9/11 Pentagon Aircraft Hijack Impossible

[CurveLight]

I got bored and read the rest of the post. It was what I suspected....more bullshit. I never claimed 77 didn't hit the pentagon and I never claimed 9E was a False Flag Op from top down. So you demand that I support claims I have not made? Holy shit you guys are on a record breaker here.

Also typical is you want people to prove things that are not necessary to show the OCT is not 100% accurate. If 77 didn't hit the pentagon nobody needs to show where that flight went to show the OCT is not fully true. How can you not grasp this simple logic? Let's put this logic in a courtroom scenario:

You are the prosecutor and you are claiming the murder defendant is guilty because there is a murder victim. The defense shows your prosecution case is lacking evidence so your response is to say "so what?" You would then turn to the jury and say "If the defendant cannot conclusively prove who did the murder then the defendant is guilty." Do you see how absurd that is? You cannot prove the OCT is true by pointing to negatives as positive evidence.

Basically this is the pattern of OCTAs
and how often they engage in the fallacy of the false dilemma.

You have that reversed. We have eyewitness and even films of planes flying into buildings AND nutjobs that confessed to their part in it, as well as a big nutjob that took credit for planning the whole thing. That is evidence.
The 'troofer' movement keeps pointing to little things that they see as not making sense and then turns it around to say it must be a government conspiracy. That IS the fallacy of false dilemma. You got it backwards......

see, this is the thing, he wants 100% accuracy
so if he finds one tiny minute thing that looks green instead of blue, he wants a new investigation to correct that
then he finds another spot where they didnt dot the i or cross the t andf its a conspiracy

Your dishonesty prevails once again.

 

[slackjawed]

You have that reversed. We have eyewitness and even films of planes flying into buildings AND nutjobs that confessed to their part in it, as well as a big nutjob that took credit for planning the whole thing. That is evidence.
The 'troofer' movement keeps pointing to little things that they see as not making sense and then turns it around to say it must be a government conspiracy. That IS the fallacy of false dilemma. You got it backwards......

see, this is the thing, he wants 100% accuracy
so if he finds one tiny minute thing that looks green instead of blue, he wants a new investigation to correct that
then he finds another spot where they didnt dot the i or cross the t andf its a conspiracy

Your dishonesty prevails once again.

Please point out the dishonesty.

 

[CurveLight]

see, this is the thing, he wants 100% accuracy
so if he finds one tiny minute thing that looks green instead of blue, he wants a new investigation to correct that
then he finds another spot where they didnt dot the i or cross the t andf its a conspiracy

Your dishonesty prevails once again.

Please point out the dishonesty.

He claims I find "one tiny minute" thing and use that to claim the OCT isn't true. Want a couple of quick examples? Sure thing:

1. Gunny
cites the phone calls between the Olsons as evidence the OCT is true. I provide evidence from the fbi the phone calls did not happen and suddenly what was once a piece of evidence showing the OCT is true is dismissed as tiny and minute.

2. Fizz said he didn't hear explosions regarding the wtc towers and cites that as evidence no demo packs were used. I provide testimonies from hundreds of first responders stating they witnessed demo-like explosions 40 stories below the plane impact levels and suddenly the witnessing of those explosions becomes meaningless.

3. Divecon claimed there was an audio recording of flt 77's cockpit being stormed by hijackers and that was evidence this op was wrong. I provide evidence showing there is no such recording and suddenly it doesn't mean a fucking thing.


4. Ollie cited eyewitness accounts of flight 77 as proof it hit the pentagon. Something that was moving 500mph! But the eyewitness accounts regarding explosions at ground zero do not count as evidence demo packs were used.

5. Many have claimed the CR is a "full and complete" report of 9/11. Bit if a problem.

(A) NIST didn't submit its full report on wtc 7 until FOUR YEARS AFTER the CR was released. (Remind us, was wtc 7 related to the events of 9E in any way?)


(B) We also know Mineta's testimony was stricken from the CR.


(C) We know some firefighters walked out of their testimonies in front of the CR because they were forbidden from testifying to what they actually witnessed.

(D) We also know New York withheld hundreds of eyewitness accounts for a few years. Know when those were released? About a year after the CR published its "full report" about that day.


