911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[candycorn]

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

This is the actual topic.

We have dictionaries? And did the editors source all of the words to make sure they are spelled that way or they mean what you think they mean?

 

[phoenyx]

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.

There you go, assuming that what we are told by government officials must be the truth. Surely you understand that if 9/11 truly was an inside job, those involved would have a vested interest in doctoring the evidence?

None of which, by the way, was ever determined to be falsified.

No official source has determined that they were falsified as far as I know, no. They investigated themselves and found that they did nothing wrong. Very persuasive -.-

Did you address any of it? Of course not. You summarily dismissed all of it with a single swoop of your innocuous query that the evidence could be fake

Oh for the love of -.-... Once again- questioning evidence is -not- the same thing as dismissing it. I -believe- that SAYIT was essentially saying the same thing in a recent post. Hopefully he'll see this and back me up here.

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

As if you couldn't address something while questioning its veracity -.-...

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

Last time, I'd said I wanted some expert opinion on this before commenting further. I've now found it. Rob Balsamo is a seasoned ex pilot and cofounder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. He made a thread regarding the wheels pictured above, compariing it to 757 wheels, here:
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Wheel Hub at Pentagon

I'll paste a bit of what I believe is the most relevant portion of his text here:
"[T]hese pictures are not on any govt site to support the official story. They were taken by an anonymous photographer and were never matched via serial numbers with mx logs. At least.. i haven't found any reports.. nor has Col George Nelson (ret USAF)."

 

[SAYIT]

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.

There you go, assuming that what we are told by government officials must be the truth. Surely you understand that if 9/11 truly was an inside job, those involved would have a vested interest in doctoring the evidence?

And how does that differ from the litany of "Truther experts" whose opinions you assume are honest? Considering the gov't report is based on the findings of independent experts whose reps are staked on the quality and integrity of their work, isn't it possible - even probable - that your "experts" have another, less honest agenda?

I allude, of course, to your attempt to diminish the significance of the Moussaoui conviction by claiming he was "tortured." Not only was he convicted on far more evidence than his confession, there is no evidence that he was tortured. You just made that up because, as so often is the case, the truth just doesn't support your 9/11 CT narrative.

So what is your agenda in this matter? Clearly it isn't the search for truth.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish I had known Dale smith in 2004 because had I known him then,I could have woke him up much sooner about 9/11 than he was. For 12 years after 9/11,he believed the official version even though he knew the CIA killed JFK. I would have asked Dale back then-Dale WHY do you accept it that there was a conspiracy by the CIA to kill JFK but wont look at the evidence they did 9/11 as well?

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

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

I guess I had Faun mixed up with another agent like candyass.He is one of those much more clever shills than candyass.Some of these agents like him are much more clever than hiim and wont not deny that the CIA killed JFK,but will make up lie after lie about 9/11 and ignore the facts on that.

Well I see that despite my advise,that you clearly are going to be ignorant and keep feeding these paid shills such as candyass,faun,and sayit giving them the attention they seek and making their handlers happy in the process that you take their bait.

That being said,I am going to exit this thread for good now. In closing,as i said before,i think its truly sad that you choose to be foolish and ignore my advise and feed the trolls just like their handlers want you to ESPECIALLY when as i said,its like the JFK assassination,done and over with and nothing is ever going to be done about it as long as we have this corrupt one party system of demopublicans and reprocrats disguised as two parties so the sheep think they have a choice in who gets elected.

I think its sad that you choose to devote all your time feeding all these paid shills instead of using your time more constructively about whats going on NOW like being concerned about Trump getting elected.

That is 100 times more important now than feeding paid shills since it affects our future especially since the path towards the destruction of america that Reagan got started and every president since has continued and expanded upon is at stake if that mass murdering evil bitch hellery gets elected which of course,candyass is on record of wanting to win of course.

The only halfway decent president we have had since our last president who served the people instead of the bankers JFK, was carter and sadly,there are millions of sheep that have fallen for the propaganda by the government and media that he was the worst president ever till Obama came along i have heard many say over the years say including many ignorant posters here at this site as well.

