911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[candycorn]

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

Well, yes I am. You seem incredibly stupid. Sorry to put it that way but you do. I don’t mean ignorant of the facts of 9/11 or of AA77 specifically…you seem incredibly stupid in general. I’m quite surprised that you agree on the proper spelling of the word “conspiracy”. After all, nobody has proven to you that the word “conspiracy” is spelled “c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y”, have they?

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

A case in point to what I just wrote above. Apparently, it could have been any light pole, from anywhere in the world in that photograph unless the persons submitting it into evidence in Minnesota (where the ZM trial took place) took it with their bare hands.

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

Gee, I’m shocked that you’re sympathetic to the 20th hijacker.

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

Yawn…

Until you supply 3 plausible answers, you’re nowhere and nobody.

I too have had these discussions with every conspiracy kook on the Internet. I have found that if you ask them to come up with non insane answers to these 3 questions at the Pentagon…they basically do what you do…go immediately to videos that are supposed to prove something or the other and start name-calling. The reason they are rejected out of hand is that the morning of 9/11 and the pictures are insurmountable. They have a cab with it’s windshield smashed in and the light pole that obviously did it. The damage is consistent through out to the inside of the cab as well as the outside. No interviews after change that. No analysis changes that. And no, your implausible theory on how it happened and “you heard” about it being cordoned off changes it either.

Plausible answers are the only ones that are accepted.

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

Now a gunshot is introduced. So not only do we have light pole planters, a cabbie involved, we now have a gunman involved in this conspiracy theory of yours.

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

Raise your hand out there if you’re surprised. Nobody?

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

And this proves, very clearly, why physical evidence trumps all of the eye witness testimony.

The entire path that the ATCs had for AA77, the poles, the generator that was hit by AA77’s right wing engine, all 3 holes in the E-C rings lines up perfectly with the 9/11 Commission report. No path drawn in yellow could do that.

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

I think you and Mr Ranky watched way too much of the OJ Simpson trial and clearly neither one of you have an idea of what you’re talking about. Our system sends people to the gas chamber based on the evidence collected and presented by the government only.

The ignorance, it burns -.-.

I think you’ve stumbled upon the title to your autobiography.

 

[SAYIT]

And you did this immediately before asking candycorn why she thinks you'll just dismiss the evidence as "made up."

She brought up some evidence, and I asked her if the prosecutor was incapable of furnishing false evidence. I later specified that the prosecutor might -think- the evidence was real, but that didn't necessarily mean that it was. Candy then went on to declare that simply because I was questioning some of the evidence she had provided, that this must mean that I would dismiss any evidence that didn't fit with what my beliefs. Meanwhile, I've found that it is your side that refuses to look at a great deal of the evidence...

I find you to be among the more rational 9/11 CTs so I am responding to a subject that has been beaten to death here (search any of the 100 months long threads still available).

I'm going to take the macro approach because like so many others, I long ago wearied of the same details being tossed back and forth.

In the nearly 15 years since 9/11 - and in particular the past 5 years - no compelling alternative theory on what happened that day has surfaced and while picking at the official explanation may seem fun, it eventually boils down to intellectual masturbation.

We can agree that NIST's findings were not perfect but one need not throw out the baby just because the bath water is dirty. In fact, given the horrendous and chaotic events of that day, anything short of rebuilding the Towers and physically reenacting the calamity was bound to leave some imperfections in the official explanation. I would have been suspicious of any report that completely and exactly explained it.

In the end my acceptance of NIST's findings is, in part, based on the absence of a viable and rational alternative theory.

The idea that our gov't (or a foreign gov't) planned and executed 9/11 with the cooperation and acquiescence of our gov't, courts, media, investigating agencies, insurers, and, of course, all the invisible ninja demo riggers who planted those silent explosives just seems way too far-fetched.

The fact that this or that may have been possible doesn't prove there was a giant gov't conspiracy to attack America and while Occam's Razor is not proof of the official account, it certainly applies.

For instance, the fact that a prosecutor may have entered false evidence doesn't mean or prove she did.

As you've noticed, 9/11InsideJob believes that our gov't always and only lies but once you scratch his surface, you find the events of 9/11 are just a vehicle to express his hate for Jews ("the Jooos did it!"). He is not alone and the bottom-up methodology he employs by beginning with his conclusion ("the Jooos did it!") and then scouring the Internet for anything - no matter how bizarre - that agrees with it is not only valid reason to dismiss his ranting but good reason to doubt the agenda of the 9/11 CT Movement.

Many who have posted long hours on this subject have come to the same conclusion about the Movement.

As one prominent former 9/11 CT and “a real firm believer in the conspiracy that it was a controlled demolition,” (Charlie Veitch) said when asked if he experienced anti-Semitism within the Movement, “Loads. Loads. I was once accused of being a Jew because of my olive skin and my nose. They said, ‘We can’t trust him’.” And when they say the ‘Illuminati’ or ‘Reptiles’, do they actually mean Jews? “It’s slightly complicated but, mostly, yes,” he says.

He also said " I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

 

[Faun]

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

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

there was more then just this picture of scrap metal entered into evidence.

I'm well aware that.

Cool . I think it should definitely be said that if this bit of metal isn't from a 757, it was either planted or it came from something that was probably a great deal smaller then a 757.

Ok, so let's see your evidence it's not from a 757...

 

[Faun]

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.

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

The entire documentary can be seen here:

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...

Indeed. Have you noticed how this reporter identifies this woman? "Barbara, who is the wife of a friend of mine". No last name. Has anyone verified that she truly exists at all? CIT has compiled a long list of witnesses, but Barbara isn't in it, perhaps for the very reason that she is impossible to identify as an actual person. Here's their list:
Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

I watched the documentary which is how I know CIT interviewed them many years after 9.11.