I could list more but what's the point? Those are solid examples of how OCTAs
claim an item important enough to be counted as evidence to support the OCT but as soon as you show that same item to be false it suddenly and magically turns into something "tiny and minute."

 

[slackjawed]

Your dishonesty prevails once again.

Please point out the dishonesty.

He claims I find "one tiny minute" thing and use that to claim the OCT isn't true. Want a couple of quick examples? Sure thing:

1. Gunny
cites the phone calls between the Olsons as evidence the OCT is true. I provide evidence from the fbi the phone calls did not happen and suddenly what was once a piece of evidence showing the OCT is true is dismissed as tiny and minute.
This one is probobly tiny and minute.
2. Fizz said he didn't hear explosions regarding the wtc towers and cites that as evidence no demo packs were used. I provide testimonies from hundreds of first responders stating they witnessed demo-like explosions 40 stories below the plane impact levels and suddenly the witnessing of those explosions becomes meaningless.
There was talk of people hearing what they thought were explosions. This was dismissed as something else by the investigators. It could be building members shattering, or something else.
3. Divecon claimed there was an audio recording of flt 77's cockpit being stormed by hijackers and that was evidence this op was wrong. I provide evidence showing there is no such recording and suddenly it doesn't mean a fucking thing.
I think when we had nutjobs confessing to the plan it sorta negates the need for a recording in the cockpit.

4. Ollie cited eyewitness accounts of flight 77 as proof it hit the pentagon. Something that was moving 500mph! But the eyewitness accounts regarding explosions at ground zero do not count as evidence demo packs were used.
See above. If it wans't a plane that hitthe pentagon, why were there personal effects found around the place?
5. Many have claimed the CR is a "full and complete" report of 9/11. Bit if a problem.

(A) NIST didn't submit its full report on wtc 7 until FOUR YEARS AFTER the CR was released. (Remind us, was wtc 7 related to the events of 9E in any way?)


(B) We also know Mineta's testimony was stricken from the CR.


(C) We know some firefighters walked out of their testimonies in front of the CR because they were forbidden from testifying to what they actually witnessed.

(D) We also know New York withheld hundreds of eyewitness accounts for a few years. Know when those were released? About a year after the CR published its "full report" about that day.
Agreed. The report is flawed. Have you ever worked for the government? They classify the damnedest things. However; the problems with the report simply do not support any conspiracy. We need a new improved ivestigation. ( no support for any theory EXCEPT my theory about space aliens and midgets trained by elvis)

I could list more but what's the point? Those are solid examples of how OCTAs
claim an item important enough to be counted as evidence to support the OCT but as soon as you show that same item to be false it suddenly and magically turns into something "tiny and minute."

It isn't a OCT or Truther choice. There are more than two positions on this issue, just like most other issues.
Something about the official story isn't adding up, but there could be other explanations for that besides a government conspiracy and cover-up.(like space aliens and midgets)

 

[CurveLight]

Please point out the dishonesty.

He claims I find "one tiny minute" thing and use that to claim the OCT isn't true. Want a couple of quick examples? Sure thing:

1. Gunny
cites the phone calls between the Olsons as evidence the OCT is true. I provide evidence from the fbi the phone calls did not happen and suddenly what was once a piece of evidence showing the OCT is true is dismissed as tiny and minute.
This one is probobly tiny and minute.
2. Fizz said he didn't hear explosions regarding the wtc towers and cites that as evidence no demo packs were used. I provide testimonies from hundreds of first responders stating they witnessed demo-like explosions 40 stories below the plane impact levels and suddenly the witnessing of those explosions becomes meaningless.
There was talk of people hearing what they thought were explosions. This was dismissed as something else by the investigators. It could be building members shattering, or something else.
3. Divecon claimed there was an audio recording of flt 77's cockpit being stormed by hijackers and that was evidence this op was wrong. I provide evidence showing there is no such recording and suddenly it doesn't mean a fucking thing.
I think when we had nutjobs confessing to the plan it sorta negates the need for a recording in the cockpit.

4. Ollie cited eyewitness accounts of flight 77 as proof it hit the pentagon. Something that was moving 500mph! But the eyewitness accounts regarding explosions at ground zero do not count as evidence demo packs were used.
See above. If it wans't a plane that hitthe pentagon, why were there personal effects found around the place?
5. Many have claimed the CR is a "full and complete" report of 9/11. Bit if a problem.