He was the best president we had since JFK,so the media and our corrupt school system,naturally paint him as the worst president ever and make up lie after lie about him and worship Reagan of course since he was the grandfather of all presidents who got the ball rolling for the destruction of america so the sheep have been brainwashed into believeing he was god and could do no wrong.

Carter same as JFK,while he did serve the bankers-which is why he stayed alive,he also tried to get rid of the CIA towards the end of his term in office but since he only served one term,he did not have enough time to implement his plans to do.

The establishment wasnt worried about carter.They knew he was on his way out with the iran situation they created and that their boy Reagan who they made sure to get elected,would get the CIA's dirty tricks operations of starting wars with other countries going again that carter had cleaned up and was on the verge of dismanteling them for good. Had he somehow magically gotten past the rigged election of Reagan and magically been relected,you KNOW they would have assassinated him as well.

as i said before,its sad that you spend your time arguing with paid shills when it would be better put to use worrying about the future and Trump getting elected since Trump is our last hope of not only saving america but most importantly concerning the topic here,that a new independent investigation into 9/11 would be reopened.

With Globalist HELLERY as next POTUS,there is not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening. Trump may be double speak same as Obama and not do what he say he will do once he gets in but he for sure beats the alternative of mass murderer hellery getting elected since with her,we will remain the facist dictatership country we are now which candyass ALSO has said many times in the past,is not true and we are a free country.

so like I said,its really sad that you take their bait instead of worrrying about the upcoming election since it concerns our future.

I can see I am talking to a brick wall though same as it is when you discuss 9/11 with agents candyass,sayit and faun and others.

i will read your reply but not till months later AFTER this thread dies down after the elections which AGAIN its sad you are worried over 9/11 when it is just like the JFK assassination where the real killers will get off scott free UNLESS "POSSIBLY" Trump gets elected.

I believe Trump is like Ron Paul.A RINO who is not part of the new world order like the Bushs,Clintons,Obama,Romney,Cruz and all the other candidates are.He is just on the republican ticket same as Paul was because he knows the independents like gary johnson,dont have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected if they are not part of the one party corrupt system of demopublicans and reprocrats.

 

[phoenyx]

Regarding the light pole in England's vehicle... no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen as .r. England said it did.

And -I'm- the one accused of dismissing evidence -.-?? Despite your blind faith in your OCT religion, I'm here to inform you that yes, things can be proven even if you don't think they can be.

He was there, the doubters were not.

We can agree that he was there, but that's the extent of our agreement here.

And while it may be difficult to visualize how a pole could have impaled his windshield without touching the hood, such doubt does not evaporate the possibility of it occurring.

My god- did you actually say -possibility-? I'm shocked -.-. After all, we all know how possibilities work- it means it may or -may not- be true. About 7 years ago, I actually brought up the Lloyd's light pole in the forum of those who have studied Lloyd and his light pole the most- CIT. Their responses were gold. I was named scott75 in their forum. Unfortunately, they came to distrust me, apparently because I would keep on bringing up questions that they didn't feel merited the time and I was removed from their forum. It doesn't take away the good work they did regarding Lloyd's light pole, though. The thread can be seen here:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=724&st=0

Also, it's not just a matter of the 30 to 40 foot pole not touching the hood. I'll get into my point below...

One end could have been wedged into the back seat holding the protruding end up... the pole itself was bent; it could have been sticking out of the windshield, looping over the hood.

Starting at 44:55 in CIT's Lloyd England Eye of the Storm documentary, Craige relates the following:
**Craig Ranke: "So we reached the cab. You can see now the footage of us examining the cab, taking a look at it inside and out. Ofcourse the hood didn't have scratches on it as you can see on 9/11, it was still preserved that way today.