I think we should probably get a bit specific here; the interviews were conducted in 2006, which would be 5 years after 9/11; if people had been asked what hat they were wearing on 9/11, I can see it could be difficult for them to remember, but this was concerning something a tad more memorable, considering what happened after this plane approached the pentagon. Also, I want to make sure everyone who may not have read previous posts knows the following:
**as CIT notes in its documentary, National Security Alert, 16 minutes in:
"Virtually all of the following first-hand witnesses were video recorded on location, and they have been separated into 5 separate and opposing vantage points. Many of these same witnesses were officially recorded by the Center for Military History or the Library of Congress only weeks after the events placing the plane in the same location. This eliminates the notion that their accounts are innacurate and from faded memory due to the amount of time between the event and their recorded independent interviews a few years later."**

Meanwhile, I offered some who were interviewed ON 9.11 who said they saw the plane coming from the direction of 395, not from north of the gas station.

And those were fresh recollections.

I've gone over the 3 accounts you've mentioned and I see you've responded to my posts, we'll go over those later.

As far as the "witness list" you posted, sorry, but I don't accept a list of witnesses compiled by a group of people determined to prove 9.11 was not carried out by 19 Muslim hijackers. Evidence of their bias can be found in the fact that they excluded her account, which was available from day one.

I've already mentioned why they may have excluded the account of "Barbara"; she has only been mentioned as "the wife of a friend of mine" by the reporter mentioning her, and was given no last name. Put simply, her account is impossible to verify. You may not know this, but when CIT went down to Virginia, they didn't know what to expect. There were many rumours flying around at the time. They were definitely surprised when they found that all the witnesses that they could interview on location all placed the playing flight a path north of the Citgo gas station. The implications of such a flight path were crystal clear; the plane could not have brought down the light poles or caused the damage at the pentagon- only taking a flight path south of the citgo gas station could have caused that.

I'm sorry, but CIT is not the arbitrators of who is or is not a credible witness. The fact that they excluded a person who reported they saw the plane that morning is very troubling when assessing their credibility, which is dubious to begin with.

So do you or do you not have any evidence recorded on 9/11 of any witnesses stating they saw the plane come in from north of that service station? And of the gentlemen recorded years later for the benefit of CIT, do you have any of their original accounts?

 

[Faun]

Indeed. Have you noticed how this reporter identifies this woman? "Barbara, who is the wife of a friend of mine". No last name. Has anyone verified that she truly exists at all?

Mark Petitt ( Very dubious account due to being "110", "on a bridge", unless he is referring Rt 27 it would still be dubious because...

Steve Mccoy is in one of the sublists in CIT's master list. They contacted and confirmed his account. He was in the "Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact" list.

Which brings us full circle to candycorn's most accurate, if not prophetic, expectation of you...

It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything.

Sigh -.-. You bring up 3 highly dubious witness accounts, and I mention the fact that they are highly dubious. For simply pointing out their dubiousness, you have therefore concluded that "everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof."

Have you ever considered the alternative? That everything I and others present that contradicts the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof? How do you explain all the witnesses filmed -on location- describing a north side flight path?

Well you did behave exactly as candycorn predicted you would. Why is it wrong for me to remind you of that? How do you think she knew you would?

 

[phoenyx]

And you are the one to determine what is and is not plausible eh ?

Well, yes I am.

I see ...

You seem incredibly stupid. Sorry to put it that way but you do. I don’t mean ignorant of the facts of 9/11 or of AA77 specifically…you seem incredibly stupid in general.

In my view, there's truly nothing like Rule #5 in Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth to derail a discussion. To whit:
**5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.** If you really want to kill the discussion, by all means, continue with the name calling, it really is your best bet.

I’m quite surprised that you agree on the proper spelling of the word “conspiracy”. After all, nobody has proven to you that the word “conspiracy” is spelled “c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y”, have they?

Fortunately for us, we have dictionaries that tend to spell and define words fairly uniformly. Let's get back to the actual topic now, shall we?

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

A case in point to what I just wrote above. Apparently, it could have been any light pole, from anywhere in the world in that photograph unless the persons submitting it into evidence in Minnesota (where the ZM trial took place) took it with their bare hands.

When it comes to the light poles, I strongly believe that they were all at the scene of the crime. So does CIT from what I gather. This doesn't mean that they were necessarily the same light poles that had been standing at some point in time before 9/11.

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

Gee, I’m shocked that you’re sympathetic to the 20th hijacker.

You are so credulous. Moussaoui confessed under torture. Surely you aware that people will say just about anything under torture? Let's listen to what a few people who were likely to be in a position to know of Moussaaoui's true role in 9/11, from the article above:
**
Al-Qaeda Tried To Humor Moussaoui

One terrorist, identified as Sayf al-Adl, a senior member of al-Qaida's military committee and close aide to bin Laden, stated sometime between Sept. 1, 2001, and late July 2004 that Moussaoui was "a confirmed jihadist but was absolutely not going to take part in the Sept. 11, 2001, mission." The 9/11 Commission reported the U.S. recovered from a safehouse in Pakistan a letter written by al-Adl describing the various candidates considered for the Sept. 11 attacks and Moussaoui was not among them.

Another top terrorist witness -- Waleed bin Attash, known as Khallad -- is considered the mastermind of the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole and an early planner of the Sept. 11 plot. He said he knew of no part that Moussaoui was to have played in the Sept. 11 attacks. Khallad was captured in April 2003.