(A) NIST didn't submit its full report on wtc 7 until FOUR YEARS AFTER the CR was released. (Remind us, was wtc 7 related to the events of 9E in any way?)


(B) We also know Mineta's testimony was stricken from the CR.


(C) We know some firefighters walked out of their testimonies in front of the CR because they were forbidden from testifying to what they actually witnessed.

(D) We also know New York withheld hundreds of eyewitness accounts for a few years. Know when those were released? About a year after the CR published its "full report" about that day.
Agreed. The report is flawed. Have you ever worked for the government? They classify the damnedest things. However; the problems with the report simply do not support any conspiracy. We need a new improved ivestigation. ( no support for any theory EXCEPT my theory about space aliens and midgets trained by elvis)

I could list more but what's the point? Those are solid examples of how OCTAs
claim an item important enough to be counted as evidence to support the OCT but as soon as you show that same item to be false it suddenly and magically turns into something "tiny and minute."

It isn't a OCT or Truther choice. There are more than two positions on this issue, just like most other issues.
Something about the official story isn't adding up, but there could be other explanations for that besides a government conspiracy and cover-up.(like space aliens and midgets)

Quite a stellar example of a nonsequitur. You asked me to display the dishonesty and I demonstrated how OCTAs will cite evidence the OCT is true until it is shown their claims are false then they say that same evidence doesn't matter. I've also been pointing out the fallacy of the false dilemma and I sure as hell didn't make that fallacy here. Now do you have an actual response to your fulfilled request or not?

 

[CurveLight]

Slackjawed just provided another example. He dismissed the olson calls as "probably" tiny and minute. Have you forgotten that was the main piece of evidence publicly stated that proved flight 77 was hijacked? Do you need to go back and look at press coverage from 9/11-9/24 to see that was the most often cited piece of evidence? I agree it doesn't make or break the case but that wasn't my argument either.

 

[manu1959]

Your dishonesty prevails once again.

Please point out the dishonesty.

He claims I find "one tiny minute" thing and use that to claim the OCT isn't true. Want a couple of quick examples? Sure thing:

1. Gunny
cites the phone calls between the Olsons as evidence the OCT is true. I provide evidence from the fbi the phone calls did not happen and suddenly what was once a piece of evidence showing the OCT is true is dismissed as tiny and minute.

2. Fizz said he didn't hear explosions regarding the wtc towers and cites that as evidence no demo packs were used. I provide testimonies from hundreds of first responders stating they witnessed demo-like explosions 40 stories below the plane impact levels and suddenly the witnessing of those explosions becomes meaningless.

3. Divecon claimed there was an audio recording of flt 77's cockpit being stormed by hijackers and that was evidence this op was wrong. I provide evidence showing there is no such recording and suddenly it doesn't mean a fucking thing.


4. Ollie cited eyewitness accounts of flight 77 as proof it hit the pentagon. Something that was moving 500mph! But the eyewitness accounts regarding explosions at ground zero do not count as evidence demo packs were used.

5. Many have claimed the CR is a "full and complete" report of 9/11. Bit if a problem.

(A) NIST didn't submit its full report on wtc 7 until FOUR YEARS AFTER the CR was released. (Remind us, was wtc 7 related to the events of 9E in any way?)


(B) We also know Mineta's testimony was stricken from the CR.


(C) We know some firefighters walked out of their testimonies in front of the CR because they were forbidden from testifying to what they actually witnessed.

(D) We also know New York withheld hundreds of eyewitness accounts for a few years. Know when those were released? About a year after the CR published its "full report" about that day.


I could list more but what's the point? Those are solid examples of how OCTAs
claim an item important enough to be counted as evidence to support the OCT but as soon as you show that same item to be false it suddenly and magically turns into something "tiny and minute."

1. the fact the fbi could not confirm that the calls didin't happen only means the fbi has not record...doen's mean they did our didn't....unless you want to hang onto the eyewitness argument...see number 4 below...

2. columns exlopding due to sudden loading of building collapse

3. doen't prove the door wasn't opened and the plane hijacked

4. seeing a plane and hearing explosions does not mean the explosions were caused by demo packs which no one saw anyone place during the months it woyuld take to prep the building...

5. you want a government report to be complete....fucking hell man...