And now we get to look close at the interior and see if there's anything here, because Lloyde claims that the pole speared the windshield of the cab, so a lot of people figured well, you don't know, maybe the pole went all the way through the back seat, and that's what held it up over the hood and why it didn't scratch the hood, so this means it would literally have to puncture the back seat and through the floor boards perhaps. This may have held up such a long pole, but the fact is there's no damage to the cab in this regard. So, now we know for a fact, the floorboards were intact, in fact they were holding water at the time, there's only a minor puncture in the back seat, very minor, so the pole certainly didn't go through it."**

Perhaps a -bullet- made it? Certainly small enough. Anyway, continuing...

**Craig Ranke: "Ofcourse, even if it had, it'd be strange, because the pole, the top part of the pole was bent, so, if it had punctured all the way through, it's doubtful that they'd have been able to lift the pole out at all.

Which brings up another point. I've always wondered if, in fact, you were in his situation, and a pole did spear his windshield, and he ended up on the side of the road, with a pole still sticking over the the hood, what are the chances that you or anyone would attempt to remove that pole under any circumstances, let alone under a situation where the pentagon was burning right behind you, and it was a major attack going on at the time.

This right here has always kept me questioning Lloyde's account, I mean why would he even try to remove the pole, let alone flag over this silent stranger who allegedly helped him. And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so, if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well. So there are many factors that don't make sense about Lloyde's account and after visiting the cab and seeing the damage to the cab first hand, it doesn't clear up his story at all. It doesn't make his story seem any more possible. In fact, now we're even more certain the light pole could not have speared the windshield of Lloyde's cab."**

Source:

And there is no other plausible explanation to account for the damage to his vehicle... a smashed in windshield, dented dashboard, front passenger seat knocked back, damage to the back seat, and a pole Mr. England says he extracted laying next to his car.

You aren't actually saying that only a 30 to 40 foot light pole could have made that type of damage, are you?

To ignore all of that in favor of convincing one's self it was all planted on a highway during rush hour is the apex of denial.

From CIT's How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?:
**
Even Pole 1, which Lloyde England claims speared the windshield of his taxi (a physically impossible claim which is not corroborated by a single other eyewitness or any photograph, and which is proven false by the north side approach evidence anyway), could have been pre-positioned in advance, hidden off to the side of the road or on the wide guardrail median separating the carpool lane, waiting to be dragged out to its final resting spot next to the cab for the photo ops immediately after the explosion on 9/11 while everyone was watching the Pentagon burn.

In fact, the visible scratch on the road where the pole was dragged is physical evidence that this is exactly what happened.

Additionally, there is evidence that authorities had already blocked off southbound traffic on Route 27, where Lloyde's cab was photographed, shortly after the explosion (and possibly even just before), giving themselves complete control over the scene.

Jerri Davis was completely stopped in traffic talking on her cell phone in the northbound HOV lane of Route 27 in front of the Pentagon when the plane flew by. She was just far enough north that she did not see the plane, which was gone by the time she turned after hearing the huge explosion to the right. After getting out of her car and walking into the grass to observe the scene for a few minutes, Jerri then got back in her car and began to make her way out of there. Traffic was moving pretty slowly because they had to snake through a number of stopped vehicles, so once Jerri reached the point just beyond the median she made a U-Turn and headed back down Route 27 southbound.

Jerri told us that as she got back down near the Pentagon she noticed a man up ahead who was waving his hands and trying to flag her down to stop. She said there was no way on Earth that she was going to stop, so she got off at the Columbia Pike exit instead.

**

The article continues with a lot more very valuable information, I suggest you take a look at it in full.

 

[Faun]

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!!!

If you weren't so demented, I might have been offended by that.

 

[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!!!

If you weren't so demented, I might have been offended by that.

No, people that are "demented" are those that blindly follow this corporate "gubermint" over the proverbial cliff. You will get everything you deserve and then some.

 

[phoenyx]

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.

Sigh. Wildcard had just put up some pictures explaining how the piece of scrap metal found on the pentagon lawn couldn't have been from a 757. I've also been putting up post after post with tons of evidence showing that the plane hitting the Pentagon couldn't have been a 757, which I -know- you've noticed, because you've been responding to those very posts -.-...