Their testimony supports that of another captive, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, chief organizer of the Sept. 11 attacks. He said in testimony read Monday that Moussaoui had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 plot, but was told he would be part of a later wave of attacks when he and Reid perfected their death ray.

Most of the testimony of al-Qaida operatives was compiled from statements made during U.S. interrogations. The captives themselves have never spoken to either defense attorneys or prosecutors in this case, because prosecutors prevailed in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the defense's request to question these witnesses live in court, or at least on videotape.
**

Why do you think prosecutors refused to allow the defense its request to question these witnesses live in court, or even on videotape?

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

Yawn…

Until you supply 3 plausible answers, you’re nowhere and nobody.

You think you need a title to make plausible arguments -.-? This is what we call argument from authority:
"An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it."

Source: Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I too have had these discussions with every conspiracy kook on the Internet. I have found that if you ask them to come up with non insane answers to these 3 questions at the Pentagon…they basically do what you do…go immediately to videos that are supposed to prove something or the other and start name-calling.

Name calling you say ?

The reason they are rejected out of hand is that the morning of 9/11 and the pictures are insurmountable.

And you would know, ofcourse, since you are the one to determine what is, and is not, plausible (or "insurmountable") ...

They have a cab with it’s windshield smashed in and the light pole that obviously did it.

There was a cab with its windshield smashed in at the scene of the crime, yes. Your notion that the light pole "obviously did it", though, is false. As a matter of fact, a great deal of work has been done to determine that the light pole couldn't have left so little damage had it actually smashed into the car. If you're interested in this evidence, take a look at the following video, where CIT examines first hand the damage done to the cab:

And no, your implausible theory on how it happened and “you heard” about it being cordoned off changes it either.

As mentioned before, when beginning a discussion, I can mention that I "heard" something. But if you'd like to see the evidence first hand, by all means, I recommend the following page from CIT:
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?

Plausible answers are the only ones that are accepted.

And you are the only one who can determine what is plausible eh ? Works out pretty well for you, I'm sure ;-)...

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

Now a gunshot is introduced. So not only do we have light pole planters, a cabbie involved, we now have a gunman involved in this conspiracy theory of yours.

Obviously -something- had to have caused the damage to Lloyd's car. I have never seen any photographs of the light pole -inside- Lloyd's cab, and after examining the car, CIT determined that the damage within the car was insufficient if the enormous light pole photographed next to the cab had actually speared it. It's no secret that bullets can do that type of damage to a windwhield. There were also 2 individuals in white shirts besides Lloyd England who were photographed next to the cab while Lloyd was there with his damaged cab.

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

And this proves, very clearly, why physical evidence trumps all of the eye witness testimony.

Why, because the eye witnesses don't agree with your theory that the Pentagon was hit by a 757?

The entire path that the ATCs had for AA77, the poles, the generator that was hit by AA77’s right wing engine, all 3 holes in the E-C rings lines up perfectly with the 9/11 Commission report. No path drawn in yellow could do that.

As mentioned to you in Post #202:
The ATC and other official reports on the trajectory of the aircraft alleged to be Flight 77 don't even concord with each other, or with the damage done to the light poles. Pilots for 9/11 Truth makes this crystal clear in the following video clip:

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

I think you and Mr Ranky watched way too much of the OJ Simpson trial and clearly neither one of you have an idea of what you’re talking about.

So that settles that then eh ? candycorn has spoken

 

[phoenyx]

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

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

there was more then just this picture of scrap metal entered into evidence.

I'm well aware that.

Cool . I think it should definitely be said that if this bit of metal isn't from a 757, it was either planted or it came from something that was probably a great deal smaller then a 757.

Ok, so let's see your evidence it's not from a 757...

Did you actually fully read what Wild and I wrote before you responded -.-?

 

[Faun]

Since when is questioning evidence the same thing as dismissing it?

Well for starters, you didn't address the evidence.

What exactly do you mean by that? I questioned some of the evidence you and candy have provided. How does that not address it? I have also pointed out a lot of evidence that contradicts the official story. The many verified witnesses which all specific a flight path north of the citgo gas station is very damning to the official account of a flight path south of the citgo gas station, but you seem to be casually dismissing it.

But you didn't just question the evidence... in the form of a question, you suggested the evidence was falsified.

I suggested the evidence could be falsified, yes. Are you suggesting the evidence -couldn't- have been falsified?

And you did this immediately before asking candycorn why she thinks you'll just dismiss the evidence as "made up."

She brought up some evidence, and I asked her if the prosecutor was incapable of furnishing false evidence. I later specified that the prosecutor might -think- the evidence was real, but that didn't necessarily mean that it was. Candy then went on to declare that simply because I was questioning some of the evidence she had provided, that this must mean that I would dismiss any evidence that didn't fit with what my beliefs. Meanwhile, I've found that it is your side that refuses to look at a great deal of the evidence. You may have seen CIT's documentary on Lloyd England, but up until now, it appears that Candy hasn't, which would explain many of the statements she's made regarding Lloyd England that she would know were patently false if she'd seen it.

Of course you dismissed it. candycorn presented you with parts of the plane which were recovered at the scene and later introduced as evidence at trial. None of which, by the way, was ever determined to be falsified. Did you address any of it? Of course not. You summarily dismissed all of it with a single swoop of your innocuous query that the evidence could be fake -- which is exactly what candycorn predicted you would do.

Again, kudos to candycorn for her most astute portrayal.

So do you want to address any of it? Or are you going to suggest all of it could be fake?

Let's start with the remains of the wheel hub...

 

[Faun]

And you are the one to determine what is and is not plausible eh ?

Well, yes I am.

I see ...

You seem incredibly stupid. Sorry to put it that way but you do. I don’t mean ignorant of the facts of 9/11 or of AA77 specifically…you seem incredibly stupid in general.

