- those pictures were in a different category though:
_**Photos *allegedly* taken inside of the Pentagon in the aftermath of the event:





**_

Rob Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, has added to this:
"_...these pictures are not on any govt site to support the official story. They were taken by an anonymous photographer and were never matched via serial numbers with mx logs. At least.. i havent found any reports.. nor has Col George Nelson (ret USAF)._"

Source: Wheel Hub at Pentagon - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum


----------



## candycorn (Jul 4, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> So -those- pictures were indeed taken outside the Pentagon on 9/11,



Thanks for wasting everyone's time to eventually admit what we all knew all along.

Now plausibly explain how the wreckage got there (and inside the Pentagon)


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 4, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize their were 2 sets of photos, right -.-? I'll quote it again, this time bolding some of the text for emphasis:
> ...



I never stated that -none- of the pictures allegedly showing debris from Flight 77 at the Pentagon on 9/11 weren't in fact taken at the Pentagon on 9/11. I -did- say that -some- of it is of questionable origin though, and I brought that up as well, but you snipped all that part out. You think if you snip out all the information that doesn't fit your narrative that it'll just go away ?



candycorn said:


> Now plausibly explain how the wreckage got there (and inside the Pentagon)



I've already done that numerous times. In fact, a plausible theory as to how the debris got there is right after the point that you snipped my message off. Let's put that little bit of conversation you snipped of mine into context:

=======
So -those- pictures were indeed taken outside the Pentagon on 9/11, but it immediately points out how that is not solid evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon:
**
_Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event.  Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion.  Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in.**
=======_


----------



## candycorn (Jul 4, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> I never stated that -none- of the pictures allegedly showing debris from Flight 77 at the Pentagon on 9/11 weren't in fact taken at the Pentagon on 9/11. I -did- say that -some- of it is of questionable origin though,



Finally, we're getting somewhere.  I knew if you were in danger of losing your audience, you'd play ball...  Happens every time.  


Okay so finally you agree that the pictures show wreckage of a plane

And

You finallly admit that the picutres THAT YOU POSTED are from the Pentagon on 9/11/01

You disagree that the wreckage is from AA77.

The question is this, "How do you plausibly explain the wreckage (i.e. physical evidence) being there?"


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 4, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I never stated that -none- of the pictures allegedly showing debris from Flight 77 at the Pentagon on 9/11 weren't in fact taken at the Pentagon on 9/11. I -did- say that -some- of it is of questionable origin though,
> ...



Whatever -.- 



candycorn said:


> Okay so finally you agree that the pictures show wreckage of a plane



The pictures that most resemble wreckage from a plane are the ones that were allegedly taken inside the Pentagon, not outside. Outside of the Pentagon, all you can see are pieces so small that a single individual can pick them up; a very convenient size to plant them at the scene as well. For all we know, some of those pieces never even touched the ground, simply being carried through for a photo op.



candycorn said:


> You finallly admit that the picutres THAT YOU POSTED are from the Pentagon on 9/11/01



These ones, to be precise:





These pictures were put up by CIT, hardly a bastion of the official conspiracy theory, and they tend to be pretty meticulous in their research.



candycorn said:


> You disagree that the wreckage is from AA77.



Definitely.



candycorn said:


> The question is this, "How do you plausibly explain the wreckage (i.e. physical evidence) being there?"



How many times do I have to repeat myself -.-? Once again, from CIT's article:
**
_Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event.  Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion.  Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in._
**


----------



## candycorn (Jul 4, 2016)

“phoenyx said:


> How many times do I have to repeat myself


Until *you* come up with a plausible explanation on how the “small” amounts of wreckage ended up on the Pentagon lawn and inside the Pentagon.    

Are *YOU* stating that the wreckage was planted by hand?  Even when there are no eye-witnesses, no proof whatsoever, no admission of having done it 15 years after the fact?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jul 4, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



    Do you really believe it would be difficult to stage a scene with wreckage?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jul 4, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



  I cant believe you actually need these things explained to you.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jul 4, 2016)

Wildcard said:


> It's funny how those who bought into the bullshit of the so-called "Official Story of 9/11" thinks that this particular piece of scrap metal is proof positive that a "plane", AA77 struck the Pentagon.
> Once again the gullible idiots are WRONG!



  That could very well be the white trim around the lettering.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 4, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



I don’t, I know how they got there. 
If you have a different version of events though, you need to account for the physical evidence.  Twoofers are incredibly deficient in doing so.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jul 4, 2016)

candycorn said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



   So the government has never planted evidence.....
Cops do it so what makes you think our government wouldnt?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 4, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Why do virtually all OCT believers think that those behind 9/11 would confess after a little time had gone by -.-? I find CIT's explanation to be quite plausible, which is why I quote it. Sorry I didn't reinvent the wheel for you, but I just didn't see the need. I, like CIT, are not claiming to "know" whether or not the small amounts of debris was planted by hand. We both find it hard to believe that such a small amount of wreckage would be present after the Pentagon attack, given the fact that a 757 had allegedly just crashed into the Pentagon. That being said, CIT has always felt that the primary case for the airplane not hitting the Pentagon following a south of the Citgo gas station trajectory is because of all of the witnesses that have it flying a -North- of the Citgo gas station trajectory. Also, I found myself to be quite impressed with Pilots for 9/11 Truth's work in discovering that both the 9/11 Commission report flight data, and the NTSB data not only don't concord with the physical damage along the south of citgo flight path, but don't even concord with each other.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 4, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...




There is no fucking way a plane hit the Pentagon. They confiscated all the cameras that could prove a plane hit and all they have ever release was a few frames that does nothing to dispel those that doubt the official story.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



The biggest problem with believing that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon or even explode before getting there or above it is, where did it go after it approached the Pentagon? CIT believes it flew over the Pentagon and continued on, perhaps landing at Reagan National. The main problem is that while there are certainly a good many witnesses stating that it -approached- the Pentagon, there is only one witness that may have seen it come from the other side (his name currently escapes me). Here are some articles from CIT that get into the theory of the flyover...

The Pentacon - Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed

The Pentacon - Smoking Gun


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jul 4, 2016)

When you look at the damage I dont see how anyone could believe it was hit by a large aircraft.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jul 4, 2016)

Especially when you look at the damage supposedly caused by jets hitting the world trade centers and of course the collapse of building seven which didnt even get hit by anything.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 4, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> When you look at the damage I dont see how anyone could believe it was hit by a large aircraft.
> 
> View attachment 80430



I can certainly agree with that. For one, there are several reports suggesting that the plane wasn't as large as a 757. My issue is, what happened to the plane approaching the Pentagon? Did it explode in mid air before hitting the Pentagon, or perhaps when it was over the roof? Or did it fly over the roof as CIT believes? I suppose it's not that important; we can focus on the simple fact that there is so little damage (and from the wrong direction) at the Pentagon.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 4, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > When you look at the damage I dont see how anyone could believe it was hit by a large aircraft.
> ...



And what about the incredible 270 degree turn to hit the least populated part of the Pentagon where  naval intelligence was trying to figure out where the 2.3 TRILLION dollars that Rumsfeld said could not be accounted for the day before.....but nothing to see here, folks...move along.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



That line sounds a lot like the one in 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory,  heh heh . I agree, it sounds mighty convenient to just lose a few trillion dollars on 9/11 -.-...


----------



## candycorn (Jul 5, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> So the government has never planted evidence.....
> Cops do it so what makes you think our government wouldnt?



Well, you answered that question yourself sort of.  I invite you to consider this question.  If Mr. Big came to you and said, “I want you to stage a scene of 757 airliner crash” what would be the first 6 or 7 things you’d “stage”?  If it were me it would be the tires, the wings, luggage, bodies and probably some very descriptive pieces of personal memorabilia such as a name tag from a stewardess as the proverbial smoking gun.  I think it’s safe to say that anyone asked to “stage” a crash site would do the same thing because you’re working from a script at that point and we’ve seen crash sites before.  Again, never have we seen a crash site of a plane where the pilot was attempting to 1) hit a building and 2) max thrusted the engines to optimize damage.  

Secondly, if you were told to stage the scene of a 757 airliner crash, why in the world would you put any wreckage 30-50 yards from the building?  




As the conspiracy theory goes, this had to be planted or landed there when whatever hit the Pentagon exploded.  Anyway, if you were tasked with the “set up”, why would you risk having someone carry this out there where all of these folks would have an opportunity to see you plant evidence?





The fact is you wouldn’t.  Presumably the powers that be that asked you to stage the event had access to the inside if wreckage is “planted” there too…so why even allow anyone with a Nikon a chance to catch one of your perps in the act planting wreckage?  

Obviously, you feel there was a cover-up and I guess no amount of evidence would flip you on that.  But it violates the law of plausibility that you would A) stage so little wreckage when you “know” what a scene is supposed to look like and B) have your operatives plant it so far away from the building in broad daylight.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jul 5, 2016)

candycorn said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > So the government has never planted evidence.....
> ...



   If you think this is damage caused by a 757 there's no hope for you.



  If you think building seven collapsed because it caught fire you're a moron.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 5, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Which is why your “movement” never got anywhere.  Physical evidence always trumps eyewitness testimony.  

So the next chapter we come to in the ever-more-fanciful CIT look into AA77 is the dead bodies of the passengers:

Photo by A J

Care to plausibly explained how that was found in the Pentagon?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 5, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



How was it supposed to look?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 5, 2016)

In fact HereWeGoAgain, I realize it will do nothing but for what it’s worth; you can even see where the engines hit:










The generator on the right with the gash taken out of it (on fire) and the yellow circle high lighting the place where the port engine made contact with what looks like a helipad outside of the building.






But again, what was it supposed to look like???


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 5, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



The physical evidence doesn't help your case either. Here's an excerpt of an article from Truth and Shadows, a site that I respect a lot...
**
_The plane is alleged to have hit a newly renovated and reinforced part of the building that had only minimal staff present. Had any other part of the building been hit, thousands would have been killed. As it was, the death toll in the building was 125.

The hole created in the outer ring of the Pentagon by the supposed impact was less than 20 feet in diameter and was just a few feet above ground level. The upper floors, which should have been hit by the tail section of the plane remained intact. Most windows were not even broken, although the upper floors did collapse about 20 minutes after the crash._






 **_There was no damage to either side of the 20-foot hole where the fuselage would have hit although there was a “hole” about 90 feet across at ground level – not wide enough to accommodate a plane with a 124-foot wingspan (As Massimo Mazzucco points out in September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, the plane is supposed to have hit at a roughly 42-degree angle, which would have extended the width of the contact betweeen the plane and the wall from 124 feet to 160 feet). There was no damage to the grass, which should have been gouged by the engines dragging on the ground.

All of this is physically impossible, plain and simple. The wings of a 757 can’t hit a concrete building at more than 500 mph without leaving a mark. And they certainly won’t be vaporized by exploding jet fuel.

There is NOT ONE piece of wreckage that has been positively tied to Flight 77. The engines, virtually indestructible, were not recovered, although it is claimed that an engine “core” was from one of the 757 engines. There were no bodies, no seats, no pieces of luggage. There were a couple of pieces of fuselage but they were big enough that one person could pick them up. There’s no proof it came from that plane.

Are you still willing to buy the idea that the plane was incinerated in the explosion? Can the energy exist to blow a plane into small bits of metal while simultaneously penetrating 310 feet into the Pentagon? The problem there is that photos of the damaged Pentagon clearly show offices with their side wall sheared off. Visible are wooden desks with computers on them and other office furniture. There’s even a wooden stool with an open book sitting on top of it just a foot or two from the ripped off wall. The heat was intense enough to vaporize the plane but not hot enough to set office furniture or books on fire.

The thing that seals the deal for me is just looking at the photos. Keep in mind the dimensions of the plane. And the opening in the building was about 75 feet wide after the upper floors collapsed, and about 90 feet at ground level (less than 20 where the fuselage would have hit).

Oh, I almost forgot. The Pentagon, one of the most secure buildings in the world, was hit supposedly without one clear image being captured on a security camera. According to theWashington Times, the heli-pad, which is very near where the impact happened, is under 24-hour surveillance. They also report that the FBI has admitted it has 83 different videos of the crash. But all that has been released are five non-sequential frames that are totally inconclusive.

The Times also reported that the FBI confiscated footage recorded by cameras at a nearby Sheraton hotel, and from the Citgo gas station right across the street within minutes of the crash. The gas station attendant told the newspaper that the video footage would surely have shown the impact..._**

Source:  How we know an airliner did not hit the Pentagon | Truth and Shadows



candycorn said:


> So the next chapter we come to in the ever-more-fanciful CIT look into AA77 is the dead bodies of the passengers:
> 
> Photo by A J
> 
> Care to plausibly explained how that was found in the Pentagon?



First of all, what evidence do you have that that photo was taken at the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 occurred? Secondly, what evidence do you have that that was the body of one of AA77's passengers?


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 5, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Take a look at as many videos as you need to decide...
> ...



Problem with the the cruise missle fantasy-

 where is the missing jet if it didn't hit the pentagon?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 5, 2016)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 5, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> where is the missing jet if it didn't hit the pentagon?




Ask W, Netanyahu, Cheney, Rove, Tenet, Rumsfeld, or Hillary, because all the NeoCons know....


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 5, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > where is the missing jet if it didn't hit the pentagon?
> ...



So you clearly don't. I bet you just hate people who point out the obvious failings in your fantasy. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's time to live in reality.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 5, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



Invoking Rule #14 from Twenty-Five Ways to Suppress Truth:
***14. Demand complete solutions*. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely**

Those us who don't believe one of the official narratives as to what happened on 9/11 have never claimed to have all the answers. But just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean that the official story is thus true by default. Notice I said "official narratives", not official narrative. That's because the official story doesn't even agree with -itself- on some key points, such as the flight path taken by the aircraft that approached the Pentagon...


Or for those who prefer technical points in text:
Technical Paper Outlining Anomolies Found in NTSB Data


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Now you're venturing even deeper into delusion. There's no evidence any plane exploded over the Pentagon. Many eyewitnesses saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. You're incapable of proving they're all either lying or wrong. And there was sufficient damage to the Pentagon to determine the direction the plane was traveling as it flew into the building; which eliminates any such notion that the plane flew straight into the Pentagon at about a 90 degree angle from north of the Citco.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Great, more dementia. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Despite the difference in hue, which can be attributed to lighting, the cracks on the walls are identical, the bricks are identical,  even some of the debris, like the two white pieces of debris where the line I drew points to, are identical.

But I do thank you. Thank you for once again proving me right when I pointed out earlier how you are armed with absolutely nothing but denials and conjecture. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Here you are, desperately denying things which are plainly obviously true.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

wihosa said:


> The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...
> 
> The whole 911 event was a staged fake. Look at the video of the plane going through the side of the building, without slowing down, without crumpling or breaking... Then, when entirely in the building exploding!
> 
> ...


So all the eyewitnesses who watched it happen live were what.... suffering from the largest massive delusion known to the entire history of mankind?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 6, 2016)

“phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, what evidence do you have that that photo was taken at the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 occurred? Secondly, what evidence do you have that that was the body of one of AA77's passengers?
> ...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You may well be right about that. Given the evidence, this leaves only one possibility- that it flew over it. But enough of what I and many others who disagree with the official story believe. What version of the -official- story do -you- believe? Did the aircraft fly according to the NTSB data, the 9/11 Commission data, or actual physical damage path? You can only choose one, as none of these versions concord with each other...



Faun said:


> Many eyewitnesses saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.



CIT has already gone over most if not all of the verified witnesses who some have claimed witnessed the plane hit the building. Their commentary on the witnesses is worthy of note:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

By all means, introduce any witnesses that you believe provide credible evidence that the plane actually hit the building. So long as they actually have a first -and- a last name, I think CIT has already looked into them and is probably on the list linked to above.



Faun said:


> You're incapable of proving they're all either lying or wrong.



Time will tell. Bring forward your witnesses.



Faun said:


> And there was sufficient damage to the Pentagon to determine the direction the plane was traveling as it flew into the building



There was certainly damage to the Pentagon, but there is a slew of reasons why this wasn't caused by an aircraft. I've gone over them before in a response to candy, they can be seen in this thread in post #435.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


There's no point in adhering to any of those points. Twoofers reject reality. They literally invent any nonsense that comes to mind, despite any supporting evidence and dismiss actual evidence as fake. And since 100% of the evidence we review is either photographic or video, it's regrettably too easy to dismiss ALL evidence as being tampered with. But hey, if Twoofers want to reside within their own demented bubble of delusion, all the rest of us can do is shake our collective heads and laugh at them.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If I said -you- had dementia every time you disagreed with me, we would have either stopped talking to each other or have gotten bogged down in insults long ago .



Faun said:


> Despite the difference in hue, which can be attributed to lighting, the cracks on the walls are identical, the bricks are identical,  even some of the debris, like the two white pieces of debris where the line I drew points to, are identical.



And I, ofcourse, am supposed to just trust you on your judgement ? Sorry, but I won't be so accomodating as that. This is all a moot point anyway. Regardless of whether or not the debris in question was photographed at the Pentagon (something which I've seen no evidence for), all of the other factors make it clear that it would have to have been planted evidence.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Now you're lying again... flying over the Pentagon is not actually the only remaining possibility.

I have no desire to bring forward any witnesses. We've, or I, have moved beyond trying to prove anything to you since you're clearly only going to deny anything and everything which doesn't fit into your imagination of what happened. Evidence of this lies in my belief  I have absolutely zero doubt that someone who has spent as much time researching this as you say you have, *has already seen the witnesses* who have stated they saw the plane fly *into * the Pentagon. So why on Earth would you ask me to show you what you have already seen except to set you up with yet more denials?


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Well you could convince me you're not crazy if you could post a single piece of evidence that every eyewitness was lying or wrong. Or a single piece of evidence that DNA from the bodies recovered didn't actually match passengers recorded on flight #77's manifest. Or a single piece of evidence that those passengers were killed somewhere else...

.... but you can't because you have none.

All you have are delusional denials. Like claiming that wall of the Pentagon in two different photos is not the same wall because the lighting is different.  A sane person would reflect on the level of desperation needed to mount that denial and feel at least a tinge of embarrassment. But not a Twoofer. No sir, Twoofers feel no shame because the world they've crafted for themselves allows for any nonsense,  no matter how ridiculous,  to permeate. They lack the shame required to keep them grounded in reality.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


It's quite revealing that you trust and respect truth & shadows despite their blatant lies. Hell, you even posted a monstrous lie of theirs yourself.... quoting you, quoting them...


> The hole created in the outer ring of the Pentagon by the supposed impact was less than 20 feet in diameter and was just a few feet above ground level. The upper floors, which should have been hit by the tail section of the plane remained intact.


...that's a bald-faced lie intended to fool gullible Twoofers into believing a 757 could not possibly have crashed into the Pentagon and fit into a 20 foot hole. But the sad reality for truth & shadows, as well as for you.... is that 20 foot hole is not actually on the "outer ring of the Pentagon," as they falsely portay; but actually on the middle ring. Meaning that AA77 traveled through 6 exterior walls of the Pentagon before debris from the plane finally punched that 20 foot hole on the back side of the C-ring. The outer ring of the Pentagon is the E-ring, which had about 75 feet across of damage, not 20 feet as Twoofers lie about.

*So why do you Twoofers lie if facts and reality were indeed on your side?*


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 6, 2016)

candycorn said:


> “phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



And what is this "bullshit", my actually questioning evidence you provide? Put another way, you introduce a new piece of evidence, and expect me to just accept it as authentic because you say so?



candycorn said:


> Okay here are federal exhibits:  Surely thats satisfactory….
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for providing those pictures. I've traced them back to their site of origin, and I can see that they are from the Moussaoui trial. For those who don't know how to find their source, they are here:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200047.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200042.jpg

The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.



candycorn said:


> So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????



From CIT's FAQ:
*Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?*


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > “phoenyx said:
> ...


So the Moussaoui defense was able to get all of the DNA evidence thrown out then, right? After all, according to your continued denials, there's no proof any of it matched any of the passengers from flight #77. Must've been beyond easy to get ALL of that DNA evidence thrown out, right?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



If you don't want to actually persuade someone to change their viewpoint, no, ofcourse not -.-...



Faun said:


> Twoofers reject reality...



And there you are, starting up with the ad hominem attacks again, sigh -.-. Why do I even bother with essay length ideas on how to further a progressive discussion when all I get in response is this -.-? If your goal is to kill the conversation, keep it up with those ad hominems -.-...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Do you really think I'm trying to deceive you? It is frequently hard to frame things in such a way that is inclusive of your own beliefs on this matter. I meant given the evidence that -I- believe is real (namely all of CIT's witnesses), this leaves only one possibility. You, ofcourse, only went as far as acknowledging Terry Morin's witness testimony, ignoring almost all the other witnesses who put the plane on a flight path north of the Citgo gas station. I am curious, however, as to what evidence you -do- accept. Is it the physical damage to the light poles and the Pentagon? Or the NTSB flight path data? Or how about the 9/11 Commission report flight path data? You can only pick one, as they all conflict with each other...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes, some people -believe- they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. It certainly flew very close to the Pentagon, but if you were to actually closely examine the testimony from the credible witnesses who've made this allegation as CIT has, you'd see that they placed the plane on a flight path that simply couldn't have caused the damage that the Pentagon sustained. As Sherlock Holmes once said: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Look, in your world, it may be fine to ask people to prove they're not crazy just because they don't agree with your viewpoint, but it doesn't fly with me. You don't want to introduce any more witnesses (I dealt with the 3 you -did- provide) and you don't want to take a serious look at the ones that CIT has provided other than Terry Morin's. If you're not willing to give your reasons why you -disbelieve- the testimony of all of CIT's witnesses other than Terry Morin's, there's really not much point in this discussion is there? Perhaps you're just looking for an easy way out of this discussion. If that's the case, feel free to leave. You can tell yourself us truthers were being unreasonable, or whatever other reason you want to give yourself.



Faun said:


> Or a single piece of evidence that DNA from the bodies recovered didn't actually match passengers recorded on flight #77's manifest.



Your main problem in this discussion is that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the evidence we have been provided with by the government is highly suspect. The DNA evidence is a very good example. Let's put aside for the moment that there was no chain of custody that I know of with it. I'll quote an excerpt from an article on the subject that I picked up just now (it's so easy to find this information, you just have to know how to google)...
**_But the two most pertinent questions and anomalies in regards to the Pentagon and the 'official story' the public has been fed have nothing to do with investigating grand conspiracies or tracking down mis-represented evidence. They have to do with unreasonable suspensions in basic logic. The first is the fact that while almost all the victims of the attack were positively identified through DNA and dental records, we are also told that there is no significant remaining plane debris within the Pentagon because the intensity of the inferno after the crash wholly incinerated the aircraft and its component parts. These are two completely different and irreconcilable narratives.

To be explicitly clear, this is what the public has been told: On one hand, in response to the complaint that there is no verifiable plane debris to positively ID Flight 77, the government claims the fire in the Pentagon was so hot that the virtually indestructible titanium engines were melted, enormous metal wings incinerated, detachable vertical tail fins swallowed whole, seats and luggage consumed, every inch of metal framing obliterated, landing gear gone, a whole enormous Boeing 757 essentially vaporized into molten rubble and dust. And yet that same raging, all-consuming inferno spared enough body parts and DNA of 184 individual human beings made of a carbon based material significantly less rugged than titanium, called skin and bone, somehow survived said firestorm in tact enough for positive identification. How is this possible? And why is no one asking this question and shining light on what should be a most distressing and absurd fabrication?_**

Source: The Pentagon | 911hardfacts.com 



Faun said:


> Or a single piece of evidence that those passengers were killed somewhere else...



I've given quite a bit of evidence on that front, actually. Namely, the tons of evidence that a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon. I know you don't accept it at the moment though, so we can continue to go over it if you wish. I snipped out the rest of your message, it was mainly insults anyway.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Again with the "Twoofers" -.-. Not sure if you're referring to when the facade caved in about 20 minutes after the initial explosion at the Pentagon? Most of us weren't at the Pentagon itself, let alone with measuring tape to measure the size of the hole in the first 20 minutes, but there are pictures that have people in it along with the initial damage to the Pentagon that give an idea as to size of the hole. Below is one, complete with a caption:
***






_Look at the red image, it is scaled to size, (ACTUALLY EVEN SMALLER) and shows where the impact patterns SHOULD be, yet, there is no damage except a single hole that goes through 3 sections of the pentagon.

This wall collapsed or was brought down by explosives minutes after this picture, which clearly shows inconsistent damage for a Boeing 757._
***

Source: Missile Damage to Pentagon - Unseen Pentagon Fraud Footage? - The 9-11  Events...