 

[phoenyx]

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=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiIo6ibjsbNAhVLWT4KHSYuB_QQFggcMAA&url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34001021/ns/us_news-security/t/first-us-trial-case-was-full-surprises/&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."

I must admit I'm surprised. It's a far cry from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's being waterboarded 183 times. (Source: First U.S. trial of 9/11 case was full of surprises).

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

Yep, I saw that. Let's not forget the fact that Mohammed -was- waterboarded 183 times though, so his testimony is highly suspect.

 

[phoenyx]

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

We were talking about the member "9/11 inside job". He has indeed mentioned zionism, in reference to candycorn atleast:

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

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

Sigh -.- I have nothing against jewish people as a whole, just like I have nothing against Americans, Muslims or any other large group. This doesn't mean that some Americans and Israelies (not to mention some Arabs who were probably muslim) were involved in 9/11. We all agree that -some people- conspired to pull off 9/11. That doesn't make us bigots -.-

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

I don't agree. I've been part of the CT community for a long time. The only time I had even heard of him was when the mainstream media picked up on him. Do you have any well known names for those who allegedly "revered" him?

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

You didn't read the article did you? Have you ever considered he was blackmailed into flipping sides? The articles certainly makes it clear that there was definitely enough material to do that. I'll assume you didn't even click on the link, so I'll post a bit of it:
**
Dear Readers,
This is not Charlie. This is the person that knows him better than anyone else.
I felt I needed to tell you all the truth about Charlie, especially since so many of you donated to fund his lifestyle. Please read carefully, save it, repost it if you like. He will delete this blog as soon as he sees it. He has a strong distaste for the truth.
Charlie preached in the streets about love and truth – but these are two values which he does not hold for himself. The majority of those in the government, and in the police force, are better human beings than Charlie is.
Charlie is not hired by MI5, or a paid ‘shill’. The truth is dirtier than that. Put simply, Charlie is a liar and a cheat. He never once practiced what he preached.
He tried to tell you all that his girlfriend, aged 20, was his ‘goddess’ – he came across like a family man, a loving man, an aspirational figure. In reality, he was very, very dark.
He admits that he cheated on every girlfriend that he ever had, from short term to the most serious long term relationships – but when he started the Love Police, he said he realised how wrong this was, and that he was a changed man. This was a sick veneer. At the time, he was cheating on his new girlfriend – the woman you knew to be the other half of the Love Police. The one that tirelessly campaigned to get him out of jail every time he was arrested. We don’t need to go into too much detail – the cheating was continuous, diverse, and relentless.
However – last year, in the honeymood period of his new relationship, he made a video called ‘Jasmine and the Morning Star’, featuring a 15 year old girl. Many of you voiced your concerns about the nature of the filming – it seemed perverted and almost paedophilic. You were right. Luckily, this girl’s mother was a bit wise to him, and accompanied the child to his flat in London, unexpected by him. He tried grooming her nevertheless, whispering to her that they had a special ‘connection’ and so on, but he could not make his sexual move in front of her mother. He had wanted her alone. He finally did get her alone, when the poor girl was only 16 years old. He got her very drunk, took her to his home, and slept with her despite her initial protests, and despite him apparently being in love with his ‘goddess’. Afterwards, the child went to the bathroom to be sick, and called a friend who luckily collected her. The story gets worse. The next day, she was very upset and told her mother. Her 40 year old mother confessed that she too, had been taken out by Charlie, and that he had also slept with her when she was too drunk to know what she was doing – just the night before he slept with her 16 year old child. Yes. I feel incredibly sick too.**

Source: Charlie Veitch Deleted Post From Love Police Website

This guy would have been -very- easy to blackmail if those behind 9/11 had wanted to do it.

 

[phoenyx]

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.

Yes, yes, I understand: you have has stated that the the alternatives offered for the wreckage, light poles and ATC tracking are not plausible and you are always right as to what is plausible, nothing to see here folks

 

[Faun]

Regarding the light pole in England's vehicle... no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen as .r. England said it did.