In my view, there's truly nothing like Rule #5 in Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth to derail a discussion. To whit:
**5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.** If you really want to kill the discussion, by all means, continue with the name calling, it really is your best bet.

I’m quite surprised that you agree on the proper spelling of the word “conspiracy”. After all, nobody has proven to you that the word “conspiracy” is spelled “c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y”, have they?

Fortunately for us, we have dictionaries that tend to spell and define words fairly uniformly. Let's get back to the actual topic now, shall we?

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

A case in point to what I just wrote above. Apparently, it could have been any light pole, from anywhere in the world in that photograph unless the persons submitting it into evidence in Minnesota (where the ZM trial took place) took it with their bare hands.

When it comes to the light poles, I strongly believe that they were all at the scene of the crime. So does CIT from what I gather. This doesn't mean that they were necessarily the same light poles that had been standing at some point in time before 9/11.

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

Gee, I’m shocked that you’re sympathetic to the 20th hijacker.

You are so credulous. Moussaoui confessed under torture. Surely you aware that people will say just about anything under torture? Let's listen to what a few people who were likely to be in a position to know of Moussaaoui's true role in 9/11, from the article above:
**
Al-Qaeda Tried To Humor Moussaoui

One terrorist, identified as Sayf al-Adl, a senior member of al-Qaida's military committee and close aide to bin Laden, stated sometime between Sept. 1, 2001, and late July 2004 that Moussaoui was "a confirmed jihadist but was absolutely not going to take part in the Sept. 11, 2001, mission." The 9/11 Commission reported the U.S. recovered from a safehouse in Pakistan a letter written by al-Adl describing the various candidates considered for the Sept. 11 attacks and Moussaoui was not among them.

Another top terrorist witness -- Waleed bin Attash, known as Khallad -- is considered the mastermind of the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole and an early planner of the Sept. 11 plot. He said he knew of no part that Moussaoui was to have played in the Sept. 11 attacks. Khallad was captured in April 2003.

Their testimony supports that of another captive, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, chief organizer of the Sept. 11 attacks. He said in testimony read Monday that Moussaoui had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 plot, but was told he would be part of a later wave of attacks when he and Reid perfected their death ray.

Most of the testimony of al-Qaida operatives was compiled from statements made during U.S. interrogations. The captives themselves have never spoken to either defense attorneys or prosecutors in this case, because prosecutors prevailed in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the defense's request to question these witnesses live in court, or at least on videotape.
**

Why do you think prosecutors refused to allow the defense its request to question these witnesses live in court, or even on videotape?

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

Yawn…

Until you supply 3 plausible answers, you’re nowhere and nobody.

You think you need a title to make plausible arguments -.-? This is what we call argument from authority:
"An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it."

Source: Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I too have had these discussions with every conspiracy kook on the Internet. I have found that if you ask them to come up with non insane answers to these 3 questions at the Pentagon…they basically do what you do…go immediately to videos that are supposed to prove something or the other and start name-calling.

Name calling you say ?

The reason they are rejected out of hand is that the morning of 9/11 and the pictures are insurmountable.

And you would know, ofcourse, since you are the one to determine what is, and is not, plausible (or "insurmountable") ...

They have a cab with it’s windshield smashed in and the light pole that obviously did it.

There was a cab with its windshield smashed in at the scene of the crime, yes. Your notion that the light pole "obviously did it", though, is false. As a matter of fact, a great deal of work has been done to determine that the light pole couldn't have left so little damage had it actually smashed into the car. If you're interested in this evidence, take a look at the following video, where CIT examines first hand the damage done to the cab:

And no, your implausible theory on how it happened and “you heard” about it being cordoned off changes it either.

As mentioned before, when beginning a discussion, I can mention that I "heard" something. But if you'd like to see the evidence first hand, by all means, I recommend the following page from CIT:
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?

Plausible answers are the only ones that are accepted.

And you are the only one who can determine what is plausible eh ? Works out pretty well for you, I'm sure ;-)...

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

Now a gunshot is introduced. So not only do we have light pole planters, a cabbie involved, we now have a gunman involved in this conspiracy theory of yours.

Obviously -something- had to have caused the damage to Lloyd's car. I have never seen any photographs of the light pole -inside- Lloyd's cab, and after examining the car, CIT determined that the damage within the car was insufficient if the enormous light pole photographed next to the cab had actually speared it. It's no secret that bullets can do that type of damage to a windwhield. There were also 2 individuals in white shirts besides Lloyd England who were photographed next to the cab while Lloyd was there with his damaged cab.

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

And this proves, very clearly, why physical evidence trumps all of the eye witness testimony.

Why, because the eye witnesses don't agree with your theory that the Pentagon was hit by a 757?

The entire path that the ATCs had for AA77, the poles, the generator that was hit by AA77’s right wing engine, all 3 holes in the E-C rings lines up perfectly with the 9/11 Commission report. No path drawn in yellow could do that.

As mentioned to you in Post #202:
The ATC and other official reports on the trajectory of the aircraft alleged to be Flight 77 don't even concord with each other, or with the damage done to the light poles. Pilots for 9/11 Truth makes this crystal clear in the following video clip:

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

I think you and Mr Ranky watched way too much of the OJ Simpson trial and clearly neither one of you have an idea of what you’re talking about.

So that settles that then eh ? candycorn has spoken

Regarding the light pole in England's vehicle... no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen as .r. England said it did. He was there, the doubters were not. And while it may be difficult to visualize how a pole could have impaled his windshield without touching the hood, such doubt does not evaporate the possibility of it occurring. One end could have been wedged into the back seat holding the protruding end up... the pole itself was bent; it could have been sticking out of the windshield, looping over the hood.