The source of this particular photo believes it was caused by a missile, something I'm highly skeptical of, but he certainly agrees with me that it couldn't have been caused by a 757.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Draw that with your own crayon?  A much more accurate picture (that fits in with the physical evidence) and not some mommy’s basement dweller’s wet dream is this:

Here you see where the two engines hit:  First on the right you see the generator knocked off it’s moorings.  CIT and our new chew-toy Phoenix (aka-shit brains) would have you believe that it was set on fire separately.  Notice the gash in the upper left hand corner generator that perfectly coincides with the outside of the starboard engine of a 757 (also known as AA77).  The yellow circle shows where the bottom of the port engine clipped the concrete surrounding what looked to be a Helipad outside of the Pentagon.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Yes.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


I tried engaging you in reasonable debate. You refuse to post any actual proof whatsoever of anything you claim. So where else is there to go with this debate when I have evidence on my side whereas you have nothing but abject denial on yours?


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Huh? Which CIT witness said they saw a commercial plane fly over the Pentagon?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 6, 2016)

“phoenyx said:


> The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.


Actually shit brains, it’s 3 someones.  A blue and white striped shirt proves it was not a member of the military.  As for the other picture of what appears to be a youth…that speaks for itself.  



“phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????
> ...



And of course, here we go again with me asking you a question and you answering it with posting a link to a FAQ.  I’m growing weary of your antics shit brains so I’ll just assume you’re saying they were planted.

We’ll move on to the next pieces of physical evidence:

So far we have the following in your accounting for physical evidence:


Wreckage outside the pentagon:  Planted
Wreckage inside the pentagon: Planted
Light Pole 1:  Planted
Lloyd England’s cab:  Staged
Why the Perps would have a cabbie on the payroll?  Never explained
Why the Perps would make him available for interviews?  Never explained
Light Pole 2:  Planted
Light Pole 3: Planted
Light Pole 4: Planted
Light Pole 5: Planted
Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it:  Faked
Fire of Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it: Started after the explosion
Bodies of civilians found inside the Pentagon:  Planted.  
About at the 3rd bullet point, one gets the message that it would have been easier to simply hijack a plane and have it crash into the Pentagon.  Not you guys.  

Lets talk Phone calls.  

Renee May called her mother who, in turn, called American Airlines to tell them that AA77 was hijacked.  This too is an exhibit in the Mousaui Trial:  

U.S.D.C.  Eastern District of Virginia

Care to explain that?


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


You've presented no evidence other than a handful of witnesses who claim something that a hundred other witnesses did not claim; something which defies logic and the physical evidence. Oh, and by the way.... denials are not evidence. And denials are all you have. Some are quite delusional, like the two photos of the same Pentagon wall you think are different because the lighting is different. And you didn't deal with the witnesses I offered earlier.... you denied they saw what they said they saw. More denials.

As far as your claim that I gave you no reasons for why I dismissed the CIT witnesses... *You're lying again. *

Why do you keep lying if truth and reality were actually on your side?

In fact, I gave you multiple reasons.... most importantly, the field of debris rejects any notion that the plane flew straight into the Pentagon; and that is their claim. Secondly, Many of them never gave public interviews prior to CIT recording them, which they did many years after 9.11. Thirdly, their claims contradict all of the other witnesses who said they saw the plane flying up either Columbia Pike or 395.

Taking all of that into consideration  leads me to  conclude they are at best, wrong... or at worst, lying.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Why did you just completely ignore what I said? Truth & Shadows portayed the 20 foot hole in the C-ring as though it were the entry point in the E-ring. That's a bald-faced lie. Not only did you repeat that bald-faced lie in this forum, you openly expressed your trust and respect for that organization.

An apology from you for trying to deceive the forum and a repudiation of Truth & Shadows is what I expected. Instead, you blatantly ignored my accusations that you repeated their lie and simply slithered onto something else.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> Huh? Which CIT witness said they saw a commercial plane fly over the Pentagon?



What would be quite investing was when our resident Twoofer said that a plane flying right over the Pentagon landed at Reagan—flew through an explosion which is really hard to do but then landed; seeing how they’d be flying in the opposite direction.  Perhaps it was one of those airplanes with the backward wings????







Slap some AA paint on that puppy and you’ve got a cruise missile or 3rd plane or whatever CIT wants to call it apparently.

The hilarious thing (well, one of them) is that if you listen to other twoofers, they are appalled at CIT and this “flyover” theory.  One such moron named Phil Jahan who claims that none of the events happened or something as equally stupid…said this:

*Just got done reading your extremely harsh words against both me and the forum members here at the loose change forums. I left a reply there, my first in months, and the first time I have taken the time to search over there what people like you and Aldo the asshole speak about me and the great people at the forums here. 
[omitted due to USMB rules]
Neither of you guys are welcome here, ever again, until you make complete and total retractions, declaring that the biggest reason that "Jayhan" didn't look into any of your "pet theories" was because Aldo the asshole kept coming here declaring himself and you the "motherfucking authorities" and that we, as a forum were nothing but asstard gumwads.... To have thought that I made peace with you two retards, and then to go to the loose change forums and see all your harsh words against both myself and all the very good and honorable people of this forums, nearly 7000 of them, made me want to puke.*


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? Which CIT witness said they saw a commercial plane fly over the Pentagon?
> ...


I know there were a couple of witnesses who said they saw a second plane. A *prop * plane following a jet airliner. But I'm not aware of a single witness claiming they saw the jet fly over the Pentagon. Meanwhile, there's a slew of witnesses who said they saw a jet fly directly into it. Which matches the videos... which matches the lamp posts... which matches Lloyd England... which matches the debris found... which matches the direction of the debris.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...



Maybe the Sugar Plum fairy took the plane to the land of Cottoncandy. I can't image the stuff you see at night when you close your eyes, such vivid imagination.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 6, 2016)

candycorn said:


> “phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.
> ...



I just stumbled on to this thread. I thought all the 911 deniers had retired to a cabin in northern Idaho, and were prepping for a zombie invasion. But since I am new, would one of you guys tell me your theory on who and why is responsible for 911?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I imagine they saw lots of planes given they are in DC.  We were at National Harbor a few months back riding the large ferris wheel after a dinner at McCormick & Schmicks…musta been 40 planes coming and going.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 6, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Hmmmm, that is very suspicious, you at National Harbor just 15 years after 911, and riding the Ferris wheel....Aha...gotcha, it was Candycorn who planned and carried out the whole thing, and now we have rock solid, undeniable proof!


----------



## candycorn (Jul 6, 2016)

Rebuttal To CIT Claims About What 'Did Not' Hit The Pentagon

They got me!


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> ...Twoofers reject reality. They literally invent any nonsense that comes to mind, despite any supporting evidence and dismiss actual evidence as fake. And since 100% of the evidence we review is either photographic or video, it's regrettably too easy to dismiss ALL evidence as being tampered with. But hey, if Twoofers want to reside within their own demented bubble of delusion, all the rest of us can do is shake our collective heads and laugh at them.



Which begs the obvious and most fundamental question of the entire (and long defunct) 9/11 CT Movement ... WHY?

Why do these people persist when their facts and theories have been so thoroughly and routinely debunked?
Why do they continue to spew the same silly half-truths and outright fabrications?

It is legit to pick at the NIST report but a whole 'nuther thing to post obviously bogus pix and facts in a lame attempt to avoid admitting their life's focus was nuttin but a wabbit hole.

I, for one, have dealt with enough of them to know the vast majority of those who still remain - the stragglers and clean-up crew - have malicious and/or nefarious agendas they will not or can not abandon and that arguing the details of 9/11 with them is like playing Whac-A-Mole.

Perhaps it is as simple as the general dissatisfaction with livin' in the USA of so many Trumpettes or that expressed by LaLaDexter's constant charge of "The CHOSEN" conspiracy or 9/11'sJob (and Pauli's and a dozen other knuckle-draggers) claim that "the Jooo did it!" 

I guess it doesn't really matter why ... it is clear that even when faced with the point-by-point deconstruction of their "cause" they just can't let go. 

I believe it is best explained by the words of former 9/11 CT "royalty" Charlie Veitch, once one of Britain’s leading conspiracy theorists, a friend of David Icke and Alex Jones and a 9/11 'truther': 

“I was a real firm believer in the conspiracy [_theory_] that it was a controlled demolition,”
“This [_letting go_] is hard, you know, because I’ve hung on to these ideas for years now,”
“Ego made me vulnerable.”
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



So I googled 'Truth & Shadows' (and it's editor Craig McKee) and found it to be an obscure blog operated by even more obscure contributors. That anyone would publicly admit to finding it a site they "respect a lot" says much about the need of that individual to plumb the fetid bowels of the Internet to find "validation" for their preconceived conclusions.

Onebornfree's 9/11 Research Review: Craig McKee's "Truth and Shadows" Blog: Yet Another Fake 9/11 Photo!


----------



## candycorn (Jul 6, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ...Twoofers reject reality. They literally invent any nonsense that comes to mind, despite any supporting evidence and dismiss actual evidence as fake. And since 100% of the evidence we review is either photographic or video, it's regrettably too easy to dismiss ALL evidence as being tampered with. But hey, if Twoofers want to reside within their own demented bubble of delusion, all the rest of us can do is shake our collective heads and laugh at them.
> ...



I think it’s to get attention they can’t garner in real life.  I mean, have you ever met a truly serious conspiracy theorist who was anything other than a loon?  They had one of the moon landing deniers who had some 30 years at NASA or whatever it was.  They went down his resume and it was impressive.  The next clip showed his home in the New Mexico desert which was a trailer that had lawn furniture in it.


----------



## wihosa (Jul 6, 2016)

Ok, I'm a no planer, but this really is a no brainer. Let's examine the facts.
Anyone who payed attention during high school physics will remember Newtons Third Law; For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means that in a collision between two objects both receive equal impact force, at which point it becomes a test of material strength. Guess what, steel and concrete beat aluminum and plastic every time!

An object of less density and less mass can never penetrate an object of greater density and greater mass.

Not convinced? Let's do the math. Consider just the exterior columns, just in the "impact zone". It spanned by my count 44 columns and crossed eight floors. The floors were 12 feet high so total length of columns in the affected area is 96 feet. We know the columns were 14" welded steel box columns with a minimum thickness of 1/2" so here is the calculation for the total steel in each column in the affected area. 96' x 12" x 56" (4 sides of column) x .5" = 32,256 cubic inches of steel / 1728 c.i. per cubic foot = 18.66 c.f. of steel per column. Steel weighs about 490 lbs. per c.f. so 18.66 x 490 = 9143.4. Divide that by 2000 lbs per ton = 4.57 tons per column. Multiply by 44 columns = 201.08 tons of steel. 

A fully loaded 757 comes in at about 140 tons max. 140 tons of aluminum airplane against 201 tons of steel. No contest. Keep in mind this is just the mass of the exterior columns which were backed up by 8 concrete floors, each about an acre in size. 44,000 sf / 4" slab thickness = 14,666 cubic feet of light weight concrete at about 115 per cf = 1,686,590 lbs / 2000 = 843.3 tons per floor x 8 floors = 6744 tons of concrete in the affected area.

No plane flew through the side of a 500,000 ton building. Only an image of a plane could do that. Go back and watch the video of the plane, does it look like a collision to you? It doesn't slow down, it doesn't crumple or break. The face of the building doesn't buckle or bend.

I know it's hard to come to grips with the fact that we were duped, but the whole event was a staged fake.

THERE WERE NO PLANES!


----------



## wihosa (Jul 6, 2016)

This is just one of the impossibilities that happened on 911. How about the fact the buildings turned to dust before they hit the ground. Virtually no items used by office workers were recovered from ground zero. No desks, no computers, no chairs, no lamps, no filing cabinets, no sinks or toilets, no phones, no lamps. There should have been hundreds of these, crushed maybe but still recognizable. They weren't there. Neither were 1500 people, not even enough for DNA matching. Curiously little bits of people were found all around the area even on top of neighboring buildings. Pieces smaller than a finger nail. From an accidental collapse? Ridiculous, you have to put on your blinders to believe this.


----------



## wihosa (Jul 6, 2016)

Don't forget that at the time they were built the Twin Towers were literally the strongest buildings ever built. The idea that they could be knocked down by the comparative equivalent of a mosquito strike is ( this is for you Say It) silly!


----------



## candycorn (Jul 6, 2016)

wihosa said:


> This is just one of the impossibilities that happened on 911. How about the fact the buildings turned to dust before they hit the ground. Virtually no items used by office workers were recovered from ground zero. No desks, no computers, no chairs, no lamps, no filing cabinets, no sinks or toilets, no phones, no lamps. There should have been hundreds of these, crushed maybe but still recognizable. They weren't there. Neither were 1500 people, not even enough for DNA matching. Curiously little bits of people were found all around the area even on top of neighboring buildings. Pieces smaller than a finger nail. From an accidental collapse? Ridiculous, you have to put on your blinders to believe this.








Bodies turn to ash when they are burned.  Ash, being light is capable of spreading across entire states if elevated enough.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

wihosa said:


> Ok, I'm a no planer, but this really is a no brainer. Let's examine the facts.
> Anyone who payed attention during high school physics will remember Newtons Third Law; For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means that in a collision between two objects both receive equal impact force, at which point it becomes a test of material strength. Guess what, steel and concrete beat aluminum and plastic every time!
> 
> An object of less density and less mass can never penetrate an object of greater density and greater mass.
> ...


And everybody watching it live... what... all hallucinated the same thing at the same time?


----------



## wihosa (Jul 6, 2016)

So a fire in the building turned it into an incinerator? After a body is cremated there are still bones that didn't burn, which contain DNA. There was not even DNA for 1500 people.
Body parts, very small body parts were found, not ash.


----------



## hadit (Jul 6, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > When you look at the damage I dont see how anyone could believe it was hit by a large aircraft.
> ...


The problem with the explosion above the Pentagon theory is the very large debris field such an event would have left behind.  Since the plane would have been traveling at a fairly high rate of speed, the debris would have spread quite far in the direction of travel by the time it hit the ground.  I think we can safely discount that theory.


----------



## wihosa (Jul 6, 2016)

No, everybody watching believed what they were told. 
Look at the plane going into the building. If you can convince yourself that it is a real collision then I guess we have nothing to talk about.


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 6, 2016)

hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



No worries. Wilhosa solved that problem for us (and I quote): "THERE WERE NO PLANES!" 

Really ... he said that.


----------



## hadit (Jul 6, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Yup, those massive hologram projectors across the street gave it away.  The real planes were flown to Funk and Wagnell's farm, where exact replicas were launched that flew around in circles to attract attention away from construction workers who were busily stringing miles of wiring inside all the buildings.  Meanwhile, the passengers were all killed and duplicates of their clothes were put on manikins that were then dumped at the crash sites where pictures were taken of them.  Literally every person in America except for the ultra smart ones who always see through the official narrative was given an assignment to carry out and keep silent about forever or their StarBucks privileges would be revoked.  So simple, yet so elegant.  I wonder why no one thought that it would just be simpler to just fly some actual planes into actual buildings.  Come to think of it, is there any irrefutable evidence that the buildings actually existed?


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

wihosa said:


> No, everybody watching believed what they were told.
> Look at the plane going into the building. If you can convince yourself that it is a real collision then I guess we have nothing to talk about.


Well if you're truly that eager to dismiss yourself from the dialog, then there's nothing I can do about that. In the meantime, as long as you're playin'... how about answering the question?

Huge numbers of people from in and all around Manhattan were fixed on the Twin Towers that morning after the first tower was hit. *How did so many of them see a plane fly into the 2nd tower if there wasn't one?*


----------



## wihosa (Jul 6, 2016)

What happens when a real airplane runs into concrete


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

wihosa said:


> What happens when a real airplane runs into concrete


Still refusing to answer the question, eh, Twoofer?

How revealing.

Huge numbers of people from in and all around Manhattan were fixed on the Twin Towers that morning after the first tower was hit. *How did so many of them see a plane fly into the 2nd tower if there wasn't one?*


----------



## wihosa (Jul 6, 2016)

By the way, steel is denser and stronger than concrete so impact against the tower would have had the same effect on a real plane. 
A real plane could never penetrate the building. Yes I know you saw it on TV so you believe but it is just physically impossible..
If you think I'm wrong, provide video of a less dense, less massive object pentetrating a more dense more massive object.


----------



## wihosa (Jul 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > What happens when a real airplane runs into concrete
> ...



What do you think it reveals?
It's a good question which is why we need a real investigation, because some of us have realized we've been duped. 
The military has a system called Strategic Perception Management, an airborne image projector, may be holographic or another technology. One possibility.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2016)

wihosa said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


Apparently, it's such a good question that even a devout Twoofer like you can't answer it.

And with that -- you're done. Buh-bye!


----------



## wihosa (Jul 6, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Yes I really did! Because as Arthur Conan Doyle pointed out "once you remove the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable must be the truth". It is physically impossible for an airplane to have penetrated the building without slowing down, crumpling or breaking, or exploding until after it had entered the building, therefore it was not a plane that people saw.

Yanno Say it, there is no statute of limitations on murder and those that cover up a crime are as guilty as those who committed it. Just sayin' cause yanno, it must get so tiring having to monitor this site after all these years, and you probably have other sites to monitor, and you guys thought this would blow over in a couple years and you could move on...but you didn't count on the Official Conspiracy Theory being so obviously a lie and now it's becoming common knowledge that 911 is a lie, and the shits gonna hit the fan and then someone will be left holding the bag...yanno.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 6, 2016)

wihosa said:


> So a fire in the building turned it into an incinerator? After a body is cremated there are still bones that didn't burn, which contain DNA. There was not even DNA for 1500 people.
> Body parts, very small body parts were found, not ash.



Are you trying to say that 1,500 people have not been identified?


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 7, 2016)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Yanno Willy, I am here to defend your right to be as stupid and ridiculous as you wanna be. The fact is 9/11 CTs like you make it clear that despite its shortcomings, the NIST findings are by far the only rational explanation for what so many of us witnessed that day.



candycorn said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > So a fire in the building turned it into an incinerator? After a body is cremated there are still bones that didn't burn, which contain DNA. There was not even DNA for 1500 people.
> ...



What Willy seems to be saying is that there is no BS - including "THERE WERE NO PLANES!" - so ridiculous that he won't spew it in defense of whatever 9/11 CT he is promoting today.

It;s pathetic but ... well ... there it is.


----------



## hadit (Jul 7, 2016)

wihosa said:


> By the way, steel is denser and stronger than concrete so impact against the tower would have had the same effect on a real plane.
> A real plane could never penetrate the building. Yes I know you saw it on TV so you believe but it is just physically impossible..
> If you think I'm wrong, provide video of a less dense, less massive object pentetrating a more dense more massive object.


Don't have to.  The outer walls of the buildings were not concrete.  They were steel beams with a lot of glass between them.  The load bearing columns were INSIDE the buildings so there would be no problem at all for an airplane to penetrate.  Are you really trying to be serious with this?


----------



## wihosa (Jul 7, 2016)

hadit said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, steel is denser and stronger than concrete so impact against the tower would have had the same effect on a real plane.
> ...


The outer columns were structural load bearing 14" steel box columns spaced 1 meter on center. That leaves less than 24" of glass between. Look at my post #474.


----------



## wihosa (Jul 7, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


So selfless of you to spend all you time monitoring this site for me.
What is stupid is defending your ridiculous conspiracy theory. There were no hijackers stunt flying airliners, knocking down light poles light so many slalom gates. No airliner buried itself entirely into the ground in shanksville so that no part of it could be seen. No FBI agent found a paper passport the size of a drivers license the next day in all the dust and debris at ground zero. No plane went through the 2foot thick concrete wall of the Pentagon (a literal fortress) without leaving any identifiable debris outside. And no planes flew unimpeaded through the sides of the two 1/2 million ton towers.
And you are hanging your hat on the NIST report? The one that admits that Building 7 collapsed at free fall acceleration, which can only happen in cases of purpousful demolition?
Yanno, Say it, if you look in the mirror you will see a 9/11 CT


----------



## wihosa (Jul 7, 2016)

candycorn said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > So a fire in the building turned it into an incinerator? After a body is cremated there are still bones that didn't burn, which contain DNA. There was not even DNA for 1500 people.
> ...



1500 are identified and presumed dead because they never came home, but they were not confirmed dead by DNA or other means


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 7, 2016)

wihosa said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Again you simply fabricate your "facts" to suit your particular need but I suppose that is the only method available to one who insists "THERE WERE NO PLANES."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/n...e-center-attack-is-positively-identified.html

Matthew David Yarnell, a 26-year-old employee of Fiduciary Trust Company International, has been positively identified as a victim of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

The announcement was made on Thursday by the New York City medical examiner’s office, which said the identification was made possible by the retesting of DNA samples obtained from human remains that were recovered in 2001 and 2002...

*He is the 1,640th victim at the trade center to have been positively identified*. The most recent previous identification, in September, was of Patrice Braut, the only Belgian citizen to die in the attack.


----------



## wihosa (Jul 7, 2016)

So of the 2996


SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


killed on 911 

Hilarious that you reference an article that makes my point! I thank you for correcting my statement for absolute accuracy. So according to this article of the total of 2753 officially killed at the WTC 40% or 1113 were so obliterated that they have still not been identified.

So Candycorn, let me stand corrected, the official number of people turned to dust that day is 1113.


----------



## hadit (Jul 7, 2016)

wihosa said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


And planes at full speed crashing into them would have behaved much like a liquid and spread flaming gas and very small parts of things into the inside of the buildings, which is exactly what we saw happen.  There is absolutely no way the exterior walls of the buildings could possibly have absorbed the shock of that much material hitting them at the speed.  The energy was tremendous, as we saw it was enough to collapse the buildings after the fires weakened the support columns.


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2016)

wihosa said:


> So of the 2996
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> ...


Among the human remains identified were those who were on either flights #11 or #175. You know... the plane's you moronically claimed were the result of thousands of New Yorkers' mass hallucination.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 7, 2016)

wihosa said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Citation for that please?


----------



## wihosa (Jul 7, 2016)

hadit said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Did you even read my post #474? I know it has math involved...


hadit said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Not convinced? Let's do the math. Consider just the exterior columns, just in the "impact zone". It spanned by my count 44 columns and crossed eight floors. The floors were 12 feet high so total length of columns in the affected area is 96 feet. We know the columns were 14" welded steel box columns with a minimum thickness of 1/2" so here is the calculation for the total steel in each column in the affected area. 96' x 12" x 56" (4 sides of column) x .5" = 32,256 cubic inches of steel / 1728 c.i. per cubic foot = 18.66 c.f. of steel per column. Steel weighs about 490 lbs. per c.f. so 18.66 x 490 = 9143.4. Divide that by 2000 lbs per ton = 4.57 tons per column. Multiply by 44 columns = 201.08 tons of steel. 

A fully loaded 757 comes in at about 140 tons max. 140 tons of aluminum airplane against 201 tons of steel. No contest. Keep in mind this is just the mass of the exterior columns which were backed up by 8 concrete floors, each about an acre in size. 44,000 sf / 4" slab thickness = 14,666 cubic feet of light weight concrete at about 115 per cf = 1,686,590 lbs / 2000 = 843.3 tons per floor x 8 floors = 6744 tons of concrete in the affected area.

No plane flew through the side of a 500,000 ton building. Only an image of a plane could do that. Go back and watch the video of the plane, does it look like a collision to you? It doesn't slow down, it doesn't crumple or break. The face of the building doesn't buckle or bend.


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2016)

wihosa said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


An "image" of a plane??

You said eyewitnesses say they saw a plane only because they were told that. Now you say they saw an "image" of one??

You're so crazy, you don't even know there's no such technology capable of displaying an image of a plane streaking across the sky and into a building some 80 to 90 stories up.



Do you still possess even the slightest amount of lucidity to comprehend why rational folks think you twoofers are completely batshit insane??


----------



## wihosa (Jul 7, 2016)

And stop with the full speed line. First of all jet aircraft cannot fly full speed at under 1000 foot elevation, the air is 3 time thicker than at 30,000 feet. The engines actually become brakes at low altitude. Pilots for 911 Truth estimates maximum speed would have been about  400mph. The importance of the wrong speed is only that it proves the image seen was a fake, 580mph is a physical impossibility.

But regardless, high speed wouldn't allow a plane to fly through the side of a steel building because Newtons Third Law is an immutable law, not a possibility. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, in a collision, both objects receive the same impact force. At that point it becomes a test of material strength. Steel and concrete beat aluminum and plastic every time!

Airplane wings are not steel cutting tools, no matter how fast they go. Airplanes are fragile craft, so thin and lightweight that there are places on the wings that are so weak they label them NO STEP. In other words, maintenance man, don't step here or you'll break something. Airplanes are built so light they can fly!