 

[Fizz]

2. Fizz said he didn't hear explosions regarding the wtc towers and cites that as evidence no demo packs were used. I provide testimonies from hundreds of first responders stating they witnessed demo-like explosions 40 stories below the plane impact levels and suddenly the witnessing of those explosions becomes meaningless.

you have hundreds of people saying they witnessed demo-like explosions at 40 stories below plane impact? where is this?

are you saying that you do hear explosions in that video? please go to that video and post a response (since it is off topic here).

 

[slackjawed]

Slackjawed just provided another example. He dismissed the olson calls as "probably" tiny and minute. Have you forgotten that was the main piece of evidence publicly stated that proved flight 77 was hijacked? Do you need to go back and look at press coverage from 9/11-9/24 to see that was the most often cited piece of evidence? I agree it doesn't make or break the case but that wasn't my argument either.

Thank you for the polite and on topic discussion curve, that means a lot to me
I bet we both agree that we need a new, complete, independent, non-partisan, impartial investigation. I think we need to see a report that clearly lays out what exactly is hard evidence, what is based on confessions, and what is conjecture.
Personally, I would like to see a special investigation, one that the government has no authority over. Yet somehow I think the government needs to pay for it.
That is why I don't see it happening to the point where everyone accepts it.
There's a real dilemma. What if, just for the sake of argument, we both suspend belief for a moment and say that somehow the government would be able to pay for an investigation and not influence it. (just say, I know, I can't really either)
Even if it was entirely impartial and accurate, there would be a significant number who could not accept it. They could not accept if because the government produced it. Now, based upon our government's record over the past several years, I wouldn't say that those that could not accept it were being unreasonable.
Even if we could get all those fairy tale conditions, would it still be settled?

 

[Fizz]

i'm waiting for him to claim it was never hijacked and landed safely in los angeles and all the passengers and crew went about their merry little lives.....


wouldnt the proof it was hijacked be that it crashed into the pentagon?

 

[slackjawed]

You know there are still people that insist Billy the Kid got away and lived to old age too.
But ya know what? I can't tell you for sure they are wrong.
I still insist, for the official USMB record:
Space aliens blew a big hole in the pentagon to distract attention away from abducting a planeload of humans in order to breed a super-human race to enslave earth. They tried this once before, unfortunately they abducted a midget, and sadly bred a race of super midgets.(see my thread, prepare to meet your midget masters)
As part of the cover up, they had the evil midgets (trained by Elvis, previously abducted but impotent) clean up all traces of the blast and anyone who saw it, producing a few bodies to add authentication.
The worst is yet to come, I wonder just how long it takes to breed this super-human race........

 

[CurveLight]

Please point out the dishonesty.

He claims I find "one tiny minute" thing and use that to claim the OCT isn't true. Want a couple of quick examples? Sure thing:

1. Gunny
cites the phone calls between the Olsons as evidence the OCT is true. I provide evidence from the fbi the phone calls did not happen and suddenly what was once a piece of evidence showing the OCT is true is dismissed as tiny and minute.

2. Fizz said he didn't hear explosions regarding the wtc towers and cites that as evidence no demo packs were used. I provide testimonies from hundreds of first responders stating they witnessed demo-like explosions 40 stories below the plane impact levels and suddenly the witnessing of those explosions becomes meaningless.

3. Divecon claimed there was an audio recording of flt 77's cockpit being stormed by hijackers and that was evidence this op was wrong. I provide evidence showing there is no such recording and suddenly it doesn't mean a fucking thing.


4. Ollie cited eyewitness accounts of flight 77 as proof it hit the pentagon. Something that was moving 500mph! But the eyewitness accounts regarding explosions at ground zero do not count as evidence demo packs were used.

5. Many have claimed the CR is a "full and complete" report of 9/11. Bit if a problem.

(A) NIST didn't submit its full report on wtc 7 until FOUR YEARS AFTER the CR was released. (Remind us, was wtc 7 related to the events of 9E in any way?)


(B) We also know Mineta's testimony was stricken from the CR.


(C) We know some firefighters walked out of their testimonies in front of the CR because they were forbidden from testifying to what they actually witnessed.

(D) We also know New York withheld hundreds of eyewitness accounts for a few years. Know when those were released? About a year after the CR published its "full report" about that day.