And there is no other plausible explanation to account for the damage to his vehicle... a smashed in windshield, dented dashboard, front passenger seat knocked back, damage to the back seat, and a pole Mr. England says he extracted laying next to his car. To ignore all of that in favor of convincing one's self it was all planted on a highway during rush hour is the apex of denial. All because one can't understand how a pole can spear a windshield without hitting the hood of a car.

 

[Faun]

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

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

there was more then just this picture of scrap metal entered into evidence.

I'm well aware that.

Cool . I think it should definitely be said that if this bit of metal isn't from a 757, it was either planted or it came from something that was probably a great deal smaller then a 757.

Ok, so let's see your evidence it's not from a 757...

Did you actually fully read what Wild and I wrote before you responded -.-?

Yes, I read more denial; which is why I asked for the evidence to support said denial. Regrettably, my query was met with a question rather than an answer.

Do you have an answer...?

 

[SAYIT]

Gee, I’m shocked that you’re sympathetic to the 20th hijacker.

You are so credulous. Moussaoui confessed under torture. Surely you aware that people will say just about anything under torture...

And once again is exposed the problem with 9/11 CTs ... the truth just doesn't fully support their POV so they are forced to fabricate "facts" to squeeze their square peg into the round hole. Not only is there absolutely no evidence that Moussaoui was tortured, he marveled after the fact about the justice in America available to even a scumbag like himself:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...rises/&usg=AFQjCNE8vicP-BB2pymtvOfsWzU4NSUGOQ

No one was more surprised than Moussaoui himself: At the end he concluded an al-Qaida member like him could get a fair trial in a U.S. court.

"I had thought that I would be sentenced to death based on the emotions and anger toward me for the deaths on Sept. 11," Moussaoui said in an appeal deposition taken after he was sentenced to life in prison. "(B)ut after reviewing the jury verdict and reading how the jurors set aside their emotions and disgust for me and focused on the law and the evidence ... I now see that it is possible that I can receive a fair trial."

As for the al Qaeda opinion of Moussaoui, the article further states:
Zacarias Moussaoui was a clown who could not keep his mouth shut, according to his old al-Qaida boss, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

 

[phoenyx]

And you did this immediately before asking candycorn why she thinks you'll just dismiss the evidence as "made up."

She brought up some evidence, and I asked her if the prosecutor was incapable of furnishing false evidence. I later specified that the prosecutor might -think- the evidence was real, but that didn't necessarily mean that it was. Candy then went on to declare that simply because I was questioning some of the evidence she had provided, that this must mean that I would dismiss any evidence that didn't fit with what my beliefs. Meanwhile, I've found that it is your side that refuses to look at a great deal of the evidence...

I find you to be among the more rational 9/11 CTs

I suppose that's about as much as a compliment as I'm going to get from the other side of the fence ...

so I am responding to a subject that has been beaten to death here (search any of the 100 months long threads still available).

Thanks, but I'll pass . I did map out this entire thread though, so feel free to cite any post within this thread itself.

I'm going to take the macro approach because like so many others, I long ago wearied of the same details being tossed back and forth.

In the nearly 15 years since 9/11 - and in particular the past 5 years - no compelling alternative theory on what happened that day has surfaced and while picking at the official explanation may seem fun, it eventually boils down to intellectual masturbation.

You're doing the same thing candy and others have done before you here- conflating your views on the matter as the definitive version of events -.-...

We can agree that NIST's findings were not perfect...

I'm glad you have atleast noticed that NIST's findings were not "perfect" as you say. Personally, I found that Steven Jones' critique of FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Commission reports to be quite revealing as to just how imperfect they were:
In this paper I question the “official” story that the collapses of the high-rise World Trade Center buildings on 9-11-01 were

For those who prefer videos:

...but one need not throw out the baby just because the bath water is dirty. In fact, given the horrendous and chaotic events of that day, anything short of rebuilding the Towers and physically reenacting the calamity was bound to leave some imperfections in the official explanation. I would have been suspicious of any report that completely and exactly explained it.

It wouldn't have been too hard for them to come up with much better models. Jonathan Cole did one without NIST's funding:

The idea that our gov't (or a foreign gov't) planned and executed 9/11 with the cooperation and acquiescence of our gov't, courts, media, investigating agencies, insurers, and, of course, all the invisible ninja demo riggers who planted those silent explosives just seems way too far-fetched.

I think you over estimate the amount of people who need to be involved. To quote a line from the pilot episode of "The Lone Gunmen", which had some terrorists try to crash a plane into the World Trade Center via hijacking by remotely controlling a passenger plane and aired 6 months before 9/11:
"There you go, indicting the entire government as usual! A faction, a small faction..."

Source:

The fact that this or that may have been possible doesn't prove there was a giant gov't conspiracy to attack America and while Occam's Razor is not proof of the official account, it certainly applies.

I'm glad that you at least believe that it may have been possible. As to Occam's Razor, I would argue that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the simplest explanation to all the anomalies regarding the official story is that a good deal of it is false.

For instance, the fact that a prosecutor may have entered false evidence doesn't mean or prove she did.

I've been trying to explain this to candy and Faun for a while now, perhaps you will manage it, seeing as you're on their side of the fence.

As you've noticed, 9/11InsideJob believes that our gov't always and only lies but once you scratch his surface, you find the events of 9/11 are just a vehicle to express his hate for Jews ("the Jooos did it!").

Technically, Zionism is not the same thing as Judaism. That being said, I'm not keen on focusing on who did it, especially with those who are satisfied with the official explanation. I think the first focus should be on what happened.