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2016)

wihosa said:


> And stop with the full speed line. First of all jet aircraft cannot fly full speed at under 1000 foot elevation, the air is 3 time thicker than at 30,000 feet. The engines actually become brakes at low altitude. Pilots for 911 Truth estimates maximum speed would have been about  400mph. The importance of the wrong speed is only that it proves the image seen was a fake, 580mph is a physical impossibility.
> 
> But regardless, high speed wouldn't allow a plane to fly through the side of a steel building because Newtons Third Law is an immutable law, not a possibility. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, in a collision, both objects receive the same impact force. At that point it becomes a test of material strength. Steel and concrete beat aluminum and plastic every time!
> 
> Airplane wings are not steel cutting tools, no matter how fast they go. Airplanes are fragile craft, so thin and lightweight that there are places on the wings that are so weak they label them NO STEP. In other words, maintenance man, don't step here or you'll break something. Airplanes are built so light they can fly!


Yeah, and a potato is stronger than a straw. And yet...


----------



## wihosa (Jul 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Perhaps I wasn't clear on this point, it's possible that there was an image of a plane and yes the military has a system call Strategic Perception Managment, which is an airborne image projector, it might be holographic or it may be another technology, they don't tell their secrets readily.

But we were told that the buildings collapsed so that is what we believed, but if you honestly look, it is obvious that the buildings turned to dust before they ever hit the ground.


----------



## wihosa (Jul 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > And stop with the full speed line. First of all jet aircraft cannot fly full speed at under 1000 foot elevation, the air is 3 time thicker than at 30,000 feet. The engines actually become brakes at low altitude. Pilots for 911 Truth estimates maximum speed would have been about  400mph. The importance of the wrong speed is only that it proves the image seen was a fake, 580mph is a physical impossibility.
> ...


Actually polyethylene which is what most straws are made of is denser than potatoe 59lbs/cf to 48lbs/cf. in addition polyethylene is far stronger so your just factually wrong. Also the demonstration points out that the straw can't go through the potatoe unless a finger closes off the opposite end trapping air which I turn supports the walls of the straw.

Your demonstration is not applicable.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for providing those pictures. I've traced them back to their site of origin, and I can see that they are from the Moussaoui trial. For those who don't know how to find their source, they are here:
> ...



I don't know, but I highly doubt it.



Faun said:


> After all, according to your continued denials, there's no proof any of it matched any of the passengers from flight #77.



These points are all old hat. CIT has another FAQ page for the question of Flight 77's DNA evidence:
**
*Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building?*
These "DNA reports" are not valid evidence proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples, which means that the scientists who allegedly analyzed the DNA and turned up matches -- if that did happen -- have no way of knowing whether or not it actually came from the Pentagon. Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building.**

Source: Does the government's "DNA evidence" prove Flight 77 impact? | 9/11 Pentagon


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 7, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Again with the "Twoofers" -.-. Not sure if you're referring to when the facade caved in about 20 minutes after the initial explosion at the Pentagon? Most of us weren't at the Pentagon itself, let alone with measuring tape to measure the size of the hole in the first 20 minutes, but there are pictures that have people in it along with the initial damage to the Pentagon that give an idea as to size of the hole. Below is one, complete with a caption:
> ...



I didn't draw it, I found it online. I imagine it took a little more work then the yellow circle you have in the picture below...



candycorn said:


> A much more accurate picture (that fits in with the physical evidence)



Your picture has the same elements as mine, firetruck, firemen, a lawn unmarked by any noticeable plane parts.



candycorn said:


> Here you see where the two engines hit:



No evidence that engines made the damage. Also, no evidence of the engines themselves...



candycorn said:


> First on the right you see the generator knocked off it’s moorings. CIT and our new [insult removed] Phoenix [insult removed] would have you believe that it was set on fire separately.  Notice the gash in the upper left hand corner generator that perfectly coincides with the outside of the starboard engine of a 757 (also known as AA77).



"Perfectly coincides"? Where do you get this stuff? I see someone drew a yellow circle on a picture of the Pentagon shortly after the attack. That's about all.



candycorn said:


> The yellow circle shows where the bottom of the port engine clipped the concrete surrounding what looked to be a Helipad outside of the Pentagon.



I must admit, you've got some imagination. But hey, if you want to believe that this picture has a "gash in the upper left hand corner" of the generator that "perfectly coincides with the outside of the starboard engine of a 757", be my guest. People are free to theorize whatever they like, regardless of how far into conjecture their theories go...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 7, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I see. What would my motive be?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



For a time, yes...



Faun said:


> You refuse to post any actual proof whatsoever of anything you claim.



And, you, ofcourse, have posted lots of it, right ? When have I ever claimed I could prove anything to you? I focus on the evidence and what is most plausible.



Faun said:


> So where else is there to go with this debate when I have evidence on my side whereas you have nothing but abject denial on yours?



Look, you want to believe that, you go right ahead. No one's forcing you to discuss things with me, or anyone else in this sub forum. I am fond of an old line: "Never argue with someone who knows they're right". It's a waste of time. Sometimes, the key to learning is to accept the possibility that your beliefs may not be correct. Or as Mark Twain once put it:  "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



None put it quite like that, but these are the witnesses that CIT lists as flyover/away witnesses:
***Flyover/away witnesses and connections:*
_1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that *"a bomb hit and a jet kept going"*
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "*pilot tried to avert the building" *and the plane *"went to the side of the building not directly in"*
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on *"the other side"* and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was *"on top"*._**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2016)

wihosa said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


Despite you ignoring the thickness of a straw, which makes it less dense than the potato


wihosa said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


Actually, a potato is stronger. You're discounting how thin a straw is. That's why closing off the straw to lock in air is needed for the straw to penetrate (as the video I posted demonstrates), as well as a quick stabbing motion. Otherwise, the straw bounces off the potato. As far as density, put a straw and a potato in fresh water and see which one sinks and which one floats.

Speed is a factor. Air is a factor. Without both of those, the straw loses every time.


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


More nonsense based on the north side approach which, whether you accept it or not, was impossible.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 7, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Yeah, accuracy takes more time than cartoonish renderings of losers like you.



phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > A much more accurate picture (that fits in with the physical evidence)
> ...



Yeah fuck face, it's more physical evidence that buries your "theory" even further.  Can you account for the giant gash in the generator?  No.
Can you account for the gash in the concrete?  No.  

That they happen to line up pretty well with where the engines of a 757 would be relative to one another?  Coincidence.

The fire that's involving the Generator? No.

Just happy to put more nails in your coffin there loser.


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


What else is there to believe? I'm showing physical evidence supporting the reality that a plane was flown into the Pentagon, just as many eyewitnesses described.... The downed poles, the 75+ foot wide swath of damage, the direction of the debris field, plane parts found among the debris, DNA from passengers of flight #77, documents linked to passengers known to be on that flight, video evidence a plane flew into the building....

All you have offered in response can be summed up as -- _*Nuh-uh!*_

You have absolutely zero physical evidence supporting anything you've claimed. You yourself have expressed doubt about what you think happened and you even lied to promote your idiocy. Everything you've offered is based on denial of the actual evidence and the purported eyewitness accounts by some who were never even interviewed until as late as 2008; and who described an event which was physically impossible given the direction of the debris field compared to the direction they claim the plane flew.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 7, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Obviously, you've got mental issues.  I'm sure at some point, someone in authority told you that you were a few tacos short of a combo meal and you've resented it ever since.  I imagine that whomever your guardian was couldn't afford the sessions or the medication or both so you've grown up to be a dysfunctional loser.  

*As for your motive, to get the attention on the Internet that you can't garner in real life. if I had to guess *  Your all alone right?  Right!  And I don't say this because you disagree with physical evidence or disagree with my conclusions drawn from the unimpeachable evidence, or that you rely on a couple of other angry losers with a "napoleon complex" who have been shown the door by other twoofers...it's because your stories violate the basic tennants of logic.

Look you think the bodies were buried; making 15 things the perps had to do instead of "merely" crashing the plane into the building.  I'll fast forward a bit to the phone calls.  How do you account for them?  Phone calls that Ms. Binhgam (Mark Bingham was on flight 93; not 77) said was him.  Phone calls from kids to their parents.  Phone calls that even had the combination to a safe in the closet so that their loved ones could find vital documents.  

There is zero doubt by anyone who has been watching that you'll say they were faked.  Which boradens the conspiracy even further.  

The logical fallacy is why...why have phone calls to start with?  Why open up the whole operation to some sound engineer who may "spill the beans"?  Why have any phone calls at all?  

I'm sure, if you muster enough man-hood to answer, you'll come up with some link to some back water website instead of writing it out....  Another sign of progressive inmaturity; avoidance of responsibility at all costs.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


None of those people claim they saw any plane over the Pentagon. Roberts said he saw another plane (after the explosion) heading SW (opposite direction of AA77) over the south parking lot. Roseborough did not say he saw any plane over the Pentagon. Dihle did not say he saw a plane period as he was inside the Pentagon when the plane hit. De La Cerda did not say it flew over the Pentagon, she said it flew to the Pentagon.

Some folks did say they saw a second plane. Some of whom described it as a 4 engine propeller plane and at least one said it veered off after a commercial jet hit the Pentagon. But given there was an airport about a mile away and lots of aair traffic in the vicinity that morning, it's neither surprising nor a conspiracy that some people saw another plane.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

candycorn said:


> “phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.
> ...



I'm not denying that people in the Pentagon died- we're focused on the person who you believe was not in the military. There's a few issues here:
1- Who provided the photo? This is important because
2- How do we know that photo came from the Pentagon?
3- Are you suggesting that no one in the military enters the Pentagon?
4- Are you suggesting that no one in the military would wear a striped shirt in the Pentagon?



candycorn said:


> As for the other picture of what appears to be a youth…that speaks for itself.



That speaks for your belief that it was a youth. Besides, April Gallup, a Pentagon employee at the time, had her infant son in the Pentagon. Ever heard of her? She doesn't believe the official story either); it's certainly possible for youth to be in the building.



candycorn said:


> “phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



If you would actually stop to click and -read- the articles, you wouldn't have to assume anything -.-. Fine, I'll do it for you...

***Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?*
_Yes, they did. There was a huge explosion which took place at the same time the plane flew over the Pentagon. This explosion killed 125 people who were inside the Pentagon at the time. Given this fact, the mere presence of dead bodies does not prove that the plane hit the building. Theunanimous placement of the plane on the north side flight path by every eyewitness who has been willing to go on record in an independent interview and who was in a position judge where the plane flew in relation to the Citgo gas station and Navy Annex proves that the plane did not hit the building or light poles, and thus did not cause the deadly explosion.






Numerous first responders and Pentagon workers have serious questions about the official story. Take a look at these powerful words of encouragement that we received from a still-enlisted Pentagon employee who heroically saved lives during the recovery efforts on 9/11.





The writer of the letter above is one of the people in this picture_**



candycorn said:


> We’ll move on to the next pieces of physical evidence:
> 
> So far we have the following in your accounting for physical evidence:
> 
> Wreckage outside the pentagon:  Planted


Likely, yes. There certainly wasn't much.



candycorn said:


> Wreckage inside the pentagon: Planted


Or pictures from somewhere other then the Pentagon were introduced as evidence for what was inside the Pentagon. Or evidence was 'planted' via photoshop.



candycorn said:


> Light Pole 1:  Planted


Yes.



candycorn said:


> Lloyd England’s cab:  Staged


Yes.



candycorn said:


> Why the Perps would have a cabbie on the payroll?  Never explained


That would be Rule #14 in *Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation**:*
"14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely"



candycorn said:


> Why the Perps would make him available for interviews?  Never explained


You're assuming that the perps had an iron grip on everyone involved and that no one would make any decisions without consulting some master perp.



candycorn said:


> Light Pole 2:  Planted
> Light Pole 3: Planted
> Light Pole 4: Planted
> Light Pole 5: Planted


Yes.



candycorn said:


> Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it:  Faked


Just because you imagine that the damage was caused by the 757 starboard engine doesn't mean that was the case.



candycorn said:


> Fire of Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it: Started after the explosion


I've never mentioned much about the generator- I imagine it happened at the initial explosion happened at the Pentagon, but I don't know for sure.




candycorn said:


> About at the 3rd bullet point, one gets the message that it would have been easier to simply hijack a plane and have it crash into the Pentagon.



If their goal had simply been to crash a plane into the Pentagon, I imagine they would have done that. Also, assuming the official story concerning Flight 77's flight path was true, the Pentagon could have been hit a lot faster if it had been hit somewhere other then the budget analyst's wing. Here's an article I imagine you won't click on, let alone read at length, but I'll post it anyway just in case the mood strikes...
*Pentagon Missing Trillions - CBS Reports Pentagon Missing $2.3 Trillion*



candycorn said:


> Lets talk Phone calls.
> 
> Renee May called her mother who, in turn, called American Airlines to tell them that AA77 was hijacked.  This too is an exhibit in the Mousaui Trial:
> 
> ...



I can certainly give you some interesting information on the 9/11 calls in general, and even some specific information on the call Renee May's parents apparently received. What is below is excerpted from a much longer article. You may want to look at the entire linked article, but somehow I doubt you will...

***Where might the calls have come from?*
_
Three people in the Solicitor General’s office and two AT&T operators reported having had contact with the Olson calls from Flight 77. [27]

Renee May’s parents also reported receiving a phone call from their daughter. [28]

How is it possible to reconcile these reports with the lack of substantiating telephone records?

Perhaps we need to look outside the box.  The fact that people received these calls does not necessarily mean that the calls were made from Flight 77.

Just as it has come to light in a recent study that over a dozen aircraft were unwittingly transmitting the hijack code (7500) on the morning of 9/11 [29], it has also come to light that in 2001, “it was theoretically possible to route an [AT&T] call from one location, through a ground site, to an aircraft and then back down to another ground site.” [30]

If this was possible, then the voice morphing [31] of two calls from Barbara Olson and one call from Renee May, and routing them from the ground through Flight 77 and back, would not have been out of the question.

It would certainly explain why the billing records were not available._**

Source:  *9/11: What the Telephone Records Reveal about Calls from AA Flight 77: Did Barbara Olson Attempt Any Calls at All?
*
Here's an excerpt from Renee May's profile at History Commons. A lot of conflicting information in the media concerning exactly what happened...

**
*(9:12 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Flight 77 Attendant Calls Parents and Confirms Hijacking, but Accounts Are Contradictory*

_Renee May. [Source: Family photo]Renee May, a flight attendant on Flight 77, calls her parents in Las Vegas and reports her plane has been hijacked. [9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 9; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006] According to author Tom Murphy, May previously tried calling the American Airlines flight services office at Washington’s Reagan National Airport, but all the lines there were busy.[MURPHY, 2006, PP. 56-57] However, a summary of the phone calls made from the four hijacked planes that is presented at the 2006 Zacarias Moussaoui trial will make no mention of this earlier call. May’s first attempt at calling her parents, at 9:11 a.m., had not connected, but her second attempt a minute later is successful, and the call lasts for two-and-a-half minutes. [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/26/2004, PP. 31; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006]According to reports shortly after 9/11 in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, May makes her call using a cell phone. [LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 9/13/2001; LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 9/15/2001] But at the Moussaoui trial it will be claimed she uses an Airfone. [US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006, PP. 7 
	
] According to most accounts, including that of the 9/11 Commission, she speaks to her mother, Nancy May. [LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 9/13/2001; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 9; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006, PP. 7 
	
] But according to Murphy, she speaks with her father, Ronald May. [MURPHY, 2006, PP. 57] Renee reports that her plane is being hijacked. [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/26/2004, PP. 31] Although it will be officially claimed that there are five hijackers on Flight 77, she says six individuals have taken over the plane (see Between 9:12 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. September 11, 2001). [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 9/27/2001; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 2-3 AND 9] Renee says the hijackers have moved people to the rear of the aircraft, though it is unclear whether she is referring to all of the passengers or just the flight’s crew. She tells her parent (either her mother or father, depending on the account) to call American Airlines and inform it of the hijacking. She gives three numbers in Northern Virginia to call. Before the time Flight 77 crashes, Renee May’s mother (or her father, according to Murphy) is able to contact an American Airlines employee at Reagan National Airport and pass on what their daughter has reported (see (Between 9:15 a.m. and 9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/26/2004, PP. 31; MURPHY, 2006, PP. 57]_

_*Entity Tags:* Ronald May, Nancy May, Renee May_

_*Timeline Tags:* Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline_
**

Source: *Profile: Renee May | History Commons*


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The witnesses that CIT has presented are the witnesses who were closest to the alleged impact. In other words, they're the most credible witnesses. As to these alleged "hundred other witnesses", CIT has already dealt with that yarn...
*Witnesses List Broken Down*, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

There's also the NTSB flight path data and the 9/11 Commission flight path data, neither of which concords with the physical damage path, but you seem to constantly ignore this.



Faun said:


> Oh, and by the way.... denials are not evidence.



Exactly. If only you would apply this bit of wisdom to your own denials...



Faun said:


> And denials are all you have. Some are quite delusional, like the two photos of the same Pentagon wall you think are different because the lighting is different.



So if someone disagrees with you, they're delusional -.-? -Prove- to me that those 2 walls were one and the same, or let this go.



Faun said:


> And you didn't deal with the witnesses I offered earlier.... you denied they saw what they said they saw.



The world according to Faun -.-. From what I have seen, CIT has already dealt with all the witnesses I know of that have a first and a last name. Witnesses can certainly confuse what they were told happened with what actually happened, especially if they weren't in a good vantage point to truly discern the truth.



Faun said:


> As far as your claim that I gave you no reasons for why I dismissed the CIT witnesses... *You're lying again.*



Whatever -.-



Faun said:


> Why do you keep lying if truth and reality were actually on your side?
> 
> In fact, I gave you multiple reasons.... most importantly, the field of debris rejects any notion that the plane flew straight into the Pentagon; and that is their claim.



You reject what I believe is far more likely- that the plane never hit the Pentagon at all.



Faun said:


> Secondly, Many of them never gave public interviews prior to CIT recording them, which they did many years after 9.11.



Some did, but you pay no attention to them either.



Faun said:


> Thirdly, their claims contradict all of the other witnesses who said they saw the plane flying up either Columbia Pike or 395.



Again, they are the witnesses who were closest to the Pentagon from what I can tell, and they are very consistent in where they place the plane. You can go on about "witnesses", but unless you give them names, they will simply remain anonymous, hardly compelling evidence.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I didn't measure the entry hole to the Pentagon. What size do you believe it was?



Faun said:


> Not only did you repeat that bald-faced lie in this forum, you openly expressed your trust and respect for that organization.



I definitely trust and respect Craig Mckee and his "Truth and Shadows" website. That doesn't mean that he can't make mistakes.



Faun said:


> An apology from you for trying to deceive the forum



I have never tried to deceive anyone here, and I'm still not sure why you think I have, but if you have what you believe to be evidence that I have, by all means present it.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



Now you're going for Rule #5 from Twenty-Five Ways to Suppress Truth:
**_*5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.*  This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger'  ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',  'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics',  'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others  shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues._**


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



You may well be right. Even if the plane was not a 757 but a smaller plane, which is my belief, having it explode anywhere near the Pentagon may have made it obvious that it didn't actually hit the Pentagon. Since all the solid evidence suggests it didn't actually hit the Pentagon, this would leave us with the flyover theory.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And we're all supposed to just trust your judgement on that one eh ? If you want to continue this particular discussion, list the reasons why you think it's impossible, that we can actually discuss.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



The picture I posted has an actual plane outline inserted into the picture. Your picture has circle where you believe one of AA77's 757 engines hit. Mine accounts for the damage that the -entire- plane should have done, yours just focuses on a particular part, while not accounting for the rest of the plane. And you talk about accuracy -.-



candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Actually, it's your imagination at work. But keep on telling yourself that it's "physical evidence" if you like.



candycorn said:


> Can you account for the giant gash in the generator?  No.
> Can you account for the gash in the concrete?  No.



No one denies there was at least one explosion at the Pentagon, possibly more. Explosions can certainly cause a great deal of damage.



candycorn said:


> That they happen to line up pretty well with where the engines of a 757 would be relative to one another?  Coincidence.



Or staged, as the light poles were. Regardless, they did a sloppy staging job at the Pentagon, for reasons I have mentioned in the past.



candycorn said:


> The fire that's involving the Generator?



Explosions can create fires...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That maybe, just maybe, you're mistaken in a great many things concerning 9/11?



Faun said:


> I'm showing physical evidence supporting the reality that a plane was flown into the Pentagon,



Your saying it's a "reality" doesn't actually make it so. I've already gone over all of your so called "evidence" and pointed out its flaws, but you've apparently forgotten judging by your stance here...



Faun said:


> just as many eyewitnesses described....



The witnesses that CIT actually managed to film all put the plane on a North of Citgo flight path, which is inconsistent with the damage at the Pentagon.



Faun said:


> The downed poles,



Which could have been staged...
*Frequently Asked Questions >> How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?*



Faun said:


> the 75+ foot wide swath of damage,



Explosives could certainly make such damage, no need for a plane...



Faun said:


> the direction of the debris field,



Is inconsistent with the all of the witnesses interviewed by CIT, suggesting something else created said debris field (explosives maybe?)...



Faun said:


> plane parts found among the debris,



Given all the other evidence, I strongly believe those parts were most likely planted.



Faun said:


> DNA from passengers of flight #77,



*Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building?*



Faun said:


> documents linked to passengers known to be on that flight,



See above FAQ on DNA evidence, I imagine it would apply to the documents as well...



Faun said:


> video evidence a plane flew into the building....



*Frequently Asked Questions » Doesn't the Pentagon security gate camera video that the government released show something hitting the building?*


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Why did I even bother asking -.-? You sound just like those accusing you and others of being shills without actually providing any evidence.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Erik Dihle's co-workers' accounts sounds mighty close to just that. "A bomb hit and a jet kept going" sounds a lot like a flyover to me. Or do you think that after arriving at the pentagon, the plane took an instantaneous 90 degree angle turn like some UFOs have reportedly done?



Faun said:


> Roberts said he saw another plane (after the explosion) heading SW (opposite direction of AA77) over the south parking lot.



There was no other plane in the vicinity for another 3 minutes after the explosion, meaning the plane he saw had to be the plane alleged to have caused the explosion. From a CIT article:
**
_Roosevelt's is one of the most important accounts presented since he actually witnessed the plane flying away from the building immediately after the explosion.

In this official interview, recorded only a few weeks after the event, you can hear Roosevelt describe it as what he thought was a "second plane."

The pertinent details regarding timing, altitude, and description were confirmed in our independent audio interview recorded in 2008, which can be heard in Part 2 of our presentation The North Side Flyover. Excerpts of this interview are also featured in our video National Security Alert.

We now know for a fact that the only explanation for the "commercial aircraft" that he describes at about "50 feet" altitude banking and flying away from the building immediately after the explosion could only have been the same attack jet that everyone else witnessed banking on the north side flight path seconds earlier on its approach toward the Pentagon._
**

Source: *Evidence » Official Interviews*



Faun said:


> Roseborough did not say he saw any plane over the Pentagon.



True. He saw it in the Pentagon's parking lot...
**I_t was as he was leaving the Pentagon that the world Roseborough knew changed forever. "I got out into the parking lot, just walking along, and all of a sudden, I hear what I would describe as a 'lion's roar' above my head," Roseborough said.

"It caught my attention, and as I looked up, I heard another roar and I saw this airplane flying low. I thought, 'Oh, my God, this thing is really low.' "I thought it was going to crash onto the highway," recalled Roseborough.

"Just as I thought that, I saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon. I was just standing there dumbfounded, thinking, 'What just happened?'"_**

Source: *Dewitt D. Roseborough III*

Here's the thing- only one plane could have been in the Pentagon parking lot moments before the explosion at the Pentagon was the plane that approached the Pentagon before the explosion. The next plane to pass by the Pentagon took another 2-3 minutes.



Faun said:


> Dihle did not say he saw a plane period as he was inside the Pentagon when the plane hit.



CIT never stated that Dihle saw the plane, you didn't read what CIT wrote carefully. I'll quote it again:
"_3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that *"a bomb hit and a jet kept going""*_



Faun said:


> De La Cerda did not say it flew over the Pentagon, she said it flew to the Pentagon.



We all agree that the plane flew to the Pentagon, what's important is what happened after that point. She reported to "_the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on *"the other side"* and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was *"on top"*."_

The thing is, there is no damage to the top of the Pentagon. If it had simply flown -over- the Pentagon, though, it makes sense.



Faun said:


> Some folks did say they saw a second plane. Some of whom described it as a 4 engine propeller plane and at least one said it veered off after a commercial jet hit the Pentagon. But given there was an airport about a mile away and lots of air traffic in the vicinity that morning, it's neither surprising nor a conspiracy that some people saw another plane.



Just because some believed there was a second plane in the vicinity at the time of the Pentagon attack doesn't mean there was. CIT has gone into this issue at length, here:
The 2nd Plane Cover Story


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > “phoenyx said:
> ...


No one said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.  That's as far as I got in your post since I figured if that's bullshit, so is everything that followed.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


They were not the closest. If I'm not mistaken, some of them couldn't even see the first floor of the Pentagon where the plane hit. But there were others who were closer. There were many folks in their cars on the highways adjacent to the Pentagon. So now you're presenting bullshit on top of bullshit.