I could list more but what's the point? Those are solid examples of how OCTAs
claim an item important enough to be counted as evidence to support the OCT but as soon as you show that same item to be false it suddenly and magically turns into something "tiny and minute."

1. the fact the fbi could not confirm that the calls didin't happen only means the fbi has not record...doen's mean they did our didn't....unless you want to hang onto the eyewitness argument...see number 4 below...

2. columns exlopding due to sudden loading of building collapse

3. doen't prove the door wasn't opened and the plane hijacked

4. seeing a plane and hearing explosions does not mean the explosions were caused by demo packs which no one saw anyone place during the months it woyuld take to prep the building...

5. you want a government report to be complete....fucking hell man...

And another one missed the point of the post. I highlighted examples of items that get used by OCTAs
to say the OCT is true then when those same items are shown to be false it doesn't matter. That was the point of the post.

 

[CurveLight]

Slackjawed just provided another example. He dismissed the olson calls as "probably" tiny and minute. Have you forgotten that was the main piece of evidence publicly stated that proved flight 77 was hijacked? Do you need to go back and look at press coverage from 9/11-9/24 to see that was the most often cited piece of evidence? I agree it doesn't make or break the case but that wasn't my argument either.

Thank you for the polite and on topic discussion curve, that means a lot to me
I bet we both agree that we need a new, complete, independent, non-partisan, impartial investigation. I think we need to see a report that clearly lays out what exactly is hard evidence, what is based on confessions, and what is conjecture.
Personally, I would like to see a special investigation, one that the government has no authority over. Yet somehow I think the government needs to pay for it.
That is why I don't see it happening to the point where everyone accepts it.
There's a real dilemma. What if, just for the sake of argument, we both suspend belief for a moment and say that somehow the government would be able to pay for an investigation and not influence it. (just say, I know, I can't really either)
Even if it was entirely impartial and accurate, there would be a significant number who could not accept it. They could not accept if because the government produced it. Now, based upon our government's record over the past several years, I wouldn't say that those that could not accept it were being unreasonable.
Even if we could get all those fairy tale conditions, would it still be settled?

For the majority yes, I think it would be settled. OCTAs
have done one hell of a job at defending the OCT merely by demonizing anyone who does not accept it. I say I don't know what happened and by that lone claim I've been accused of at least 5 false claims I've never made. Why is it such a crime to be honest and say I don't know what happened?

 

[slackjawed]

I am with you, I know you don't know. Otherwise I know you'd be talking about evil midgets.

 

[Toro]

I got bored and read the rest of the post. It was what I suspected....more bullshit. I never claimed 77 didn't hit the pentagon and I never claimed 9E was a False Flag Op from top down. So you demand that I support claims I have not made? Holy shit you guys are on a record breaker here.

Also typical is you want people to prove things that are not necessary to show the OCT is not 100% accurate. If 77 didn't hit the pentagon nobody needs to show where that flight went to show the OCT is not fully true. How can you not grasp this simple logic? Let's put this logic in a courtroom scenario:

You are the prosecutor and you are claiming the murder defendant is guilty because there is a murder victim. The defense shows your prosecution case is lacking evidence so your response is to say "so what?" You would then turn to the jury and say "If the defendant cannot conclusively prove who did the murder then the defendant is guilty." Do you see how absurd that is? You cannot prove the OCT is true by pointing to negatives as positive evidence.

Basically this is the pattern of OCTAs
and how often they engage in the fallacy of the false dilemma.

First, this is not a court of law where one must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no standard that requires reasonable doubt. What we do is weigh the body of evidence.

Thus far, it appears that your argument is based upon a small discrepancy about whether or not a door opened, and the specifications of a flight data recorder, which posters here have raised questions about whether they are even valid. Now weigh that against

- hundreds of people saw a plane crash into the Pentagon, with no one coming forward to say they saw anything different
- dozens of people were at the crash scene cleaning up the debris with no one thus far saying it was anything other than a plane
- wreckage at the site was consistent with AA77
- DNA found at the site
- Mementos of passengers at the site
- al-Qaeda admitted they were behind it
- the five hijackers had links to al-Qaeda
- inconsistencies in the plot, i.e. why slam two planes into the WTC and not a plane into the Pentagon?
- no plausible answers to what happened to the passengers and the plane if a plane did not hit the Pentagon

If you took what you have to an appellate court and asked for a retrial based on what you have argued, it is unlikely you would get one (unless maybe you were in the wacky 9th district!) You have not made your case on why a new investigation should be reopened.