He is not alone and the bottom-up methodology he employs by beginning with his conclusion ("the Jooos did it!") and then scouring the Internet for anything - no matter how bizarre - that agrees with it is not only valid reason to dismiss his ranting but good reason to doubt the agenda of the 9/11 CT Movement.

I know that 9/11 dismisses a lot of people on your side of the fence as well. Personally, while I believe that 9/11 was an inside job just as 9/11 does, I am not keen on dismissing those who disagree. In fact, I tend to spend most of my time discussing 9/11 with them on forums, precisely because they disagree- there are reasons why they disagree, and that in and of itself can form fertile grounds for discussion. The irony is that when it comes to those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job as I do, there isn't nearly as much to discuss, because we're on the same page, as it were. The only thing that I seem to spend a fair amount of time on, on both sides of the fence, is the need for both sides to try to spend a little more time comprehending the other side's point of view instead of simply dismissing it.

Many who have posted long hours on this subject have come to the same conclusion about the Movement.

As one prominent former 9/11 CT and “a real firm believer in the conspiracy that it was a controlled demolition,” (Charlie Veitch) said when asked if he experienced anti-Semitism within the Movement, “Loads. Loads. I was once accused of being a Jew because of my olive skin and my nose. They said, ‘We can’t trust him’.” And when they say the ‘Illuminati’ or ‘Reptiles’, do they actually mean Jews? “It’s slightly complicated but, mostly, yes,” he says.

He also said " I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

I think if you knew much about Charlie Veitch, you wouldn't want to be putting him up as a poster boy for a truther changing his mind. Charlie Veitch seems to have some -really- serious mental health issues...
The New World Order Update: Charlie Veitch Deleted Post From Love Police Website

 

[SAYIT]

As you've noticed, 9/11InsideJob believes that our gov't always and only lies but once you scratch his surface, you find the events of 9/11 are just a vehicle to express his hate for Jews ("the Jooos did it!").

Technically, Zionism is not the same thing as Judaism...

Zionism was not mentioned but I find your belief that pointing out that distinction (the vast majority of Zionists are not Jewish) somehow explains or excuses the bigotry at the core of not only so many 9/11 CTs but perhaps at the core of the Movement itself to be at least curious.

Many who have posted long hours on this subject have come to the same conclusion about the Movement.

As one prominent former 9/11 CT and “a real firm believer in the conspiracy that it was a controlled demolition,” (Charlie Veitch) said when asked if he experienced anti-Semitism within the Movement, “Loads. Loads. I was once accused of being a Jew because of my olive skin and my nose. They said, ‘We can’t trust him’.” And when they say the ‘Illuminati’ or ‘Reptiles’, do they actually mean Jews? “It’s slightly complicated but, mostly, yes,” he says.

He also said " I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

I think if you knew much about Charlie Veitch, you wouldn't want to be putting him up as a poster boy for a truther changing his mind. Charlie Veitch seems to have some -really- serious mental health issues...
The New World Order Update: Charlie Veitch Deleted Post From Love Police Website

Charlie was on a first name basis with 9/11 CT royalty and much revered in the 9/11 CT world until the preponderance of evidence blew his fantasy out of the water after which he became a pariah subject to personal threats and attacks. If the best you can find is some "New World Order" update in a lame attempt to diminish the value and validity of his words you are far more desperately wedded to your Movement (and far less rational) than first concluded.

 

[candycorn]

And you are the one to determine what is and is not plausible eh ?

Well, yes I am.

I see ...

You seem incredibly stupid. Sorry to put it that way but you do. I don’t mean ignorant of the facts of 9/11 or of AA77 specifically…you seem incredibly stupid in general.

In my view, there's truly nothing like Rule #5 in Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth to derail a discussion. To whit:
**5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.** If you really want to kill the discussion, by all means, continue with the name calling, it really is your best bet.

I’m quite surprised that you agree on the proper spelling of the word “conspiracy”. After all, nobody has proven to you that the word “conspiracy” is spelled “c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y”, have they?

Fortunately for us, we have dictionaries that tend to spell and define words fairly uniformly. Let's get back to the actual topic now, shall we?

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

A case in point to what I just wrote above. Apparently, it could have been any light pole, from anywhere in the world in that photograph unless the persons submitting it into evidence in Minnesota (where the ZM trial took place) took it with their bare hands.

When it comes to the light poles, I strongly believe that they were all at the scene of the crime. So does CIT from what I gather. This doesn't mean that they were necessarily the same light poles that had been standing at some point in time before 9/11.

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

Gee, I’m shocked that you’re sympathetic to the 20th hijacker.

You are so credulous. Moussaoui confessed under torture. Surely you aware that people will say just about anything under torture? Let's listen to what a few people who were likely to be in a position to know of Moussaaoui's true role in 9/11, from the article above:
**
Al-Qaeda Tried To Humor Moussaoui

One terrorist, identified as Sayf al-Adl, a senior member of al-Qaida's military committee and close aide to bin Laden, stated sometime between Sept. 1, 2001, and late July 2004 that Moussaoui was "a confirmed jihadist but was absolutely not going to take part in the Sept. 11, 2001, mission." The 9/11 Commission reported the U.S. recovered from a safehouse in Pakistan a letter written by al-Adl describing the various candidates considered for the Sept. 11 attacks and Moussaoui was not among them.

Another top terrorist witness -- Waleed bin Attash, known as Khallad -- is considered the mastermind of the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole and an early planner of the Sept. 11 plot. He said he knew of no part that Moussaoui was to have played in the Sept. 11 attacks. Khallad was captured in April 2003.