And again... *no one* said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. So that is complete nonsense and a complete revision of what actually happened.

And no, a person is not delusional just because they disagree with me... but they are delusional when they disagree with the laws of physics. It's impossible for the plane to have come from north of the Citco. That's not my opinion -- it's physics. The debris field indicates the direction the plane was traveling when is struck the Pentagon.... and it wasn't straight in, as it would have been had the plane flown in from north of the Citco. 

Just because you're willing to suspend reality to conform to your beliefs doesn't mean others will.

And no, CIT has not dealt with all of the witnesses. Some they could not find and some wouldn't talk to them. Most witnesses on 9.11 who described where the plane came from said either Columbia Pike or 395, which runs right along side.

As far as your nonsense the plane never hit the Pentagon, there is simply no evidence to support that. There is plenty of evidence supporting that it did. The only eyewitness accounts you rely on to support your delusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon, as opposed to into it, even though no one said they saw that -- is pointing to witnesses who said they saw the plane fly overhead, disappear from their view, and then saw the ensuing fireball. According to twoofers, that's all the evidence needed _prove_ the plane wasn't flown onto the Pentagon.

None of the witnesses who said they saw it fly into the Pentagon matters. None of the pieces of plane found matters. None of the destruction resembling what one would expect from a plane matters. None of the items found from passengers, including DNA, matters. The fact that planes were being flown into buildings that same morning in NYC matters. People getting phone calls from passengers on flight 93, confirming their flight was hijacked like the others, matters.

This is exactly the reason rational people scoff at twoofers. Like your fellow Twoofer who actually believes it wasn't planes flown into the Twin Towers... it was a projection. Despite the harsh reality that no such technology exists. Not today, and certainly not 15 years ago. You people have to disregard reality so that your contorted views fit neatly into your deranged brain.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


You posted a photo of the 20 foot hole in the C-ring, along with an article portaying that as the plane's entry point in the E-ring.

That you can't comprehend the dishonesty of that reveals much about where your head is at.

And personally, any "trust" and "respect" I have for any website would have been lost the moment I saw them promoting such bullshit. Case in point... truthout.org. I used to rely on them as a source until the day they posted their bullshit about Karl Rove about to be arrested in the Valerie Plame incident. Why would I "trust" them or "respect" them after that? Why would you "trust" or "respect" Truth & Shadows after they promoted the bullshit about that 20 foot hole being where AA77 flew in?

Because you don't give a shit about the truth. That's why so many people mock the moniker, Truthers. Hense... *Twoofers. *


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


You're lying again... there is no "solid evidence" the plane did not fly into the Pentagon. At best, there are some witnesses who didn't see the plane fly into it; but they're not saying they saw the plane fly over it. They just didn't happen to catch the actual impact.

But this is where your lies crumble.... *many witnesses did see the plane fly right into the Pentagon.*


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Again.... it's not my "judgement." It's physics. Physics demands the debris from the crash will continue in the very same direction as the plane was heading as it flew into the Pentagon.

Ok... now discuss....


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


You've not pointed out flaws... you've injected doubt in the form of denials. Those are not flaws. They're subjective opinion designed to obfuscate what actually happened.


----------



## hadit (Jul 8, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


But I don't think that's even feasible, since a plane flying that low over the Pentagon would have attracted attention from the other side, and no one (to the best of my admittedly less than unlimited knowledge) has said they saw a plane fly OVER the Pentagon and continue on.  I just don't think the flyover theory is workable.  That leaves the simplest alternative, a plane flew into the Pentagon.


----------



## hadit (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


To create all the evidence that points to direct plane impacts would be a greater effort than to just fly the darn planes into the darn buildings.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Mission accomplished eh? Why don't you go and celebrate with candycorn then? For anyone who's still interested in debating the evidence, they can continue reading...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Who was closer?



Faun said:


> If I'm not mistaken, some of them couldn't even see the first floor of the Pentagon where the plane hit.



Certainly. Terry Morin, the only CIT witness that you deigned to give some credit to, couldn't even see the Pentagon at all if memory serves. But he -could- ascertain that the plane was North of Columbia Pike, and witnesses CIT interviewed who were closer to the Pentagon corroborated his account.



Faun said:


> But there were others who were closer.



Can you actually attach some names (first and last, please) to "others", or are your witnesses a bunch of anonymous people who only you know of?



Faun said:


> There were many folks in their cars on the highways adjacent to the Pentagon.



I imagine you're referring to some if not all of the USA today parade. If you're not willing to even put out some names, this part of the discussion is over.



Faun said:


> And again... *no one* said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.



Perish the thought -.- "A bomb hit and a jet kept going" clearly couldn't imply that the plane flew over the Pentagon...



Faun said:


> And no, a person is not delusional just because they disagree with me...



Glad you atleast realize that much...



Faun said:


> ...but they are delusional when they disagree with the laws of physics.



Certainly. Your problem is that the laws of physics are against the official narratives (whichever one you prefer) regarding the Pentagon attack.


Faun said:


> It's impossible for the plane to have come from north of the Citco. That's not my opinion -- it's physics.



No, it's just your opinion (and a poorly informed one at that), but I'll hear you out below...



Faun said:


> The debris field indicates the direction the plane was traveling when is struck the Pentagon....



The debris field indicates that something created said debris field. You latch on to the official conspiracy theory that posits that it was caused by a plane. An overwhelming amount of evidence suggests this was not the case, but don't let that stop you...



Faun said:


> and it wasn't straight in, as it would have been had the plane flown in from north of the Citco



I'm glad we atleast agree on that.



Faun said:


> And no, CIT has not dealt with all of the witnesses. Some they could not find and some wouldn't talk to them.



I never said they talked to all of the alleged witnesses. I think it's truly unfortunate that they were never able to talk to the co workers that Erik Dihle had in mind...



Faun said:


> Most witnesses on 9.11 who described where the plane came from said either Columbia Pike or 395, which runs right along side.



From the north side of Columbia Pike and 395, yes. The plane continued going northeast up until around the Citgo gas station (going over from the north side) and finally tilting back a bit to the south at that point in its final approach to the Pentagon.



Faun said:


> As far as your nonsense the plane never hit the Pentagon, there is simply no evidence to support that.



Except all the evidence that I've been citing over and over and which even you admit you aren't reading, apparently because no one explicitly stated that the plane flew over the Pentagon.



Faun said:


> There is plenty of evidence supporting that it did.



Only to those eager to believe in flimsy evidence.



Faun said:


> The only eyewitness accounts you rely on to support your delusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon, as opposed to into it, even though no one said they saw that -- is pointing to witnesses who said they saw the plane fly overhead, disappear from their view, and then saw the ensuing fireball.



Not true. The witnesses who saw something which strongly suggests a fly over were:
**_*Flyover/away witnesses and connections:*
1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that *"a bomb hit and a jet kept going"*
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "*pilot tried to avert the building" *and the plane *"went to the side of the building not directly in"*
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on *"the other side"* and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was *"on top"*._**

Source: *Witnesses List Broken Down*, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses



Faun said:


> According to twoofers, that's all the evidence needed _prove_ the plane wasn't flown onto the Pentagon.



I've never said anything is proven, though as I've reviewed the evidence over the past few days, I now believe that the evidence is pretty strong that a flyover did indeed occur.



Faun said:


> None of the witnesses who said they saw it fly into the Pentagon matters.



I never said that. Neither did CIT. As a matter of fact, CIT actually made 2 lists with such witnesses, which can be seen in the witness list I provided above. They counted around a dozen such witnesses. They also wrote an article on the such witnesses in their FAQ which can be seen here:
*Frequently Asked Questions » What about all of the eyewitnesses cited in various media reports as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Aren't there hundreds of them?*



Faun said:


> None of the pieces of plane found matters.



CIT has addressed the debris that the official story alleges were pieces of Flight 77 here:
*Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?*



Faun said:


> None of the items found from passengers, including DNA, matters.



CIT has addressed the DNA issue here:
*Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building?*



Faun said:


> The fact that planes were being flown into buildings that same morning in NYC matters.



Evidence that aircraft were being flown into the WTC buildings is not evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I posted what Craig Mckee had up in his article. Maybe Craig was tired the day he wrote that article.



Faun said:


> That you can't comprehend the dishonesty of that reveals much about where your head is at.



Posting someone else's mistake doesn't mean anyone's being dishonest. Google defines dishonesty as "deceitfulness shown in someone's character or behavior". I had no intention to deceive anyone, and I strongly believe neither did Craig Mckee.



Faun said:


> And personally, any "trust" and "respect" I have for any website would have been lost the moment I saw them promoting such bullshit.



One mistake and an author can't be trusted eh? Meanwhile, the official story is full of discrepancies, but you seem uninterested in looking at -those-.



Faun said:


> Case in point... truthout.org. I used to rely on them as a source until the day they posted their bullshit about Karl Rove about to be arrested in the Valerie Plame incident. Why would I "trust" them or "respect" them after that?



Truthout may at times make mistakes. Do you know any publication that has -never- made any mistakes?


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Let's start with Eric Dihle...

As you point out, he doesn't claim to have seen anything as he was inside the Pentagon at the time. Everything he said was based on hearsay. Even worse for you, while you cling to his hearsay, which doesn't even put a name or corroboration  to any of the witnesses he claims to speak for, you eagerly dismiss pesky witnesses like "Barbara," who said she saw the plane come up 395, because she didn't give a last name. 

Regardless of your hypocrisy, let's examine his hearsay...

First of all, he described two sets of events he says he heard. *One was that a plane flew into the Pentagon. * But like everything else, you dismiss that which does not comport to your beliefs. So to you, it's as though he never said that.

This other event he described was that he heard a bomb had gone off and a plane had flown away. First and foremost, ghat doesn't indicate a fly over. It could, but it doesn't mean it did. But taking a closer look at that comment.... that sounds like it came from someone who, like Dihle, was inside the Pentagon and not at a vantage point to see the plane. To anyone inside the Pentagon who heard the explosion, they would naturally assume it was a bomb. No one would even think a plane was used as a missile. So the fact that folks inside the Pentagon believed it was a bomb is meaningless. The second part of that, that a plane flew off, sounds like what some other witnesses described when they say they saw a second plane veer away from the Pentagon after another plane flew into it. And again, there is an airport nearby so it's not unusual that other planes would be seen. It's also a lie that no other planes were in that vicinity at the time. We have radar images proving that is just more Twoofer bullshit.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


You made a claim which is not only not supported by any evidence -- it's not even supported by any witnesses. So why should anyone read beyond what is apparently nothing more than your fervent imagination?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



This is truly irritating -.-. Note that I have never accused -you- of lying, unlike some on my side of the fence. Ah well, I suppose it's to be expected; a simple explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with one's point of view -.-...



Faun said:


> there is no "solid evidence" the plane did not fly into the Pentagon.



Not according to you, no. But you yourself have admitted that you don't always fully read the posts I've sent your way, so it's understandable that you'd still not consider it solid evidence...



Faun said:


> At best, there are some witnesses who didn't see the plane fly into it; but they're not saying they saw the plane fly over it. They just didn't happen to catch the actual impact.



Yes, yes, to my knowledge, no one quoted you and said "The plane flew over it!". "A bomb hit and a jet kept going" simply isn't enough for Faun's exacting standards -.-...



Faun said:


> But this is where your lies crumble.... *many witnesses did see the plane fly right into the Pentagon.*



No, this is where I pull out CIT's FAQ article on such witnesses:
*Frequently Asked Questions » What about all of the eyewitnesses cited in various media reports as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Aren't there hundreds of them?*


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You just love putting the cart before the horse don't you? -If- the plane crashed into the building, certainly. All the solid evidence points to the plane -not- crashing into the building, however. I know, I know, you don't believe it's solid evidence. You like putting in little sound bites about physics and such, but you seem to have lost interest in actually reading most of what I'm trying to tell you in my posts. That's your right, ofcourse. It just makes you uncredible.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Ah, here we go with another little sound bite. Let me guess, you read the first sentence of my reply and decided you'd reply to that and be done with my post? You will never see evidence to go against your viewpoint if you refuse to look at it. Perhaps that's what you want. Cognitive dissonance can be a terrible thing...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



True, no one put it quite that way. Faun loves bringing that up. But while the witnesses didn't put it quite that way, they -did- say things that strongly suggest they either saw the plane fly over, or that based on their testimony, this could be deduced. Here are the witnesses that CIT has amassed as people whose testimony strongly suggests a flyover:

***Flyover/away witnesses and connections:*
1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that *"a bomb hit and a jet kept going"*
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "*pilot tried to avert the building" *and the plane *"went to the side of the building not directly in"*
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on *"the other side"* and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was *"on top"*.**

Source: *Witnesses List Broken Down*, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Perish the thought -.- "A bomb hit and a jet kept going" clearly couldn't imply that the plane flew over the Pentagon...


Now this ^^^ is divine...

You insist that I provide you full names of witnesses otherwise "the discussion is over"... yet you quote the above.

Ok, give me the name of the person who said they heard and saw, _"a bomb hit and a jet kept going."_ .... first name ... last name ... even initials will do... C'mon... time to live by your own standards...


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Here's a thought.... *quote* any one of those people saying they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon....


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The only indication we have that she exists at all is some anonymous reporter. Erik Dihle is not anonymous. Given subpoena powers, he could be required to divulge which coworkers had mentioned that a bomb had gone off and the jet kept on going.



Faun said:


> First of all, [Erik] described two sets of events he says he heard. *One was that a plane flew into the Pentagon. * But like everything else, you dismiss that which does not comport to your beliefs.



I dismiss it because of the preponderance of evidence that would make a south of the citgo gas station flight path extremely improbable if not impossible.



Faun said:


> This other event he described was that he heard a bomb had gone off and a plane had flown away. First and foremost, that doesn't indicate a fly over. It could, but it doesn't mean it did.



By itself, no, it's not that much of an indication. When combined with the witness testimonies that CIT was able to film on location placing the plane on a North of Citgo flight path, however, the conclusion is inevitable; since the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon from that direction, and there's no evidence of it exploding before arriving at the pentagon, or over its roof, the most likely explanation is that it flew over the Pentagon.



Faun said:


> But taking a closer look at that comment.... that sounds like it came from someone who, like Dihle, was inside the Pentagon and not at a vantage point to see the plane.



I disagree, but I certainly wouldn't say it's conclusive either way. Clearly, it would be best if the witnesses who mentioned this 'jet kept on going' narrative to Erik could be interviewed. Failing that, we can only speculate.



Faun said:


> To anyone inside the Pentagon who heard the explosion, they would naturally assume it was a bomb. No one would even think a plane was used as a missile. So the fact that folks inside the Pentagon believed it was a bomb is meaningless. The second part of that, that a plane flew off, sounds like what some other witnesses described when they say they saw a second plane veer away from the Pentagon after another plane flew into it. And again, there is an airport nearby so it's not unusual that other planes would be seen. It's also a lie that no other planes were in that vicinity at the time. We have radar images proving that is just more [insult removed]



The only other plane to arrive at the Pentagon arrived about 3 minutes after the blast. By all means, provide radar images that show a plane any closer in time than that.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Despite your continued dismissal of CIT's flyover witnesses, I remain convinced that they are solid evidence of a flyover.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Perish the thought -.- "A bomb hit and a jet kept going" clearly couldn't imply that the plane flew over the Pentagon...
> ...



I dealt with this in post #548 (first sentence of my reply).


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



We've gone over this before. Perhaps I should put a little humour into it. To my knowledge, no one said "I saw a plane fly over the Pentagon". You going to go celebrate your victory with candycorn now ?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 8, 2016)

hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



And it had to be flying low enough to clip light poles hundreds of feet from the building then pull up doing about 500knots, miss the building, then survive a simultaneous bombing happening right beneath it.

Why it would be important enough to clip the light poles is crazy koo-koo land stuff.


----------



## hadit (Jul 8, 2016)

candycorn said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


That's what I keep coming back to.  Why go through all the effort to make it LOOK like a plane flew into a building when it's just plain simpler to fly the plane into the building?  Insisting that discrepancies between eyewitnesses is proof of a conspiracy is a non-starter, given the extremely short amount of time any of them had to carefully plot the aircraft's heading, altitude, and speed before it plowed into the Pentagon.  Remember, none of them had any idea what was about to happen.  It was more along the lines of, "Hey, isn't that airplane flying awfully low?  Holy crap, it just crashed!".  3 months later they get the question, "was it flying north or south of the gas station?".   I would be very surprised if any of them would be able to pinpoint it with any accuracy at all.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

candycorn said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



candy seems to have forgotten that those who believe in the flyover theory strongly believe that the light poles and the directional damage at the pentagon were staged. There is no reason to stage the light poles and the directional damage at the pentagon other then to give credence to the notion that the plane took a flight path south of the citgo gas station, straight into the budget analyst's office, whose task was to locate the $2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld had declared had gone missing over the years the day before 9/11, on September 10th.


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 8, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Phoenyx seems to have forgotten that those who believe in the flyover theory (for which there is absolutely no evidence) or the no planes theory or the mini-nukes theory or the spiders from Mars theory have surrendered their connection to reality in order to serve some disingenuous or nefarious or malicious agenda that has no basis in fact, truth or reality.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 8, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



There's actually a lot of evidence that it occurred.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 9, 2016)

hadit said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Perhaps because the part of the building they wanted to target (DOD's accounting offices) was impossible to reach by a commercial airliner:
*G Force calcs prove Pentagon attack flight path impossible | The 9/11 Forum*

For those who like videos, there is the following article from Pilots for 9/11 Truth (mentioned in the previous article):
*Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible | Pilots for 9/11 Truth*


An excerpt from an article on the subject of the exact targeted location:
**_In his important 2006 book, Nemesis, the Last Days of the American Republic, the third and concluding part of a trilogy, the late Chalmers Johnson, who was an expert on Japan and US foreign policy, writes that as much as 40% of the Pentagon budget is “black,” meaning hidden from public scrutiny.[1] If the figure is even approximately correct, and I believe it is, the number is alarming because it suggests that democratic oversight of US military research and development has broken down. In which case our democratic values and way of life are presently at risk; not from without, as there is no foreign enemy that can destroy the US Constitution, but from within.

I would argue that Chalmers Johnson’s estimate was corroborated on September 10, 2001, on the eve of the worst terrorist attack in US history, when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged during a press conference that the Department of Defense (DoD) could not account for $2.3 trillion of the massive Pentagon budget, a number so large as to be incomprehensible.[2] Any remaining hope that the US military might still get its budgetary house in order were dashed at 9:38 am the next morning, when the west wing of the Pentagon exploded in flames and smoke, the target of a terrorist strike. Incredibly, the exact point of impact was the DoD’s accounting offices on the first floor. The surgical destruction of its records and staff, nearly all of whom died in the attack, raises important questions about who benefited from 9/11. Given the Pentagon’s vast size, the statistical odds against this being a coincidence prompted skeptics of the official story to read a dark design into the attack. As Deep Throat said: “Follow the money.”..._**

Source: *Black 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side | Foreign Policy Journal*




hadit said:


> Insisting that discrepancies between eyewitnesses is proof of a conspiracy is a non-starter,



I don't think I've once said I have "proof" of anything. That being said, I strongly believe that, given the consistency of the vast majority of the witnesses CIT interviewed, confirming a North of Citgo flight path approach to the Pentagon, it is very strong evidence that the plane in fact approached the Pentagon from that path.



hadit said:


> given the extremely short amount of time any of them had to carefully plot the aircraft's heading, altitude, and speed before it plowed into the Pentagon.



They didn't have to "plot the aircraft's heading, altitude and speed". They just needed to describe the path it took while it was in their line of sight. The witnesses who probably had the easiest job of remembering the flight path were Sargeant Brooks and Lagasse, Pentagon police who were literally refuelling at the Citgo gas station at the time the plane flew over it. See for yourself how sure they are that it came from north side instead of the south side:


----------



## candycorn (Jul 9, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Spiders from Mars has more validity than the “flyover” dream.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 9, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> candy seems to have forgotten that those who believe in the flyover theory strongly believe that the light poles and the directional damage at the pentagon were staged. There is no reason to stage the light poles and the directional damage at the pentagon other then to give credence to the notion that the plane took a flight path south of the citgo gas station, straight into the budget analyst's office, whose task was to locate the $2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld had declared had gone missing over the years the day before 9/11, on September 10th.



I’m not forgetting that you’re mentally ill.
I’m not forgetting that it would have been easier to simply hijack the plane and crash it than your rancid recipe of retardeedness
I’m not forgetting that you’re mis-characterizing Secretary Rumsfeld’s comments about the $2.3 trillion dollars
And I’m not forgetting that your theory is so valid that nobody outside of a few of your fellow looney birds believe it.  

And we haven’t forgotten that you haven’t accounted for one part of the physical evidence except to say “they’re all lying” which doesn’t satisfy the plausibility threshold.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 9, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



So did planes hit the WTC? Give me your scenario of what happen on 9-11, and who was behind it.


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 9, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the explosion above the Pentagon theory is the very large debris field such an event would have left behind.  Since the plane would have been traveling at a fairly high rate of speed, the debris would have spread quite far in the direction of travel by the time it hit the ground.  I think we can safely discount that theory.
> ...



But despite your desperate claims to the contrary, the "solid evidence" clearly shows that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon and, as Hadit noted, an exploding plane "anywhere near the Pentagon" would have been witnessed and would have left far more debris - much of AA77 having been pulverized when it slammed into a very solid building - over a much larger area. Considering those facts and the fact that no one actually saw a flyover, any rational person would conclude that your theory is groundless.



phoenyx said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Insisting that discrepancies between eyewitnesses is proof of a conspiracy is a non-starter,
> ...



And this is where you and the entire 9/11 CT Movement crashes and burns. While readily admitting that you have no proof "of anything" you stumble on with your beliefs because ... well ... because you believe in them.

The obvious question is why (and I don't expect an honest reply).

Why do you - and most of those who believed as you still do slithered away years ago - continue to spew endless half-truths, misinformation, already thoroughly debunked theories and outright fabrications? What is in this for you?

Is it just too hard to abandon that which you have for so long believed?
Are you simply contrary by nature and trolling for shits and giggles?
Do you hate America or our gov't or the condition of your life?
Does this all make you feel like you have some special secret knowledge or superpowers and that you share some kinship with other like-minded foil hatters?
Or is there some malicious or otherwise nefarious agenda that requires you not only to subscribe to any lunacy you find in the fetid bowels of the Internet that somehow serves your conclusions but also to reject anything - no matter how clear and obvious - that contradicts your POV?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 9, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > candy seems to have forgotten that those who believe in the flyover theory strongly believe that the light poles and the directional damage at the pentagon were staged. There is no reason to stage the light poles and the directional damage at the pentagon other then to give credence to the notion that the plane took a flight path south of the citgo gas station, straight into the budget analyst's office, whose task was to locate the $2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld had declared had gone missing over the years the day before 9/11, on September 10th.
> ...



You love Rule #5 don't you?



candycorn said:


> I’m not forgetting that it would have been easier to simply hijack the plane and crash it



If those behind 9/11 simply wanted to crash a plane anywhere in the Pentagon, you may well be right. As I have mentioned previously, however, there is a reason they may have wanted to target that specific part of the Pentagon. There is also evidence that a commercial airliner simply couldn't have reached it, due to the topography and obstacles in the area.




candycorn said:


> I’m not forgetting that you’re mis-characterizing Secretary Rumsfeld’s comments about the $2.3 trillion dollars



How am I mischaracterizing them?



candycorn said:


> And we haven’t forgotten that you haven’t accounted for one part of the physical evidence except to say “they’re all lying” which doesn’t satisfy the plausibility threshold.



I never said "They're all lying", don't put words in my mouth. There is plenty of evidence that -some- people are lying, but as to who they are, precisely, that's harder to tell, given the nature of government bureaucracies. If you're -really- interested in looking at the evidence, I suggest you take a look at the following link:
*Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?*

Or is your goal to simply stifle discussion rather then to try to come to an agreement as to what happened at the Pentagon?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 9, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



You're going beyond the bounds of the topic of this thread. I've decided to create a new thread to address issues concerning 9/11 beyond the Pentagon attack. I invite you to respond to the thread I just created, which can be seen here:
9/11: What really happened on that day? | USMessageBoard


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 9, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Could you be a bit more specific as to what you consider this "solid evidence" to be?



SAYIT said:


> and, as Hadit noted, an exploding plane "anywhere near the Pentagon" would have been witnessed and would have left far more debris



As you saw from the post of mine that you're quoting, I have acknowledged that he may well be right about that.



SAYIT said:


> Considering those facts and the fact that no one actually saw a flyover,



Can you prove that no one saw a flyover?



SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



I'm glad that you atleast tried to answer the question of why I believe what I believe (you didn't get very far, but that's understandable. It's frequently -very- hard to understand why people believe what they believe. I like having discussions concerning 9/11 not only to try to persuade people to my own beliefs on the subject, but also to try to understand why those who disagree with me believe what they do. Anyway, I believe that 9/11 was an inside job because I believe that the evidence that indicates that this was the case is overwhelming.