And -I'm- the one accused of dismissing evidence -.-?? Despite your blind faith in your OCT religion, I'm here to inform you that yes, things can be proven even if you don't think they can be.

He was there, the doubters were not.

We can agree that he was there, but that's the extent of our agreement here.

And while it may be difficult to visualize how a pole could have impaled his windshield without touching the hood, such doubt does not evaporate the possibility of it occurring.

My god- did you actually say -possibility-? I'm shocked -.-. After all, we all know how possibilities work- it means it may or -may not- be true. About 7 years ago, I actually brought up the Lloyd's light pole in the forum of those who have studied Lloyd and his light pole the most- CIT. Their responses were gold. I was named scott75 in their forum. Unfortunately, they came to distrust me, apparently because I would keep on bringing up questions that they didn't feel merited the time and I was removed from their forum. It doesn't take away the good work they did regarding Lloyd's light pole, though. The thread can be seen here:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=724&st=0

Also, it's not just a matter of the 30 to 40 foot pole not touching the hood. I'll get into my point below...

One end could have been wedged into the back seat holding the protruding end up... the pole itself was bent; it could have been sticking out of the windshield, looping over the hood.

Starting at 44:55 in CIT's Lloyd England Eye of the Storm documentary, Craige relates the following:
**Craig Ranke: "So we reached the cab. You can see now the footage of us examining the cab, taking a look at it inside and out. Ofcourse the hood didn't have scratches on it as you can see on 9/11, it was still preserved that way today.

And now we get to look close at the interior and see if there's anything here, because Lloyde claims that the pole speared the windshield of the cab, so a lot of people figured well, you don't know, maybe the pole went all the way through the back seat, and that's what held it up over the hood and why it didn't scratch the hood, so this means it would literally have to puncture the back seat and through the floor boards perhaps. This may have held up such a long pole, but the fact is there's no damage to the cab in this regard. So, now we know for a fact, the floorboards were intact, in fact they were holding water at the time, there's only a minor puncture in the back seat, very minor, so the pole certainly didn't go through it."**

Perhaps a -bullet- made it? Certainly small enough. Anyway, continuing...

**Craig Ranke: "Ofcourse, even if it had, it'd be strange, because the pole, the top part of the pole was bent, so, if it had punctured all the way through, it's doubtful that they'd have been able to lift the pole out at all.

Which brings up another point. I've always wondered if, in fact, you were in his situation, and a pole did spear his windshield, and he ended up on the side of the road, with a pole still sticking over the the hood, what are the chances that you or anyone would attempt to remove that pole under any circumstances, let alone under a situation where the pentagon was burning right behind you, and it was a major attack going on at the time.

This right here has always kept me questioning Lloyde's account, I mean why would he even try to remove the pole, let alone flag over this silent stranger who allegedly helped him. And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so, if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well. So there are many factors that don't make sense about Lloyde's account and after visiting the cab and seeing the damage to the cab first hand, it doesn't clear up his story at all. It doesn't make his story seem any more possible. In fact, now we're even more certain the light pole could not have speared the windshield of Lloyde's cab."**

Source:

And there is no other plausible explanation to account for the damage to his vehicle... a smashed in windshield, dented dashboard, front passenger seat knocked back, damage to the back seat, and a pole Mr. England says he extracted laying next to his car.

You aren't actually saying that only a 30 to 40 foot light pole could have made that type of damage, are you?

To ignore all of that in favor of convincing one's self it was all planted on a highway during rush hour is the apex of denial.

From CIT's How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?:
**
Even Pole 1, which Lloyde England claims speared the windshield of his taxi (a physically impossible claim which is not corroborated by a single other eyewitness or any photograph, and which is proven false by the north side approach evidence anyway), could have been pre-positioned in advance, hidden off to the side of the road or on the wide guardrail median separating the carpool lane, waiting to be dragged out to its final resting spot next to the cab for the photo ops immediately after the explosion on 9/11 while everyone was watching the Pentagon burn.