 

[CurveLight]

2. Fizz said he didn't hear explosions regarding the wtc towers and cites that as evidence no demo packs were used. I provide testimonies from hundreds of first responders stating they witnessed demo-like explosions 40 stories below the plane impact levels and suddenly the witnessing of those explosions becomes meaningless.

you have hundreds of people saying they witnessed demo-like explosions at 40 stories below plane impact? where is this?

are you saying that you do hear explosions in that video? please go to that video and post a response (since it is off topic here).

Provided that link a long time ago. It was included with what you have been continuously ignoring.....explaining why New York withheld the testimonies. No worries, you've achieved divecon status so I don't give a shit anymore.

 

[CurveLight]

I got bored and read the rest of the post. It was what I suspected....more bullshit. I never claimed 77 didn't hit the pentagon and I never claimed 9E was a False Flag Op from top down. So you demand that I support claims I have not made? Holy shit you guys are on a record breaker here.

Also typical is you want people to prove things that are not necessary to show the OCT is not 100% accurate. If 77 didn't hit the pentagon nobody needs to show where that flight went to show the OCT is not fully true. How can you not grasp this simple logic? Let's put this logic in a courtroom scenario:

You are the prosecutor and you are claiming the murder defendant is guilty because there is a murder victim. The defense shows your prosecution case is lacking evidence so your response is to say "so what?" You would then turn to the jury and say "If the defendant cannot conclusively prove who did the murder then the defendant is guilty." Do you see how absurd that is? You cannot prove the OCT is true by pointing to negatives as positive evidence.

Basically this is the pattern of OCTAs
and how often they engage in the fallacy of the false dilemma.

First, this is not a court of law where one must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no standard that requires reasonable doubt. What we do is weigh the body of evidence.

Thus far, it appears that your argument is based upon a small discrepancy about whether or not a door opened, and the specifications of a flight data recorder, which posters here have raised questions about whether they are even valid. Now weigh that against

- hundreds of people saw a plane crash into the Pentagon, with no one coming forward to say they saw anything different
- dozens of people were at the crash scene cleaning up the debris with no one thus far saying it was anything other than a plane
- wreckage at the site was consistent with AA77
- DNA found at the site
- Mementos of passengers at the site
- al-Qaeda admitted they were behind it
- the five hijackers had links to al-Qaeda
- inconsistencies in the plot, i.e. why slam two planes into the WTC and not a plane into the Pentagon?
- no plausible answers to what happened to the passengers and the plane if a plane did not hit the Pentagon

If you took what you have to an appellate court and asked for a retrial based on what you have argued, it is unlikely you would get one (unless maybe you were in the wacky 9th district!) You have not made your case on why a new investigation should be reopened.

Holy shit. I never said we have to abide by standards of a court. This is why discussing the issue gets frustrating. Let me spell it out again:

Nobody can say the OCT is true by virtue of not being able to point to exactly what happened to flight 77 if it did not hit the Pentagon. Do you understand I was using a courtroom example merely to show what a false dilemma looks like?

OCTAs
ALWAYS get frazzled when items of evidence they cite are shown to be false. It happens every single time. Gunny, ollie, you, and others go into a tirade of jumping all over the place in a frenzied laundry list that skips over everything. You can't slow down because most OCTAs
are not that informed of the facts, as clearly demonstrated in the last few pages, so your emotions take over and you end up screaming anyone who doesn't accept the OCT are nutbags. But none of you have the balls to say that to the families, survivors, and first responders who do not accept the OCT.

 

[Toro]

Holy shit. I never said we have to abide by standards of a court. This is why discussing the issue gets frustrating. Let me spell it out again:

Nobody can say the OCT is true by virtue of not being able to point to exactly what happened to flight 77 if it did not hit the Pentagon. Do you understand I was using a courtroom example merely to show what a false dilemma looks like?

OCTAs
ALWAYS get frazzled when items of evidence they cite are shown to be false. It happens every single time. Gunny, ollie, you, and others go into a tirade of jumping all over the place in a frenzied laundry list that skips over everything. You can't slow down because most OCTAs
are not that informed of the facts, as clearly demonstrated in the last few pages, so your emotions take over and you end up screaming anyone who doesn't accept the OCT are nutbags. But none of you have the balls to say that to the families, survivors, and first responders who do not accept the OCT.