SAYIT said:


> The obvious question is why (and I don't expect an honest reply).
> 
> Why do you - and most of those who believed as you still do slithered away years ago...



Really -.-? A word of advice. If you want someone to converse with you, you avoid insulting them. It's just basic manners. Unless, ofcourse, you not only weren't expecting a reply, you didn't even want one, relying on Rule #5 to stifle this discussion. In which case, your tactics make perfect sense...


----------



## Faun (Jul 9, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


This is easily rectified ... *stop lying. *

You _claim_ "ALL" of the "solid evidence" indicates a plane did not hit the Pentagon. That's complete and utter bullshit and I will call you a liar when you spew such nonsense. The reality is that there is no solid evidence that the plane flew over the builiding. The evidence supporting that it did hit the building includes:


flight #77 dropping off of radar when it hit the Pentagon
the shape of the damage to the exterior wall of the E-ring
DNA recovered from passengers of flight #77
documents recovered from passengers of flight #77
pieces of debris from from an American Airlines plane
pieces of debris found on a 757
the flight data recorder from flight #77
the cockpit voice recorder from flight #77
2 separate videos from surveillance cameras showing a plane flying into the Pentagon
a debris field consistent with a plane flying into the building

There's even evidence the plane did not fly over the Pentagon:


of the hundreds of eyewitnesses who reported what they saw, *not one* reported seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon
radar indicates flight #77 stopped at the Pentagon
a plane could not survive flying through that fireball
neither of the 2 surveillance cameras show the plane flying over the Pentagon
inconsistent with the events in NYC in which planes were hijacked and flown into the Twin Towers



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > there is no "solid evidence" the plane did not fly into the Pentagon.
> ...


Not according to me, according to the evidence. None of it supports a fly over. All of it supports a direct strike.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > At best, there are some witnesses who didn't see the plane fly into it; but they're not saying they saw the plane fly over it. They just didn't happen to catch the actual impact.
> ...


To be clear, that's not my quote. You posted that quote but you can't say who said it because you have absolutely no idea since it's hearsay from Dihle.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > But this is where your lies crumble.... *many witnesses did see the plane fly right into the Pentagon.*
> ...


Who said hundreds were needed? Here are witnesses who said they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

Flight 77 witness Tim Timmerman
Pentagon 9/11 witness Dawn Vignola
9/11 PENTAGON ATTACK - WITNESS

And one who may not have seen the actual impact but saw the plane clip the light pole you claimed could have been planted:

9/11 Pentagon witness Mike Walter, CBS 9


----------



## Faun (Jul 9, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


I'm perfectly willing to read your posts but once I read something which is blatant bullshit, I assume everything which follows is as well. If you want me to read your posts, stop trying to bullshit me.

Like when you claim there's solid evidence the plane flew over the Pentagon instead of into it. That's complete bullshit as there's actually no solid evidence whatsoever.

None.

So the only way you can state there is solid evidence the plane flew over the Pentagon is if you're lying. And I am 100% not interested in bullshit.

But here's the death knell to your nonsense that the plane came in low but then flew over the building instead of into it.... there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, mostly in rush hour traffic... *not one reported seeing the plane miss the Pentagon and fly over it instead. Not one. * Had the plane flown over the Pentagon, in the face of all the reports it flew into it -- *there would be many eyewitnesses screaming bloody murder that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. * But there isn't one single eyewitness who saw the plane coming in; say they saw it fly over.

Not one.

Your flyover nonsense is bullshit.


----------



## hadit (Jul 9, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


It is notoriously difficult for anyone to say for certain just how close or far away an airplane in the sky really is to objects on the ground.  That is why I give more credence to the debris field than eyewitness recollection when determining the direction from which the plane approached.


----------



## Faun (Jul 9, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> The only other plane to arrive at the Pentagon arrived about 3 minutes after the blast. By all means, provide radar images that show a plane any closer in time than that.


Here's the last radar image before flight 77 disappeared (I put a white box around it). You'll note GOFER06 (the C-130 multiple witnesses said they saw) is nearby to the SW; as is 5175 to the north; something designated with a '2' to the west and something with an 'E' to the east and something to the south with a 'W'. To the SSE, is Reagan airport, with other flights, though I can't tell if they're on the ground or in the air.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You haven't shown any evidence that I'm lying. In a court of law, it's supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty", but I know that we're not in a court of law and you can accuse me of a variety of things without evidence. I think it'd be better if you just stuck to looking at the evidence as I'm trying to do. I'm fairly certain that you would appreciate the same courtesy if you were in my place. Or do you like it when people call you a shill?



Faun said:


> You _claim_ "ALL" of the "solid evidence" indicates a plane did not hit the Pentagon. [insults basically saying I disagree]



See how much nicer it could have been if you simply said "I disagree" instead of a string of insults? Then you could have simply segued into your points below...



Faun said:


> The reality is that there is no solid evidence that the plane flew over the builiding.



I disagree...



Faun said:


> The evidence supporting that it did hit the building includes:
> 
> flight #77 dropping off of radar when it hit the Pentagon


First of all, you're -assuming- that what dropped off the radar at around the point that a plane approached the Pentagon was in fact AA77. Secondly, planes drop off the radar when they fly fairly close to the ground, and the aircraft approaching the Pentagon was certainly doing that.



Faun said:


> the shape of the damage to the exterior wall of the E-ring


...suggests that if a plane were to have crashed into the Pentagon, it would have crashed from a flight path that was south of the Citgo gas station. Unfortunately for you, many witnesses, including Sergeant Brooks and Lagasse are certain that it came from -North- of the Citgo gas station. They were also the only witnesses who were actually -at- the Citgo gas station. If anyone would know whether the plane came from the South side or the North side of the Citgo gas station it would be them. Go on, have a listen to just how certain Lagasse is right here:



Faun said:


> DNA recovered from passengers of flight #77


*Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building? | Citizen Investigation Team*



Faun said:


> documents recovered from passengers of flight #77


Same issues as the DNA, I imagine...



Faun said:


> pieces of debris from from an American Airlines plane
> pieces of debris found on a 757pieces of debris found on a 757


*Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building? | Citizen Investigation Team*



Faun said:


> the flight data recorder from flight #77


Which doesn't concord with the 9/11 commission report flight data, or the damage path data...



Faun said:


> the cockpit voice recorder from flight #77


Pray tell what you have heard of flight 77's voice recorder. According to Wikipedia:
**_The cockpit voice recorder was too badly damaged and charred to retrieve any information,[76]_**

Source: American Airlines Flight 77 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Faun said:


> 2 separate videos from surveillance cameras showing a plane flying into the Pentagon


Certainly wasn't a 757...



Faun said:


> a debris field consistent with a plane flying into the building


Certainly don't agree with that...



Faun said:


> There's even evidence the plane did not fly over the Pentagon:
> 
> of the hundreds of eyewitnesses who reported what they saw, *not one* reported seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon


How many of those witnesses were in a position that would have made that easy to see, especially considering the fact that a strong explosion went off at around the same time, possibly while the plane was flying over the Pentagon? And even while no one said that the words "I saw a plane fly over the Pentagon", Erik Dihle's testimony that "some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going" is pretty close.

Source:

And yeah, I know, it's hearsay, Erik Dihle didn't see it himself, and he didn't even mention the names of these people who were saying these things. But it's something that I certainly believe merits investigation by an official investigation.



Faun said:


> a plane could not survive flying through that fireball


The explosion could have gone off shortly after the aircraft had begun the flyover, avoiding the fireball.



Faun said:


> neither of the 2 surveillance cameras show the plane flying over the Pentagon


They don't show much at all, and atleast one of them may have been tampered with...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Not me. Not even CIT. I imagine CIT was frequently asked the question above, and so they responded to it in the above linked article.

I'll continue responding in my next post, only 5 Media clips per post allowed...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Here are witnesses who said they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.



CIT lists her in the "Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact" category, and further specifies:
Isabel James _-POV confirmed (Columbia Pike curve, trees blocked view)



Faun said:





Click to expand...


CIT lists him in the "Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were allegedly in a position to possibly confirm one" Category and further specifies that he's a "debunked witness, photo possibly shows him at Navy Annex"



Faun said:





Click to expand...


CIT lists him in the ""Saw a plane & impact from far away, but DID NOT mention a second plane/jet shadowing/chasing and veering away as the impact happened" category and further specifies that he saw a "commuter plane, two-engined"



Faun said:



			[pixelated video, no name given]
		
Click to expand...


An anonymous video where you can't even see the person is not much to go on.



Faun said:





Click to expand...


There are some issues with Joel Sucherman's testimony, which CIT gets into here:



Faun said:



Flight 77 witness Tim Timmerman
Pentagon 9/11 witness Dawn Vignola

Click to expand...


From CIT's forum:
**Dawn Vignola and Hugh Timmerman would have had a good view of the plane only on it's approach.

The highrise building in front of them to the left completely blocked their view of the final moments of the flight path so there is no way they would have been able to tell if the plane was north or south of the citgo. And the "crash" would be nothing but an explosion as the plane could have only been visible for a fraction of a millisecond as it came out from behind the building. Plus we know for a fact that nothing crashed on the helipad.

Here is the view from her apartment:





The explosion, fireball, and smoke plume would effectively divert and block their view of the flyover as it ascended up over the river like a normal departure out of Reagan.

So you are wrong about their view being the "best" of the flight path. They deduced the impact after the plane disappeared behind that building and they saw the explosion. They do have a panoramic view to the south so we believe that they could have seen the plane for quite a while on it's approach before it disappeared behind that building.

Dawn is 100% certain that the plane was "white" which corroborates virtually all of the previously unknown witnesses we found in the neighborhouds:





This proves the plane could not have been AA77.**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=89&st=0



Faun said:



9/11 PENTAGON ATTACK - WITNESS

Click to expand...


That would be Lt. Col O'Brien. CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by PFT/CIT. He described the plane as silver.



Faun said:



			And one who may not have seen the actual impact but saw the plane clip the light pole you claimed could have been planted

9/11 Pentagon witness Mike Walter, CBS 9

Click to expand...


Some issues with Mike Walter's testimony:
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11705_


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



On second thought, perhaps it's best that you don't read my posts. That way, you can just come up with your little sound bites and I can respond with similar sound bites, and I imagine you'll be using less insults as well.



Faun said:


> But here's the death knell to your nonsense that the plane came in low but then flew over the building instead of into it.... there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, mostly in rush hour traffic...
> 
> *not one reported seeing the plane miss the Pentagon and fly over it instead. Not one. *Had the plane flown over the Pentagon, in the face of all the reports it flew into it -- *there would be many eyewitnesses screaming bloody murder that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. *



Perhaps because they were busy driving? Even the people who were -not- busy driving could have been fooled, though. CIT explains how:

**_Special note:  Many detractors to the information we present suggest we are wrong because the witnesses at the CITGO station believe the plane hit the building.  This is what true critical thinkers call circular logic.  We claim the fact that the witnesses place the plane on the north side of the station proves it was used as an instrument of deception during a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion because it is impossible for a plane in that location to have created the physical damage.  In other words, the intended goal was to fool witnesses into believing the plane hit the building. The fact that the witnesses were successfully deceived exactly as the perpetrators intended does not prove that they are incorrect in their placement of the plane.  Quite the opposite is true.  Their placement of the plane proves that they were deceived in regards to the impact.

Watch this demonstration exposing the secrets behind a successful sleight of hand ironically from pseudo-skeptic official story supporters Penn & Teller:

1. *Palm*:  To hold an object in an apparently empty hand.

(In essence this means to set up the illusion.  This was done on 9/11 by showing the 2nd plane crash into the south tower in Manhattan on live TV.  This mentally conditioned everyone in Arlington to instantly expect a low flying airliner headed fast towards the Pentagon to hit the building.)

2. *Ditch*:  To secretly dispose of an unneeded object.

(Flight 77 was lost on radar as early as 8:56 while the alleged impact was not until just after 9:30.  This gave the perpetrators approximately 30 minutes to “ditch” the original plane for the flyover drone.)

3. *Steal*:  To secretly obtain a needed object.

(The plane swap was initiated as the flyover drone was launched and took over the flight path of the ditched original plane.)

4. *Load*:  To secretly move a needed object to where it is needed.

(The drone passenger jet was put on course to the Pentagon and flown treetop level over Arlington.)

5. *Simulation*:   To give the impression that something that hasn’t happened, has.

(The plane reaches the Pentagon with a perfectly timed explosion and fireball creating the impression that it hit the building.)

6. *Misdirection*:  To lead attention away from a secret move.

(The massive fireball and smoke plume divert attention from, and help conceal, the flyover drone as it flies away.)

7. *Switch*:  To secretly exchange one object for another.

(The C-130, E4B, and additional flying craft in the area are introduced to serve as cover and confusion for anyone who may have witnessed the drone fly over or away from the building.)

*Click here for details regarding the 2nd plane cover story._






 **

**


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 9, 2016)

hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Depends how close the plane is. If the plane is right over your head, I think you've got a pretty good idea as to where it is, don't you? More then one CIT witness was in such a position. One witness that comes to mind is Sergeant Lagasse:


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > The only other plane to arrive at the Pentagon arrived about 3 minutes after the blast. By all means, provide radar images that show a plane any closer in time than that.
> ...



Nearby is a relative term. CIT has certainly mentioned the C-130, as well as an E4B. They  mention both in their Second Plane Cover Story article. Here's an excerpt:
**_Any talk about a "2nd plane" at all would help provide an explanation for the people who saw the flyover and were confused about what they saw in relation to the official impact narrative.  There definitely were planes that were in the airspace minutes after the attack but there were false reports of a "2nd plane" that allegedly "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered away" over the Pentagon during the explosion. The only planes that have been confirmed in the airspace near the time of the attack came in several minutes later. Specifically there was a C-130 near the Pentagon and an E4B over DC skies, both didn't appear until about three minutes or more after the explosion.  Both of these planes have been shrouded in mystery and speculation. News reports of these planes were ambiguously blended with the flyover via fabricated accounts ofsome sort of second military plane/jet shadowing/chasing along the same flight path and then veering off/peeling off and up into the air.  Anyone who might have seen the flyover jet would have been thrown off by these fabricated accounts that place a 2nd plane in the airspace at the same time of impact, essentially veering away simultaneously with the explosion..._**

Source: The 2nd Plane Cover Story | The Pentacon


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


The evidence is that the is zero evidence the plane flew over the Pentagon. You stating it did offers zero proof that it did. Zero witnesses said they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon. There is plenty of evidence the plane flew into the Pentagon. There is no evidence it flew over the Pentagon. There are plenty of eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. There are zero eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Given that, claiming the plane flew over the Pentagon is lying. Plain and simple. You're not winning anyone over to your side by lying and thinking you can introduce a new scenario, not supported by evidence, not supported by eyewitnesses, into believing your delusions.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You _claim_ "ALL" of the "solid evidence" indicates a plane did not hit the Pentagon. [insults basically saying I disagree]
> ...


I note, you ignored every piece of evidence I pointed out. Because you ignored them, I'll list them again...

flight #77 dropping off of radar when it hit the Pentagon
the shape of the damage to the exterior wall of the E-ring
DNA recovered from passengers of flight #77
documents recovered from passengers of flight #77
pieces of debris from from an American Airlines plane
pieces of debris found on a 757
the flight data recorder from flight #77
the cockpit voice recorder from flight #77
2 separate videos from surveillance cameras showing a plane flying into the Pentagon
a debris field consistent with a plane flying into the building
Now let's compare that to the evidence the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon...

of the hundreds of eyewitnesses who reported what they saw, *not one *reported seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon
radar indicates flight #77 stopped at the Pentagon
a plane could not survive flying through that fireball
neither of the 2 surveillance cameras show the plane flying over the Pentagon
inconsistent with the events in NYC in which planes were hijacked and flown into the Twin Towers



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The reality is that there is no solid evidence that the plane flew over the builiding.
> ...


Who cares that you disagree?  *Prove your claim with evidence.* Your words mean nothing. Only evidence matters. So far, all you've offered is the eyewitness account of 5 people, none of whom said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon; and zero physical evidence.

That's it. That's your evidence. 



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence supporting that it did hit the building includes:
> ...


It's not an assumption. That blip on the radar was followed from the moment it entered that radar and it followed the loop we know flight #77 took before reaching the Pentagon. Whether you acknowledge it or not, that blip was flight #77. As far as falling off radar ... the plane could not have stayed low to the ground forever ... if you think it didn't crash -- *you show where it reappeared on radar*.... The burden of proof for your claims is for you to prove. Sadly for you -- you can't.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > the shape of the damage to the exterior wall of the E-ring
> ...


There are more eyewitnesses who said the plane came up Columbia Pike or 395 than said it flew north of the Citco. And those are just the witnesses who provided their recollection minutes/hours after the crash, not 5-6 years later as in the video you posted. Furthermore, the witness in that video is clearly confused about his own recollection. At one point, he's pointing to lampposts he claims were knocked down which weren't knocked down, so he could support his own north side approach with evidence that didn't actually exist. 



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > DNA recovered from passengers of flight #77
> ...


Now you're trying to back your claim of a north side approach by citing a north side approach as evidence. 

Sorry, that doesn't fly. You need to first prove the north side approach before you can say the DNA evidence is not valid because the plane came in from north of the Citco. Once again, you fail to disprove the known evidence.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > documents recovered from passengers of flight #77
> ...


Same failure as your last one. You can't say there's no valid evidence found from flight #77 because it came from north of the Citco when you can't even prove it came from north of the Citco.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > pieces of debris from from an American Airlines plane
> ...


Even CIT shows pictures of AA77 debris found at the crash site. That they _feel_ it's insufficient is meaningless. That any recognizable debris was found, along with all the other evidence and eyewitness accounts, proves flight #77 flew into the Pentagon.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > the flight data recorder from flight #77
> ...


Not exactly. The path you refer to was based on the incomplete decoding of flight recorder data which did not include the final seconds of the doomed flight's approach. When the entire FDR was analyzed, it matched the known path from south of the Citco.

The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path

Also, I note, you didn't even address the conspiracy killing point that flight #77's black boxes were recovered. Not possible had flight #77 not crashed into the Pentagon.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > the cockpit voice recorder from flight #77
> ...


I didn't say data from it was recovered. I said the recorder was recovered. How does the cockpit voice recorder from flight #77 turn up in the wreckage if it didn't crash there?



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > 2 separate videos from surveillance cameras showing a plane flying into the Pentagon
> ...


Great, now you're back to lying. 

It's not possible to determine what kind of aircraft is in those videos. That's how I know you're lying. All that can be discerned from them is that a plane flew into, and not over, the Pentagon.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > a debris field consistent with a plane flying into the building
> ...


So another person who _thinks_ a 757 didn't cause the damage? Their opinion doesn't disprove the evidence or the eyewitnesses who were there and said it did. And based on eyewitnesses hurts their opinion even more since they rely on eyewitnesses who reported seeing a plane smaller than a 757. But their opinion is negated by the fact that they exclude all the witnesses who said it was a larger commercial aircraft; and as is found among all eyewitness accounts -- they are subject to discrepancies. Rendering it moot that eyewitnesses differed from their description of the aircraft when they all pretty much agree they saw a plane. 



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > There's even evidence the plane did not fly over the Pentagon:
> ...


There were at least hundreds of witnesses. Aside from all the people working/living in the area, the Pentagon is surrounded on all sides by highways.

Not one person ever said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. You're dreaming with your flyover nonsense. There's absolutely nothing concrete to support it.



phoenyx said:


> And yeah, I know, it's hearsay, Erik Dihle didn't see it himself, and he didn't even mention the names of these people who were saying these things. But it's something that I certainly believe merits investigation by an official investigation.


Get over it -- there will be no more investigations. It's done and the history of what happened has been recorded. No rational person is going to accept your revision of history given your lack of supporting evidence.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > a plane could not survive flying through that fireball
> ...


Dismissed as *supposition* not supported by the evidence.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > neither of the 2 surveillance cameras show the plane flying over the Pentagon
> ...


Dismissed as *supposition* not supported by the evidence.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


I don't think you understand the CIT article. It's dismissing the notion that hundreds of eyewitnesses say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. So when you say, "not even CIT," you demonstrate a lack of understanding that CIT actually does address the question of hundreds of eyewitnesses making such a claim.

But I didn't make any such claim. I said, "many," not "hundreds," say they saw it. And many did.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2016)

This is while I said earlier that there is no point in posting these videos as your only purpose is to deny what the eyewitnesses say; despite the harsh reality that their description matches the physical evidence.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Here are witnesses who said they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.
> ...


She says she did see it despite the trees. Why on Earth would I believe CIT over her?? She was there, CIT wasn't. While she does say trees were in her path of vision, she doesn't say they obscured her view entirely.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Why on Earth would I care how CIT "lists" him? You cite them claiming they might see him in a photo from the Annex but zero conclusive evidence that he was not in his car with his girlfriend as he described.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Another hollow denial from CIT. Despite this witnesses ability to identify the type of aircraft, he still says he saw it fly into the Pentagon. To fit into their agenda, CIT seeks to dismiss his account based on that and because he didn't mention the second plane (which he might not have seen). He also doesn't give his location, so who knows why CIT claims he was "far away," except to once again demonstrate their eagerness to dismiss any evidence that doesn't comport with their made up scenario that flight #77 flew in from north of the Citco and proceeded to fly over the Pentagon.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > [pixelated video, no name given]
> ...


That it's anonymous doesn't discount it as the person was clearly present and clearly describing what he claims to have witnessed. It stands as an eyewitness account even if you don't like it.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


That videolike virtually everything you rely on, is nothing but unsupported supposition. In this video, the person(s) who made it claim the USA Today reporters' eyewitness accounts are questionable because there were 6 of them on there way to work that morning. Even worse, they claim that ALL of those reporters were late for work because ONE of them was. But in reality, the maker of that video has no proof the others didn't go into work until 10am. So once again, CIT fails miserably to prove their point.

Their video continues, portraying the USA Today witnesses of having an obstructed view ... they do that by showing an FBI video of someone driving up 27 with the Pentagon on their right where trees partially blocked a clear view of the Pentagon ... however, that position of 27 is south of where this video earlier placed Suchermann. Where he was shown earlier in the video, he would have been north of those trees, ON the overpass with an unobstructed view.

Another CIT fail. 

This video also tries to impugn Walter's eyewitness account; but Walter never said he saw the plane hit the building. He said he saw it flying toward the Pentagon and then saw the explosion. He also said he saw the plane clip a lamp post. How does he see that if they were planted, as you suggest?



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Flight 77 witness Tim Timmerman
> ...


Even with that building there, the Pentagon is still visible so they still had a clear view of the plane flying into the Pentagon. Given they were tacking the plane from before it disappeared behind that building until it reemerged as it flew into the Pentagon by no means, means they didn't see it fly into the Pentagon.

You also say I'm wrong about their view being the best of the flight path -- but I made no such claim. You're imagining things once again.

Furthermore, Timmerman, who at the time lived right off of 395, described the plane as being _"so close to me, it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter, it was just right there."_ And he placed the path along 395 and Columbia Pike, like so many others, which puts the path south of the Citco.

I also don't hear where Dawn says the plane was white? I only heard her describe it as an American Airlines 757.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 PENTAGON ATTACK - WITNESS
> ...


Which it was.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > And one who may not have seen the actual impact but saw the plane clip the light pole you claimed could have been planted
> ...


I don't see anything in there inconsistent with Walter's claim he saw a lamppost clipped by the plane.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Some of the witnesses described themselves as stuck in traffic that morning. I believe at least one of them said there was an accident slowing traffic down. That they were driving does not discount their accounts.

So there remains many eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

There are zero witnesses who said they saw a plane fly over it.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


I got as far as, "_provide an explanation for the people who saw the flyover..._"

Again -- no one said they saw that.

CIT is lying; and by proxy, so are you.

Stop lying.

As far as their claim that no other aircraft was in the vicinity for "minutes" after the crash, once again, eyewitness accounts, as well as radar, proves them wrong. Eyewitnesses say the C-130 was nearby and veered away to avoid the area where the first plane crashed. Looking at the radar image I posted, '5175' was about the same distance, as were the ones designated with a '2', an 'E', and a 'W'. And those were all nearby when flight #77 flew into the Pentagon.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Sigh -.-. Fortunately, you actually discuss the evidence I've brought up below, let's just get to that...



Faun said:


> You stating it did offers zero proof that it did.



We're talking about evidence, not proof, please stick to the subject...



Faun said:


> There is plenty of evidence the plane flew into the Pentagon.



Flimsy evidence, I've contested just about all the evidence you've provided.



Faun said:


> There is no evidence it flew over the Pentagon.



I'd argue I've provided a lot of evidence that did exactly that...



Faun said:


> There are plenty of eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.