In fact, the visible scratch on the road where the pole was dragged is physical evidence that this is exactly what happened.

Additionally, there is evidence that authorities had already blocked off southbound traffic on Route 27, where Lloyde's cab was photographed, shortly after the explosion (and possibly even just before), giving themselves complete control over the scene.

Jerri Davis was completely stopped in traffic talking on her cell phone in the northbound HOV lane of Route 27 in front of the Pentagon when the plane flew by. She was just far enough north that she did not see the plane, which was gone by the time she turned after hearing the huge explosion to the right. After getting out of her car and walking into the grass to observe the scene for a few minutes, Jerri then got back in her car and began to make her way out of there. Traffic was moving pretty slowly because they had to snake through a number of stopped vehicles, so once Jerri reached the point just beyond the median she made a U-Turn and headed back down Route 27 southbound.

Jerri told us that as she got back down near the Pentagon she noticed a man up ahead who was waving his hands and trying to flag her down to stop. She said there was no way on Earth that she was going to stop, so she got off at the Columbia Pike exit instead.

**

The article continues with a lot more very valuable information, I suggest you take a look at it in full.

Ok.... if you think it can be proven that the pole could not have pierced the windshield without hitting the hood -- prove it.

I watched the CIT video and they could not prove it, so I can't imagine you'll have any more success than they did.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Yes, yes, I understand: you have has stated that the the alternatives offered for the wreckage, light poles and ATC tracking are not plausible and you are always right as to what is plausible, nothing to see here folks

Well, thanks for the capitulation. Just because I'm batting 1.000% against twoofers doesn't mean I can't be struck out. You just ain't got the stuff.

 

[Faun]

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.

There you go, assuming that what we are told by government officials must be the truth. Surely you understand that if 9/11 truly was an inside job, those involved would have a vested interest in doctoring the evidence?

None of which, by the way, was ever determined to be falsified.

No official source has determined that they were falsified as far as I know, no. They investigated themselves and found that they did nothing wrong. Very persuasive -.-

Did you address any of it? Of course not. You summarily dismissed all of it with a single swoop of your innocuous query that the evidence could be fake

Oh for the love of -.-... Once again- questioning evidence is -not- the same thing as dismissing it. I -believe- that SAYIT was essentially saying the same thing in a recent post. Hopefully he'll see this and back me up here.

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

As if you couldn't address something while questioning its veracity -.-...

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

Last time, I'd said I wanted some expert opinion on this before commenting further. I've now found it. Rob Balsamo is a seasoned ex pilot and cofounder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. He made a thread regarding the wheels pictured above, compariing it to 757 wheels, here:
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Wheel Hub at Pentagon

I'll paste a bit of what I believe is the most relevant portion of his text here:
"[T]hese pictures are not on any govt site to support the official story. They were taken by an anonymous photographer and were never matched via serial numbers with mx logs. At least.. i haven't found any reports.. nor has Col George Nelson (ret USAF)."

Let me get this straight.... you don't trust the government ... but when you're presented with evidence of a plane crash from a site where a plane crashed, you summarily dismiss said evidence if a picture of it didn't come from the government??

So you won't accept evidence from the government and you won't accept evidence not from the government ... what evidence will you accept??

Which brings us full circle to candycorn's nail which she hit so perfectly with her hammer...

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

 

[Faun]

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.

Sigh. Wildcard had just put up some pictures explaining how the piece of scrap metal found on the pentagon lawn couldn't have been from a 757. I've also been putting up post after post with tons of evidence showing that the plane hitting the Pentagon couldn't have been a 757, which I -know- you've noticed, because you've been responding to those very posts -.-...

No, what Wildcard did was speculate a piece of the plane could not have come from flight #77 because in his estimation, the white trim on the lettering was too small.

That in no way, shape, or form, proves it did not come from flight #77. That you claim such silly eyeballing of the lettering equates to that piece of a plane "couldn't" have come from flight #77 only serves to undermine you credibility.