Me frazzled and emotional? Nope. Bored with guys like you is more like it.

It appears that your argument is based on discrepancies about whether or not a door was opened and the workings of flight data recorder, both of which have been called into question by other posters here who claim you are incorrect. However, when you weigh that against the totality of the evidence, it is virtually inconsequential.

Oh, BTW, do you have the "balls" to say to the families, survivors and first responders that their loved ones are dead possibly because of some bizarre conspiracy theory?

And you shouldn't be calling out others on "facts" when you so clearly are unable to answer very basic and obvious questions.

 

[slackjawed]

Holy shit. I never said we have to abide by standards of a court. This is why discussing the issue gets frustrating. Let me spell it out again:

Nobody can say the OCT is true by virtue of not being able to point to exactly what happened to flight 77 if it did not hit the Pentagon. Do you understand I was using a courtroom example merely to show what a false dilemma looks like?

OCTAs
ALWAYS get frazzled when items of evidence they cite are shown to be false. It happens every single time. Gunny, ollie, you, and others go into a tirade of jumping all over the place in a frenzied laundry list that skips over everything. You can't slow down because most OCTAs
are not that informed of the facts, as clearly demonstrated in the last few pages, so your emotions take over and you end up screaming anyone who doesn't accept the OCT are nutbags. But none of you have the balls to say that to the families, survivors, and first responders who do not accept the OCT.

Me frazzled and emotional? Nope. Bored with guys like you is more like it.

It appears that your argument is based on discrepancies about whether or not a door was opened and the workings of flight data recorder, both of which have been called into question by other posters here who claim you are incorrect. However, when you weigh that against the totality of the evidence, it is virtually inconsequential.

Oh, BTW, do you have the "balls" to say to the families, survivors and first responders that their loved ones are dead possibly because of some bizarre conspiracy theory?

And you shouldn't be calling out others on "facts" when you so clearly are unable to answer very basic and obvious questions.

Yeah, if he knew anything at all about actual facts he would be talking about space aliens and evil midgets. Jeeesh the nerve of some people.
Personally the only thing I am comfortable telling any victims families et al is that I'm sorry you suffered.
After all, I ain't no evil midget so my hands are clean.

 

[CurveLight]

Holy shit. I never said we have to abide by standards of a court. This is why discussing the issue gets frustrating. Let me spell it out again:

Nobody can say the OCT is true by virtue of not being able to point to exactly what happened to flight 77 if it did not hit the Pentagon. Do you understand I was using a courtroom example merely to show what a false dilemma looks like?

OCTAs
ALWAYS get frazzled when items of evidence they cite are shown to be false. It happens every single time. Gunny, ollie, you, and others go into a tirade of jumping all over the place in a frenzied laundry list that skips over everything. You can't slow down because most OCTAs
are not that informed of the facts, as clearly demonstrated in the last few pages, so your emotions take over and you end up screaming anyone who doesn't accept the OCT are nutbags. But none of you have the balls to say that to the families, survivors, and first responders who do not accept the OCT.

Me frazzled and emotional? Nope. Bored with guys like you is more like it.

It appears that your argument is based on discrepancies about whether or not a door was opened and the workings of flight data recorder, both of which have been called into question by other posters here who claim you are incorrect. However, when you weigh that against the totality of the evidence, it is virtually inconsequential.

Oh, BTW, do you have the "balls" to say to the families, survivors and first responders that their loved ones are dead possibly because of some bizarre conspiracy theory?

And you shouldn't be calling out others on "facts" when you so clearly are unable to answer very basic and obvious questions.

Hahahaha.....guys like me? Like gunny and the rest of the unemployed psychics you claim to know my entire pov based on a few posts. I've ALWAYS said I don't know if this op is true or false. Apparently, OCTAs
like you love the life of no accountability. As shown several times in this thread it doesn't matter how many times you fuck up you pretend you didn't and move on.

Yes, I have absolutely stated to families and first responders I don't know what happened and it is possible their loved ones were killed for reasons beyond what we have been told. You'd be amazed how mature and patriotic they are. They didn't call me a nutter or fucktard or accuse me of hating America. They actually respect other points of view even if they agree or disagree. How novel.