I've copied and pasted CIT's explanation on how the perpetrators of 9/11 made it appear as if it had, without actually crashing the plane into the Pentagon in post #571 in this thread, so you don't even have to leave this site to see their explanation.



Faun said:


> There are zero eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.



Can you prove that Erik Dihle's coworkers weren't saying something along those lines?



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Actually, I -responded- to all of your evidence, and I see that you've responded to at least some of my response below...



Faun said:


> Because you ignored them, I'll list them again...
> 
> flight #77 dropping off of radar when it hit the Pentagon
> the shape of the damage to the exterior wall of the E-ring
> ...


All of your evidence was responded to in the post you're responding to (Post #569 in this thread for anyone in the audience who might be interested).



Faun said:


> Now let's compare that to the evidence the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon...
> 
> radar indicates flight #77 stopped at the Pentagon
> a plane could not survive flying through that fireball
> neither of the 2 surveillance cameras show the plane flying over the Pentagon


All responded to in post #569 as well...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I do. You know, the person who's not only reading your post, but responding to it? A good discussion requires a certain amount of respect amoung those who are discussing it. Without enough of that, a discussion will die.
*


Faun said:



			Prove your claim with evidence.
		
Click to expand...

*
Proving claims can be difficult, but I have certainly been putting a lot of effort into discussing the evidence for my claims.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Flight 77 wasn't even scheduled to fly on September 11th...
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77 NEVER LEFT THE GROUND ON 9/11



Faun said:


> As far as falling off radar ... the plane could not have stayed low to the ground forever ... if you think it didn't crash -- *you show where it reappeared on radar*....



Perhaps it simply landed somewhere; Reagan International Airport, perhaps. As mentioned in the link above, Flight 77 wasn't even scheduled to fly on 9/11, so that wouldn't be the flight landing.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



CIT's gone through pretty much all of the witnesses, I've gone over all the named witnesses you've mentioned. Regarding Lagasse, did you actually listen to Lagasse? The plane went right above his head; couldn't have been easier for him to know the exact location of the plane; and in case you never bothered to click on the video clip, he was standing -at- the Citgo gas station. Can't have a better vantage point then that when it comes to determining whether the plane flew north or south of said Citgo gas station.



Faun said:


> And those are just the witnesses who provided their recollection minutes/hours after the crash, not 5-6 years later as in the video you posted.



Are you suggesting that someone would forget whether a jet that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon had passed right over his head? That it was in fact way south of his position?



Faun said:


> Furthermore, the witness in that video is clearly confused about his own recollection. At one point, he's pointing to lampposts he claims were knocked down which weren't knocked down, so he could support his own north side approach with evidence that didn't actually exist.



He had just been told by Craig Ranke that the official story posited that light poles had been knocked down, and was trying to fit that in to what he saw. I think his original comment on the subject was more telling:
"Like I said, you can't really see the light poles from here, so I didn't see anything".



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The North side approach evidence is -evidence- that Flight 77 couldn't have hit the Pentagon. But it's certainly not the only evidence. The completed text of the article for those who don't want to click on the link:
**_These "DNA reports" are not valid evidence proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples, which means that the scientists who allegedly analyzed the DNA and turned up matches -- if that did happen -- have no way of knowing whether or not it actually came from the Pentagon. Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building._**



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, they show pictures of debris which the official narrative -alleges- came from Flight 77.



Faun said:


> That they _feel_ it's insufficient is meaningless. That any recognizable debris was found, along with all the other evidence and eyewitness accounts, proves flight #77 flew into the Pentagon.



Sorry, but just because debris is "recognizable" as debris doesn't mean it came from Flight #77.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



CIT wrote a detailed response to that article a while ago:
CIT's Response to David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Pentagon Statement



Faun said:


> Also, I note, you didn't even address the conspiracy killing point that flight #77's black boxes were recovered. Not possible had flight #77 not crashed into the Pentagon.



When did I say that I believed the black box data actually came from Flight 77? Do you even know who allegedly found it?



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again, who, precisely, found it? Perhaps you trust the government implicitly, but I sure don't.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Based on the video I referenced, it would seem that while we may not be able to determine what the aircraft was, we can determine what it -wasn't-; that is, it wasn't a 757.



Faun said:


> All that can be discerned from them is that a plane flew into, and not over, the Pentagon.



We disagree on that.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Another person who shows a lot of evidence that the aircraft approaching the Pentagon didn't crash into it...



Faun said:


> But their opinion is negated by the fact that they exclude all the witnesses who said it was a larger commercial aircraft; and as is found among all eyewitness accounts -- they are subject to discrepancies. Rendering it moot that eyewitnesses differed from their description of the aircraft when they all pretty much agree they saw a plane.



We can agree that a plane approached the Pentagon. That's about as far as our agreement goes, though.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



CIT has put a lot of effort into finding all of the witnesses that had first and last names attached to their testimony. They found a total of 104, which can be seen here:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

If you can find more, by all means, present them. The bottom line, though, is the excellent work they did with some of the witnesses that had the best vantage point to witness the plane's final approach to the Pentagon, which can be seen in documentaries it has made, such as National Security Alert.



Faun said:


> Not one person ever said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.



Prove it. And while you're at it, prove that Erik Dihle's coworkers didn't mean just that, even if they didn't say those exact words.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > And yeah, I know, it's hearsay, Erik Dihle didn't see it himself, and he didn't even mention the names of these people who were saying these things. But it's something that I certainly believe merits investigation by an official investigation.
> ...



How are you so sure?



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I think it's the best working theory to account for the evidence we -do- have.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Actually, it's supported by evidence:
Doctored Pentagon video proves 9/11 cover-up and inside job



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I already knew that.



Faun said:


> So when you say, "not even CIT," you demonstrate a lack of understanding that CIT actually does address the question of hundreds of eyewitnesses making such a claim.



You had asked "Who said hundreds were needed?". My response was that I hadn't said it, and neither had CIT.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You atleast acknowledge that she does say that trees were in her path. CIT has many witnesses who had no trees in their path. Heck, they have some witnesses who were at the Pentagon itself -.-



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



CIT's done a -lot- of research on those who claim to have witnessed the pentaplane hit the Pentagon.



Faun said:


> You cite them claiming they might see him in a photo from the Annex but zero conclusive evidence that he was not in his car with his girlfriend as he described.



I never said I had "conclusive evidence" he wasn't. That being said, I definitely think there are witnesses who were in a better position to see the flight path the plane took; and those witnesses all place the plane on a flight path North of the Citgo gas station. Such a flight path negates the possibility that the plane crashed into the Pentagon due to the fact that there is no damage or debris from that flight path direction.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Don Wright states that he was at 1600 Wilson Blvd in Roslyn VA. That's around 2 miles north of the Pentagon:
Google Maps

Flight paths both North and South of the Citgo gas station would have all appeared as 'coming from the south' from his viewpoint. All the witnesses CIT mentions were a hell of a lot closer. Lagasse and Brooks, who were at the service station (at the time it was the Citgo gas station) were perhaps 1/5th of a mile from the Pentagon. There was little between them and the Pentagon itself.



Faun said:


> To fit into their agenda, CIT seeks to dismiss his account based on that and because he didn't mention the second plane (which he might not have seen).



Seems a lot of witnesses didn't see a second plane. Some who -did- say they saw a second plane never saw the first. Take Roosevelt Roberts for example:
**_11. *Roosevelt Roberts Jr.*

Find Roosevelt Robert's name under this index at the Library of Congress website to download his officially documented interview:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/91...ecordingI1.html

Or download direct:

Real Audio

MP3

WAV

Download our independently confirmed interview with him here:
_
_http://www.thepentacon.com/roberts_
_
Roosevelt is the critical first flyover witness. He did not see the Pentagon attack jet on the approach at all. He only saw it immediately *after* the explosion as it banked away from the Pentagon.

He was at the east side of the loading dock when he saw the plane over the south parking lot of the Pentagon.






Roosevelt says that the plane was 50 to less than 100 feet above the light poles in the south parking lot and was banking around. His exact direction of the bank is a bit unclear from the interview but it sounds as though he has it banking around to the north since he says towards the "mall entrance side" which is on the north side of the Pentagon.

He says "southwest" but we think his directions were confused at that moment since it sounds like he is struggling to visualize and verbalize the proper cardinal direction which is to be expected from eyewitness recollection. He does clarify further when he says it was not banking towards the airport meaning it wasn't banking southwest after all.

As much as we would like to clarify his account further either Roosevelt got scared or somebody told him not to talk to us because it was clear he was avoiding us after promising follow up.

As discussed in the documentary we were able to eventually reach him again weeks later after trying maybe a dozen times.

Eventually we got a hold of him again and basically explained the implications of what he saw in a last ditch effort to get him to talk to us in more detail. After that discussion he agreed to an on camera interview for one week later on Sunday June 8th. Unfortunately when I called to confirm he backed out.

At this point it's clear that Roosevelt is nervous regarding the implications of what he saw and prefers to not put himself in a difficult position by implicating his boss and no doubt as far as he is concerned jeopardizing his livelihood.

This does not change the fact that he already officially reported this jet in 2001 and has independently confirmed this to us in 2008.

There is absolutely no possible explanation for what he saw other than the flyover.

The C-130 came in significantly later, was not nearly that low, and was not anywhere near the south parking lot and didn't even fly over the Pentagon. Plus Roosevelt is certain what he saw was a silver commercial aircraft/airliner with jet engines, and not a C-130 with propeller engines._**

Source: North Side Flyover



Faun said:


> He also doesn't give his location,



He actually says his exact location in your clip. Please pay more attention -.-



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You don't even know who it was. But by all means, provide some evidence that any of the following assertions you make on this person are true.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > There are some issues with Joel Sucherman's testimony, which CIT gets into here:
> ...



Alright, perhaps you're right on that particular point. That being said, I can't help but wonder if Sucherman actually saw the pentaplane fly away from the scene. Why do I think that? Because of this part of his statement:
***USA Today editor Joel Sucherman:*
_-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit. **
_
Source: The 2nd Plane Cover Story | CIT's The Pentacon Website



Faun said:


> Their video continues, portraying the USA Today witnesses of having an obstructed view ... they do that by showing an FBI video of someone driving up 27 with the Pentagon on their right where trees partially blocked a clear view of the Pentagon ... however, that position of 27 is south of where this video earlier placed Suchermann. Where he was shown earlier in the video, he would have been north of those trees, ON the overpass with an unobstructed view.



Perhaps you're right on this particular point.



Faun said:


> This video also tries to impugn Walter's eyewitness account; but Walter never said he saw the plane hit the building. He said he saw it flying toward the Pentagon and then saw the explosion. He also said he saw the plane clip a lamp post. How does he see that if they were planted, as you suggest?



The same way Lagasse stated that certain light poles were downed, when they weren't. Memory isn't perfect, and it can morph a bit when confronted with information that appears to contradict their actual recollections. Things can be added in order to make things 'fit'.




Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



They could certainly have seen it approach the Pentagon, and then seen an explosion at the Pentagon. They were -not- in the best position to discern if the explosion was actually caused by the plane.



Faun said:


> You also say I'm wrong about their view being the best of the flight path -- but I made no such claim.



Agreed. What I'm suggesting is that we focus on those who -did- have the best view of the flight path.



Faun said:


> Furthermore, Timmerman, who at the time lived right off of 395, described the plane as being _"so close to me, it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter, it was just right there."_ And he placed the path along 395 and Columbia Pike, like so many others, which puts the path south of the Citco.



Do you know where Timmerman was, exactly?



Faun said:


> I also don't hear where Dawn says the plane was white? I only heard her describe it as an American Airlines 757.



Perhaps CIT interviewed her independently.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I took a look at Mike Walter's alleged location at the time he states he saw the plane:





He was south of both the North flight path -and- the south flight path. Given this, he's hardly a good witness to describe which flight path the plane took, just as Don Wright wasn't, because he was -North- of both flight paths.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Most driver's main focus is on the road; if that changes, they risk accidents. In contrast, most of the witnesses CIT interviewed were -not- driving and so could focus more closely on what the plane was doing.



Faun said:


> So there remains many eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.



Around 25, according to CIT. They go into detailed explanations as to how many of them could have been confused into -thinking- that the plane crashed into the Pentagon, when it actually flew over it. The graphic above is illustrates how witnesses could be fooled from a certain viewpoint.



Faun said:


> There are zero witnesses who said they saw a plane fly over it.



No one to my knowledge has said "I saw a plane fly over the pentagon". That being said, there are certainly some witnesses who have said things that would strongly suggest that the plane did just that.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Just because they didn't say it doesn't mean they didn't see it come from . In general, it seems they thought it was a second plane. The thing is, there was only one plane in the immediate vicinity at the time.



Faun said:


> As far as their claim that no other aircraft was in the vicinity for "minutes" after the crash, once again, eyewitness accounts, as well as radar, proves them wrong.



Some eyewitness accounts do mention that they saw a second plane, but one must take into account that they may have been saying this because they were led to believe that a plane had -already- crashed into the Pentagon; thus, what they had to conclude that what they were seeing -must- have been a second plane. Other accounts may be from people such as Lloyd England, who were purposely placed to support the official story. As to the radar data, CIT has this to say:
**_Let's be clear: we have never claimed that the low-flying plane seen by all of the witnesses that we interviewed was actually American Airlines Flight 77, nor do we believe that to be the case. Even the 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that AA77 was completely lost from radar as early as 8:56. On p. 8-9 they write:

At 8:51, American 77 transmitted its last routine radio communication. ... At 8:54, the aircraft deviated from its assigned course, turning south. Two minutes later the transponder was turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft was lost. The Indianapolis Air Traffic Control Center repeatedly tried and failed to contact the aircraft. American Airlines dispatchers also tried, without success.

This occured near the Kentucky-Ohio border, almost *300 miles* west of the Pentagon, as depicted in the following image released shortly after 9/11 by Flight Explorer, a Virginia-based company whose commercial software uses FAA air traffic control reports, which are updated as often as every 10 seconds, to track airplanes' locations, speed, altitude and more in near real-time.






The Pentagon is located right next to Reagan National Airport, which is labeled "DCA" in the image above. AA77 was nowhere near the Pentagon when it vanished.

The transcript of alleged radio communications with AA77, published by The New York Times in October of 2001, tells the same story: AA77 makes its final transmission just before 8:51, after which time it is never heard from again, despite repeated attempts by personnel at both Indianapolis Center and American Airlines to re-establish contact.

There is no independent or verifiable evidence in the public domain, official or otherwise, proving what happened to AA77 after 8:56-8:57. The plane that eventually appeared in the airspace over Arlington and Washington D.C. shortly after 9:30, which is falsely alleged to have crashed into the Pentagon, was never positively identified. This too is repeatedly acknowledged by the 9/11 Commission:

"At 9:32 ... Several of the Dulles controllers observed a *primary radar target* tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed and notified Reagan National Airport. FAA personnel at both Reagan National and Dulles airports notified the Secret Service. *The aircraft's identity or type was unknown*." (p. 25)

"At 9:36, the FAA's Boston Center called NEADS and relayed the discovery about an*unidentified aircraft* closing in on Washington" (p. 27)

"After the 9:36 call to NEADS about the *unidentified aircraft* a few miles from the White House, the Langley fighers were ordered to Washington, D.C." (p. 27)

"[The military] had at most one or two minutes to react to the *unidentified plane* approach Washington, and the fighters were in the wrong place to be able to help." (p. 34)

It's also corroborated by air traffic controllers working out of nearby Washington Dulles International Airport that morning, such as Todd Lewis, who told Dateline:

One of my colleagues saw *a target* moving quite fast from the northwest to the southeast. So, we all started watching *that target*, and she notified the supervisor. But *nobody knew that was a commercial flight at the time. Nobody knew that it was American 77. ... I thought it was a military flight.*" 

His colleague, Danielle O'Brien, recalled:

"We started moving the planes in as quickly as we could. ... Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an *unidentified plane* to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed ... *I had literally a blip and nothing more*." 

During our multi-year, independent investigation, we have personally interviewed dozens of eyewitnesses who saw this plane — which they describe as a large, twin-engine jet — minutes later, as it flew at just above tree-top level over Arlington in its final moments before reaching the Pentagon.

While reports vary regarding its exact colors and markings, many insist that the plane did not look like an American Airlines jet, and a number of them describe it as predominantly white or off-white in color.

Because there is not a clear enough consensus among the witnesses regarding how the plane was painted, we stop short of claiming to conclusively know the exact details, but we do feel that the evidence is very strong that this unidentified plane did not look like a signature silver American Airlines 757, with blue and red stripes down the side and a big "AA" on the tail.

More importantly, what the aggregated witness reports and the body of evidence as a whole are (extremely) clear on is that the plane approached on a flight path that makes it physically impossible for it to have caused *ANY* of the documented damage inside and outside of the building. It could not have and did not hit the building. This is why it was seen flying away immediately after the explosion by multiple-eyewitnesses, such as Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr, and why cab driver Lloyde England's story completely fell apart under scrutiny.

So, there is no reason to believe that this unidentified plane was American Airlines Flight 77, and an abundance of evidence that it was not.

In no way does the fact that average citizens lack the access and resources to discover the true fate of AA77 change or undermine the evidence that is already a matter of public record which proves that it did not hit the Pentagon, and thus that 9/11 was a full-blown "false flag" black op.

We always caution against speculation, but for those who are simply looking to get a plausible idea of what might have happened to AA77, we believe Operation Northwoods provides a prototype..._**

Source: *Frequently Asked Questions » If Flight 77 did not hit the building what happened to its passengers and crew? | Citizen Investigation Team*



Faun said:


> Eyewitnesses say the C-130 was nearby and veered away to avoid the area where the first plane crashed. Looking at the radar image I posted, '5175' was about the same distance, as were the ones designated with a '2', an 'E', and a 'W'. And those were all nearby when flight #77 flew into the Pentagon.



As mentioned before, nearby is a relative term. Planes can cover great distances in not much time, after all. That being said, CIT has found that the 2 nearest planes were still minutes away as the plane flies from the Pentagon at the time that the pentaplane approached it:
**_The only planes that have been confirmed in the airspace near the time of the attack came in several minutes later. Specifically there was a C-130 near the Pentagon and an E4B over DC skies, both didn't appear until about three minutes or more after the explosion.  Both of these planes have been shrouded in mystery and speculation. News reports of these planes were ambiguously blended with the flyover via fabricated accounts ofsome sort of second military plane/jet shadowing/chasing along the same flight path and then veering off/peeling off and up into the air.  Anyone who might have seen the flyover jet would have been thrown off by these fabricated accounts that place a 2nd plane in the airspace at the same time of impact, essentially veering away simultaneously with the explosion_...**

Source: The 2nd Plane Cover Story | CIT's The Pentacon


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Chanting, _*nuh-uh*_, is contesting nothing. You have nothing to prove the evidence is fake. All you do is provide your circular logic that the evidence is fake because the plane approached from north of the Citco, and then to prove the plane approached from north of the Cito, you point to the evidence being fake. All you're doing is making yourself dizzy with such circular logic.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > There is no evidence it flew over the Pentagon.
> ...


Arguing that is getting you nowhere. What you need to do is prove your case. You can't because your case is critically void of proof.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.
> ...


Their explanations also amount to, _*nuh-uh*_. They fail to convince me that the folks who said they saw the plane crash were either wrong or lying. As far as I'm concerned, those eyewitnesses are credible. Even more so than the ones CIT dug up some 5-7 years later, some of whom were never on record to begin with. I give far more credence to those who recalled what they saw minutes later than I do those scratching at their memory many years later.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > There are zero eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.
> ...


I don't have to. You don't even know if they were co-workers -- he doesn't say (so asking about his co-workers is merely you extending your imagination again). You don't know if he knows who said it -- he doesn't say. You don't know what they saw -- he doesn't say. You don't know what prompted whoever said that, to say that -- he doesn't say. You don't know if that's what he himself thought occurred -- he doesn't say. And you have to ignore the second part of his statement where someone corrected the claim of a bomb and a plane flying away as being false.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


I apologize, indeed you did.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Because you ignored them, I'll list them again...
> ...


And then I responded to your responses in post #574



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Yet again, you're disagreeing with ALL of the physical evidence. Who cares? I don't. Why on Earth would I accept your twisted version of events which is NOT corroborated by any of the physical evidence?



phoenyx said:


> *
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> ...


Don't talk about evidence -- prove your evidence. That would go a long way in  this discussion, which frankly, is going nowhere because you can't actually prove any of your claims other than showing some witnesses, many years later, offer a differing account as those describing the events they saw on 9.11.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Unfortunately, none of the links on that site work. I can't corroborate anything on that page.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > As far as falling off radar ... the plane could not have stayed low to the ground forever ... if you think it didn't crash -- *you show where it reappeared on radar*....
> ...


Dismissed as *supposition* not supported by the evidence.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Lagasse is quite confused. He draws where lamp posts were down where they weren't down. His bearings are clearly off. And he's recalling where he was standing some 5 years earlier. 

Again, all you are doing is relying on some eyewitnesses who support your flyover nonsense while ignoring all those who don't. Many eyewitnesses recalled event somewhat different from other eyewitnesses. That's why the physical evidence is needed to determine which witnesses' recollections are more accurate.

You want to ignore ALL of the physical evidence because it ALL destroys your flyover nonsense. Sorry, but don't expect rational folks to be that gullible.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > And those are just the witnesses who provided their recollection minutes/hours after the crash, not 5-6 years later as in the video you posted.
> ...


I'm suggesting their recollection years later does not refute those from the very day it occurred. Even if the plane flew right over his head, he might not be recalling exactly where he actually stood on 9.11. Who knows? What we do know is Lagasse pointed to the wrong location for where the downed poles were, so it's entirely possible he was standing further south than he recalls many years later.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, the witness in that video is clearly confused about his own recollection. At one point, he's pointing to lampposts he claims were knocked down which weren't knocked down, so he could support his own north side approach with evidence that didn't actually exist.
> ...


He indicated on the map where he recalled the downed lampposts resting. He got the location *wrong*. That's exactly the reason recalling from memory years later is not as valid as from the very day it happened.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


That's not evidence. It's based on some eyewitness accounts which are refuted by the physical evidence -- including radar which indicated the plane flew south of the Citco. Why on Earth would I trust recollections many years after the fact over the actual radar images???

And what CIT is doing in that paragraph is circular logic, which is a fail. Their actually claiming the DNA evidence is not valid because the flight approached from north of the Citco, which invalidates all of the physical evidence; and that the evidence of a north side approach is validated because all of the physical evidence is fake. 



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


All of the plane debris found is consistent with an American Airlines 757, which is what they plurality of witnesses claimed they saw that morning. We also know that flight #77 had its transponder turned off, just like 3 other hijacked flights that morning. ALL of the physical evidence points to flight #77 crashing into the Pentagon.

And I point out -- again -- NO evidence points to any plane flying over the Pentagon rather than into it.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > That they _feel_ it's insufficient is meaningless. That any recognizable debris was found, along with all the other evidence and eyewitness accounts, proves flight #77 flew into the Pentagon.
> ...


Regrettably for you, you have no proof any of it was planted. So sorry. And all of it is consistent with the physical evidence.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


What they claim is that Pilots for 9/11 Truth also examined the complete data from the FDR and reached a different conclusion. Their "evidence" amounted to citing someone claiming Legge and Stutt were wrong on a forum such as this one. Unfortunately, not a very compelling argument against the data that was newly analyzed.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I note, you didn't even address the conspiracy killing point that flight #77's black boxes were recovered. Not possible had flight #77 not crashed into the Pentagon.
> ...


Re-read for clarity. I didn't say you did. I said they were found at the crash site. Not possible if flight #77 hadn't crashed there. Where you believe they came from is irrelevant without proof confirming any alternate claims.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Who you trust or don't trust is irrelevant. What matters is physical evidence. And as we've thoroughly exhausted -- you have none.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


I would greatly appreciate it if you wouldn't alter my quotes. That's rather dishonest of you to do so.

That aside, there is no way in hell anyone can say categorically what type of aircraft is seen in those videos. What is unmistakable in one is the tail of a plane is visible; and in the other, the color appears to match that of an American Airlines plane.

And you quoting Truth & Shadows after I caught them flat out lying about the size of the impact hole you posted earlier, which I refuted in post 450, only serves to hurt your cause. Truth & Shadows has no credibility.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > All that can be discerned from them is that a plane flew into, and not over, the Pentagon.
> ...


So we disagree, so what? At least I have the physical evidence on my side. You? Zilch. Nada.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


They do no such thing. They offer no evidence. Like you, they offer doubt because doubt, and not evidence, is all they have. In that video, their claim that the events did not occur as we know they did because some witnesses reported the plane being smaller than a 757. In some cases, a small commuter flight. But since it's a given that if a hundred witnesses offer their account, there will likely be discrepancies among them. The producer of that video idiotically suggests 9.11 didn't happen as we know it because not all witnesses agree on what they saw.