By the way... the width of the lettering matches perfectly.

 

[SAYIT]

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=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiIo6ibjsbNAhVLWT4KHSYuB_QQFggcMAA&url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34001021/ns/us_news-security/t/first-us-trial-case-was-full-surprises/&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."

I must admit I'm surprised. It's a far cry from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's being waterboarded 183 times. (Source: First U.S. trial of 9/11 case was full of surprises).

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

Yep, I saw that. Let's not forget the fact that Mohammed -was- waterboarded 183 times though, so his testimony is highly suspect.

Your response is a typically lame attempt to change the subject because you were caught posting a Truther "fact" in an earlier lame attempt to diminish the significance of Moussaoui's conviction. Rather than obfuscate, a simple "sorry ...I was wrong" or even simplier "I lied" would suffice and a walk-back of the point you tried to make with that "fact" is in order but I won't be holding my breath. In fact, I have little doubt that when attempting to dismiss Moussaoui's conviction in the future, you will use the same "fact" in the hope no one notices.

My guess? You've used it before and when its veracity was challenged you posted a similar obfuscation.

There is nothing new in any of your arguments and, as already explained, they have been beaten to death (and soundly discredited) in a hundred other threads here (which is why so few bother to correct you here). They have wearied of your silliness.

What I find most revealing is the cynicism you (and CTs in general) so lavishly apply to even the smallest (and least significant) official facts and explanations and the absolute dearth of cynicism when considering any of the alternate universe theories proffered over the past 15 years by the "Truther" Movement.

If you applied the same cynical eye to your alternate universe you'd either go stark raving mad (see: 9/11InsideJob, Dale Smith) attempting to suppress the truth about it or you'd quit the Movement in disgust like Mike Metzger (co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany):

Confessions of an Ex-Truther: Letter of Resignation (Scroll Down for Newer Posts)
...The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are "in on it." Yeah, sure. Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people. And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to "pull" Building 7. The truthers' misrepresentation of Silverstein's quote is one of the most popular "facts" to spit out, but in doing so, you are effectively in agreement that firefighters were not only involved in the controlled demolition of WTC7, but they are also aiding and abetting in the government's cover-up. Yeah, every firefighter who was out there on 9/11 is going to be complicit in the MURDER OF 343 OF THEIR FALLEN BROTHERS! To quote Loose Change co-creator Jason Bermas, "the firefighters are paid off."

This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach...

 

[SAYIT]

Charlie was on a first name basis with 9/11 CT royalty and much revered in the 9/11 CT world

I don't agree. I've been part of the CT community for a long time. The only time I had even heard of him was when the mainstream media picked up on him. Do you have any well known names for those who allegedly "revered" him?

Evidently you didn't read the article:

...Then, there were the women. “I could have anyone. And there’s a lot of cute activist girls in Holland and Denmark.” Thrillingly, he was courted by his heroes, Jones and David Icke, the former television sports presenter who believes humanity is being controlled by alien lizards.

“It was like being a struggling actor and Tom Cruise phones you,” he says. Jones invited him on to his internet show Prison Planet and praised his “great work”. Veitch interviewed Icke outside parliament just after the 2010 general election, and in return was sent a birthday present of a T-shirt and a book, signed, “To Charles, a great man doing great things. Love David”. Veitch was now a well-known figure in the conspiracy community. But, while some believers could be dismissed as harmless crackpots, there was a malevolent undercurrent to many of the theories...

 

[phoenyx]

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:

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.

True. That being said, it's still too far north to concord with the NTSB flight path. Here's a graphic that includes all of the witnesses interviewed on location by CIT, as well as Terry Morin's testimony. Terry wasn't interviewed on location but he was interviewed by CIT over the phone and he described where he was and where the airplane was in relation to him, as can be seen from 19:00 and on in the video as you say. Now for the graphic. Terry's viewpoint is close to where the diamond is close to where the diamond is in the text "Navy Annex".

For reference, the following picture shows where 395 and the Columbia Pike is...