Their testimony supports that of another captive, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, chief organizer of the Sept. 11 attacks. He said in testimony read Monday that Moussaoui had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 plot, but was told he would be part of a later wave of attacks when he and Reid perfected their death ray.

Most of the testimony of al-Qaida operatives was compiled from statements made during U.S. interrogations. The captives themselves have never spoken to either defense attorneys or prosecutors in this case, because prosecutors prevailed in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the defense's request to question these witnesses live in court, or at least on videotape.
**

Why do you think prosecutors refused to allow the defense its request to question these witnesses live in court, or even on videotape?

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

Yawn…

Until you supply 3 plausible answers, you’re nowhere and nobody.

You think you need a title to make plausible arguments -.-? This is what we call argument from authority:
"An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it."

Source: Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I too have had these discussions with every conspiracy kook on the Internet. I have found that if you ask them to come up with non insane answers to these 3 questions at the Pentagon…they basically do what you do…go immediately to videos that are supposed to prove something or the other and start name-calling.

Name calling you say ?

The reason they are rejected out of hand is that the morning of 9/11 and the pictures are insurmountable.

And you would know, ofcourse, since you are the one to determine what is, and is not, plausible (or "insurmountable") ...

They have a cab with it’s windshield smashed in and the light pole that obviously did it.

There was a cab with its windshield smashed in at the scene of the crime, yes. Your notion that the light pole "obviously did it", though, is false. As a matter of fact, a great deal of work has been done to determine that the light pole couldn't have left so little damage had it actually smashed into the car. If you're interested in this evidence, take a look at the following video, where CIT examines first hand the damage done to the cab:

And no, your implausible theory on how it happened and “you heard” about it being cordoned off changes it either.

As mentioned before, when beginning a discussion, I can mention that I "heard" something. But if you'd like to see the evidence first hand, by all means, I recommend the following page from CIT:
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?

Plausible answers are the only ones that are accepted.

And you are the only one who can determine what is plausible eh ? Works out pretty well for you, I'm sure ;-)...

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

Now a gunshot is introduced. So not only do we have light pole planters, a cabbie involved, we now have a gunman involved in this conspiracy theory of yours.

Obviously -something- had to have caused the damage to Lloyd's car. I have never seen any photographs of the light pole -inside- Lloyd's cab, and after examining the car, CIT determined that the damage within the car was insufficient if the enormous light pole photographed next to the cab had actually speared it. It's no secret that bullets can do that type of damage to a windwhield. There were also 2 individuals in white shirts besides Lloyd England who were photographed next to the cab while Lloyd was there with his damaged cab.

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

And this proves, very clearly, why physical evidence trumps all of the eye witness testimony.

Why, because the eye witnesses don't agree with your theory that the Pentagon was hit by a 757?

The entire path that the ATCs had for AA77, the poles, the generator that was hit by AA77’s right wing engine, all 3 holes in the E-C rings lines up perfectly with the 9/11 Commission report. No path drawn in yellow could do that.

As mentioned to you in Post #202:
The ATC and other official reports on the trajectory of the aircraft alleged to be Flight 77 don't even concord with each other, or with the damage done to the light poles. Pilots for 9/11 Truth makes this crystal clear in the following video clip:

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

I think you and Mr Ranky watched way too much of the OJ Simpson trial and clearly neither one of you have an idea of what you’re talking about.

So that settles that then eh ? candycorn has spoken

Yes. Until plausible alternative explanations are offered for the wreckage, the light poles, and the ATC tracking.

 

[phoenyx]

As far as the "witness list" you posted, sorry, but I don't accept a list of witnesses compiled by a group of people determined to prove 9.11 was not carried out by 19 Muslim hijackers. Evidence of their bias can be found in the fact that they excluded her account, which was available from day one.

I've already mentioned why they may have excluded the account of "Barbara"; she has only been mentioned as "the wife of a friend of mine" by the reporter mentioning her, and was given no last name. Put simply, her account is impossible to verify. You may not know this, but when CIT went down to Virginia, they didn't know what to expect. There were many rumours flying around at the time. They were definitely surprised when they found that all the witnesses that they could interview on location all placed the playing flight a path north of the Citgo gas station. The implications of such a flight path were crystal clear; the plane could not have brought down the light poles or caused the damage at the pentagon- only taking a flight path south of the citgo gas station could have caused that.

I'm sorry, but CIT is not the arbitrators of who is or is not a credible witness.

We're getting to a very important point here; namely, what sources of information should we trust. It's clear that you don't trust CIT. I think it's equally clear that I do. That being said, this isn't really about CIT; it's about the witnesses they recorded on location. Seeing as that is the case, I'd like to know if you have seen National Security Alert, where the witnesses speak for themselves. This is the video which they recommend people to see as an introduction to their viewpoint. You had previously said that you had seen CIT's Lloyd England documentary, but this is not that documentary. National Security Alert can be seen here:

The fact that they excluded a person who reported they saw the plane that morning is very troubling when assessing their credibility, which is dubious to begin with.

I believe what's troubling is that you're so ready to lap up the testimony of an alleged witness who we only have a first name for, simply because it concords with the official narrative.

So do you or do you not have any evidence recorded on 9/11 of any witnesses stating they saw the plane come in from north of that service station?

On 9/11, not that I know of, but the Library of Congress interviews were taken in November and December of 2001.

And of the gentlemen recorded years later for the benefit of CIT, do you have any of their original accounts?

CIT has the Library of Congress interviews here:
Official Interviews | 9/11 Pentagon

 

[Faun]

As far as the "witness list" you posted, sorry, but I don't accept a list of witnesses compiled by a group of people determined to prove 9.11 was not carried out by 19 Muslim hijackers. Evidence of their bias can be found in the fact that they excluded her account, which was available from day one.