Meanwhile, the physical evidence still tells the story.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > But their opinion is negated by the fact that they exclude all the witnesses who said it was a larger commercial aircraft; and as is found among all eyewitness accounts -- they are subject to discrepancies. Rendering it moot that eyewitnesses differed from their description of the aircraft when they all pretty much agree they saw a plane.
> ...


Again, who cares? There still remains no evidence the plane didn't fly into the Pentagon. Especially in the face of some of the witnesses who say they saw the impact.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


There are more, but that's irrelevant since your goal is merely to find flaw in their accounts since they don't match what you wish to believe.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Not one person ever said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.
> ...


Fine, here's the proof ... here's the list of eyewitnesses I could find who said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon and not into it....

1. _____________________

Oh, look at that ^^^ that's as far as I could find.

As far as Erik Dihle -- by your own standards -- no name, no testimony. No one knows who Dihle heard or what they saw.

And again, I find it comical to see you cling to Dihle's uncorroborated hearsay with such fervor while insisting witnesses who offered their *firsthand* accounts  ON 9.11 don't count if they didn't give their name. 



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Because you're among a small group of nutters who believes flight #77 didn't crash into the Pentagon; which by extension, means flights #11 and #175 didn't crash into the WTC and #93 didn't crash in Shanksville.
I always get a kick when I hear twoofers excitedly exclaim this or that certainly merits an investigation. 

No. No it doesn't. CIT spent however much time and expenses researching this and have yet to find any evidence whatsoever that flight #77 didn't crash into the Pentagon.

And, as always, *nuh-uh* does not constitute evidence.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Or aliens could have descended and blew it up with a death ray. Sort of like what we saw depicted in Independence Day. There is about as much evidence either event occurred.

Independence Day | White House Destruction



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Dismissed as *supposition* not supported by the evidence.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Then why the strawman question of asking _why aren't there hundreds of eyewitnesses claiming to see the impact_?



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > So when you say, "not even CIT," you demonstrate a lack of understanding that CIT actually does address the question of hundreds of eyewitnesses making such a claim.
> ...


Of course CIT said it -- it was the title of their question. They created a strawman as though people were suggesting that hundreds saw the impact. While maybe some people have, *I didn't.* But still, the link to their strawman is what you offered me in rebuttal.




And whatever happened to CIT? What became of Craig and Aldo?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 11, 2016)

“Faun said:


> And whatever happened to CIT? What became of Craig and Aldo?



I recall reading somewhere that they were caught dubbing either their own or other persons voices over the “witnesses” who didn’t say anything close to what they were portrayed as having said in the video.    I’m sure that comes as no surprise to anyone.


They were ostracized from the twoofer community.  

CIT's Majic Show Hoax


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Agreed. So why do it?



Faun said:


> You have nothing to prove the evidence is fake.



Wikipedia introduces its definition of proof thusly:
"_A *proof* is sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition.[1][2][3][4]_"

Source: Proof (truth) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem is, who determines what is sufficient evidence? In an online forum, the answer is, every individual in it. In other words, proof is in the eye of the beholder. I've participated in forums for years, and I know from experience that proving something to someone who believes the opposite is generally very difficult to do. I have seen it accomplished in minor issues (whether or not nano thermite is an explosive, for instance), but I don't ever recall someone in an online forum being persuaded to change their stance on whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. This is why I have never said that I can prove anything to anyone else here. What I do instead is amass evidence that supports my view. Now I know that we may not agree what constitutes evidence, but I can certainly state what -I- believe is evidence, just as you can do the same. We can then review each other's evidence, and explain to each other why we believe it is solid evidence or not.



Faun said:


> All you do is provide your circular logic that the evidence is fake because the plane approached from north of the Citco, and then to prove the plane approached from north of the Cito, you point to the evidence being fake.



I have certainly stated that if the plane approached the Pentagon from the North side of the Citgo gas station, the damage path on the south side of the Citgo gas station would be fake. I think you'd agree that this would be logical. I have also pointed out evidence which suggests that the damage south of the Citgo gas station is fake. This certainly bolsters the case of the witnesses CIT filmed that the plane took a flight path North of Columbia Pike beginning around the Navy Annex, and North of the Citgo gas station as it got closer to the Pentagon. I've got to go, so I'll respond to the rest of your post later.


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Who knows why you think it matters that there were trees? There's no proof that on that day, the trees entirely obscured her view of the Pentagon. She claims she saw the impact despite there being some trees. I see no reason not to believe her.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


CIT has manipulated the very data they provided. Case in point -- they claimed all 13 witnesses they interviewed who were positioned north of the Citco supported a north side approach. That's a lie. They also interviewed Keith Wheelhouse who, like some of their 13 other witnesses, was at Arlington National Cemetery that morning. His recollection was that it came right up Columbia Pike, *south of the gas station*. That didn't jive with their agenda, so they excluded him from their witness list of 13.

But that's the slight of hand they did. Witnesses were all over the board, so to speak. Anyone who agreed with them they portrayed as having a golden and unimpeachable recollection; whereas anyone who indicated something other than that, they claim could not have seen what they say they saw.

And folks like you fell for that trick.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You cite them claiming they might see him in a photo from the Annex but zero conclusive evidence that he was not in his car with his girlfriend as he described.
> ...


You quoted them doubting his recollection because the suggested photographic evidence might have suggested he wasn't where he said he was. Don't run from your claims. You can't prove Aziz is lying just as you can't prove he didn't see what he said that morning.

This is just another example of how you people try to impugn those whose accounts don't fit in neatly with your agenda.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


I didn't say Wright could detect which path the plane traveled. I cited him since he did have an unobstructed view of the Pentagon and says he saw it fly into, not over, the Pentagon. And given his position, he actually could have seen a plane flying over the Pentagon. He, like 100% of every witness I've read up on, did not say that is what he saw.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > To fit into their agenda, CIT seeks to dismiss his account based on that and because he didn't mention the second plane (which he might not have seen).
> ...



Roberts' original description was about watching the plane hit the building in NYC on TV. Then shortly after, evacuating the area he was at when the Pentagon went to threatcon delta. He says he saw a silver passenger jet at lamppost height over the south parking lot, which is where AA77 flew over.

Years after the fact, CIT interviewed him on the phone while he was driving and asked him leading questions about running out onto the dock after hearing an explosion -- which he never said he heard in his original testimony. They framed his recollection to fit their flyover agenda, though he never suggested any such thing. I do admit, his phone conversation seems a bit disjointed at times, saying both the plane came in from the SW as well as saying it flew away towards the SW. That may have been the result of him trying to recall events from years earlier while trying to focus on his driving? I don't know. But regardless, the worst you could twist his account into is that a plane was flying in a SW direction over the south parking lot -- and that could not possibly have been a plane flying from west to east over the Pentagon. Commercial planes can't possibly turn that sharply. No less mere feet above the Pentagon.

So no, Roosevelt Roberts' personal account does not support a fly over theory.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Squeaks the person who says there was a flyover because Dihle heard someone make a suggestion which you construe to be a flyover. While Dihle's mystery person was not pixelated, their own personal account was still conveyed first hand. And witnesses need not be identified to believe what they're saying they saw. That's merely a measure you wish to go by in order to eliminate those who disagree with your agenda.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


He was clear he saw two planes. One he says he saw fly into the Pentagon; the other veered away. We know there were two planes. We know that a C-130 briefly tailed AA77 just before it crashed and then was told by the control tower to head off at 270º, away from the Pentagon.

His account, despite your objections, is also believable.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Their video continues, portraying the USA Today witnesses of having an obstructed view ... they do that by showing an FBI video of someone driving up 27 with the Pentagon on their right where trees partially blocked a clear view of the Pentagon ... however, that position of 27 is south of where this video earlier placed Suchermann. Where he was shown earlier in the video, he would have been north of those trees, ON the overpass with an unobstructed view.
> ...


Does this mean you accept Suchermann's account? From his perspective, he would have had a fairly unobstructed vantage point.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > This video also tries to impugn Walter's eyewitness account; but Walter never said he saw the plane hit the building. He said he saw it flying toward the Pentagon and then saw the explosion. He also said he saw the plane clip a lamp post. How does he see that if they were planted, as you suggest?
> ...


That's true, memory isn't perfect. Especially many years after the fact. Still, Lagasse recalled the light poles were "obviously" clipped by the plane; only the light poles weren't actually where he recalled them actually being. Indicating where he recalled seeing the plane fly isn't where it actually flew.

Which then begs the question ... how come there weren't any downed light poles where he thought the plane flew, if coming from north of the Citco?



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Sorry, I'm not ignoring witnesses you find inconvenient. Their testimony stands as they described. The best part about their account is their unobstructed view of the Pentagon from their elevated vantage point. Had the plane flown over the Pentagon, and not into it, they would most certainly have witnessed such an event. Neither one of them, like every witness, said the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Again -- you have no evidence to support this nonsense.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, Timmerman, who at the time lived right off of 395, described the plane as being _"so close to me, it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter, it was just right there."_ And he placed the path along 395 and Columbia Pike, like so many others, which puts the path south of the Citco.
> ...


Based on that photo and his description, he would have been east of 395.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't hear where Dawn says the plane was white? I only heard her describe it as an American Airlines 757.
> ...


If you have a link to such an interview, then post it....



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


More stawman nonsense as I don't believe he indicated the path when giving interviews on 9.11. The salient piece of information he contributed was that he saw the plane clip a lamp post.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 11, 2016)

Alright, continuing where I left off...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I actually agree with you on this one. If only you'd realize the same. You stating that "There is no evidence" isn't going to get us anywhere. You've got to deal with the evidence I provide. And by evidence, I mean information that -I- believe is evidence. I routinely look at information that -you- believe is evidence. I could, ofcourse, go your route and say that the evidence you provide isn't evidence. But that would be disingenuous. Why? Because our beliefs are -based- on what we consider to be evidence. If we don't deal with this information, we will never persuade each other.



Faun said:


> What you need to do is prove your case.



What you want is for me to prove my case -to you-. As mentioned, based on past experience with those who believe some flavour of the official story, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to do that. And I sincerely doubt that you'll ever be able to prove -your- case to me. I suggest we focus on something which is a lot easier to do- to "inject doubt", as you say, into each other's version of events.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The excerpt I provided was over 400 words in length. Did you even read it? You seemed to only respond to what -I- had said, not to what they had said.



Faun said:


> They fail to convince me that the folks who said they saw the plane crash were either wrong or lying.



They've certainly convinced -me-. I don't think you've examined the witness testimony nearly as much as they have. Heck, -I- haven't examined witness testimonies nearly as much as they have.



Faun said:


> As far as I'm concerned, those eyewitnesses are credible.



Alright, thanks for your conclusions. I imagine that somewhere below, you explain how you arrived at those conclusions.



Faun said:


> Even more so than the ones CIT dug up some 5-7 years later, some of whom were never on record to begin with.



And some who were...



Faun said:


> I give far more credence to those who recalled what they saw minutes later than I do those scratching at their memory many years later.



It's true that recollections can fade or be distorted over the years. This is probably why CIT was careful to include the testimony of some of their witnesses that had been recorded only a few months after 9/11 by the Center of Military History and the Library of Congress. But there's another element that can cause distortions that I note you've been very cavalier about- namely, the distance people are to the scene of the crime.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Never said you did. I was just asking if you could. You seem to be suggesting you can't.



Faun said:


> You don't even know if they were co-workers -- he doesn't say (so asking about his co-workers is merely you extending your imagination again).



I had heard it was his co-workers elsewhere, perhaps from CIT. That being said, upon reviewing an audio clip of him mentioning his famous comment, I have noted that you are right. That being said, the beginning of his "jet kept on going" sentence suggests that his coworkers were the ones involved:  "In the first few seconds, very confusing, *we* couldn't even tell... some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and the jet kept on going". Note the "we". If not his coworkers, who do you think would fit into that description?



Faun said:


> You don't know if he knows who said it -- he doesn't say.



True. But would you atleast agree with me that it's worth an official investigation on the matter?



Faun said:


> You don't know what they saw -- he doesn't say.



He says what others thought had happened- that a bomb went off and a jet kept on going.



Faun said:


> You don't know what prompted whoever said that, to say that -- he doesn't say.



To be sure, but one can certainly -guess-. You know, maybe some of them actually saw an explosion at the Pentagon, followed by a jet that "kept on going".



Faun said:


> You don't know if that's what he himself thought occurred -- he doesn't say.



I think his statement implies that at the beginning he, along with others, were confused as to what happened: "In the first few seconds, very confusing we couldn't even tell... some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and the jet kept on going".



Faun said:


> And you have to ignore the second part of his statement where someone corrected the claim of a bomb and a plane flying away as being false.



Care to do some quoting, and perhaps a clip of this second part?

More later...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 11, 2016)

irosie91 said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Technically, Popular Mechanics says that the majority of the plane was liquified rather then vaporized. I imagine Zeitgeist said vaporized, because liquid metal doesn't just disappear into thin air after the event. Here's the quote from Popular Mechanics:
> ...



I have definitely heard the story that glass has the characteristics of a very viscous liquid at room temperature, so I took a look online. Turns out, it's not:
Is Glass a Liquid at Room Temperature | Is Glass a Liquid

-Some- metals are liquid at room temperature, such as mercury, but metals a plane are made of aren't. It's true that a plane would explode and thus get hotter if slammed into a building, but to my knowledge, the pentaplane is the only case where it has been argued that a plane "flowed" into a structure after hitting it. When a jet -really- crashes into a building, it's pretty obvious...


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 11, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



ok---like me YOU are NOT a physicist-------"at room temperature"     "when not moving at high speed"    "when
not crashing thru anything"   do not apply to the circumstances
of the plane that hit the pentagon-------just as  "when moving
at the speed of light"  is not the same as "sitting on a living room chair".      If I ever talk to my brother again ----I will ask


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 11, 2016)

irosie91 said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



You're right, I'm not a physicist, but there are so many glaring issues with the Pentagon damage that I don't need to be to point them out. Here's one good article on the subject:
9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | The Pentagon


----------



## skye (Jul 11, 2016)

When those 28 pages that the Bush administration deleted from the 9/11 report are finally released ...

Then and only then, we will know if it was a plane or a missile or what.....that hit the Pentagon.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 11, 2016)

skye said:


> When those 28 pages that the Bush administration deleted from the 9/11 report are finally released ...
> 
> Then and only then, we will know if it was a plane or a missile or what.....that hit the Pentagon.



Its no wonder the Bushs were pals with Dick Nixon.They learned from the master. what was it 6 1/2 minutes of deleted tape on watergate? Deleted since watergate tied into the JFK assassination that he was involved up to his ears in. He kept referring to that scab Hunt is going to open up a can of worms.

Would sure like to hear those 6 1/2 deleted minutes the fact that Howard Hunt was indeed a CIA operative for Nixon when he was vice president under Eisenhower and ran CIA operations for him and since Hunt even CONFESSED the CIA was behind it on his deathbed confession.


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


In reality, you have no idea what catches a person's attention while they're driving. In congested traffic, no less. With a 757 flying insanely low over the highway. 

Don't be so desperate. It's unbecoming.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > So there remains many eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.
> ...


I am not bound by what a couple of twoofers like CIT decide is a valued eyewitness.

But here's the best part ... even if there was only one eyewitness who saw the crash (and there are more) -- that would still be one more than the number of eyewitnesses who said the saw the plane fly over the Pentagon. 

No one said the saw such a thing. No evidence supports it. It remains a figment of your imagination.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > There are zero witnesses who said they saw a plane fly over it.
> ...


Yeah, sure... if you contort what people said they saw.


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > I got as far as, "_provide an explanation for the people who saw the flyover..._"
> ...


There were hundreds of eyewitnesses -- not one said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.

Not one.

Not in 2001. Not in 2006. Not in 2008. Not since.

If not one of the hundreds of eyewitnesses saw that -- it didn't happen.

You're clutching hallucinations now, twoofer.


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Your problem is you are not presenting evidence. You are merely denying the validity of all of the actual known evidence.

I've said it before and I'll say it again .... denials are not evidence.

Even worse for your position is that it's based solely on twisted circular logic.

That being the physical evidence, all of which points to a south side approach, you claim is fake and/or staged. The only evidence you offer are the eyewitnesses who CIT says put the plane to the north of the Citco. And to corroborate a north side approach, you rely on the physical evidence being fake and/or staged.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Alright, continuing where I left off...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You _could_ say the evidence I'm posting isn't evidence; but you'd be lying. Whereas I can say you're not posting evidence; because you're not. And you're not posting evidence because there is no evidence a plane flew over the Pentagon. You know that but it doesn't bother you because you don't care what the truth is. You only care about that in which you believe. Not having any actual evidence puts you at a severe disadvantage, so you make shit up to compensate -- like everything was staged or faked.

Everything.





phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > What you need to do is prove your case.
> ...


Of course I want you to prove your case to be. That's the purpose of this exchange -- to determine the truth. But the truth requires evidence -- and you have none.

Me? I have plenty. The remains of a plane ... the remains of the passengers and crew ... the plane-shaped damage to the exterior of the Pentagon ... two separate videos ... a debris field consistent with a plane flying into a building ... radar ... black boxes ...

You? Denials, insinuation and conjecture. But no actual evidence. No actual eyewitnesses.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Yes, I read it and it was laughable. As I said, it amounts to, *nuh-uh*. And it easily falls apart to pieces when inspected. They ridiculously compare the fly over to a Penn & Teller magic trick. Their problem is, unlike Penn & Teller, their "audience" wasn't sitting only directly in front of them. They ultimately conclude the fireball was used to divert everyone's attention from the plane and to help conceal it as it began flying over the Pentagon. They provide a cheesy animated gif to demonstrate it. However, unlike real life, they remove the image of the jet from the animation, which only runs for one or two frames following the fireball.

Real life doesn't work that cheesy. In real life, the plane would have to continue flying over the Pentagon. In real life, the plane would have to reemerge after flying over the Pentagon. In real life, there were witnesses on all sides of the Pentagon. Unlike CIT's cheesy animation, which shows how the plane could have been concealed from those with an east-bound view, they forget all about the view for those on every other side. None of those people would have had the fire ball hide the plane and none of them reported seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon. Plus, such a flyover would have been incredibly loud. There's no way people on other sides could have neither seen, nor heard, the plane once it passed over the Pentagon. And no one did. Not one single person. And there were witnesses in nearby buildings with an elevated view, looking down at the Pentagon. Those people, from any vantage point not obstructed, would absolutely have seen a plane flying over the Pentagon. Again -- not one single such person reported seeing that.

And again, whether you accept it or not, we have video of the plane flying into the Pentagon. It shows the plane too low to be able to gain enough height to clear the building.

And lastly, the notion that a bomb caused the damage is beyond ludicrous. Forget the shape of the damage on the front wall before it collapsed. The damage blew through 6 exterior walls (3 rings) of the Pentagon in a NE direction. Bombs don't do that. Bombs blast indiscriminately in all directions. Had a bomb (or bombs) been used, there would have been damage outside the Pentagon as well as inside. Instead, the debris field is consistent with a plane traveling at a high rate of speed plowing into the Pentagon.

Did the plane fly into the Pentagon? *Nuh-uh*, it was all just an elaborate magic trick. 



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > They fail to convince me that the folks who said they saw the plane crash were either wrong or lying.
> ...


I can't say I see why? I see no evidence supporting their nonsense. All the evidence I see points to the official version.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I'm concerned, those eyewitnesses are credible.
> ...


I already have. Multiple times. Their recollections, which were captured on the morning of 9.11 while it was freshest in their minds -- are generally consistent with the physical evidence.

We have at least two witnesses who said the plane knocked over lamp posts -- and we have downed lamp posts.

We have witnesses who said the saw the plane fly into the building -- and we have videos and structural damage which concurs.

We have witnesses who said the plane came up in the vicinity of Columbia Pike/395 -- and we have radar which concurs.

Unlike your north approach witnesses -- the physical evidence actually enhances their accounts. The physical evidence destroys the accounts of CIT's 13 witnesses.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Even more so than the ones CIT dug up some 5-7 years later, some of whom were never on record to begin with.
> ...


Some were, some weren't. Some were like Lagasse, who added details in 2006 he didn't offer in 2001. Like the plane being on the north side of the Citco.

*And speaking of Lagasse, as far as your flyover nonsense -- Lagasse says he saw an American Airlines jet fly into the Pentagon.*



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > I give far more credence to those who recalled what they saw minutes later than I do those scratching at their memory many years later.
> ...


CIT also claims that 100% of the witnesses who were at the Citco or on the north side of it gave the north side approach.

That's not true.

They also interviewed Keith Wheelhouse who was among those north of the Citco. Like so many other witnesses, he said the plane came up Columbia Pike, south of the Citco. So no, not all of the witnesses they interviewed said flight #77 approached from north of the Citco.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Then for the sake of clarity -- I never denied Erik Dihle said that. What I pointed out is that no one (possibly even Dihle) knows who said that and what they experienced to lead them to say that.

Savvy?



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You don't even know if they were co-workers -- he doesn't say (so asking about his co-workers is merely you extending your imagination again).
> ...


You're missing the point. It's irrelevant if it was a co-worker. I merely pointed out that you (and possibly Dihle) don't know if it's a co-worker or not because the person is never identified. You claimed earlier that Dilhe could identify the person if needed; but that bullshit as you don't even know if Dilhe knew who said it. Even if he did know who said it, he may not even know the person or their name.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You don't know if he knows who said it -- he doesn't say.
> ...


No, I wouldn't agree with that. It's just stupid to launch an investigation over Dihle hearsay claim, which he himself dispels with more hearsay as he quotes another unknown individual who said a plane hit the Pentagon.

Again -- there will be no more investigations. Get over it.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You don't know what they saw -- he doesn't say.
> ...


First and foremost, what he heard others say is second hand hearsay. Secondly, Dihle himself never echoes that sentiment to my knowledge. Thirdly, since no one knows who said it, know one knows what prompted that person to say that. And lastly, Dihle's second hand hearsay evidence includes someone else clarifying it wasn't a bomb, it was a plane hitting the Pentagon.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You don't know what prompted whoever said that, to say that -- he doesn't say.
> ...


I don't know about you -- but I'm not here to guess. I'm not here to entertain guesses. Quite frankly, I typically join threads like this just to laugh at the ridiculous twoofers. You were new and I decided to give you a chance to do what no other twoofer has ever accomplished -- prove 9.11 was an inside job.

You're not doing well, in my estimation.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You don't know if that's what he himself thought occurred -- he doesn't say.
> ...


No doubt there was massive confusion. Especially for those inside who had no clue a plane was flown into the Pentagon. It's quite reasonable they suspected it was a bomb.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > And you have to ignore the second part of his statement where someone corrected the claim of a bomb and a plane flying away as being false.
> ...


Of course. But before I do, let me demonstrate the dishonesty of those with whom you place your trust and respect....

Truth And Shadows quotes Erik Dihle's comment....


> _“Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going.” ~Erik Dihle, ANC worker_


You'll note that the end Dihle's commentary immediately after quoting his say he heard someone say a bomb hit and a jet just kept on going. I don't know how you can trust and respect them when you see the part I highlight below in red which was Dihle's very next comment....


> _“Some people were yelling that 'a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going'* ... somebody else was yelling, 'no, no, no, a jet ran into the building.'*” ~[url=http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3]Erik Dihle_




> _, ANC worker_


That's the second lie I've seen Truth & Shadows tell. That you trust and respect them makes me doubt your integrity.

Interestingly enough, while looking for that link, I found CIT's interview of Dihle...

It's years later, which like the problem with the other witnesses CIT interviewed years later, Dihle does not recall some of the events as he did in 2001, while the events were still fresh in his mind. For one thing, he doesn't even recall anyone saying it was a bomb and that a plane kept on going. In fact, he was rather emphatic that a plane did indeed fly into the Pentagon. That said, he did acknowledge he must have heard it if that was the account he gave at the time. So no, there's no possible way to identify whomever made that claim. Also, speaking to not recalling events exactly as from years earlier, he is adamant in this later recording that he saw the C-130 come from the NNW ... until Ranke points out that radar indicated it came from the SW.

Like I said earlier; and this reinforces my beliefs -- the most solid witness testimony is that given the closest in time to the event.[/url]


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Thanks 



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And then I responded to your responses in post #578, you responded to my responses in this post of yours (#583) and now here I am responding to your post #583 (I cut it up, it was getting too long, this is part 3 so far ...)



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I've already made my case that the physical evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon is flimsy in the extreme and that there's evidence that makes it impossible. I know you don't agree, I believe we discuss the evidence further down in your post here...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



What have you ever proven to -me- or anyone else who doesn't believe the official story? Don't get cocky. Proving things is not as easy as you would have us believe.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I know. I believe I first saw it when it was still on the web instead of its current location in a web archival site, and the links did work back then if memory serves. If not for that, I wouldn't even be able to bring up the page. I hope I have at least "injected some doubt" in to your version of events, though. Let's finish this off with the conclusion on that web page:
**_There were 64 people reported to be on board American Airlines Flight 0077. They are all dead. The exclusion of Flight 0077 from the US Government's Bureau of Transportation Statistics database is either;

* an administration error or oversight or; 
* due to Flight 0077 not being actually scheduled to fly at all on the morning of September 11th 2001.