I'm guessing you didn't really pay too much attention to what Terry Morin said in the video or you would have known that Terry Morin essentially refutes the NTSB narrative, despite his belief in the official story up until that point. I'll quote directly starting from 20:38 of the National Security Alert video:
**
Craig Ranke: Let me ask you this: What are the chances that the plane was actually on the south side of Columbia Pike completely, or on the south side of the V Dot.

Terry Morin: No fricking way.

Craig Ranke: No fricking way.

Terry Morin: No fricking way, he was right over the top of me.

Craig Ranke: You're 100% certain that it was over the top of the Navy Annex.

Terry Morin: I am. He is on the edge of the Naval Annex, not completely over.

Craig Ranke: Right. But.. the plane itself would be on the North side of Columbia Pike at that point.

Terry Morin: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, this is Columbia Pike.

Craig Ranke: Mmhm.

Terry Morin: Ok. There's a fence right here.

Craig Ranke: Right.

Terry Morin: I'm inside the fence.

Craig Ranke: Yeah.

Terry Morin: Ok. But he went right over the top of me.

Craig Ranke: So you're saying the entire plane then, including the right wing.

Terry Morin: Is the right wing hanging out a little bit, I mean there's only, how much...

Craig Ranke: No, I'm saying over between the North side of the Columbia Pike. Maybe it was hanging over the Navy Annex, but there's no way it was, the plane itself, or even the right wing, was on the North/South side of the Columbia Pike?

Terry Morin: Nope.**

 

[candycorn]

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

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

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

Feel free to account for the physical evidence if you can.

How did the wreckage get there?
How did the ATC's track AA77 into Pentagon Airspace but not out of it
How did the light poles get knocked down by a "cruise missile" as alleged in title of the thread.

Feel free tough guy. Or sit there and continue to call people names like a punk that you are.

 

[Faun]

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:

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.

True. That being said, it's still too far north to concord with the NTSB flight path. Here's a graphic that includes all of the witnesses interviewed on location by CIT, as well as Terry Morin's testimony. Terry wasn't interviewed on location but he was interviewed by CIT over the phone and he described where he was and where the airplane was in relation to him, as can be seen from 19:00 and on in the video as you say. Now for the graphic. Terry's viewpoint is close to where the diamond is close to where the diamond is in the text "Navy Annex".

For reference, the following picture shows where 395 and the Columbia Pike is...

I'm guessing you didn't really pay too much attention to what Terry Morin said in the video or you would have known that Terry Morin essentially refutes the NTSB narrative, despite his belief in the official story up until that point. I'll quote directly starting from 20:38 of the National Security Alert video:
**
Craig Ranke: Let me ask you this: What are the chances that the plane was actually on the south side of Columbia Pike completely, or on the south side of the V Dot.

Terry Morin: No fricking way.

Craig Ranke: No fricking way.

Terry Morin: No fricking way, he was right over the top of me.

Craig Ranke: You're 100% certain that it was over the top of the Navy Annex.

Terry Morin: I am. He is on the edge of the Naval Annex, not completely over.

Craig Ranke: Right. But.. the plane itself would be on the North side of Columbia Pike at that point.

Terry Morin: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, this is Columbia Pike.

Craig Ranke: Mmhm.

Terry Morin: Ok. There's a fence right here.

Craig Ranke: Right.

Terry Morin: I'm inside the fence.

Craig Ranke: Yeah.

Terry Morin: Ok. But he went right over the top of me.

Craig Ranke: So you're saying the entire plane then, including the right wing.

Terry Morin: Is the right wing hanging out a little bit, I mean there's only, how much...

Craig Ranke: No, I'm saying over between the North side of the Columbia Pike. Maybe it was hanging over the Navy Annex, but there's no way it was, the plane itself, or even the right wing, was on the North/South side of the Columbia Pike?

Terry Morin: Nope.**

Nope, not too far to the north. Going by Terry Morin's observation, it could very well have been on the path which took it out the lamp posts. Red line is mine...