911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[LA RAM FAN]

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]

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?

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?

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.

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:

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

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]

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...

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:

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

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]

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.

Just remember,there ARE paid shills on the governments payroll trolling this thread.

How are you so sure?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

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?

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...

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.

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.

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...

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

I’ve already responded to all 3 of those points in post #202 in this thread, as I imagine you know.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

I’ve already responded to all 3 of those points in post #202 in this thread, as I imagine you know.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“…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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 -.-.

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

well you have been given fair warning.If you choose to ignore my advise and feed the troll and make his handlers happy by wasting your time on him,that is your perogative but an ignorant choice. Countless others have noticed that when he was cornered and could not refute the facts he went into meltdown mode and threw his usual insults.

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.

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.

Well if you are going to ignore my advise,than thats your funeral and an ignorant choice. If you cant see the obvious he is a paid shill I dont know what to tell you.

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.”

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

You have stated this before, certainly...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

well if you cant see the obvious that he is a paid shill I dont know what to tell you. As I got done saying,the more and more you feed the troll the more and more you please his hanlders for taking his bait and letting him waste your time on him.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You are forgetting that he KNOWS as well as we do it was an inside job.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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?

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.

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:

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

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.

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

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?

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

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]

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]

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.

I’ve already responded to all 3 of those points in post #202 in this thread, as I imagine you know.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“…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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 -.-.

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

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

I’ve already responded to all 3 of those points in post #202 in this thread, as I imagine you know.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“…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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 -.-.

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

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

I’ve already responded to all 3 of those points in post #202 in this thread, as I imagine you know.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“…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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 -.-.

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

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.

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

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.

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]

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!

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?