If it emerges that it is the former, then a simple amendment of the database is all that's called for. If it turns out to be the latter, how exactly did the listed crew and passengers die?_**

Phil Jayhan, who I believe is the founder of "Let's Roll Forums", has gone into a lengthy plausible theory as to what happened to all the passengers of the 4 "9/11" Flights here:
http://letsrollforums.com/happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



As mentioned elsewhere, he only does that when faced with the fact that the official story has the plane knocking down lamp posts. He was surely experiencing cognitive dissonance at the time and was trying to line up what he saw with the official story. But as mentioned previously, before he was made aware of knocked down lamp posts being integral to the official story, he had said that he was not in a position to see if any lamp posts had been knocked down.



Faun said:


> His bearings are clearly off. And he's recalling where he was standing some 5 years earlier.



He actually got where he was standing slightly messed up by a few feet, but it was easily corrected, since there was camera footage from the Citgo security cameras showing exactly where he was at the time of the event.



Faun said:


> Again, all you are doing is relying on some eyewitnesses who support your flyover nonsense while ignoring all those who don't.



To the contrary, I have addressed all of the eye witnesses that you have brought up that had a first and a last name, and was able to do so because CIT had done it before me. By and large, I have found that the witnesses that you have brought up were not nearly in as good a position to see what truly happened as the witnesses that CIT has interviewed.



Faun said:


> Many eyewitnesses recalled event somewhat different from other eyewitnesses. That's why the physical evidence is needed to determine which witnesses' recollections are more accurate.



Unfortunately, no physical evidence is left behind when a plane flies through the sky. That being said, the planted physical evidence also makes it clear that none of the various official stories concerning the Pentagon attack can be true.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The Citgo security camera makes it clear that Lagasse was at the Citgo gas station. And you heard how certain he was as to whether the plane passed North or South of the Citgo gas station (for those in the audience who haven't reviewed Citgo's interview with Sergeant Lagasse and Sergeant Brooks, their response was "100%")


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




The 9/11 Commission (I assume that's where the radar comes from) has the plane flying south of the citgo gas station, but it still doesn't align with the damage path, missing some or all of the light poles, as well as the generator at the Pentagon. The alleged Black Box from the Pentaplane has the plane coming from the North side of the Citgo gas station. So which "official story" do you prefer? The physical "evidence", the NTSB black box, or the 9/11 Commission's? And you still haven't even addressed the point made by CIT above concerning the DNA's chain of custody.




Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



None of the plane debris has been authenticated as coming from a 757, let alone Flight 77.



Faun said:


> , which is what the plurality of witnesses claimed they saw that morning.




Where did you come to that conclusion? CIT examined all the witness testimonies they could find and found that only 25 witnesses allegedly identified the plane as an American Airlines plane. Of those, one of them (James Bissell) later stated that the published version account was “_almost completely fiction_” by the reporter and specifically said _"I found it remarkable that someone even saw what airline it was from"_, implying that he himself could not tell. See here) CIT was only able to contact 6 of the others to confirm their account. This suggests that there may be others among the list whose accounts were similarly distorted by reporters.

Meanwhile, *59* witnesses did not identify the plane as an American Airlines plane.

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0



Faun said:


> We also know that flight #77 had its transponder turned off, just like 3 other hijacked flights that morning.



I’m not so sure it was turned off. This is what the 9/11 Commission Report stated:
“_At 8:54, the aircraft deviated from its assigned course, turning south. Two minutes later the transponder was turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft was lost. The Indianapolis Air Traffic Control Center repeatedly tried and failed to contact the aircraft. American Airlines dispatchers also tried, without success.54_”

Source: National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

The thing is, if they weren’t even getting a primary radar contact, it suggests that plane has gone too low to be seen by radar at all. Perhaps it landed somewhere.

It continues, stating “At 9:32, controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed”. Based on radar data alone, there was no way to determine that this was Flight 77, which was last tracked going southbound, and considerably west from this newly found primary target. The report then adds “ This was later determined to have been Flight 77”, but it doesn’t state who determined that conclusion, or what evidence, if any, that this conclusion was based on. 




Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I never said I did. I said (and I quote): “just because debris is "recognizable" as debris doesn't mean it came from Flight #77.”


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Their rebuttal, which has a lot of text from Frank and Legge’s article, is over 22,000 words long. Your “summary” is disappointing, to put it mildly.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You said it was “conspiracy killing”. How can that be, when we have no information as to the chain of custody of that black box data?



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You’re sadly mistaken there. And it isn’t just who -I- trust that’s the issue here, it’s also who -you- trust. Can you prove that Flight 77’s voice recorder was found at the Pentagon shortly after the explosion there, and can you also prove that it wasn’t planted there?



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I’m altering your quotes for only 2 reasons- 1, to correct your spelling errors, and 2, to avoid this turning into a mudslinging contest. When I do remove insults and unsubstantiated claims against me, I make it clear that that’s what I’m doing.



Faun said:


> That aside, there is no way in hell anyone can say categorically what type of aircraft is seen in those videos. What is unmistakable in one is the tail of a plane is visible; and in the other, the color appears to match that of an American Airlines plane.



I’m not a plane expert, let’s just let this one go.



Faun said:


> And you quoting Truth & Shadows after I caught them flat out lying about the size of the impact hole you posted earlier, which I refuted in post 450, only serves to hurt your cause.



Craig Mckee may have been tired that day and put in the wrong picture. It doesn’t mean he was “lying”. 



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



We’ll just have to disagree on that.



Faun said:


> In that video, their claim that the events did not occur as we know they did because some witnesses reported the plane being smaller than a 757. In some cases, a small commuter flight. But since it's a given that if a hundred witnesses offer their account, there will likely be discrepancies among them. The producer of that video idiotically suggests 9.11 didn't happen as we know it because not all witnesses agree on what they saw.



As mentioned previously, there are more than twice as many witnesses who did -not- report the plane as being an American Airlines jet as there who did. Also, are you -sure- that’s all the video mentions? I remember a -lot- more points the video makes myself … 



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The kind that don’t have last names, or any names at all ?



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Were you able to talk to Erik Dihle and ask him if he remembered the names of the people who told him that “some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going”? 



Faun said:


> As far as Erik Dihle -- by your own standards -- no name, no testimony.



Ah, but don’t you see, we -do- have a name of a person, as well as their testimony: Erik Dihle’s himself. From there, all that one would need to do is see if he could remember who told -him-. I believe CIT already tried and were rebuffed, but if this went up to the level of a true investigation, he could be subpoenaed. 



Faun said:


> No one knows who Dihle heard or what they saw.



Not even Dihle ?



Faun said:


> And again, I find it comical to see you cling to Dihle's uncorroborated hearsay with such fervor while insisting witnesses who offered their *firsthand* accounts  ON 9.11 don't count if they didn't give their name.



Erik Dille is a known person. He can be subpoenaed to testify as to who was “yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going” . You can’t subpoena someone if you don’t even know their name.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nothing like a few insults to get your point of view across eh Faun ? I’m sorry, but you’ll have to do better then that to persuade anyone whose logic isn’t impaired by emotional fervour. 



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Sigh -.-…



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Did you even click on the link -.-?



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I imagine it was a question -they- were frequently asked. It does say “Frequently Asked Questions” at the start, doesn’t it?



Faun said:


> They created a strawman as though people were suggesting that hundreds saw the impact. While maybe some people have, *I didn't.* But still, the link to their strawman is what you offered me in rebuttal.



It was the title of their article. It was the contents of their article I wanted you to look at. Did you even click on the link -.-? 



Faun said:


> And whatever happened to CIT? What became of Craig and Aldo?



Aldo posted a small comment on the CIT forum in January of this year. Aside from that, I’m not sure. Perhaps they decided to take a break from all of this stuff. It doesn’t generally pay the bills, and one frequently isn’t appreciated for investigating things of this nature.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Now let's compare that to the evidence the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon...
> ...


Responding to those points is not refuting them. Again, doubt and denial is not evidence.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


You've made a weak case based on doubt and denial, You've not disproven any of the physical evidence; of which, you have none yourself indicating you are right.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Again ... prove it, don't talk about it. If you can't, then we're done.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Unfortunately for you twoofers, the physical evidence proves that is nonsense. Human remains of the passengers and crew were found in the Pentagon. Personal belongings to the passengers was found. If you have solid proof there wasn't, then post it. But don't waste any more of my time with doubt or denials.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


It matters not when he realized his bearings were off. What matters is that they were off. He saw the poles on the ground when he went to help. He knew where the were in relation to the crash site. They weren't where he recalled. And the light poles where he later recalled the flight traveling were not touched (because no plane flew from that direction). That's the problem with peoples' recollections many years later.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > His bearings are clearly off. And he's recalling where he was standing some 5 years earlier.
> ...


Yeah, I saw that video. I'm not sure which car is his ... can you point it out?




phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Again, all you are doing is relying on some eyewitnesses who support your flyover nonsense while ignoring all those who don't.
> ...


Again, you've injected doubt and denial. You were not able to show that every single witness who saw the plane crash (which includes Lagasse) could not see what they said they saw.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Many eyewitnesses recalled event somewhat different from other eyewitnesses. That's why the physical evidence is needed to determine which witnesses' recollections are more accurate.
> ...


I don't believe it could have happened the way you described, and with hundreds of eyewitnesses on every side of that building -- not one person saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


And there are other witnesses who were just as adamant about what they saw. They clearly can't all be correct. That's why I rely on the physical evidence to determine who's more accurate.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 13, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Gee, I wonder -.-...



Faun said:


> There's no proof that on that day, the trees entirely obscured her view of the Pentagon.



How would you know? Have you gone to film her on location, as CIT has done with several witnesses?



Faun said:


> She claims she saw the impact despite there being some trees. I see no reason not to believe her.



Ofcourse, she supports your point of view, trees be damned ...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You saying it's a lie doesn't make it so. But I see you mention Keith Wheelhouse, let's get to that...



Faun said:


> They also interviewed Keith Wheelhouse who, like some of their 13 other witnesses, was at Arlington National Cemetery that morning. His recollection was that it came right up Columbia Pike, *south of the gas station*. That didn't jive with their agenda, so they excluded him from their witness list of 13.



There's a good reason they discounted his account. CIT goes into detail in their forum, here:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=467



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



True.



Faun said:


> Don't run from your claims. You can't prove Aziz is lying



Not at the moment, no, but given the suggested photographic evidence, I find his account highly dubious.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



He was around 2 miles away, hardly the best distance to discern if the plane could have crashed into the Pentagon.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Again, the data from the FDR was initially not entirely decoded. Once it was, it too showed an approach south of the Citco.

And yes, I did address the DNA. I pointed out that it's not invalidated because CIT says it's not. Even worse, they cite the north side approach and flyover as though that invalidates it even though there was no north side approach or flyover. 



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Not true... the bodies recovered came from flight #77. On top of that, much of the plane parts recovered matched that of either an American Airlines plane or a 757.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > , which is what the plurality of witnesses claimed they saw that morning.
> ...


By "plurality," I mean that was the most common answer; not that it was the majority answer. If 59 witnesses did not identify the plane as an American Airlines plane, most of them identified it as something else. Some thought it was a white plane, some the a commuter jet, etc... but a plurality described it as American Airlines.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > We also know that flight #77 had its transponder turned off, just like 3 other hijacked flights that morning.
> ...


Dismissed as *supposition* not supported by the evidence.

The evidence shows it was flight #77 that crashed into the Pentagon. So none of that conjecture is factual.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


I believe you earlier suggested it could have been planted. Regardless.... the bodies recovered were matched with the known passengers and crew of flight #77. Also both black boxes of flight #77 were recovered. Since we know those bodies could only come from flight #77, and the black boxes could only come from flight #77, then the debris found, much of which matches either American Airlines or a 757, then we know the debris is from flight #77.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Sorry to disappoint.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


As always, denials do not dismiss evidence. And denials are all that can be found in regards to denying the validity of the black boxes.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


If the black boxes were found at the crash site were the only evidence, I could see your point. But given they are merely one piece among a plethora of evidence, I see no reason not to believe they were planted there.

And it goes without saying, though I'll say it anyway -- you have NO evidence they were planted. Like every other aspect of this, you have no evidence to prove your hollow claims.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


I don't give a shit what your excuses are -- don't alter my quotes. If you don't like what I have to say, then don't respond to my posts.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > And you quoting Truth & Shadows after I caught them flat out lying about the size of the impact hole you posted earlier, which I refuted in post 450, only serves to hurt your cause.
> ...


Has he been _"tired"_ all these years he let that page remain a lie?

Was he _"tired"_ when posted only half of Erik Dihle's quote where he says he heard someone say it was a bomb and a jet kept on going; but didn't include the second half of that quote where he says someone else denied that and said it was a plane that hit the building?

Point is -- it's a lie. If it wasn't a lie, it would have been corrected a long time ago. And to see you not only "trust" and "respect" them; but here you are defending their lies, is very disheartening.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Why disagree? List the evidence they offer.... And don't post denials or suggestions as those are not evidence. If you can't post evidence, than disagree all you want, but I am right.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > In that video, their claim that the events did not occur as we know they did because some witnesses reported the plane being smaller than a 757. In some cases, a small commuter flight. But since it's a given that if a hundred witnesses offer their account, there will likely be discrepancies among them. The producer of that video idiotically suggests 9.11 didn't happen as we know it because not all witnesses agree on what they saw.
> ...


I'm not interested in "points." I'm interested in proof. Prove your case if you can. Don't expect people to believe you if you can't.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Pretty funny since you rely so heavily on Erik Dihle's nameless witnesses.

Your hypocrisy aside, the Pentagon was encircled by traffic. There were witnesses on all sides. Many of whom would have seen a plane appearing from over the Pentagon had one flown over it. There were witnesses in nearby buildings; some of whom were at an elevated position where they could see the entire roof of the Pentagon.......

*Not ONE witness has ever claimed they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. Not one."*

Whereas many have claimed they saw a plane fly into the Pentagon.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


In a later Interview Dihle revealed he didn't even recall quoting anyone saying that. So no, he doesn't remember their names.

And you still can't find one single witnesses saying a plane flew over the Pentagon.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > As far as Erik Dihle -- by your own standards -- no name, no testimony.
> ...


You have no idea if he even knows who said it. You have no idea if he knows their name. You have no idea what prompted them to say it.

So no, there will be no such investigation.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > No one knows who Dihle heard or what they saw.
> ...


No, not even Dihle. He says he doesn't recall anyone saying that.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > And again, I find it comical to see you cling to Dihle's uncorroborated hearsay with such fervor while insisting witnesses who offered their *firsthand* accounts  ON 9.11 don't count if they didn't give their name.
> ...


Well by that criteria CNN's David Ensor said he knew "Barbara" personally and had it been needed, he could have identified her.

I'm glad to see you finally accept her eyewitness account. 



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


No, I really don't. Not many people believe a plane flew over the Pentagon and not into it. Have you considered thicker skin?



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Indeed.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Of course I did. That's how I knew it was supposition not supported by the evidence.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


But it was not a question I asked -- so why did you link it in response to the question I asked?



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > They created a strawman as though people were suggesting that hundreds saw the impact. While maybe some people have, *I didn't.* But still, the link to their strawman is what you offered me in rebuttal.
> ...


That doesn't sound like an honest answer to me. If they could have proven their claims, they'd be richer than their wildest dreams. Books, movies, public appearances. They'd be world renowned.

Sounds more like they were just a couple of hoaxters who couldn't gain traction.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


I'm not sure why you think there's value in noting the position of trees some six years later; as though that's evidence of what she did or didn't see on 9.11. She said there were some trees but she also said she could see the plane crash into the Pentagon. CIT was not there next to her on 9.11 and has no clue what she saw. That they seek to dismiss her eyewitness account without actually being able to prove her view was 100% obstructed dives directly to the core of why CIT failed miserably to prove their claims.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


"Why" they discount him is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that they claim _all of the witnesses_ who were either at the Citco or the cemetery said they saw the plane travel north of the Citco.

But Keith Wheelhouse, who was also at the cemetery, said the plane came up Columbia Pike, south of the Citco.

CIT may doubt his eyewitness account -- *but it's a lie to say all of the witnesses in that vicinity said the plane went north of the Citco.* Not all of them did.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Again .....

I'm not talking about Wright's ability to discern AA77's flight path from his location ....

I'm not talking about Wright's ability to see the plane crash into the Pentagon from his location ...

... what I'm talking about is that from his location, *the 12th floor* of the building he was looking out, even from about 2 miles away, he would still be able to see *the top* of the Pentagon.

And Don doesn't say he saw a plane fly over it.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> CIT's gone through pretty much all of the witnesses, I've gone over all the named witnesses you've mentioned. Regarding Lagasse, did you actually listen to Lagasse? The plane went right above his head; couldn't have been easier for him to know the exact location of the plane;


That's odd -- in his original taped statement -- *he said he could see the shades of the windows were pulled down.* How is that possible if he later claimed the plane "went right above his head??"

Interview with William Lagasse, Fredericksburg, Virginia, December 4, 2001



phoenyx said:


> ...and in case you never bothered to click on the video clip, he was standing -at- the Citgo gas station. Can't have a better vantage point then that when it comes to determining whether the plane flew north or south of said Citgo gas station.


Yes, let's take a closer look at that video. *I encourage others here to check this out as well.* Take note at the 4:41 mark in the video...


Watch it full screen and pay particular attention to the second camera down from the top left. The one labeled, "single pump side."

At the 4:41 mark, notice that something appears to fall (and doesn't get picked up for the remainder of the video)....






You have to watch the video in full screen mode because it's almost not noticeable at regular size.

Within seconds of that, on the bottom portion of the screen, though it's fuzzy, you can still make out people running to the door to on the right.

I contend that was the moment the plane flew past the Citco. Lagasse recalled the force of the plane knocked him into his car as it flew past. That could explain something getting knocked down in the image I posted above. At a hundred feet or less, the sound would have been deafening, which could explain the people in the store rushing to the glass door to look out.

And which direction did their instincts lead them to where the noise came from...??

*The door on the southeast side of the Citco.*


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 14, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Many eyewitnesses recalled event somewhat different from other eyewitnesses. That's why the physical evidence is needed to determine which witnesses' recollections are more accurate.
> ...



The biggest prob with rejecting the "official stories" out-of-hand as you do is it leaves you groping desperately for some alternate universe explanation for the events of 9/11. Simply claiming that AA77 "flew over the Pentagon" may serve your POV but you have failed to provide even a scintilla of proof and have even admitted you have none.
Claiming the physical evidence (AA77 parts, body parts, FDRs) was "planted" - again without any substantiation - may also serve your POV but just makes you and the 9/11 CT Movement seem obuse and childish. Indeed there is no physical evidence - not even on radar - that AA77 "flew over the Pentagon" and no eyewitnesses to such an event but you cling desperately to the theory anyway.

Claiming that the WTC was a controlled demo - despite the total lack of evidence and bizarro world absurdity of such - again just makes you seem desperate and childish. Any number of threads on this forum have thoroughly hashed, thrashed and finally trashed every theory you have postulated - you have offered nothing new - and you could have simply read and responded to any of those threads and saved everyone a lot of time and yourself a lot of humiliation.

At some point a rational adult invokes Occam's Razor and comes to grips with the fact that despite its flaws and shortcomings, the NIST findings are infinitely more likely, rational, factual and honest than any of the CT Movement's baseless explanations.

On a personal note, I have read virtually every word of this thread (I know, but I read fast) and have found Faun 's facts and reasoning to be laudable. Thank you for having the patience of Job, Faun.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 14, 2016)

I agree, Faun has demonstrated uncommon patience in dealing with a mentally unstable loser.


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2016)

candycorn said:


> I agree, Faun has demonstrated uncommon patience in dealing with a mentally unstable loser.


I can't even explain why? Normally, I just laugh at them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 15, 2016)

Hey everybody,have you all heard recently that there are doubts Oswald shot JFK by many people recently?


----------



## Faun (Jul 15, 2016)

hmmm.... I wonder why phoenyx hasn't responded...?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> hmmm.... I wonder why phoenyx hasn't responded...?



Maybe there is hope he FINALLY listened to me and saw the truth about you  that you are a LYING paid shill sent by your handlers to troll threads everywhere on  message boards and FINALLY saw how you have to LIE and change the subject when you are backed in the corner with pesky facts you cant get around and then shit all over the floor with your lies when you know you are defeated..


----------



## Faun (Jul 15, 2016)

9/11 inside job said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hmmm.... I wonder why phoenyx hasn't responded...?
> ...


You know you're as coherent as a 6 month old baby babbling nonsensically, right?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 15, 2016)

back to shit all over the floor in defeat again I see,so predictable you paid trolls are. now I will excuse myself to dodge the shit on the floor you just dropped out of your pants. let me give you a paper towel here.

oh and glad that you enjoyed my two humorous posts about you there just now.your boss will be happy to hear that.


----------



## Faun (Jul 15, 2016)

9/11 inside job said:


> back to shit all over the floor in defeat again I see,so predictable you paid trolls are. now I will excuse myself to dodge the shit on the floor you just dropped out of your pants. let me give you a paper towel here.
> 
> oh and glad that you enjoyed my two humorous posts about you there just now.your boss will be happy to hear that.


Yeah .... you do that too ...


----------



## Faun (Jul 16, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > CIT's gone through pretty much all of the witnesses, I've gone over all the named witnesses you've mentioned. Regarding Lagasse, did you actually listen to Lagasse? The plane went right above his head; couldn't have been easier for him to know the exact location of the plane;
> ...


Could the reason phoenyx is logging in but not posting be that he's too busy scouring the Internet for an explanation for why the folks in that video ran to the *southeast* side of the Citco store as the plane headed for the Pentagon?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 17, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You may well be right on that point. Even CIT seems to think so. As mentioned before, they had this to say concerning Sucherman:
**
*USA Today editor Joel Sucherman:*
_-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit. 




_
**

Source:  The 2nd Plane Cover Story | CIT's The Pentacon Site

I think I've now made it clear now that there was no other planes in the area, the closest being the distant 130. Which means the only plane he could have seen to come make a "second attack" would be the one that made the first one.


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Not true at all. The C-130, as per instructions from the tower just moments earlier, was tailing AA77. They were flying behind and above the 757 when they reported the crash was directly in front of them. The C-130 continued its NE approach until the tower instructed them to increase their altitude to 3000 and heading to 270º. That matches what Sucherman said he saw ... 

_"... the plane just went directly into the side of the Pentagon. Made no attempt to veer off. Was not trying to avoid a collision *and just went directly into the wall*. There was a huge explosion ... a fireball appeared and ... *just at that point* I heard another sound ... a plane, again off to the west. And I looked up and I saw a plane kind of peeling off and it was up high ... much higher in the sky and it was silhouetted in the sky at that point. So I couldn't really make out what it was."_​
... never said he saw the first plane miss the Pentagon ... never said he saw a plane fly back over him from east to west ... and makes it sound like he saw the second plane just after the first one hit the Pentagon. And of course, AA77 couldn't have been in two places at once. It couldn't have been flying over the Pentagon (according to you) heading east at about 100 feet or less -- and been "much higher" to Sucherman's west. Possibly between 2000 to 3000 feet, presuming that was the C-130 (which multiple witnesses said they saw).


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 20, 2016)

skye said:


> When those 28 pages that the Bush administration deleted from the 9/11 report are finally released ...
> 
> Then and only then, we will know if it was a plane or a missile or what.....that hit the Pentagon.



Those pages have now been released for the most part (a few redactions), I don't believe they make any mention of the Pentagon attack though. That being said, I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest that a plane certainly didn't hit the Pentagon, though one certainly -approached- the Pentagon. I've made a new thread here discussing this theory:
9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory


----------



## hadit (Jul 20, 2016)

After hearing all of the arguments, my conclusion remains that the official explanation of 9/11 is *most likely* what really happened.  It's not perfect and there will always be elements that can't be fully explained, but it is the simplest explanation that requires the least amount of fanciful leaps of imagination.  Unfortunately, when eyewitness testimony conflicts with physical evidence, the eyewitness testimony has to take the back seat, and in this case the physical evidence clearly shows that two planes flew into the WTC and one into the Pentagon.  Yes, the government lies to us and yes, the government does do things that are detrimental to the country, but that does not mean that a government conspiracy is responsible for everything that happens.  It certainly does not mean that the Jews are once again taking over the world.

Sometimes people manage to pull off something so monstrous, so devastating that it seems inconceivable that they could do it without a massive government conspiracy to help them.  Sometimes a sniper's bullet finds a president's head, sometimes a group of terrorists fly planes into buildings.  We don't like to think that so few people can do so much damage so easily, so we invent massive conspiracies to make it more palatable.


----------