I've already mentioned why they may have excluded the account of "Barbara"; she has only been mentioned as "the wife of a friend of mine" by the reporter mentioning her, and was given no last name. Put simply, her account is impossible to verify. You may not know this, but when CIT went down to Virginia, they didn't know what to expect. There were many rumours flying around at the time. They were definitely surprised when they found that all the witnesses that they could interview on location all placed the playing flight a path north of the Citgo gas station. The implications of such a flight path were crystal clear; the plane could not have brought down the light poles or caused the damage at the pentagon- only taking a flight path south of the citgo gas station could have caused that.

I'm sorry, but CIT is not the arbitrators of who is or is not a credible witness.

We're getting to a very important point here; namely, what sources of information should we trust. It's clear that you don't trust CIT. I think it's equally clear that I do. That being said, this isn't really about CIT; it's about the witnesses they recorded on location. Seeing as that is the case, I'd like to know if you have seen National Security Alert, where the witnesses speak for themselves. This is the video which they recommend people to see as an introduction to their viewpoint. You had previously said that you had seen CIT's Lloyd England documentary, but this is not that documentary. National Security Alert can be seen here:

The fact that they excluded a person who reported they saw the plane that morning is very troubling when assessing their credibility, which is dubious to begin with.

I believe what's troubling is that you're so ready to lap up the testimony of an alleged witness who we only have a first name for, simply because it concords with the official narrative.

So do you or do you not have any evidence recorded on 9/11 of any witnesses stating they saw the plane come in from north of that service station?

On 9/11, not that I know of, but the Library of Congress interviews were taken in November and December of 2001.

And of the gentlemen recorded years later for the benefit of CIT, do you have any of their original accounts?

CIT has the Library of Congress interviews here:
Official Interviews | 9/11 Pentagon

From your video at 19:00

Witness Terry Morin says the plane flew right over him at the Navy Annex ... that's right off of 395 and south of the service station.

 

[phoenyx]

Sigh -.-. You bring up 3 highly dubious witness accounts, and I mention the fact that they are highly dubious. For simply pointing out their dubiousness, you have therefore concluded that "everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof."

Have you ever considered the alternative? That everything I and others present that contradicts the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof?

Well you did behave exactly as candycorn predicted you would.

And how is that, exactly? Also, would you mind answering the questions above this time?

 

[Faun]

Sigh -.-. You bring up 3 highly dubious witness accounts, and I mention the fact that they are highly dubious. For simply pointing out their dubiousness, you have therefore concluded that "everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof."

Have you ever considered the alternative? That everything I and others present that contradicts the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof?

Well you did behave exactly as candycorn predicted you would.

And how is that, exactly? Also, would you mind answering the questions above this time?

Well candycorn said, "it also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything," and that is precisely what you've done. I'm still waiting to hear your response to the wheel hub found at the crash site. I showed you a photo of that piece of wreckage alongside that of how it would have looked prior to the crash. You didn't respond.

As far as your question ... I have yet to see evidence the official account is false. All I see from your side is conjecture and questions. Conjecture which doesn't add up and questions designed to inject doubt into the official story. Even worse for you... there are some certifiable nuts on your side who make twoofers look absolutely batshit insane. I'm not saying that of you, but folks like 7forever, 9/11 inside job, Dale Smith, et al., aren't doing folks like you any favors.

Meanwhile, I see the official story as far more plausible than any other account I've heard.

 

[Dale Smith]

Sigh -.-. You bring up 3 highly dubious witness accounts, and I mention the fact that they are highly dubious. For simply pointing out their dubiousness, you have therefore concluded that "everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof."

Have you ever considered the alternative? That everything I and others present that contradicts the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof?

Well you did behave exactly as candycorn predicted you would.

And how is that, exactly? Also, would you mind answering the questions above this time?

Well candycorn said, "it also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything," and that is precisely what you've done. I'm still waiting to hear your response to the wheel hub found at the crash site. I showed you a photo of that piece of wreckage alongside that of how it would have looked prior to the crash. You didn't respond.

As far as your question ... I have yet to see evidence the official account is false. All I see from your side is conjecture and questions. Conjecture which doesn't add up and questions designed to inject doubt into the official story. Even worse for you... there are some certifiable nuts on your side who make twoofers look absolutely batshit insane. I'm not saying that of you, but folks like 7forever, 9/11 inside job, Dale Smith, et al., aren't doing folks like you any favors.

Meanwhile, I see the official story as far more plausible than any other account I've heard.

LOL! STFU, ya commie piece of walking, talking shit!!!

 

[candycorn]

Again, kudos to candycorn for her most astute portrayal.

Well, thank you. But it is really like shooting fish in a barrel with 9/11 Twoofers. This one in particular does him/herself no favors by making the silly claim that the Federal Prosecutor in the ZM trial submitted false evidence either knowingly or not knowingly… Meaning that the only way evidence should be admissible is if the prosecutor personally was on the scene of the crime (while it was a live scene)—never going to happen—personally snapped the pictures after personally doing the investigating, personally typing and cross-matching the blood, personally talking to every witness… We’d never have a conviction for jaywalking with this as the standard for evidence.

The barrel gets shorter still when he/she goes about equating eye-witness recollection with physical evidence is crazy. One can lie; one cannot. Never is it more clear that content=credibility when they do this; it’s a tell tale sign that they are not being an honest broker.

Eyewitness Misidentification - Innocence Project
https://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=xnkiclH7CmE

When you have to sacrifice the very foundation of investigative science to prop up your theory…its easy for anyone to blow it apart.